Hope You Ain't Doin' This For Da Ladies

[Gary Gibson]

Women really, really don't care how much you can lift.

They appreciate muscular butts and arms (muscular butts and thighs look "athletic" and they're why your wives and girlfriends may deign to watch baseball or football on TV with you).

Just like women dress to impress/intimidate other women, men really want a suit of muscle armor to impress/intimidate other men. The knock off effect may be increasing one's chance of successfully mating by intimidating rivals, but women really won't ever decide to sleep with you based on musculature. Physical prowess helps, but only insofar as you best other men in something.

Money and height seem to be the most powerful attractors. Money for longer term prospects and height for more immediate mating likelihood.

Let the arguments and insults commence!

[blowdpanis]

A relevant site for lulz on the topic:

http://www.laddertheory.com/

[applescruffette]

I don't care about money enough to make it one of the most important factors in choosing a mate. Just because a man makes a lot of money doesn't mean he knows how to keep money.

Height is good. Musculature, meh. I could take it or leave it.

A sense of humor is the most powerful attractor for me. That and seeing how he treats elderly people that are not related to him.

[caseyd123]

Honestly, it sounds sad but I lift this hard because I feel like I left a lot on the table during my HS sports career. I am 19, fresh out of HS and am stronger, faster and heavier than I was at my peak as a baseball player (~150 lbs). Who's to blame for that? A lot of people, myself included. I recently discovered SS and the protocol to simply become a strong human being and I guess the reason I lift this hard, even though I have no sport anymore and am soon to be another member of the workforce, is I want to still feel like an athlete. I want to still go out and perform, test myself mentally.

I'm 19 and already turning into the "what if I did this in high school" guy....oh dear

[Kate]

Women really, really don't care how much you can lift.

Women really, really don't like it when men make sweeping generalizations about what women do, or do not, like.

:D

[Gary Gibson]

Women really, really don't like it when men make sweeping generalizations about what women do, or do not, like.

:D

True but unflattering things have a way of inducing anger. :)

The site to which blowd linked is a good rundown.

Edit: and it's not about what you like; it's about what type of men women end up sleeping with. I'm very much the kind of guy women absolutely love to be around, just not the kind to whose sperm they want to expose their eggs.

[blowdpanis]

I don't care about money enough to make it one of the most important factors in choosing a mate. Just because a man makes a lot of money doesn't mean he knows how to keep money.

Height is good. Musculature, meh. I could take it or leave it.

A sense of humor is the most powerful attractor for me. That and seeing how he treats elderly people that are not related to him.

http://www.laddertheory.com/images/2chart-ratingsys.gif

Things Women Say They Care About But Do Not: 10%
(this includes intelligence, sense of humor, honesty, sensitivity etc. )

Sorry, I just found this funny. I think women are arguably the least reliable source when it comes to advice on what attracts them to men. If you want to know the actual reality, talk to guys consistently getting laid.

/misogyny end

[Gary Gibson]

Sorry, I just found this funny. I think women are arguably the least reliable source when it comes to advice on what attracts them to men. If you want to know the actual reality, talk to guys consistently getting laid.

/misogyny end
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Sorry, but that deserves an amen and a high five.

Hey there, Proof! What's up, Pudding?

[TTT]

should add that lifting weights to get stronger/bigger etc...
doesn't cure ugly. :)

[JAM]

My wife is taller than me (she's 5'10), smarter, better looking, and overall a superior human being. I'm short, not rich, not terrible strong or good looking. Hung like a moth.

Conclusion: I'm a hell of a salesman, or she's gullable.

[Dastardly]

Amber Lamps is a good example of how beautiful girls really couldn't care less about manly machoness occuring inches away from her.

[Gary Gibson]

My wife is taller than me (she's 5'10), smarter, better looking, and overall a superior human being. I'm short, not rich, not terrible strong or good looking. Hung like a moth.

Conclusion: I'm a hell of a salesman, or she's gullable.

Nominated for best post.

[coreJack]

Women really, really don't care how much you can lift.
True. I was getting laid even at 5'7", 120lbs - though obviously I couldn't pick them up and fuck them standing up at that weight.

Hey there, Proof! What's up, Pudding?
lulz!

[Gary Gibson]

I've seen a lot of guys who were successful with the ladies in my time. When I was younger the ladies went for:

1) tall, popular, good-looking guys who were athletes
2) tall, popular, good-looking guys who weren't athletes
3) tall, popular athletes who weren't particularly good-looking

The older the sample group of women, the more important money becomes so the top tier looks thus:

1) tall, good-looking guys with money
2) tall, good-looking guys
3) rich men who aren't particularly tall or good-looking

This requires a qualifier. Women will commit to rich men, but the rich guy will be cuckolded by tall, good-looking pool boys and personal trainers.

This makes sense in the biological market. Eggs are much, much more metabolically expensive and far scarcer than sperm, and children represent a much greater reproductive commitment to the female than the male. Women try their best to get a mate who has both good genes (height, symmetry) and resources. If she can't get it all in one package, then she has to weigh her options getting the resources from one male (ugly rich guy) and genes from another (tall, good-looking guy). And some women command a lot more power in this market (Amy Adams) than others (Amy Winehouse).

[Dastardly]

My wife is taller than me (she's 5'10), smarter, better looking, and overall a superior human being. I'm short, not rich, not terrible strong or good looking. Hung like a moth.

Conclusion: I'm a hell of a salesman, or she's gullable.

How many dorrars for your ebook? :D

[applescruffette]

http://www.laddertheory.com/images/2chart-ratingsys.gif

Things Women Say They Care About But Do Not: 10%
(this includes intelligence, sense of humor, honesty, sensitivity etc. )

Sorry, I just found this funny. I think women are arguably the least reliable source when it comes to advice on what attracts them to men. If you want to know the actual reality, talk to guys consistently getting laid.

/misogyny end


Truth be told, I described my husband. We've been married 7 years this year. He's a nurse, so rich and powerful are not terms that come to mind to describe him.

[imnotbncre8ive]

Women really, really don't care how much you can lift.

They appreciate muscular butts and arms (muscular butts and thighs look "athletic" and they're why your wives and girlfriends may deign to watch baseball or football on TV with you).

Just like women dress to impress/intimidate other women, men really want a suit of muscle armor to impress/intimidate other men. The knock off effect may be increasing one's chance of successfully mating by intimidating rivals, but women really won't ever decide to sleep with you based on musculature. Physical prowess helps, but only insofar as you best other men in something.

Money and height seem to be the most powerful attractors. Money for longer term prospects and height for more immediate mating likelihood.

Let the arguments and insults commence!

I would argue that training for athletic prowess does, at least indirectly, affect your desirability as viewed by women. If nothing else, it boosts your self esteem and confidence, and a woman can smell an unconfident male from a bajillion miles away. Seriously - a bajillion.

[SamKeyworth]

Do it for the Broz. Do it for the Broz.

[PMDL]

When I was skinny and had abs, I pulled no tail.

When I was big, fat, and beefy, I still wasn't pulling crazy tail, but it was a pretty good number and way better than my "pretty boy" days.

I'll give you one guess as to which phase of my life I was the most confident and assertive, and which I was most passive, uncertain, and emo.

Once you start to realize that most human decision-making is unconscious, this becomes a much easier process to deal with.

[MAD9692]

My wife is taller than me (she's 5'10), smarter, better looking, and overall a superior human being. I'm short, not rich, not terrible strong or good looking. Hung like a moth.

Conclusion: I'm a hell of a salesman, or she's gullable.

I'm not trying to be an asshole here-so dont take this personal dude - but what were her previous boyfriends like before you met?
The link that blowdpanis posted was the shit and in my experience pretty fucking accurate. I'll explain:
Most girls like the good looking bad guys (I think players- not outlaw bikers) when they are younger. (-25)The scumbags that would reguarly cheat on them, go out all weekend partying w/ other girls, and basically act like all around assholes were the same dudes pulling more and better looking tale than anyone. (unless you were a ridiculously good looking nice guy). Hot girls have all dated scumbags and if you are lucky enough to get one - one must remember that some douchebag before you drove her into your arms (bed, whatever) Sorry, this is a fact of life.
Then as girls get older (+25) they start getting sick of being played (most anyway) and now they start looking for the nicer guy. The nicer guy still needs some good attributes here and what a girl ultimatelly settles for is pretty much based on her looks. Really, really good looking girls will get a dude with some money, looks, and a good build. If the girl is less attractive she'll start settling for something a bit less. He's broke-but he's handsome. He's fat -but he's a lawyer. He's a pothead who lives in his moms basement but he's hung, etc etc.
At this point if a girl isn't married (35+) they are looking for one thing. If the girl is still really hot - a guy with money. Doesnt matter what the fuck he looks like. If the girl isn't so good looking - Anyone thats not completly fucked up.
How much you lift has little do with anything, however if you have some muscle and you carried yourself accordingly I feel like this will definetly get you more than you would be getting if you didn't. Especially (Especially...key word here) Especially on vacation. Money, what you do for a living, what your parents have, etc- are all out the window. How good you look and how much fun you are to party with is the winning combo here.
My 2 cents.

[zendefone]

I feel sorry for people who chooses hobbies or ''interest'' just ''for the ladies''. Yes it can be a minor factor or a side effect, but this must be what you really love, have passion for, not because it will impress ladies whatsoever. These people won't get far and are usually short-term.

[Gary Gibson]

I'm not trying to be an asshole here-so dont take this personal dude - but what were her previous boyfriends like before you met?
The link that blowdpanis posted was the shit and in my experience pretty fucking accurate. I'll explain:
Most girls like the good looking bad guys (I think players- not outlaw bikers) when they are younger. (-25)The scumbags that would reguarly cheat on them, go out all weekend partying w/ other girls, and basically act like all around assholes were the same dudes pulling more and better looking tale than anyone. (unless you were a ridiculously good looking nice guy). Hot girls have all dated scumbags and if you are lucky enough to get one - one must remember that some douchebag before you drove her into your arms (bed, whatever) Sorry, this is a fact of life.
Then as girls get older (+25) they start getting sick of being played (most anyway) and now they start looking for the nicer guy. The nicer guy still needs some good attributes here and what a girl ultimatelly settles for is pretty much based on her looks. Really, really good looking girls will get a dude with some money, looks, and a good build. If the girl is less attractive she'll start settling for something a bit less. He's broke-but he's handsome. He's fat -but he's a lawyer. He's a pothead who lives in his moms basement but he's hung, etc etc.
At this point if a girl isn't married (35+) they are looking for one thing. If the girl is still really hot - a guy with money. Doesnt matter what the fuck he looks like. If the girl isn't so good looking - Anyone thats not completly fucked up.
How much you lift has little do with anything, however if you have some muscle and you carried yourself accordingly I feel like this will definetly get you more than you would be getting if you didn't. Especially (Especially...key word here) Especially on vacation. Money, what you do for a living, what your parents have, etc- are all out the window. How good you look and how much fun you are to party with is the winning combo here.
My 2 cents.

Another strong candidate for best post.

Good stuff, Dastardly.

[JAM]

I'm not trying to be an asshole here-so dont take this personal dude - but what were her previous boyfriends like before you met?
The link that blowdpanis posted was the shit and in my experience pretty fucking accurate. I'll explain:
Most girls like the good looking bad guys (I think players- not outlaw bikers) when they are younger. (-25)The scumbags that would reguarly cheat on them, go out all weekend partying w/ other girls, and basically act like all around assholes were the same dudes pulling more and better looking tale than anyone. (unless you were a ridiculously good looking nice guy). Hot girls have all dated scumbags and if you are lucky enough to get one - one must remember that some douchebag before you drove her into your arms (bed, whatever) Sorry, this is a fact of life.
Then as girls get older (+25) they start getting sick of being played (most anyway) and now they start looking for the nicer guy. The nicer guy still needs some good attributes here and what a girl ultimatelly settles for is pretty much based on her looks. Really, really good looking girls will get a dude with some money, looks, and a good build. If the girl is less attractive she'll start settling for something a bit less. He's broke-but he's handsome. He's fat -but he's a lawyer. He's a pothead who lives in his moms basement but he's hung, etc etc.
At this point if a girl isn't married (35+) they are looking for one thing. If the girl is still really hot - a guy with money. Doesnt matter what the fuck he looks like. If the girl isn't so good looking - Anyone thats not completly fucked up.
How much you lift has little do with anything, however if you have some muscle and you carried yourself accordingly I feel like this will definetly get you more than you would be getting if you didn't. Especially (Especially...key word here) Especially on vacation. Money, what you do for a living, what your parents have, etc- are all out the window. How good you look and how much fun you are to party with is the winning combo here.
My 2 cents.

Another fine example of how internet humor sparks crazy shit.

[timt]

In the initiation it's 10% height (as long as your taller than them it's all good) and 90% game. You see dweeby looking faggots taking hot girls home all the time because they have game (mix of humour, charm and courage). The only time when it's mostly physical is if a girl approaches you (but this once again could be because she see's you being centre of attention) at this point your could say anything and end up taking her home.

Looking for a person to marry I would have to go with it's mostly money, however money doesn't stop them from cheating once they know their getting half ;) Pre-nup anyone.

[BigJavs]

IMO, it's all about coming off as an alpha male. You know why musicians, athletes and artists all get play, even when their in the starving stage? Because they have a passion for what they do and they have the confidence that they're good at what they do and they could care less about what other people think.

If you build yourself up physically, you might not attract women because of your muscles, but the confidence you exude knowing you're a beast in a room full of wimps will send signals to all the chicks.

[applescruffette]

In the initiation it's 10% height (as long as your taller than them it's all good) and 90% game. You see dweeby looking faggots taking hot girls home all the time because they have game (mix of humour, charm and courage). The only time when it's mostly physical is if a girl approaches you (but this once again could be because she see's you being centre of attention) at this point your could say anything and end up taking her home.

Looking for a person to marry I would have to go with it's mostly money, however money doesn't stop them from cheating once they know their getting half ;) Pre-nup anyone.

You just haven't found the right woman yet.

[applescruffette]

IMO, it's all about coming off as an alpha male. You know why musicians, athletes and artists all get play, even when their in the starving stage? Because they have a passion for what they do and they have the confidence that they're good at what they do and they could care less about what other people think.

If you build yourself up physically, you might not attract women because of your muscles, but the confidence you exude knowing you're a beast in a room full of wimps will send signals to all the chicks.

Yep.

[Kostas]

Different women like different things. There is only one thing that ALL women like, and that is self confidence.

It sounds corny but it's true. Just hit on every girl you like. Sooner or later one of them will like they way you do it, and what you are offering. Some/many/most of them might knock you back, but not ALL of them will.

That's really all there is to it. Anything else means you are over-analyzing and wasting time when you should be out there having fun and picking up girls.

I am short (5ft7), skinny (used to be a famine victim, 130lbs!!!), only reasonably well hung, and not half as handsome as my wife seems to think I am, bless her. Back in the day, I had moderate to poor success with girls (found out later that many more fancied me than I could then imagine, that is one of the results of poor self-image). Then after a really bad experience (wasted TWO years on a girl who was just messing with my mind) I woke up one morning and decided that I would just do what I advise above. I had the craziest few years of my life. If one girl rejected me, I just moved straight on to the next. No bitterness, no nastiness, always polite and kind and above all determined.

I had loads of girlfriends (all of them good looking, I was going through a very shallow phase). Other guys thought my success ratio was huge, but really it probably was the same as before, the volume was just much much greater, which translated to more absolute numbers.

Now I am married and have two beautiful babies, and I would like to put to the board a question. Why are women so much more attracted to you once they see the ring on your finger, the wife on your arm, and the babies in the stroller? That is just weird. I guess it is the same thing that makes yummy-mummies so attractive to guys...

And no I am not tempted. Not yet anyway...

[Kincain]

this might be interesting, what bodycomposition women like. (you have to scroll way down)

http://www.ergo-log.com/bodybunattractive.html

[BryanM]

People with similarities tend to end up together. Nerd with nerd, douchebag with douchebag, etc. Some types are just much more common than the others. There is also a tendency to end up with someone with similar kidney size as you, for whatever that's worth.

The important thing is to not end up like those ronely men in that sad documentary "Guys and Dolls" who've given up on finding a needle in a haystack and sit around waiting for the sweet release of death or robot wives.


Truth be told, I described my husband. We've been married 7 years this year. He's a nurse, so rich and powerful are not terms that come to mind to describe him.

WHAT. He has... a job! That's extremely high and mighty.. especially in this dark era where Bryan's bank, which previously was giving him 5% on his savings account, is now yielding .8%.

Would you still love him if he just stayed at home playing X-Box and watched Dr.Who marathons for years at a time?


Why are women so much more attracted to you once they see the ring on your finger, the wife on your arm, and the babies in the stroller?
Urgh, I know! Waitresses were always way more nice to me when I was out with my ungirlfriend.

I have two theories.

1) It makes them think you're not an unlovable worthless loser, because some woman who isn't your mother has vetted you. Because the opinion of old women related to you or your male buddies obviously doesn't matter.

2) Evil childish pettiness. A kid sees another kid playing with a toy, and they want to take it away. I swear I've had women who weren't squat interested in me get jealous when I was with another lady. WHY. What the hell sense does that make? Trying to make sense of it with my robo man-logic hurts my brain.

Is any of it misogyny if it's true?

The double standard is also annoying - Kevin Federline is a male hero for example. A woman gets married to a rich guy and takes care of their children, and that's fine. Whatever. But a man does it and it's somehow something to shit over?

[Kate]

At this point if a girl isn't married (35+) they are looking for one thing.

Yeah -- character. :)

[WatsupHannity]

Though chicks may not go for muscles and strength per se, in my opinion there's an indirect connection between these qualities and attractiveness, described mathematically as such:

Strength + Size = Confidence

Confidence = Attractive To Broads

[coreJack]

Pre-nup anyone.
Not in the US, at least. Family court is a court of equity (which gives the judge plenty of latitude, which usually means he/she sides with the wife), so your pre-nup will not provide as much protection as you think. And your kids will almost surely be taken away from you, unless you can prove she was a really bad parent (in most states, custody defaults to the mother). So you've got alimony and child support, barely have any recourse to ensure that the child support is actually being spent on your children (and not on her new bf), and for all that, you barely get to see your kids, and since she's the custodial parent, she can easily make the kids hate you, which often seems to happen.

The older I get, the more I think marriage, at least in the US (and perhaps other Anglo countries), is for suckers, and guys who really, really want children and are willing to roll the dice that their marriage doesn't end up in divorce. As for guys who get married, but aren't interested in having kids - I don't understand that - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Any divorce attorneys on this board?

[WatsupHannity]

coreJack - I'm planning on kids out of wedlock myself for many of the reasons you described. It's the way of the future, mark my words.

[coreJack]

coreJack - I'm planning on kids out of wedlock myself for many of the reasons you described. It's the way of the future, mark my words.
If you are in the US (or other common law countries), you better read up on common law marriage before you go down that road.

[Mr.City]

What prompted this statement, Gary?

[Rorschach]

There are a lot of girls out there who like skinny guys. I've had exes say they prefered me when I was skinnier.
That's what I get for dating goths and art students, I guess. :D
Fuck'em, I still get attention, and I'm a lot healthier now.

Confidence from being strong and healthy > low body fat.

[Squatson]

I'm going to keep eating until I can't see my ribs anymore, right now I can still see 2 on each side.

On the ladies tip, my girl loves the fact that I am concerned with improving my body, and really impressed with the work that I put into it, and likely also impressed with the ease I can move her through space.

[LondonTiger]

I'll take the middle ground..

I think anything done to the extreme can easily become unattractive for the opposite sex.

A girl with a nice boob job to a D-cup (from a B) is attractive for a guy, I'm sure you'll all agree.. But then when the girl starts going nuts and going for other surgeries, and Size G cups and so forth, it immediately drops down on the attractiveness to "I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole".

Smilarly I think if you have above average strength it can be attractive because it makes you stand out from other guys, but if you start getting into the powerlifting territory, huge gut and behemoth-like strength; like 250kg squat, 300kg deadlift etc.. Then I think you're going to restrict yourself to fewer girls who specifically go for that kinda thing. A lot of women will be turned off

[PVC]

Smilarly I think if you have above average strength it can be attractive because it makes you stand out from other guys, but if you start getting into the powerlifting territory, huge gut and behemoth-like strength; like 250kg squat, 300kg deadlift etc.. Then I think you're going to restrict yourself to fewer girls who specifically go for that kinda thing. A lot of women will be turned off

250kg squat isn't "behemoth-like strength". Yeah, it's really fucking strong, but I've seen quite a few powerlifters in my gym at home putting up 600+ lb squats that have really good physiques - not 6% bodyfat of course, but certainly not fat.

[Mr.City]

I'd go with the G-cup girl if she let me use them as pillows at night.

[PMDL]

The older I get, the more I think marriage, at least in the US (and perhaps other Anglo countries), is for suckers, and guys who really, really want children and are willing to roll the dice that their marriage doesn't end up in divorce. As for guys who get married, but aren't interested in having kids - I don't understand that - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

You know I'm willing to see this viewpoint from the male side, up to a certain point. I'll be the first one to argue that the pickings are slim amongst the <30 females in the US, and unfortunately dating has boiled down to just one more economic transaction. It seems that this began with the Baby Boomer generation, if you consider the skyrocketing divorce rates that began with them and seem to have established the norm.

But hell, this isn't new. I read Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" a few weeks ago, and the same thing was going on in provincial France back in the 19th century. I'm sure you'll find it happening anywhere you care to look in history.

There's one simple reason for that. Fellas, you're just as complicit in this shitty arrangement. Supply and demand works both ways. That is to say, crazy chicks may act crazy, but there's enough guys out there willing to put up with it. If you don't, the next chump with a hard-on bigger than his brain will.

So you find your double-D highlights-having tramp-stamped 9 out at the club and she runs every line in the playbook - she wants a $10K wedding ring, a big house you can't ever afford, a new SUV, doesn't want to work, wants a vacation every month, all that.

And what happens? She finds some sucker, sooner or later, that gives it to her simply because she's attractive. If that guy can't provide it in 10 years' time, or she's just sick of the guy because he never mattered to begin with, she's free to ditch him at will.

But on that note - who's the dumbass that married this chick in the first place? Dudes dig their own graves on this matter, I'm sad to say, by either going for the uber-hotts or by taking the first thing that drops in their lap. The best lesson I ever learned in this life is that getting your dick wet is not the most important decision making factor. Use some damn sense before you "fall in love" with these chicks, because you can see this shit coming well in advance.

There are nice women out there, really. But I will concede that the US culture is making them a true rarity. You fellas might do well to start looking at the foreign ladies.

[Sami]

There are nice women out there, really. But I will concede that the US culture is making them a true rarity. You fellas might do well to start looking at the foreign ladies.

Good thinking Matt. ;)

http://www.red-october.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/mail-order-brides.jpg

[Robert Beckett]

My (now-) wife fell for me even though I was a skinny-fat 23 YO because I was tall, funny, smart, nice (enough), and had good, fun friends. So I guess I seemed like a enough of a "winner" at that point in my life. It certainly wasn't because I was rich or muscular, because I wasn't either. I also had very little confidence with women, at least in the sense of being a "player". I had to work up major nerve to make a move on her. She seemed well out of my league.

19 years later, she seems very pleased with my new-found muscularity, almost in spite of herself. Which I find really really cool. :) However, if I had been as into strength training back then as I am now, it probably would have been a minus in her book.

[Rorschach]

I don't think I've even bought a girl a drink. I'll buy a round, but if they don't reciprocate, they can piss off. You should talk to me because I'm awesome, not because I'm paying you with alcohol. :D

I refuse to believe that the US is full of nothing but gold-diggers. I've dated a couple of american girls, and they weren't. Man, this is turning into the bitter old man's corner of a bar. :D

[coreJack]

Ah, so much to respond to, so little time.

You know I'm willing to see this viewpoint from the male side, up to a certain point.
My contention with marriage is really about the laws. The divorce rules in the US favor women so much that a man really has to be willing to gamble to jump into this knowing that if she ever decides she wants out, she will have the power of the state behind her. Further, the fact that the rules lop off a husband's balls and put them in his wife's purse make it more likely that she will behave badly (cheat, withhold sex, etc.). So this isn't about the baby boom generation, it's about when the rules changed. Really, it goes back to women's suffrage - that marked the beginning of the end of marriage as a good prospect for men, or at least for men with options.


I'll be the first one to argue that the pickings are slim amongst the <30 females in the US
And the problem with the > 30 females is the ticking clock, the excessive fat, the bitter attitudes, the sexual history, etc.


There's one simple reason for that. Fellas, you're just as complicit in this shitty arrangement. Supply and demand works both ways. That is to say, crazy chicks may act crazy, but there's enough guys out there willing to put up with it. If you don't, the next chump with a hard-on bigger than his brain will.

So you find your double-D highlights-having tramp-stamped 9 out at the club and she runs every line in the playbook - she wants a $10K wedding ring, a big house you can't ever afford, a new SUV, doesn't want to work, wants a vacation every month, all that.

And what happens? She finds some sucker, sooner or later, that gives it to her simply because she's attractive. If that guy can't provide it in 10 years' time, or she's just sick of the guy because he never mattered to begin with, she's free to ditch him at will.

But on that note - who's the dumbass that married this chick in the first place?
Agreed, men play their part in enabling this behavior. The reality is that we are slaves to pussy, especially hot pussy. That is why the 9s and 10s can have their way, and generally get away with behavior that a 6 or 7 could not, and that isn't even in the realm of possibility for a below average looking woman.

Some guys will ramble on and on about all the things they look for in a woman, but the bottomline is that physical attractiveness is far and away the biggest criterion. And there's not much men can do to change it - we're hard-wired for this, just as women are hard-wired for certain unpleasant behaviors in their mating strategies.


The best lesson I ever learned in this life is that getting your dick wet is not the most important decision making factor. Use some damn sense before you "fall in love" with these chicks, because you can see this shit coming well in advance.
Agreed.


There are nice women out there, really. But I will concede that the US culture is making them a true rarity. You fellas might do well to start looking at the foreign ladies.
The problem is if you bring said foreign lady back to the US, you better make sure she doesn't make too many American female friends, otherwise she, too, will be corrupted.

[Rorschach]

Slaves to pussy? You guys need a better porn collection. :D

[PMDL]

I refuse to believe that the US is full of nothing but gold-diggers. I've dated a couple of american girls, and they weren't. Man, this is turning into the bitter old man's corner of a bar. :D

Oh you're right, it's not. That's a very one-sided viewpoint, and a trap that I fell into in my 20s. At the same time though, it is prevalent enough that virtually any US male you meet will have stories to this effect.

I don't think it's right to demonize *all* the ladies, though, because there are still plenty of good ones. You just have to find them. The problem with the American culture as it stands now is that you can get blind-sided - it's not always the obvious club-whore types of chicks that will act that way. Otherwise "normal and nice" girls can spring this kind of thing on you out of the blue if you're not alert.

[coreJack]

I don't think it's right to demonize *all* the ladies, though, because there are still plenty of good ones. You just have to find them. The problem with the American culture as it stands now is that you can get blind-sided - it's not always the obvious club-whore types of chicks that will act that way. Otherwise "normal and nice" girls can spring this kind of thing on you out of the blue if you're not alert.
Agreed. I didn't mean to come across as saying that all American women are that way. I've met some good ones. Among the things I look for now is women who have good relationships with their fathers - if she has a poor relationship with daddy, I won't date her seriously, though I'd be happy to fuck her.

[Willie B Hardigan]

In the initiation it's 10% height (as long as your taller than them it's all good) and 90% game. You see dweeby looking faggots taking hot girls home all the time because they have game (mix of humour, charm and courage). The only time when it's mostly physical is if a girl approaches you (but this once again could be because she see's you being centre of attention) at this point your could say anything and end up taking her home.


This (having game), along with the post about being an alpha male, is the correct answer as to what attracts women. In today's society of female empowerment and income equality, having money and being the nice guy, beta provider simply doesn't have the pull it did 50 years ago. Women are the gate keepers to sex and are hard wired to only allow the alpha males access while keeping out the betas. If a woman is going to risk being pregnant for 9 months and then have the responsibility of raising the child, its in their best interest to make sure the kid has the best, most "alpha" genes, which infers a better chance for the kid to survive and replicate on its own.

As far as explaining male-female attraction and biomechanics, you guys should check this site out:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/
This is probably the best and most entertaining site on the web about this stuff.

[Rorschach]

Women are the gate keepers to sex

Fine, I'll give you that, but we are the keymasters!

[coreJack]

Slaves to pussy? You guys need a better porn collection. :D
Yes, there is some truth to that. But porn also exacerbates the desire for variety. After years of watching thousands of hot, nubile sluts, how is a man supposed to remain faithful to one woman for his remaining years (especially now that there's Viagra)?

[coreJack]

Fine, I'll give you that, but we are the keymasters!
Keys are plentiful. If an attractive woman loses a key, there are hundreds of others laying around.

There are men out there starving for pussy (or would be if not for prostitutes), but there are no women starving for cock. That is Sexonomics 101.

[Squatson]

The fact that I can go into a bar and pick up any girl I want makes me not want to do so...the fact that a bunch of people go to some crowded room with loud ass music and basically play a game of musical chairs to see who fucks who at the end of the night disgusts me.

I furthuremore hate the fact that when I see a girl that I think has a good sense of style, or seems cool to talk to, there is no way for her to know that I am not an inbred asshole that just wants to get her naked and lick her holes.

The only time I will ever buy a girl a drink is if I am going to get one for myself, and the girl doesn't have easy access to a drink (crowded bar), and I am hoping that she would do the same for me.

I work as a bartender, and I see it all the time. Guys buying a girl a drink and then thinking they have the right to bug the fuck out of them the whole time. Sometimes girls are just trying to hang out with the girls, and just because they have nice tits they can't enjoy their evening without everyone asking for their number?

If I was a chick, I would much rather prefer to pay for my own drinks, than have some stranger buy them thinking that it gives them free reign to hit on me on night.

[Kate]

What prompted this statement, Gary?

I'm curious about this, too, Gary. If you were looking to stir up trouble and incite people to say really stupid and offensive things about the opposite sex, then you've succeeded.


I don't think it's right to demonize *all* the ladies, though, because there are still plenty of good ones.

And some of them are right here on this board -- at least, until the shallow, bitter guys here drive us away.

Life = baggage, guys. Get used to it. (Clearly, many of you have enough luggage to rack up some hefty airline fees of your own). Remember, it ain't how much you have, but how well you carry it... or something like that.


And the problem with the >30 females is the ticking clock, the excessive fat, the bitter attitudes, the sexual history, etc.

Wow, talk about "bitter attitudes." Pot, meet kettle.

Here, let me fix that for you:

The great thing about women over 45 is that the ticking clock is no longer an issue (if it ever was); we're in good shape and getting stronger; we know who we are and we're more comfortable in our own skins than we've ever been; and we've been through enough in previous relationships to have a good idea of what we need, what we like, and what our deal-breakers are. Oh yeah, and we have our own careers, our own houses, and our own retirement funds (or we did before the economy tanked). And, oh yeah, some of us actually appreciate a guy who notices that we have brains.

So there.

-Kate

[BryanM]

But porn also exacerbates the desire for variety.
All pr0n does is exasperate the need to find new deviant forms of pr0n. It's like that South Park episode where no one could succeed in their "me time" because the internet broke. Variety is finite.

It has no applicable reach beyond orgasms, just like playing DOOM won't make you a badass zombie demon killer in the real lifes. Pr0n will not hug you, give you backrubs, lay on your arm at night and make it go numb and fall off, give you a horrible horrible booger illness, or bring home fried chicken at the most unexpected of times.


there are no women starving for cock
Of course there are.

[coreJack]

Wow, talk about "bitter attitudes." Pot, meet kettle.
Kate, any guy who dates women in their 30s can attest to what I'm talking about. I recently dated some women in their early 20s, and it was like a breath of fresh air. Now, it may be that women in their 30s would say the same thing about the differences between men in their 30s and men in their 20s (except replace ticking clock with nonfunctioning penis, perhaps).


The great thing about women over 45 is that the ticking clock is no longer an issue (if it ever was); we're in good shape and getting stronger; we know who we are and we're more comfortable in our own skins than we've ever been; and we've been through enough in previous relationships to have a good idea of what we need, what we like, and what our deal-breakers are. Oh yeah, and we have our own careers, our own houses, and our own retirement funds (or we did before the economy tanked). And, oh yeah, some of us actually appreciate a guy who notices that we have brains.

So there.
Sounds good. Removing the urgency to marry and have children probably does a lot for a woman's demeanor.

All pr0n does is exasperate the need to find new deviant forms of pr0n. It's like that South Park episode where no one could succeed in their "me time" because the internet broke. Variety is finite.
Variety is finite?? Speaking for myself, if I never viewed porn and didn't live in the modern information age (with it's exposure to female images by way of tv, net, etc.) and lived in a small town, I probably would have gotten married in my early 20s. The variety is infinite and corrupting.


It has no applicable reach beyond orgasms, just like playing DOOM won't make you a badass zombie demon killer in the real lifes. Pr0n will not hug you, give you backrubs, lay on your arm at night and make it go numb and fall off, give you a horrible horrible booger illness, or bring home fried chicken at the most unexpected of times.
After the first phrase of the first sentence, you lost the plot. As for the first phrase, porn definitely has reach beyond orgasms.


Of course there are.
LOL. If a woman is starving for cock, it's because she put herself on a sausage diet. There is *always* cock on offer for a woman.

[Willie B Hardigan]

The fact that I can go into a bar and pick up any girl I want makes me not want to do so.

I'd love to know your technique.


I furthuremore hate the fact that when I see a girl that I think has a good sense of style, or seems cool to talk to, there is no way for her to know that I am not an inbred asshole that just wants to get her naked and lick her holes.

But what if hot women are attracted to the asshole that knows he wants to get her naked and lick her holes, and not the guy who wants to please her and make nice conversation?


I work as a bartender, and I see it all the time. Guys buying a girl a drink and then thinking they have the right to bug the fuck out of them the whole time.

I agree here. Guys who buy hot girls drinks as an opener to talk are chumps. Unless you are James Bond this doesn't work because you are basically saying, " I have nothing interesting to say and am so in awe of your beauty that I will spend money on you without knowing anything about you." Women loathe men who supplicate and put them on a pedestal. I've talked to several girls who will leave their wallets at home and make it a game to go to the bar to get drunk, and then of course, go home with themselves.


Sometimes girls are just trying to hang out with the girls, and just because they have nice tits they can't enjoy their evening without everyone asking for their number?

Girls can hang out with their friends and drink at home if thats what they're trying to do. By going out to the bar, they know what they are subjecting themselves to.

[Rorschach]

And the problem with the >30 females is ... the sexual history

That's a problem?! That's the main reason to date the older lady. ;)
Clearly women over 30 don't have a monopoly on bodyfat and bitter attitudes.



Kate, any guy who dates women in their 30s can attest to what I'm talking about.
Swing and a miss.



Girls can hang out with their friends and drink at home if thats what they're trying to do. By going out to the bar, they know what they are subjecting themselves to.
So that makes it acceptable? They have as much right to go to a bar without being hassled as a fat ugly man does.

And people are missing the point of my flippant comment about porn. He was talking about being "slaves to pussy", ie. The Horn. No-one's arguing that porn is a substitute for a proper relationship.

Man, what a kettle of worms this thread has opened. ;)

[Dastardly]

Variety is finite?? Speaking for myself, if I never viewed porn and didn't live in the modern information age (with it's exposure to female images by way of tv, net, etc.) and lived in a small town, I probably would have gotten married in my early 20s. The variety is infinite and corrupting.

.

People were doing all the stuff you see in modern porn, thousands of years ago.

[Rorschach]

Quite, donkeys are not new inventions.

[coreJack]

That's a problem?! That's the main reason to date the older lady. ;)
Sure, to date and fuck, but I'm talking about dating to eventually marry.

People were doing all the stuff you see in modern porn, thousands of years ago.
Totally missed my point.

[PMDL]

That's a problem?! That's the main reason to date the older lady. ;)
Clearly women over 30 don't have a monopoly on bodyfat and bitter attitudes.

Swing and a miss.

When I was in my early 20s, I got to a point where I didn't even bother dating girls my own age. My two longest-lasting relationships - meaning, they lasted longer than a first date - were with women 10-15 years my senior.

Dating, or in some cases even being around, a girl in her 20s was a nightmare.

[Rorschach]

Sure, to date and fuck, but I'm talking about dating to eventually marry.

You wouldn't settle down with someone if they'd had more sexual partners than you? Isn't that a bit insecure?

PMDL - quite. Less neurotic, and have more to talk about. YMMV of course.

[Robert Beckett]

This (having game), along with the post about being an alpha male, is the correct answer as to what attracts women.

Some women, sometimes.


In today's society of female empowerment and income equality, having money and being the nice guy, beta provider simply doesn't have the pull it did 50 years ago. Women are the gate keepers to sex and are hard wired to only allow the alpha males access while keeping out the betas. If a woman is going to risk being pregnant for 9 months and then have the responsibility of raising the child, its in their best interest to make sure the kid has the best, most "alpha" genes, which infers a better chance for the kid to survive and replicate on its own.

"hard wired" "beta provider" "'alpha' genes" "replicate" = psudoscientific goobledygook used to rationalize a certain attitude toward women.


As far as explaining male-female attraction and biomechanics, you guys should check this site out:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/
This is probably the best and most entertaining site on the web about this stuff.

Silly Bullshit.

[coreJack]

You wouldn't settle down with someone if they'd had more sexual partners than you?
Hell no. I wouldn't marry a woman who has had half as many partners as I've had. But I've had a lot of partners. If my number were 2 or 3, then my answer would be different.

Isn't that a bit insecure?
Actually, I think it's quite sensible.

[Kyle Aaron]

If I wanted half-arsed advice on how to impress the ladies I'd go to stronglifts.com.

[CThomas]

If I wanted half-arsed advice on how to impress the ladies I'd go to stronglifts.com.

LOL, +1!

I do think women have the upper hand in sexual transactions, but I really hope I never end up this bitter. Nice girls are rare, so but so are guys who aren't pricks. I still hold out hope...

[mstrofbass]

Ah, so much to respond to, so little time.

My contention with marriage is really about the laws. The divorce rules in the US favor women so much that a man really has to be willing to gamble to jump into this knowing that if she ever decides she wants out, she will have the power of the state behind her. Further, the fact that the rules lop off a husband's balls and put them in his wife's purse make it more likely that she will behave badly (cheat, withhold sex, etc.). So this isn't about the baby boom generation, it's about when the rules changed. Really, it goes back to women's suffrage - that marked the beginning of the end of marriage as a good prospect for men, or at least for men with options.

I think blaming it on the laws is a ridiculous statement. The laws have developed to protect reliance. I'd question your theory that it has to do with women's suffrage...AT ALL. The natural progression of legal history has women gaining more and more rights. After all, up until the 1800's (or 1700's, not sure which) women could not do anything related to law than men could do. They couldn't even bring suits...and all of this spawned from the not-so-old view of wives being the property of their husbands.

So the natural progression has attempted to put them as equals. Now, you may blame this on empowerment of the vaginas. But I completely disagree. Let's go back to your comment, our courts are "courts of equity". This is true, but their courts of law too, and law comes first, then equity.)

The fact of the matter is, providing part of the property paid for by the husband to the woman is completely analogous to almost anything the courts of equity do to protect reliance interests. We've gotten to the point where courts will find exceptions for most anytime someone has justifiably relied on someone else, and justice would not be served by ignoring that.

So, anytime a woman relies on a man to provide for her, it's far from being absurd or unreasonable to force the man to continue to provide for her after a divorce (of course, with reasonable exceptions).

The problem isn't necessarily that the courts favor the women, it's that it favors the SITUATION women get put in when they marry. That's NOT a problem from the baby boomer era, in which a stay-at-home wife was somewhat of an ideal picture, but a problem of today, in which women work more, and can provide for themselves.

So the injustice to men comes from the fact that the court system has not caught up with the fact that women have become more empowered, and closed the gender gap, and have the ability to provide for themselves much more than they did before. The fact that a court would likely default to assuming the woman could not do that, and would not require them to if they could is the REAL problem.

[mstrofbass]

I'm curious about this, too, Gary. If you were looking to stir up trouble and incite people to say really stupid and offensive things about the opposite sex, then you've succeeded.

Oh, imagine this. A bunch of men taking a stereotype about women to its extreme ends, and a woman refusing to acknowledge that there's any truth whatsoever to it.

I DID NOT SEE THIS COMING!

Seriously, Kate, stop taking offense to stereotypes. They're almost always grounded in some truth. Just because you don't fit the stereotype does not mean the stereotype does not fit the general population. I don't think any of the guys here will say that there are no exceptions to the generalizations inherent in the stereotypes. Stop taking it that way just to get pissed off. If you're an exception, the worst thing you can do is pretend like the stereotype is false. Just relish in the fact that you're not one of the types that we hate, and deal with the fact that most girls are.

[coreJack]

I think blaming it on the laws is a ridiculous statement. The laws have developed to protect reliance. I'd question your theory that it has to do with women's suffrage...AT ALL. The natural progression of legal history has women gaining more and more rights. After all, up until the 1800's (or 1700's, not sure which) women could not do anything related to law than men could do. They couldn't even bring suits...and all of this spawned from the not-so-old view of wives being the property of their husbands.
Frankly, I’m surprised it took so long for someone to call me out on the comment I made about women’s suffrage (I figured Kate or another woman would have my nuts in a vise for that one). We’ll have to agree to disagree on that issue.

My point about the divorce law is that it, like all laws, influences behavior. A married woman living under modern US-style no-fault divorce laws is incentivized to behave differently than a woman living under the divorce laws that existed in the 1950s.

My point about family courts being of courts of equity was to caution another poster that a pre-nup does not hold up in family court the way it would in a court of law (most who aren’t familiar with pre-nups or courts might imagine that a pre-nup is treated like any other contract, and would be surprised to discover that this is not the case).


So, anytime a woman relies on a man to provide for her, it's far from being absurd or unreasonable to force the man to continue to provide for her after a divorce (of course, with reasonable exceptions).

The problem isn't necessarily that the courts favor the women, it's that it favors the SITUATION women get put in when they marry. That's NOT a problem from the baby boomer era, in which a stay-at-home wife was somewhat of an ideal picture, but a problem of today, in which women work more, and can provide for themselves.

So the injustice to men comes from the fact that the court system has not caught up with the fact that women have become more empowered, and closed the gender gap, and have the ability to provide for themselves much more than they did before. The fact that a court would likely default to assuming the woman could not do that, and would not require them to if they could is the REAL problem.
I don’t have a problem with reasonable alimony or child support. I do have a problem with a regime where no-fault divorce is allowed, where parental custody defaults to the mother, where there is no real recourse when child support payments are siphoned towards things other than the children, where family courts ignore basic evidentiary requirements (divorce lawyers counseling divorcing women to allege spousal abuse to tilt the case in their favor – no corroborating evidence required, just make the allegation under oath), etc.

As I said before, I think marriage, by way of modern US divorce laws, is a lousy contract for men. Others may feel differently.

LOL, Gary, you probably could not have predicted the course this thread would take when you started it. I read part of the link blowdpanis provided, and I'd agree with the basic ladder theory. Assuming your initial post was advice-seeking in any way, I'll just say that I used to find myself on the friend ladder . . . a lot. Once I started making it clear to women that I had no interest in the friend ladder, I found that I'd either be off both ladders (in which case find another girl), or I'd be on the real ladder. Even women who have called me a 'manwhore' have put me on the real ladder - on a low rung perhaps, but even the lowest rung on the real ladder is a better position than the highest rung on the friend ladder, as far as I'm concerned.

[Kyle Aaron]

As I said before, I think marriage, by way of modern US divorce laws, is a lousy contract for men. Others may feel differently.
Better make sure she doesn't want to divorce you, then.

[coreJack]

Better make sure she doesn't want to divorce you, then.
Right, or treat marriage like I would treat any other contract that I thought was very unfavorable for me - i.e., avoid entering it.

[Kostas]

Girls can hang out with their friends and drink at home if thats what they're trying to do. By going out to the bar, they know what they are subjecting themselves to.

?!?!?!

Maybe we should just put them all in purdah. No going out unless they are wearing their hijab!

That's a very dangerous line of reasoning Willie.

(I hope I haven't started off an anti-Muslim rant with the above).

[Sami]

Gary seems to have stayed the fuck out of here now. :D

[Kate]

Gary seems to have stayed the fuck out of here now. :D

Which demonstrates that he's far smarter than me. I should know never to even read threads this idiotic, let alone participate in them.

coreJack, I noticed your ridiculous statement about women's suffrage, but there's only so much stupidity I can respond to at once.

And speaking of stupidity:

Just relish in the fact that you're not one of the types that we hate, and deal with the fact that most girls are.

Oooh, I'm an exception to the general misogyny displayed here -- yay for me!

*facepalm*

mstrofbass, try saying the racial equivalent of your "stereotypes are true but we don't hate you" statement to Gary, and see how he reacts.


I'm not sure which amazes me more: the idiotic things that some of you guys are saying (hmmm, nope), or the fact that, figuratively speaking, you're saying them with women right here in the room with you (yup, that's it; that one's the kicker). Um, hello? Are you really surprised that someone's calling you on this nonsense?


Like I said: I should know never to even read threads this idiotic, let alone participate in them. I should know not to respond to asinine statements from ninnies on the 'Nets, since (a) I have far better things to do with my time & energy; and (b) I wind up being as rude as the ninnies. My bad. In penance, I vow to spend the rest of today being productive and doing house repairs.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming on the Misogyny Channel. Here, let me get you a beer and some chips before I go. There; comfy? OK then.

[coreJack]

Ah, yes, the shaming tactic of labeling a discussion about female behaviors that are readily observed as 'misogynistic'. Thanks for the lesson in Feminism 101, Kate.

[Robert Beckett]

Ah, yes, the shaming tactic of labeling a discussion about female behaviors that are readily observed as 'misogynistic'. Thanks for the lesson in Feminism 101, Kate.

So a discussion cannot be misogynistic as long as it includes (among other things) behaviors that are "readily observed"? Even if it includes such gems as "Just relish in the fact that you're not one of the types that we hate, and deal with the fact that most girls are."?

If the message is "we hate most girls", how is it NOT misogynistic?

[Gary Gibson]

I DO hear this sort of thing all the time in regards to my race...

"You're not like those OTHER kind of black people we don't like."

And I know the sort of frustrated anger it can induce.

[Gary Gibson]

LOL, Gary, you probably could not have predicted the course this thread would take when you started it. I read part of the link blowdpanis provided, and I'd agree with the basic ladder theory. Assuming your initial post was advice-seeking in any way, I'll just say that I used to find myself on the friend ladder . . . a lot. Once I started making it clear to women that I had no interest in the friend ladder, I found that I'd either be off both ladders (in which case find another girl), or I'd be on the real ladder. Even women who have called me a 'manwhore' have put me on the real ladder - on a low rung perhaps, but even the lowest rung on the real ladder is a better position than the highest rung on the friend ladder, as far as I'm concerned.

Not really looking for advice per se, but there is a bit of good advice anyway. A lot of guys who settle for the friend ladder when it's not what they want and in hopes that it will lead somewhere, really ought to stop settling for the friend ladder. They should move on.

[Platus]

Really, it goes back to women's suffrage - that marked the beginning of the end of marriage as a good prospect for men, or at least for men with options.

Good lord. I know that in some particular circumstances, contemporary laws regarding marriage and divorce may favor women, but this sort of comment seems to lack a historical understanding of marriage. As a man, I can deal with some reduction in 'marriage as a good prospect for men," as long as it means that marriage is no longer a chattel arrangement intended to maintain property within the family (that property included the women themselves). Here is a very short overview of the arrangement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattel_marriage.

Also, suffrage had much to do changing attitudes towards marriage and gender relationships within families. However, I think that changes in sex-based discrimination in the workplace had the greatest impact. Prior to the 1950's, most women did not and could not work outside of the home. Not having income or savings forced many women to remain in marriages with men that may not have been fulfilling. With access to education, jobs, and economic freedom, women have less impetus to stay in a marriage that they do not enjoy.

[coreJack]

My point about women's suffrage was that, once granted, it was inevitable that the divorce laws would swing so far in their favor. Women, by their very nature, are far better at mobilizing/organizing votes/political pressure for gender-related laws than men are.

The only hope men in the US have of seeing the marriage contract become more palatable is for sufficient numbers of men to avoid marriage that the state governments and women take notice. But because even men who realize what a lousy contract marriage is, will often marry for the sake of having children and raising them in a two-parent household (which is the only reason I'd consider marriage), I think it may be a long time before the divorce laws change in men's favor.

[Platus]

Why do they need to change in "men's favor"? I can see how marriage and divorce laws may not always be acceptably equitable. But think that the concern here should be equal treatment, to the extent to which that is possible.

[coreJack]

Why do they need to change in "men's favor"? I can see how marriage and divorce laws may not always be acceptably equitable. But think that the concern here should be equal treatment, to the extent to which that is possible.
Change in men's favor, as in moving toward equal treatment.

But of course some men may view the marriage contract (which encompasses the divorce rules) as entirely equitable in its current form. Those men will think that I am smoking too much dope, and that's fine. To each their own.

[Rorschach]

Women, by their very nature, are far better at mobilizing/organizing votes/political pressure for gender-related laws than men are.

What are you babbling on about? Nature? Seriously? Women have been more politically active re. sexism because they've had to, and men haven't.
It has nothing to do with whether or not they have boobs.
Christ on a bike, talk about a persecution complex. Are mexicans stealing your job too?
How about you just sit in your room and avoid talking to women incase they break your heart or try to steal your car. Problem solved.

[mstrofbass]

Right, or treat marriage like I would treat any other contract that I thought was very unfavorable for me - i.e., avoid entering it.

Definitely not an unreasonable view, and you're probably right about pre-nups. Courts do carve out special exceptions for certain things that make them even more subject to reformation and the like. I just disagree with the historical context.

[mstrofbass]

And speaking of stupidity:


Oooh, I'm an exception to the general misogyny displayed here -- yay for me!

*facepalm*

mstrofbass, try saying the racial equivalent of your "stereotypes are true but we don't hate you" statement to Gary, and see how he reacts.


I'm not sure which amazes me more: the idiotic things that some of you guys are saying (hmmm, nope), or the fact that, figuratively speaking, you're saying them with women right here in the room with you (yup, that's it; that one's the kicker). Um, hello? Are you really surprised that someone's calling you on this nonsense?

Okay, Kate, since you clearly lack some basic comprehension skills (I never said anything like you tried to say in your quote, and I could go on for pages about the annoying, invalid, yet useful tactic you tried to use), let me ask you this:

Why do you think our generalized views of women are flawed?

[coreJack]

What are you babbling on about? Nature? Seriously? Women have been more politically active re. sexism because they've had to, and men haven't.
It has nothing to do with whether or not they have boobs.
Christ on a bike, talk about a persecution complex. Are mexicans stealing your job too?
How about you just sit in your room and avoid talking to women incase they break your heart or try to steal your car. Problem solved.
No need to get snippy. I'm just expressing my opinion. Yours is obviously different. Vive la différence.

[PVC]

Why do you think our generalized views of women are flawed?

"All generalizations are false, including this one."
-Mark Twain

[coreJack]

"All generalizations are false, including this one."
-Mark Twain
That does not mean generalizations are useless.

[PMDL]

Wow.

This started out as a halfway reasonable discussion. I don't know how the hell it turned into "gurlz suck" but I get the strong impression half you fellas are into buggery just for the sake of not having to be near a female.

It has turned into misogyny with the "lol who let them vote?" nonsense, as if allowing people to have basic human rights is somehow responsible for destroying your life. That's a load of horseshit.

[Gwynn]

Frankly, I’m surprised it took so long for someone to call me out on the comment I made about women’s suffrage (I figured Kate or another woman would have my nuts in a vise for that one).


It's not Kate's, or any other woman's, responsibility to educate you.
Frankly, your statements in this thread have been so hurtful that I've wondered what the hell I'm doing "in the room" with you at all. At least some of the other men on here have called you on your shit.

You have obviously been treated badly in the past and for that I'm sorry.
Stereotypes may have some use, but you have been using them in ways that are pretty painful for those of us on the other end.

If that's your intent, have at it.

[coreJack]

It has turned into misogyny with the "lol who let them vote?" nonsense, as if allowing people to have basic human rights is somehow responsible for destroying your life. That's a load of horseshit.

It's not Kate's, or any other woman's, responsibility to educate you.
Frankly, your statements in this thread have been so hurtful that I've wondered what the hell I'm doing "in the room" with you at all. At least some of the other men on here have called you on your shit.
These comments in response to my comment about women's suffrage reflect a gross misunderstanding of the point I was making. Did I say that women should not have the right to vote? No, I did not.

If people are going to misconstrue posts and give them meaning that does not actually exist in the post, so that they can then burn a strawman of their own making, I'll stick to strength training threads. Enjoy your righteous indignation, even if it was fueled by your imagination.

[gzt]

If you are in the US (or other common law countries), you better read up on common law marriage before you go down that road.
Dude, you don't have a damn clue what common law marriage is. "Common law marriage" is basically a way for people in certain states of America to get married without bothering to go to the state and file a marriage certificate. The precise details vary, but, generally, in the few states where you can get married by common law, here is how you do it: you agree to be married and that you are married, you cohabit, and you represent yourselves to the world as husband and wife. There is not, in the few states that have it, any sort of time limit on cohabitation, and there is not any way in which you can get married without consenting to be married.

So here is what common law is not: finding yourself somehow married to somebody just because you've lived with her for a few years. This is precisely wrong. I don't know where people get these stupid ideas.

[PMDL]

These comments in response to my comment about women's suffrage reflect a gross misunderstanding of the point I was making. Did I say that women should not have the right to vote? No, I did not.

If people are going to misconstrue posts and give them meaning that does not actually exist in the post, so that they can then burn a strawman of their own making, I'll stick to strength training threads. Enjoy your righteous indignation, even if it was fueled by your imagination.

Oh no, you're not getting away with that one.


My contention with marriage is really about the laws. The divorce rules in the US favor women so much that a man really has to be willing to gamble to jump into this knowing that if she ever decides she wants out, she will have the power of the state behind her. Further, the fact that the rules lop off a husband's balls and put them in his wife's purse make it more likely that she will behave badly (cheat, withhold sex, etc.). So this isn't about the baby boom generation, it's about when the rules changed. Really, it goes back to women's suffrage - that marked the beginning of the end of marriage as a good prospect for men, or at least for men with options.

You said that women's suffrage ruined marriage as a good prospect for men. Whether you were or were not arguing for women's right to vote isn't the question.

You're actually making the point that giving out equal rights somehow diminishes marriage, and subtly implying that this is a bad thing. Nothing you've said so far has actually backed up that conclusion.

This is the precise equivalent of saying that desegregating schools ruined education as a prospect for white men. Think about that for a second before you respond with more red herrings.

What's most entertaining about all of these posts is that none of the males actually want to own up to their complicity in their failed relationships. Granted I'm inclined to agree with the shittiness of American dating culture in the most abstract, but I don't see any reason to single out either gender if you really push the matter.

[PVC]

What's most entertaining about all of these posts is that none of the males actually want to own up to their complicity in their failed relationships. Granted I'm inclined to agree with the shittiness of American dating culture in the most abstract, but I don't see any reason to single out either gender if you really push the matter.

I agree, it goes both ways. We've all heard the "men are pigs" spiel from the womenfolk, and like a lot of the posts about women in this thread, some of it is true, some of the time. Take it all with a grain of salt.

[mstrofbass]

What's most entertaining about all of these posts is that none of the males actually want to own up to their complicity in their failed relationships. Granted I'm inclined to agree with the shittiness of American dating culture in the most abstract, but I don't see any reason to single out either gender if you really push the matter.

Where has anyone refused to own up to it? Just because they are taking issue with women does NOT mean they are passing off all the blame onto others. I probably just skipped over it, but I'm sure you can point me to a post where some male has disclaimed any fault for a failed relationship.

[mstrofbass]

Dude, you don't have a damn clue what common law marriage is. "Common law marriage" is basically a way for people in certain states of America to get married without bothering to go to the state and file a marriage certificate. The precise details vary, but, generally, in the few states where you can get married by common law, here is how you do it: you agree to be married and that you are married, you cohabit, and you represent yourselves to the world as husband and wife. There is not, in the few states that have it, any sort of time limit on cohabitation, and there is not any way in which you can get married without consenting to be married.

So here is what common law is not: finding yourself somehow married to somebody just because you've lived with her for a few years. This is precisely wrong. I don't know where people get these stupid ideas.

That's true, but that's all a question of fact, so you DO have to be careful with what you say. When it comes down to your word against theirs, it could, sometimes, go either way.

Just one example: If the person you are cohabiting with refers to you as their "husband" or "wife" in your presence to a third party, and you don't fail to deny it even once, that could be sufficient to be found as having represented yourself as being married.

[CThomas]

Not SS.com's proudest moment. Ladder theory is funny because there is an element of truth to it. But you need help when start to take it as seriously as some here.

I just hope this thread does not make the ladies of this board leave. I really do enjoy seeing a female perspective on things, and the quality of posts from the women here is quite high.

There was another thread here that ended with a couple of the ladies talking a bit about their sex lives, and it wasn't all happy. For all you blokes who think women have it really easy, go read those posts. And take note of how they refrained from generalising about men, even though they seemed to have every reason to head down this road.

Love in today's world is hard to find. But if you're as cynical as some here I guarantee you will single-handedly screw up perfectly good relationships when you're lucky enough to chance upon them.

[MAD9692]

Not SS.com's proudest moment. Ladder theory is funny because there is an element of truth to it. But you need help when start to take it as seriously as some here.

Very true. This thread started out funny, now its on some retarted shit fueled by a few dudes that cant get laid or hate women for some reason or another.


I just hope this thread does not make the ladies of this board leave.

I doubt they would. That would be dumb.

[Gwynn]

There was another thread here that ended with a couple of the ladies talking a bit about their sex lives, and it wasn't all happy. For all you blokes who think women have it really easy, go read those posts. And take note of how they refrained from generalising about men, even though they seemed to have every reason to head down this road.


You've piqued my curiosity. Where is this thread to be found?

[Gary Gibson]

Fucking Hell.

Here's the point.

Attraction is mostly based on things no one can control. You can dress nicely and get in better physical shape and all these things may make you a bit more confident and thus a bit more attractive, but ultimately people are sexually attracted to you based on things about yourself that you cannot alter. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

[mstrofbass]

Fucking Hell.

Here's the point.

Attraction is mostly based on things no one can control. You can dress nicely and get in better physical shape and all these things may make you a bit more confident and thus a bit more attractive, but ultimately people are sexually attracted to you based on things about yourself that you cannot alter. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

That would imply that no one can improve their ability to get laid.

[Gary Gibson]

That would imply that no one can improve their ability to get laid.

You can shower instead of not showering. You can wear clothes without holes in them. Drive a nicer car. Live in a nicer apartment. Shave parts of your face or body. Etc.

But improving how naturally attractive you are is like improving your vertical jump. It's just not that subject to improvement.

[Shaf]

This is a startling revelation about this community that makes a lot of things drop into place. That's cool. I still miss Bullrider Billy, whom stopped lifting weights to pursue the hobby of furryiness, and thus dropped off the P&B.

Are you all the funny (ha-ha) kind of gays, comfortable in your gayness, or are you still mostly in the closet and bitter God gave you a penchant for man-ass?

[CThomas]

I doubt they would. That would be dumb.

Well, some of the stuff here is incredibly mean-spirited and hurtful, as Gwynn said. It's only a few posters, though.



You've piqued my curiosity. Where is this thread to be found?

Well, I re-read it and it's not completely related. I just remembered one poster's husband running away with a younger woman, and no snide remarks about men.

http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=14001&page=5


Shaf, that's priceless.

[TTT]

corejack - if you had put this much time/effort in to squatting, you would have been in a different physical shape for your holiday..where the females would have seen someone who cares what they look like... and possibly think of talking to you..

maybe then your point of view on wimenz would be different.

seriously man.. you sound like a douche..
my opinion only of course.. :)

[MAD9692]

Well, I re-read it and it's not completely related. I just remembered one poster's husband running away with a younger woman, and no snide remarks about men

I never wrote this- How did you quote me?


Penchants for man ass = YRG (Yoga for regular guys) and barbwire tatoos.

Your neighbors must think your a fuking retard. I was hoping that kettlebell was going to snap your knee off.
Damn....and this guy busts on the Xfitters? The only thing missing on this guy is the fauhawk and boardshorts. Keep the pictures coming on Friday you pasty cocksucker.

[coreJack]

You said that women's suffrage ruined marriage as a good prospect for men. Whether you were or were not arguing for women's right to vote isn't the question.
I said that once women got the right to vote, it was inevitable that marriage would eventually be a bad deal for men by way of changes to the divorce laws. That is my contention. Disagree if you want, but at least understand my contention. And obviously many men do not agree, and eagerly get married. Good for them.

There is not, in the few states that have it, any sort of time limit on cohabitation, and there is not any way in which you can get married without consenting to be married.

So here is what common law is not: finding yourself somehow married to somebody just because you've lived with her for a few years. This is precisely wrong. I don't know where people get these stupid ideas.
For someone considering living with, but not marrying, a partner in order to avoid being subject to divorce rules if either or both parties want to end the relationship, consult a lawyer first. gzt’s comments are very misleading with respect to how a court will look at your situation.

That's true, but that's all a question of fact, so you DO have to be careful with what you say. When it comes down to your word against theirs, it could, sometimes, go either way.
Exactly. What you say, where you say it (i.e., which jurisdictions), how you hold yourself out, how you fill out government forms, etc. And if one partner wants to make life miserable for the other at the end of the relationship or seek a potentially better settlement, you better believe that said partner will claim that the parties intended that their relationship was a marriage.

Where has anyone refused to own up to it?
I’m curious about this as well.

corejack - if you had put this much time/effort in to squatting, you would have been in a different physical shape for your holiday..where the females would have seen someone who cares what they look like... and possibly think of talking to you..

maybe then your point of view on wimenz would be different.

seriously man.. you sound like a douche..
my opinion only of course.. :)
LOL, perhaps. But my knees don’t hurt when I type.

Is there any need for name-calling? Can people not have a discussion without effectively saying ‘fuck you’ to each other?

[CThomas]

I never wrote this- How did you quote me?

Whoops. Fixed.

[applescruffette]

corejack - if you had put this much time/effort in to squatting, you would have been in a different physical shape for your holiday..where the females would have seen someone who cares what they look like... and possibly think of talking to you..

maybe then your point of view on wimenz would be different.

seriously man.. you sound like a douche..
my opinion only of course.. :)

Doesn't matter how many squats are done, because wimenz like me can smell that attitude a mile away and run for the hills, much like we can smell confidence a mile away.

[Rorschach]

No need to get snippy. I'm just expressing my opinion. Yours is obviously different. Vive la différence.

The difference is that your opinion is insulting and hurtful to c.50% of the population. Every regular female poster I'm aware of has said that they're insulted and hurt by some of your comments.
If you believe things like most women are gold-diggers and all women over 30 are fat and neurotic, then fine, that says something about you, but you're entitled to that opinion. When you say it to people's faces is where that becomes douchebag behaviour, hence the "name-calling".

[coreJack]

The difference is that your opinion is insulting and hurtful to c.50% of the population. Every regular female poster I'm aware of has said that they're insulted and hurt by some of your comments.
If you believe things like most women are gold-diggers and all women over 30 are fat and neurotic, then fine, that says something about you, but you're entitled to that opinion. When you say it to people's faces is where that becomes douchebag behaviour, hence the "name-calling".
I didn't say that most women are gold-diggers. And my comment about single women in their 30s being overweight and bitter was obviously a generalization and does not apply to all single women over 30. Surely we do not need disclaimers every time we use a generalization, as people should realize that generalizations are just that - generalizations. And exactly whom did I insult directly (as in 'when you say it to people's faces', which is what you are accusing me of) on this board? To whom did I say "you are a [insert expletive]" or similar? Not to Kate, or any of the women in this thread; nor any of the guys, despite getting directly insulted myself.

I'm not looking to insult or hurt anyone, just expressing opinions and observations, but given the way things are being interpreted and that people are apparently feeling hurt, I shall cease and desist (or at least try mightily) from participating in non-strength training threads on this forum.

[Rorschach]

Probably for the best.

So, how about them squats, eh?

[Gwynn]

http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=14001&page=5


How did I miss this massively entertaining thread in the first place?
Way to put it out there, ladies and gents :-D

[bugbomb]

I didn't say that most women are gold-diggers. And my comment about single women in their 30s being overweight and bitter was obviously a generalization and does not apply to all single women over 30. Surely we do not need disclaimers every time we use a generalization, as people should realize that generalizations are just that - generalizations. And exactly whom did I insult directly (as in 'when you say it to people's faces', which is what you are accusing me of) on this board? To whom did I say "you are a [insert expletive]" or similar? Not to Kate, or any of the women in this thread; nor any of the guys, despite getting directly insulted myself.

I'm not looking to insult or hurt anyone, just expressing opinions and observations, but given the way things are being interpreted and that people are apparently feeling hurt, I shall cease and desist (or at least try mightily) from participating in non-strength training threads on this forum.

In my experience, men who complain about the negative effect of women's suffrage on men's sexual prospects are douchebags. Just a generalization. And not specifically directed at anyone.

[coreJack]

In my experience, men who complain about the negative effect of women's suffrage on men's sexual prospects are douchebags. Just a generalization. And not specifically directed at anyone.
Another misunderstanding of my contentions. If women's suffrage had any effect on my sexual prospects, it is that it dramatically increased them.

Ah, fuck it, I give up. I am out of this thread.

[mstrofbass]

Ah, fuck it, I give up. I am out of this thread.
Yeah, reading comprehension on here is pretty close to a middle school level. They keep reading it the way they want it, instead of the way it is.

[blowdpanis]

Fucking Hell.

Here's the point.

Attraction is mostly based on things no one can control. You can dress nicely and get in better physical shape and all these things may make you a bit more confident and thus a bit more attractive, but ultimately people are sexually attracted to you based on things about yourself that you cannot alter. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Disagree strongly, particularly on the male side of the equation.

[PMDL]

I said that once women got the right to vote, it was inevitable that marriage would eventually be a bad deal for men by way of changes to the divorce laws. That is my contention. Disagree if you want, but at least understand my contention. And obviously many men do not agree, and eagerly get married. Good for them.

You've got records to show where a solid voting bloc of women have progressively changed the marriage laws and legal precedents into their favor, right?

Right?

[CThomas]

Attraction is mostly based on things no one can control.

Self-confidence, as many have said, is primary and easily changed. Stop thinking like this and you'll be a lot more attractive to women. Unless of course you have a habit of going for women way hotter than you are, in which case you are just shallow.


The older the sample group of women, the more important money becomes so the top tier looks thus:

1) tall, good-looking guys with money
2) tall, good-looking guys
3) rich men who aren't particularly tall or good-looking



Women really, really don't care how much you can lift.

In order to get them to commit after the attraction, follow your own advice. You're not terribly short, and not terribly ugly so you need to:

1) stop spending so much time and effort squatting, because women just don't care
2) start a business, so you can be rich, rich, rich. You can channel squatting time to making your business wildly successful
3) do continue to exercise a bit, but make sure you hit those biceps and that six-pack to mitigate the personal trainer cuckolding effect

There you go. Easy as 1-2-3. Now go forth and procreate.

[Gary Gibson]

Self-confidence, as many have said, is primary and easily changed. Stop thinking like this and you'll be a lot more attractive to women. Unless of course you have a habit of going for women way hotter than you are, in which case you are just shallow.





In order to get them to commit after the attraction, follow your own advice. You're not terribly short, and not terribly ugly so you need to:

1) stop spending so much time and effort squatting, because women just don't care
2) start a business, so you can be rich, rich, rich. You can channel squatting time to making your business wildly successful
3) do continue to exercise a bit, but make sure you hit those biceps and that six-pack to mitigate the personal trainer cuckolding effect

There you go. Easy as 1-2-3. Now go forth and procreate.

You make a couple huge fucking assumptions about me. I squat so often for myself, not to be more attractive to anyone. I stand by what I said and humbly accept that I must bottom-feed with ugly and/or fat chicks so please skip the "be more confident" bullshit and the "you pursue chicks too hot for you" nonsense.

Why does this forum attract so many know-it-all Australians?

Now go be fruitful with yourself.

[Weakling]

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

~Abraham Lincoln

Given the state of family courts it would seem staying out off marriage would be a good option for most men. Give any person too much power and they're likely to abuse it, regardless of sex; it just so happens women have the power in divorces, a power some are willing to use. There is a decent amount of misandry in the legal system, what caused it... a variety of things caused it me thinks.

For more lewlz see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE)

[CThomas]

Relax, Gary. Tongue firmly in cheek there. Any assumptions made about you are quite contrary to what you took from the post.

My point with the first bit is that it isn't as hard as you make it out to be. The be more confident stuff is not BS.

And two, yes we all squat for ourselves (and choose livelihoods that interest us) and yet the OP started a thread about what women like. Who cares? If you really want to maximise your chances with the average woman, you'd have to be far from true to yourself. Note this theme in my second bit.

Don't start a thread like this and not expect to be called out on your POV.

[applescruffette]

For those of you thinking women have the edge in divorces, have you been divorced? I have, and I certainly didn't get any edge in power because of my female prowess (or ability to vote). In fact, I had to go back some years later to get things amended because my ex had created a situation in which the decree was not just unfair, but ridiculous.

[TTT]

Why does this forum attract so many know-it-all Australians?


because we want to share how awesome we are. :D

[Gary Gibson]

Relax, Gary. Tongue firmly in cheek there. Any assumptions made about you are quite contrary to what you took from the post.

My point with the first bit is that it isn't as hard as you make it out to be. The be more confident stuff is not BS.

And two, yes we all squat for ourselves (and choose livelihoods that interest us) and yet the OP started a thread about what women like. Who cares? If you really want to maximise your chances with the average woman, you'd have to be far from true to yourself. Note this theme in my second bit.

Don't start a thread like this and not expect to be called out on your POV.

You all will never know my real point of view. You can't handle the truth.


because we want to share how awesome we are. :D

That's it. I'm moving to Australia so I can post with impunity.

[TTT]

which airport you want me to pick you from?

[Shaf]

For those of you thinking women have the edge in divorces, have you been divorced? I have, and I certainly didn't get any edge in power because of my female prowess (or ability to vote). In fact, I had to go back some years later to get things amended because my ex had created a situation in which the decree was not just unfair, but ridiculous.

This has a lot to do with lawyers.

My bit of advice for anyone thinking about getting a divorce. Find the meanest, nastiest, best divorce lawyer in your area and give him some money so he/she's on retainer. Even if you don't want things to escalate, because if you are on top of the nastiest biting dog in town, instead of your spouse, you have a degree of control.

You really need to sit down and decide how you want your life, post-divorce, to look like, probably write it down, then talk to someone, maybe a court appointed mediator, to find out if it's feasible.

Sole custody of the kids? Unless one spouse or the other gives them up, it's not going to happen. Dad has to be a legit fuck up to lose even joint custody, and Mom has to be a drug addled professional whore who burns the kids with curling irons for discipline to lose even joint custody. In this way the court system is slanted towards the woman's advantage.

If you don't know your rights and don't have an idea on how life post divorce should look, then you are fucking yourself over. If you let the rabid dog lawyer direct you entirely, you are fucking yourself over.

Men, expect to lose half your shit, retirement, etc. Women, especially if you've only been married for a little while, expect that the request for alimony be denied. Also, expect to take half the debt load whether or not you're the one who ran up the credit cards.

Divorce is a fucked up, but often necessary thing.

[gzt]

For someone considering living with, but not marrying, a partner in order to avoid being subject to divorce rules if either or both parties want to end the relationship, consult a lawyer first. gzt’s comments are very misleading with respect to how a court will look at your situation.
Even if you're not in a state that has common law marriage (which would be most states in America), I would recommend you do so, especially if you're pooling any assets in any way. Even having roommates for any significant duration of the same sex, you should know what you're doing. But this doesn't have anything to do with "common law marriage".

EDIT TO CLARIFY: This should be read to say that most states in the US do not have a notion of "common law marriage". Be very careful if you're not in America, because some common law countries, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, may not have "common law marriage", but have developed recently the idea of some sort of "de facto relationship", which is something to be wary of. As always, contact a legal professional who specializes in this sort of law in your jurisdiction if you have questions.

[mstrofbass]

You've got records to show where a solid voting bloc of women have progressively changed the marriage laws and legal precedents into their favor, right?

Right?

Either you agree laws have shifted towards favoring women or not. If you don't agree, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[PMDL]

Either you agree laws have shifted towards favoring women or not. If you don't agree, you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you don't have shit, and you're talking out of your ass.

Just say so. There's no need to start bristling and hope nobody notices you're full of shit.

[mstrofbass]

So you don't have shit, and you're talking out of your ass.

Just say so. There's no need to start bristling and hope nobody notices you're full of shit.

No, you twit. I've already detailed the progression of expanding legal rights for women. In addition, Platus has already shown how marriages used to be:

http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showpost.php?p=104167&postcount=81

So, back to my point...you either agree the laws have shifted towards favoring women or you're wrong.

I suppose if I got bored I could get on Westlaw or LexisNexis, but that's a lot of work to go through to make you look like you have no idea what you're talking about (moreso than I already have).

[PMDL]

No, you twit. I've already detailed the progression of expanding legal rights for women. In addition, Platus has already shown how marriages used to be:

http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showpost.php?p=104167&postcount=81

So, back to my point...you either agree the laws have shifted towards favoring women or you're wrong.

I suppose if I got bored I could get on Westlaw or LexisNexis, but that's a lot of work to go through to make you look like you have no idea what you're talking about (moreso than I already have).

More whining, still no facts.

Let me explain how this works. When you make claim X, you have what's called "burden of proof" to back up X.

"Because you say so" is not a valid premise. "Everybody knows" is not a valid premise.

So yeah, hardass, get on LexisNexis and show me how women's suffrage has directly led to the destruction of marriage as a viable institution.

Otherwise, drop the bullshit. You sound like a whiny closet-case that's pissed off that people were given equal treatment.

For fuck's sake, you didn't even read what Platus wrote; it doesn't support a damn thing you said. You can't even read, but you expect me to take your argument seriously? Get the fuck out of here.

[mstrofbass]

More whining, still no facts.

Let me explain how this works. When you make claim X, you have what's called "burden of proof" to back up X.

"Because you say so" is not a valid premise. "Everybody knows" is not a valid premise.

So yeah, hardass, get on LexisNexis and show me how women's suffrage has directly led to the destruction of marriage as a viable institution.

Otherwise, drop the bullshit. You sound like a whiny closet-case that's pissed off that people were given equal treatment.

For fuck's sake, you didn't even read what Platus wrote; it doesn't support a damn thing you said. You can't even read, but you expect me to take your argument seriously? Get the fuck out of here.
I think you're confusing me with coreJack. I said nothing about women's suffrage. I think you're the person that can't read.

[PMDL]

I think you're confusing me with coreJack. I said nothing about women's suffrage. I think you're the person that can't read.

Goddamn you suck at this:


Either you agree laws have shifted towards favoring women or not. If you don't agree, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Fucking retard.

[mstrofbass]

Goddamn you suck at this:



Fucking retard.

Please bold what I said about women's suffrage. I'm still not seeing it.

[PMDL]

Please bold what I said about women's suffrage. I'm still not seeing it.

If you're not implying that's the case, then you had no business responding to my quote.

It's called "basic reasoning ability". If you respond to me, asking for evidence that women's suffrage led to the ruin of marriage, with 'either you agree or you don't', then the implication is that you're in agreement.

Thinking, it's not this hard.

[TTT]

I like threads where PMDL posts.. always makes them awesome.. are you sure you're not Australian? :D

[PMDL]

I lived in Darwin for 18 months, does that count?

[mstrofbass]

If you're not implying that's the case, then you had no business responding to my quote.

It's called "basic reasoning ability". If you respond to me, asking for evidence that women's suffrage led to the ruin of marriage, with 'either you agree or you don't', then the implication is that you're in agreement.

Thinking, it's not this hard.

No, you're absolutely wrong. I responded to you with a more general premise. This is NOT that hard. It's not my fault that you can't read well enough to distinguish that. Stop trying to draw implications to suit your argument which are not there.

The real implication of my post is this: Women's rights were expanding without the help of their ability to vote. That means, you have to take one of three positions: Women's suffrage either helped, hurt, or had no effect on the expansion of their rights. Taking the position that it had no effect or hurt the expansion of their rights is completely indefensible and against any form of logic or history.

[PMDL]

No, you're absolutely wrong. I responded to you with a more general premise. This is NOT that hard. It's not my fault that you can't read well enough to distinguish that. Stop trying to draw implications to suit your argument which are not there.

You're as shitty a liar as you are a debater.

[mstrofbass]

You're as shitty a liar as you are a debater.

Then let's hear your response to my edit.

[Nauticus]

If any thread in the universe ever deserves a lock, it is this one.

[Kate]

(Deleted some parts of my post.)


Doesn't matter how many squats are done, because wimenz like me can smell that attitude a mile away and run for the hills, much like we can smell confidence a mile away.

+1.


Attraction is mostly based on things no one can control. ....ultimately people are sexually attracted to you based on things about yourself that you cannot alter. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

I disagree, at least to an extent.

First of all, have you looked around much, in public places? "People" are fantastically variable in their preferences; what some are attracted to, others aren't, and vice versa. Do you have any control over whether a specific person is attracted to you? No, but does anyone really expect that?

Second, there are things that one can change about oneself to increase the chances of being considered attractive. Some of these things are physical (take care of yourself, get in shape, blah blah), and some are related to character. Believe it or not, some women do care more about your character than about, say, how much money you make -- especially when it comes to marriage, as opposed to hooking up.

Furthermore, I'd argue (and I'm most certainly hoping) that over time, we can even learn to change who we are attracted to -- again, at least to a certain extent.

I urge you to run, don't walk, to your nearest bookstore and pick up A General Theory of Love, by Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon. Some nifty science, supremely thought-provoking, and exquisitely written.

-Kate

[Kate]

If any thread in the universe ever deserves a lock, it is this one.

Yes. A lock, or an outright deletion.

[TTT]

I lived in Darwin for 18 months, does that count?

that explains your awesomeness :D
although it would have been a highler level of awesomeness had it been in different cities.. but I guess I can include Darwin as Australia.. :D

[PMDL]

The real implication of my post is this: Women's rights were expanding without the help of their ability to vote. That means, you have to take one of three positions: Women's suffrage either helped, hurt, or had no effect on the expansion of their rights. Taking the position that it had no effect or hurt the expansion of their rights is completely indefensible and against any form of logic or history.

You don't even seem to be sure about what you're arguing anymore. It's just a collection of loosely-related points that boil down to muttering about how women got the vote and were given a semblance of legal equality - and how you seriously expect me (or anyone else) to sit here and say that it's okay for women to be treated as second class citizens, to the advantage of males, so that males can have the benefits of marriage.

Sorry, I can't buy that. If that's your stance on the matter, that's fine I guess, but you should expect to take your lumps for it. Your entire argument rests on the notion that things were somehow better when women were second-class citizens, and that things have 'declined' accordingly.

I can buy that the culture's changed, and to those frightened slow-to-adapt types, I'm sure that's a scary thing. Doesn't mean civilization is ending, and it doesn't even mean I should consider it a bad thing.

My ethical values aren't okay with oppressing any group for the advantage of another. If yours are, well, more power to you I guess.

[Weakling]

This is how it usually goes:

Born with looks --> Success --> Confidence

Confidence has nothing to do with attraction; it's a byproduct. I witnessed the most worldy, confident and funny guy get shut down for a Brad Pitt type this weekend.


______________Attractive ____________~Attractive

Confident ______Confident_______________Annoying/Arrogant

~Confident_____ Strong/Silent____________Creepy


There is literature and studies out there that prove this point.

Also:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/sexual-harassment/258532/

[George Noble]

Pish tosh, bitches love it when I tell them how many internet forums I post on.

[Gary Gibson]

This is how it usually goes:

Born with looks --> Success --> Confidence

Confidence has nothing to do with attraction; it's a byproduct. I witnessed the most worldy, confident and funny guy get shut down for a Brad Pitt type this weekend.



I am especially tired of people confusing this particular correlation with causation.

"Get more confident!"

Ha. Guys who have what it takes to get laid/married/whatever end up being confident, not the other way around.

[Rorschach]

It's still more complex than that though, Gary.
Experience helps to build confidence, yes, but isn't a necessity. I've known average looking confident guys pick up girls in high school, and I'm pretty sure they hadn't had much experience in dating.

Insecurity and desperation are a turnoff for most people with standards, ie. most women, and you can at the least cover that up with a healthy coating of Don't Give A Fuck attitude. That's a large part of self-induced confidence.
Of course, too much of that attitude is counter-productive, as you'll be off doing something other than trying to find a date. ;)

[mstrofbass]

and how you seriously expect me (or anyone else) to sit here and say that it's okay for women to be treated as second class citizens, to the advantage of males, so that males can have the benefits of marriage.

Sorry, I can't buy that. If that's your stance on the matter, that's fine I guess, but you should expect to take your lumps for it. Your entire argument rests on the notion that things were somehow better when women were second-class citizens, and that things have 'declined' accordingly.

Where the FUCK did I say ANY of that?

[CThomas]

I think blaming it on the laws is a ridiculous statement. The laws have developed to protect reliance. I'd question your theory that it has to do with women's suffrage...AT ALL. The natural progression of legal history has women gaining more and more rights. After all, up until the 1800's (or 1700's, not sure which) women could not do anything related to law than men could do. They couldn't even bring suits...and all of this spawned from the not-so-old view of wives being the property of their husbands.

So the natural progression has attempted to put them as equals. Now, you may blame this on empowerment of the vaginas. But I completely disagree. Let's go back to your comment, our courts are "courts of equity". This is true, but their courts of law too, and law comes first, then equity.)

The fact of the matter is, providing part of the property paid for by the husband to the woman is completely analogous to almost anything the courts of equity do to protect reliance interests. We've gotten to the point where courts will find exceptions for most anytime someone has justifiably relied on someone else, and justice would not be served by ignoring that.

So, anytime a woman relies on a man to provide for her, it's far from being absurd or unreasonable to force the man to continue to provide for her after a divorce (of course, with reasonable exceptions).

The problem isn't necessarily that the courts favor the women, it's that it favors the SITUATION women get put in when they marry. That's NOT a problem from the baby boomer era, in which a stay-at-home wife was somewhat of an ideal picture, but a problem of today, in which women work more, and can provide for themselves.

So the injustice to men comes from the fact that the court system has not caught up with the fact that women have become more empowered, and closed the gender gap, and have the ability to provide for themselves much more than they did before. The fact that a court would likely default to assuming the woman could not do that, and would not require them to if they could is the REAL problem.

To be fair to mstrofbass, he was the first to call out coreJack on the women's suffrage comment.

PMDL, I think you have him confused with coreJack.

I now know why the CF boards do not allow "politics, religion or sex". I second the delete.

[Weakling]

To be fair to mstrofbass, he was the first to call out coreJack on the women's suffrage comment.

PMDL, I think you have him confused with coreJack.

I now know why the CF boards do not allow "politics, religion or sex". I second the delete.

No sex!?

[CThomas]

No sex!?

Yup. All initiates to the cult take a vow of chastity. Didn't you know?

[mstrofbass]

Yup. All initiates to the cult take a vow of chastity. Didn't you know?

Well, it's not a vow of chastity per se, it's just that women aren't attracted to big, strong men.

[Gary Gibson]

It's still more complex than that though, Gary.
Experience helps to build confidence, yes, but isn't a necessity. I've known average looking confident guys pick up girls in high school, and I'm pretty sure they hadn't had much experience in dating.

Insecurity and desperation are a turnoff for most people with standards, ie. most women, and you can at the least cover that up with a healthy coating of Don't Give A Fuck attitude. That's a large part of self-induced confidence.
Of course, too much of that attitude is counter-productive, as you'll be off doing something other than trying to find a date. ;)

I hear what you're saying, really, but I'm too much of a jaded realist to think things like "confidence" or a "positive attitude" can paper over a lack of ability.

Let's make the picture a little bigger. Confidence can't get 400-lb barbell overhead or get you a PhD in physics or write a good book. Talent and preparation get these things done. Actually accomplishing worthwhile things like these because of talent and preparation will build confidence. Likewise successful sexual or romantic encounters depend on Certain Things and confidence is the byproduct. In the realm of sex and romance, confidence without these Certain Things That Create Attraction comes across as misplaced and annoying.

A lot of the arguments I get when I start these conversations strike me as the attempts of homely, short people trying to convince me and themselves that the universe isn't as harsh as it really is.

But it's really not as bad as all that. While some tall, skinny symmetrical musician is taking home his fifth hot chick from the bar this week or some tubby, rich lawyer is showing off his trophy wife at a trendy restaurant, I have the sweet, sweet comforts of the squat rack and free internet porn.

[PMDL]

Where the FUCK did I say ANY of that?

You know what "logical implications" are?

Turns out shit you say has consequences? News at 11.

[misspelledgeoff]

A very lucid and incisive point.


I hear what you're saying, really, but I'm too much of a jaded realist to think things like "confidence" or a "positive attitude" can paper over a lack of ability.

Let's make the picture a little bigger. Confidence can't get 400-lb barbell overhead or get you a PhD in physics or write a good book. Talent and preparation get these things done. Actually accomplishing worthwhile things like these because of talent and preparation will build confidence. Likewise successful sexual or romantic encounters depend on Certain Things and confidence is the byproduct. In the realm of sex and romance, confidence without these Certain Things That Create Attraction comes across as misplaced and annoying.

A lot of the arguments I get when I start these conversations strike me as the attempts of homely, short people trying to convince me and themselves that the universe isn't as harsh as it really is.

But it's really not as bad as all that. While some tall, skinny symmetrical musician is taking home his fifth hot chick from the bar this week or some tubby, rich lawyer is showing off his trophy wife at a trendy restaurant, I have the sweet, sweet comforts of the squat rack and free internet porn.

[PMDL]

I hear what you're saying, really, but I'm too much of a jaded realist to think things like "confidence" or a "positive attitude" can paper over a lack of ability.

Let's make the picture a little bigger. Confidence can't get 400-lb barbell overhead or get you a PhD in physics or write a good book. Talent and preparation get these things done. Actually accomplishing worthwhile things like these because of talent and preparation will build confidence. Likewise successful sexual or romantic encounters depend on Certain Things and confidence is the byproduct. In the realm of sex and romance, confidence without these Certain Things That Create Attraction comes across as misplaced and annoying.

A lot of the arguments I get when I start these conversations strike me as the attempts of homely, short people trying to convince me and themselves that the universe isn't as harsh as it really is.

But it's really not as bad as all that. While some tall, skinny symmetrical musician is taking home his fifth hot chick from the bar this week or some tubby, rich lawyer is showing off his trophy wife at a trendy restaurant, I have the sweet, sweet comforts of the squat rack and free internet porn.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Gary, I like you, so take this as the well-meaning and tough-love Bro-advice it really is, but:

Get the fuck over yourself. If you're living your life in a cycle of depression that you gussy up as "hard edged realism" (lol), it's no wonder you don't pull any women.

If you set your sights to the 9s and 10s henceforth known as "club sluts", the kind that are attracted exclusively to money and power, then it's no wonder you fail.

But not scoring the "top" babes isn't automatically a sentence to marry some horrible troll that will explode to 250 lbs as soon as you put a ring on her finger, and is always trying to figure out how she can divorce you while fucking you over as hard as the law will allow.

There's a such thing as "middle ground" here, and really this "oh poor me" line just strikes me as pure naivete combined with a large helping of bitterness, resentment, and not a small amount of straight-up depression.

Yeah, there's bad shit in our culture, and yeah, women in broad strokes do bad things. That doesn't mean you can't carve out your own exceptions if you stop smelling your own farts long enough to do something about it.

/rant

[astanto2]

Am I the only one that thinks its funny that "CoreJack's" name has the word "core" in it?

[mstrofbass]

You know what "logical implications" are?

Turns out shit you say has consequences? News at 11.

Show me one goddamn thing that could logically implicate that I think women should be treated as second class citizens.

[Chewie_jrc]

PMDL...time to pump up the Diazepam dosage.

[Gary Gibson]

Oh for fuck's sake.

Gary, I like you, so take this as the well-meaning and tough-love Bro-advice it really is, but:

Get the fuck over yourself. If you're living your life in a cycle of depression that you gussy up as "hard edged realism" (lol), it's no wonder you don't pull any women.

If you set your sights to the 9s and 10s henceforth known as "club sluts", the kind that are attracted exclusively to money and power, then it's no wonder you fail.

But not scoring the "top" babes isn't automatically a sentence to marry some horrible troll that will explode to 250 lbs as soon as you put a ring on her finger, and is always trying to figure out how she can divorce you while fucking you over as hard as the law will allow.

There's a such thing as "middle ground" here, and really this "oh poor me" line just strikes me as pure naivete combined with a large helping of bitterness, resentment, and not a small amount of straight-up depression.

Yeah, there's bad shit in our culture, and yeah, women in broad strokes do bad things. That doesn't mean you can't carve out your own exceptions if you stop smelling your own farts long enough to do something about it.

/rant

I take it in the spirit it was given. Thanks.

I know it comes off as self-pity, but that can't be helped. After all I'm discussing the common reasons for a common failing using myself as an example. Bitter, resentful and depressed: yes, but not naive. I do think I'm a realist. Heh. The majority of humanity really believes that there is an omnipotent sentience responsible for the universe and that this sentience has a very personal and abiding interest in the happiness of each individual. I think life is an absurdity and that biological evolution is a self-reinforcing cycle of countless miseries. The drive to compete for reproduction is a the heart of it all and it's especially painful to us big brained mammalian bipeds with our fancy neocortices so yearning for truth, beauty and meaning.

There I go again. Thanks again for the bro-love, but it's about time I got back to that sweet, sweet black porn.

P.S. On a very happy note, the new bench cycle has started off strong. Squats not so much, but I have high hopes.

[Mr.City]

I hear what you're saying, really, but I'm too much of a jaded realist to think things like "confidence" or a "positive attitude" can paper over a lack of ability.

Let's make the picture a little bigger. Confidence can't get 400-lb barbell overhead or get you a PhD in physics or write a good book. Talent and preparation get these things done. Actually accomplishing worthwhile things like these because of talent and preparation will build confidence. Likewise successful sexual or romantic encounters depend on Certain Things and confidence is the byproduct. In the realm of sex and romance, confidence without these Certain Things That Create Attraction comes across as misplaced and annoying.

A lot of the arguments I get when I start these conversations strike me as the attempts of homely, short people trying to convince me and themselves that the universe isn't as harsh as it really is.

But it's really not as bad as all that. While some tall, skinny symmetrical musician is taking home his fifth hot chick from the bar this week or some tubby, rich lawyer is showing off his trophy wife at a trendy restaurant, I have the sweet, sweet comforts of the squat rack and free internet porn.

We need to go drinking some time, my friend.

[PMDL]

Show me one goddamn thing that could logically implicate that I think women should be treated as second class citizens.

Stop trying to detail-troll since you got your shit ruined. Just admit you were in the wrong and stop this mess. People can fucking read, and you had no business jumping into this argument. You got hammered, so be done with it. Accept your defeat and move on.

[blowdpanis]

I am especially tired of people confusing this particular correlation with causation.

"Get more confident!"

Ha. Guys who have what it takes to get laid/married/whatever end up being confident, not the other way around.

I mean, is the suggestion really that you can't modify your attitude and that this, in turn, can't have an impact on how you are perceived by women/people, or that this perception couldn't actually impact your attractiveness to said people?

Gary, I like you, but this is fucking stupid. Of course your attitude matters, being a miserable prick will not get you pussy, and it is something you have some semblance of control over.

On a practical level, you've really never seen somebody grealty increase their "luck" with women by changing their mindset/approach? I mean...really???

[Mr.City]

Well, blow, as someone whose been there (although haven't we all? har har) it's easier said than done. I"m not denying your point, however it's going to take a lot of will power and maybe some luck to turn things around.

[blowdpanis]

Well, blow, as someone whose been there (although haven't we all? har har) it's easier said than done. I"m not denying your point, however it's going to take a lot of will power and maybe some luck to turn things around.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be very easy for me to think along these lines as I'm presently in quite a dry spell, but I still think it's bullshit excuse making. That we're not overly tall, big-dicked supermodels is obviously out of our control, but in the same sense that you have some measure of control over your muscularity/strength, even if you will never be an IPF or bodybuilding champion, you have some control of the persona you put out there and the approach you use to actually find worthwhile people.

Some control != you're outcompeting Brad Pitt, it just means you're a more attractive version of yourself. This is particularly relevant for dudes, imho, as attraction for women is less strictly physical than it is for men, it's a bit more abstract/generalized, and your behavior has a very real impact on this.

[Gary Gibson]

Behavior influences reactions. I am not arguing that. Whether you speak the same language, the same dialect, your manner of dress, your assertiveness, gentleness, diction, etc, etc all influence how people react to you.

But ATTRACTION is immediate and based on things underneath the actions. That's my argument. There are people who honestly believe that Confidence can overcome lack of attractive features (height, symmetry, wealth of some combination thereof in men). I say that's horseshit.

Now if Brad Pitt goes around punching women in the face at first sight, this sort of Behavior will keep his physical attractiveness, power and wealth from helping him score. But to think that one can use behavior in lieu of some of the Things That Really Count, that is akin to believing you can control the weather or move objects with your mind.

[blowdpanis]

Behavior influences reactions. I am not arguing that. Whether you speak the same language, the same dialect, your manner of dress, your assertiveness, gentleness, diction, etc, etc all influence how people react to you.

But ATTRACTION is immediate and based on things underneath the actions. That's my argument. There are people who honestly believe that Confidence can overcome lack of attractive features (height, symmetry, wealth of some combination thereof in men). I say that's horseshit.

Now if Brad Pitt goes around punching women in the face at first sight, this sort of Behavior will keep his physical attractiveness, power and wealth from helping him score. But to think that one can use behavior in lieu of some of the Things That Really Count, that is akin to believing you can control the weather or move objects with your mind.

You keep making the same strawman of what's being suggested, though. Nobody is suggesting that confidence or, rather, behavioral modification can make you start banging 10's if you're a 5.

It's simply optimizing odds in your favor, affecting those factors actually under your control

I will draw an analogy to our lifting here - we do not have the genetics to be champions in any strength sport. We were not born with that potential. Similarly, we may not have the genetics to pull in the cream of the crop chicks.

However, we have the ability to affect what is under our control to favorly impact both our strength and our odds with women. If you're getting 5's or 6's, the proper behavioral modification might just land you a 7. That might not impress Tall & Great Looking Guy, but for you it's a pretty sweet fucking deal, no?

[PMDL]

Gary you're also making the assumption that attraction is entirely based on physical appearance, and that's not even true for men - there's been plenty of girls that were 9s that I'd assume not be in the same room with because they were so repulsive in personality.

This goes doubly so for women; physical attraction is one variable in the entire package of attraction, but to rule out behaviors as a strong element is missing out on the bigger picture.

[Mr.City]

It's not all bad, Gary. I have damaged flesh when a childhood of morbid obesity, making my stomach look like a deflated balloon. However, I still get laid. Not as much as I like, but I still do. If I can do it, you can do it.

[Gary Gibson]

You keep making the same strawman of what's being suggested, though. Nobody is suggesting that confidence or, rather, behavioral modification can make you start banging 10's if you're a 5.

It's simply optimizing odds in your favor, affecting those factors actually under your control

I will draw an analogy to our lifting here - we do not have the genetics to be champions in any strength sport. We were not born with that potential. Similarly, we may not have the genetics to pull in the cream of the crop chicks.

However, we have the ability to affect what is under our control to favorly impact both our strength and our odds with women. If you're getting 5's or 6's, the proper behavioral modification might just land you a 7. That might not impress Tall & Great Looking Guy, but for you it's a pretty sweet fucking deal, no?


Gary you're also making the assumption that attraction is entirely based on physical appearance, and that's not even true for men - there's been plenty of girls that were 9s that I'd assume not be in the same room with because they were so repulsive in personality.

This goes doubly so for women; physical attraction is one variable in the entire package of attraction, but to rule out behaviors as a strong element is missing out on the bigger picture.

Absolutely true, both.

[Gary Gibson]

It's not all bad, Gary. I have damaged flesh when a childhood of morbid obesity, making my stomach look like a deflated balloon. However, I still get laid. Not as much as I like, but I still do. If I can do it, you can do it.

I am an unpleasant, curmudgeonly, pessimistic, mopey, and sardonic fuck and something of a creepy loner, but I still manage to have sex every great once in a while, thanks.

[applescruffette]

Gary you're also making the assumption that attraction is entirely based on physical appearance, and that's not even true for men - there's been plenty of girls that were 9s that I'd assume not be in the same room with because they were so repulsive in personality.

This goes doubly so for women; physical attraction is one variable in the entire package of attraction, but to rule out behaviors as a strong element is missing out on the bigger picture.

You're so right. Towards the beginning of this thread I said, "A sense of humor is the most powerful attractor for me. That and seeing how he treats elderly people that are not related to him." I got dissed a bit for it, but it's damned true. That's what attracted me to my husband at first, and my attraction to him was spot on. I couldn't have asked for a better person to be married to.

In contrast, I dated one really, really good-looking guy (to my tastes) but was completely turned off when I found out he was charged with a felony. We had dated on and off, and one of the off times was when he did his illegal crap. This makes him only superficially good looking, so to me he is just not good looking any more.

[Mr.City]

I am an unpleasant, curmudgeonly, pessimistic, mopey, and sardonic fuck and something of a creepy loner, but I still manage to have sex every great once in a while, thanks.

With the exception of this thread, you've never come across as these things on the forum. Although, if you don't mind me asking, what truly makes you happy?

[Kostas]

You keep making the same strawman of what's being suggested, though. Nobody is suggesting that confidence or, rather, behavioral modification can make you start banging 10's if you're a 5.

I am a 7, and I have banged a fair amount of 9s and 10s. I have even had 9s and 10s come on to me.

Never ever imagine that you know what makes girls tick, and what they find attractive. They are more weird and complex than we are.

Gary mentioned Brad Pitt. Sure, he has much better chances of banging any particular girl than the average guy would. But so does Gerard Depardieu, and Jean Reno. So does Jack Black. At one point Danny Devito was voted one of the sexiest men n Hollywood! All these guys are pretty fucking ugly, but many girls love 'em...

And before someone claims it is because these are famous, I know more than a few ordinairy guys with ordinairy incomes and ordinairy levels of public exposure who get a lot of action.

Gary if you think that is horseshit, I am sorry. I hope I am right, I hope you are wrong.

[Smiler Grogan]

Fuck. Timed me out. You all missed a scathing life-lesson by a hair. Short version: all of your pre-conceived notions of women AND yourselves have not one sub-atomic particle of substance. Tomorrow you could run into your future wife and none of that shit will ever matter again. Just get out and create some opportunities for life to take place, you impatient angry douchebags!

I have the coolest every how-we-met story that can only be explained as the hand of fate taking hold.
Ladies, if you're in the mood for a happy ending story of romance that validates your hopes and dreams of finding true love, complete with a first kiss under a statue in a square in Budapest on a summer night, a story with a poor country boy soldier who falls in love with a high society girl from the East Coast, well.....I'm your huckleberry. Feel free to swoon lightly into my strong but not too-big arms.....

[Kate]

....I have the sweet, sweet comforts of the squat rack and free internet porn.

...and Internet forums where you can start The War Between The Sexes, round 12,439, when you're bored.

[Kate]

I have the coolest every how-we-met story that can only be explained as the hand of fate taking hold.

Oh, do tell! :)

[Gary Gibson]

...and Internet forums where you can start The War Between The Sexes, round 12,439, when you're bored.

http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss324/austinrhea/Emoticons/popcorn.gif

[Guido]

Fuck. Timed me out. You all missed a scathing life-lesson by a hair. Short version: all of your pre-conceived notions of women AND yourselves have not one sub-atomic particle of substance. Tomorrow you could run into your future wife and none of that shit will ever matter again. Just get out and create some opportunities for life to take place, you impatient angry douchebags!

I have the coolest every how-we-met story that can only be explained as the hand of fate taking hold.
Ladies, if you're in the mood for a happy ending story of romance that validates your hopes and dreams of finding true love, complete with a first kiss under a statue in a square in Budapest on a summer night, a story with a poor country boy soldier who falls in love with a high society girl from the East Coast, well.....I'm your huckleberry. Feel free to swoon lightly into my strong but not too-big arms.....Really cool "how we met" stories aside, I have to agree with this man.

You never really know how or when it's going to happen, but for all but the most pessimistic, curmudgeonly, and despicable human beings, it will. The only thing you can do in the meanwhile is to increase the odds of it happening sooner by improving as many aspects of yourself as possible and engaging in as many experiences as possible. This means trying new things, learning new things, and not spending your nights alone looking at internet porn but rather engaging in social activities in public places where you will at least have the opportunity to meet other people. Make friends, be an all-around good human being, and things will fall into place. That's really the best advice I can give.

[gordonrumble]

In that chart, I'd change 'money/power' for 'social dominance indicators'.

[Gary Gibson]

Really cool "how we met" stories aside, I have to agree with this man.

You never really know how or when it's going to happen, but for all but the most pessimistic, curmudgeonly, and despicable human beings, it will. The only thing you can do in the meanwhile is to increase the odds of it happening sooner by improving as many aspects of yourself as possible and engaging in as many experiences as possible. This means trying new things, learning new things, and not spending your nights alone looking at internet porn but rather engaging in social activities in public places where you will at least have the opportunity to meet other people. Make friends, be an all-around good human being, and things will fall into place. That's really the best advice I can give.

This is exactly how I spent my twenties. Had some fun, especially while I lived in Manhattan. Now I'm looking to move to a corner of a small town where I can maximize my time squatting and consuming pornography and minimize my time mingling.

[Smiler Grogan]

Oh come on, Gary! You're a smart guy. If you're going to get knee-deep in porn, you should at least get into the directing/production end of things and make it profitable and pick up a little loose change on the side.

Or, or, you could realize that now that you're past your twenties, you can, if you so choose, easily mingle with a little higher quality demographic that pays better dividends in just about every way imaginable.

I'm just looking out for you, Gary, I don't want you to turn into a serial killer or anything, although you could probably stand out in that group as having the best squat by far.

[mstrofbass]

Stop trying to detail-troll since you got your shit ruined. Just admit you were in the wrong and stop this mess. People can fucking read, and you had no business jumping into this argument. You got hammered, so be done with it. Accept your defeat and move on.

Of course...you want "records" from someone else that requires outside research, and you can't even show me a quote in the same thread that backs up your claim. Go fucking figure.

Once again, show me ANYTHING I said that could imply I think we should treat women as second class citizens. Put up or shut up.

[PMDL]

Of course...you want "records" from someone else that requires outside research, and you can't even show me a quote in the same thread that backs up your claim. Go fucking figure.

Asking you to back up your woman-hating with real evidence that what you said happened, actually happened, that's not how you conduct any debate, right?

Certainly not.


Once again, show me ANYTHING I said that could imply I think we should treat women as second class citizens. Put up or shut up.Go fuck yourself, idiot. I'm not going 50 rounds with a moron that can't even admit he was wrong.

PS - me telling you to fuck off is not instant "see I won teh thrad!!!" cred for you. I've covered all of this previously, I'm tired of repeating myself, and you're being a slippery dishonest fuckwad.

[mstrofbass]

Asking you to back up your woman-hating with real evidence that what you said happened, actually happened, that's not how you conduct any debate, right?

Certainly not.

Go fuck yourself, idiot. I'm not going 50 rounds with a moron that can't even admit he was wrong.

PS - me telling you to fuck off is not instant "see I won teh thrad!!!" cred for you. I've covered all of this previously, I'm tired of repeating myself, and you're being a slippery dishonest fuckwad.

Don't fucking accuse me of saying things I never said. You don't have to go 50 rounds...all you have to do is quote one thing. I'm not going to let you blatantly insult me and put words in my mouth and get away with it.

If you're going to accuse someone of saying something, with the history of everything being said RIGHT UNDER YOUR FINGERTIPS, have the fucking balls to man up.

[PMDL]

I'll accuse you of what I want, idiot.

[PMDL]

Just for posterity's sake


Oh, imagine this. A bunch of men taking a stereotype about women to its extreme ends, and a woman refusing to acknowledge that there's any truth whatsoever to it.

I DID NOT SEE THIS COMING!

Seriously, Kate, stop taking offense to stereotypes. They're almost always grounded in some truth. Just because you don't fit the stereotype does not mean the stereotype does not fit the general population. I don't think any of the guys here will say that there are no exceptions to the generalizations inherent in the stereotypes. Stop taking it that way just to get pissed off. If you're an exception, the worst thing you can do is pretend like the stereotype is false. Just relish in the fact that you're not one of the types that we hate, and deal with the fact that most girls are.

Shit, misogyny? What misogyny.

Lying fuck.

[Rorschach]

To be fair, there is a difference between hating most women, and thinking they should have fewer rights.
A subtle difference, but an important one. ;)

[mstrofbass]

Shit, misogyny? What misogyny.

Lying fuck.

Holy fuck, you may be the biggest idiot I've ever encountered.

1. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with treating women as second class citizens. Not even a remote implication.

2. You don't even know the definition of the word you're using. Misogyny is the hatred of women. Not the hatred of certain types of women, which is exactly what my comment said.

I mean, you could make the case that hating (a) certain type(s) of women, that don't include all of them is the same as misogyny. But then we have to follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion...if you hate anyone, you hate all of humanity. lolololololol

[mstrofbass]

To be fair, there is a difference between hating most women, and thinking they should have fewer rights.
A subtle difference, but an important one. ;)

There's also a subtle difference between hating women, and hating some types of women. But neither distinction serves his preconceived notions.

[CThomas]

Stop trying to detail-troll since you got your shit ruined. Just admit you were in the wrong and stop this mess. People can fucking read, and you had no business jumping into this argument. You got hammered, so be done with it. Accept your defeat and move on.

Wow.


For those who missed it, let's travel back in time to when it all started:


You've got records to show where a solid voting bloc of women have progressively changed the marriage laws and legal precedents into their favor, right?


Either you agree laws have shifted towards favoring women or not. If you don't agree, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Reading comprehension fail from mstrofbass. PMDL was calling out coreJack on the suffrage comment. mstrofbass focuses on the "laws have changed" bit instead, seemingly missing the thrust of PMDL's post. Don't know why mstrofbass made this post, maybe he was just looking an argument. He certainly got one.

PMDL appears to have short-term memory loss because he thinks mstrofbass is coming from the same place as coreJack, despite mstrofbass being the first person to critique coreJack's suffrage comment:


I think blaming it on the laws is a ridiculous statement. The laws have developed to protect reliance. I'd question your theory that it has to do with women's suffrage...AT ALL. The natural progression of legal history has women gaining more and more rights. After all, up until the 1800's (or 1700's, not sure which) women could not do anything related to law than men could do. They couldn't even bring suits...and all of this spawned from the not-so-old view of wives being the property of their husbands.

...

So, anytime a woman relies on a man to provide for her, it's far from being absurd or unreasonable to force the man to continue to provide for her after a divorce (of course, with reasonable exceptions).

...

So the injustice to men comes from the fact that the court system has not caught up with the fact that women have become more empowered, and closed the gender gap, and have the ability to provide for themselves much more than they did before. The fact that a court would likely default to assuming the woman could not do that, and would not require them to if they could is the REAL problem.


But this is the internet and actually reading and trying to understand what other people have to say is just not worth the time for some people. Cue several pages of PMDL foaming at the mouth in a fit of self-righteous rage, while completely ignoring every attempt by mstrofbass to bring reason back into the debate. Lots of expletives and name-calling, but very little substance.

Now PMDL seems to have actually read mstrofbass's prior posts, and cannot find any evidence of mstrofbass wanting to treat women as second class citizens. So he changes tack and points out that mstrofbass made a sweeping generalisation about women. Not that PMDL feels all women are the stuff dreams are made of:


There are nice women out there, really. But I will concede that the US culture is making them a true rarity. You fellas might do well to start looking at the foreign ladies.

Somebody please give Matt some tranquilizers.

[Chewie_jrc]

Hence why I suggested a healthy dose of Vallum be introduced to this thread.



Also, there is a distinction between the following points:

Women's suffrage changed the dynamics of the relationship we call marriage. Marriage was a patriarchal interaction in which women had few (if any) rights. Women's rights enabled them to be players in this interaction. For example, they could initiate divorce, receive property, etc. This puts men at a disadvantage now that divorce proceedings (in most U.S. states) favor women as far as alimony, child support, visitation/custody rights are concerned. Men no longer have the leverage and can argue that is it an unwise contract to enter in.
Women's suffrage is wrong. Women should still be subservient to men from a civil rights standpoints. They should not be able to vote, own property, or have a say in a relationship.
Somebody arguing the first point doesn't necessarily mean they agree with the second.

Marriage was essnetially a business interaction back in the day, not the Disney/Hollywood fantasy it is painted as today. Women were bartered with and it essnetially allowed those in power (Kings etc.) to have a harem while it was customary for "lesser" men to be tied down to one woman (if you were lucky). Sweet deal for the ruling class, not so much for the lower classes.

Marriage also was used to solidify treaties between nations and also between tribes and families in smaller social structures.

There is also the religious element in religion in several cultures. Let's just not go there....

[GVA-66]

There's also a subtle difference between hating women, and hating some types of women. But neither distinction serves his preconceived notions.


I don't think misogyny is an all or nothing construct. Nothing is ever that black and white; everything is a matter of degree. You are falling back on an all or nothing argument to prove your point. The litmus test is not hating all women, but most; in none of the definitions I've seen of the word is it quantified/qualified as hate of "all" women. If you hate the majority of women than I think that would qualify you as a misogynist.

You did say, "Just relish in the fact that you're not one of the types that we hate, and deal with the fact that most girls are." So by your own admission you hate most girls. I think most reasonable people would consider someone who hates most girls to be misogynistic. They could love their mother, their sisters, some friends, a few other women, but if they hate most girls that is sufficient. You seem to be backpedaling and softening your stance by saying "there's also a subtle difference between hating women, and hating some types of women." You are correct, their is a difference between the two, but it isn't subtle. Hating some types of women is not sufficient to classify one as a misogynist, but hating most women would be sufficient, and again, you originally said "most."

[mstrofbass]

Reading comprehension fail from mstrofbass. PMDL was calling out coreJack on the suffrage comment. mstrofbass focuses on the "laws have changed" bit instead, seemingly missing the thrust of PMDL's post. Don't know why mstrofbass made this post, maybe he was just looking an argument. He certainly got one.

PMDL appears to have short-term memory loss because he thinks mstrofbass is coming from the same place as coreJack, despite mstrofbass being the first person to critique coreJack's suffrage comment:

I *think* I know where I was coming from when I posted that. The crux of coreJack's contention was not about women's suffrage, but that the current marriage laws are unfair to men. The comment about women's suffrage simply gave his historical perspective as to what caused the major shift. This makes, logically, the issue about women's suffrage completely extraneous to the real contention, and so arguing it has absolutely no impact on the real contention of the status of marriage laws.

So, it was not a necessary premise to coreJack's conclusion, and it seemed as if PMDL was attempting to attack it as if proving it wrong would have some impact on the actual issue. My comment was simply attempting to get him to argue something that was relevant to the issue, not an extraneous, historical theory that, negated, would not impact the real issue.

[coreJack]

Also, there is a distinction between the following points:[. . . ]
Thanks Chewie. At least a couple of the people in this thread can read and process what is actually being written.

That's the problem with discussing issues that relate to emotionally charged topics (e.g., in my experience, anything related to feminism) on an internet forum - most of the readers (of both genders) have an emotional response that overwhelms their reading comprehension. Misinterpretations, gross distortions, and demonizing ensue.

[CThomas]

I know what you meant, but honestly the first time I read it I thought you were backing up coreJack's stupid statement. Mind you, I read it again five seconds later and changed my mind. I just think you could have framed it better.

[coreJack]

The crux of coreJack's contention was not about women's suffrage, but that the current marriage laws are unfair to men. The comment about women's suffrage simply gave his historical perspective as to what caused the major shift. This makes, logically, the issue about women's suffrage completely extraneous to the real contention, and so arguing it has absolutely no impact on the real contention of the status of marriage laws.

So, it was not a necessary premise to coreJack's conclusion
Correct.

[mstrofbass]

I don't think misogyny is an all or nothing construct. Nothing is ever that black and white; everything is a matter of degree. You are falling back on an all or nothing argument to prove your point. The litmus test is not hating all women, but most; in none of the definitions I've seen of the word is it quantified/qualified as hate of "all" women. If you hate the majority of women than I think that would qualify you as a misogynist.

You did say, "Just relish in the fact that you're not one of the types that we hate, and deal with the fact that most girls are." So by your own admission you hate most girls. I think most reasonable people would consider someone who hates most girls to be misogynistic. They could love their mother, their sisters, some friends, a few other women, but if they hate most girls that is sufficient. You seem to be backpedaling and softening your stance by saying "there's also a subtle difference between hating women, and hating some types of women." You are correct, their is a difference between the two, but it isn't subtle. Hating some types of women is not sufficient to classify one as a misogynist, but hating most women would be sufficient, and again, you originally said "most."

I will take that. I think the reason I view myself as questionably misogynistic is because, for all intents and purposes, I'm probably classifiable as a misanthrope as well. When I think of someone who is misogynistic, I think of them as singling out women more than other classes. I want to say I think of them as having less rational basis for their "hatred", and it being more extreme (but by a technical definition, this wouldn't fly).

For me, in general, I don't hate women anymore than anyone else. I have found traits, and made generalizations about them that I tend to "hate" on, but no more so than any other class. But, by your comments, I am misogynistic.

[CThomas]

mstrofbass, I admire your reading comprehension, and cannot fault your reasoning. But when I read "women's suffrage" in coreJack's post I didn't bother reading any further. While your grasp of logic and reason is exemplary, failing to acknowledge and distance yourself from a very hurtful statement (coreJack's statement had all the implications Matt accused you of) will get you into hot water if you back up anything else said by that person. When logic and emotion go head-to-head, emotion always wins.

Politics 101.

GVA, hate is a strong word but I would hate to be in a relationship with most women. I would feel the same way about men if I was a woman. Maybe I'm just a misanthrope, but I think it's because I'm so very special.

EDIT: mstrofbass, you beat me to misanthrope, damn you.

[PMDL]

mstrofbass, I admire your reading comprehension, and cannot fault your reasoning. But when I read "women's suffrage" in coreJack's post I didn't bother reading any further. While your grasp of logic and reason is exemplary, failing to acknowledge and distance yourself from a very hurtful statement (coreJack's statement had all the implications Matt accused you of) will get you into hot water if you back up anything else said by that person. When logic and emotion go head-to-head, emotion always wins.

Politics 101.

It's what I said before: by detail-trolling and not explicitly clarifying his position, he lumped himself in the same boat. It's not on me to clarify his intent; if he wasn't in support of that position, he should have said as much instead of butting in.

Then you find the earlier post from him "hating most women" and then trying to further detail-troll his way out from under that, and it's not at all unreasonable to see the connection here - especially given that your bog-standard "-ist" of any stripe isn't actually going to come out and admit he hates blacks/jews/women/whatever else.

It's the ramifications and consequences that matter. If that's not what he meant, so be it. He needs to be (far) more careful with his wording and with his argumentation strategy.

[mstrofbass]

mstrofbass, I admire your reading comprehension, and cannot fault your reasoning. But when I read "women's suffrage" in coreJack's post I didn't bother reading any further. While your grasp of logic and reason is exemplary, failing to acknowledge and distance yourself from a very hurtful statement (coreJack's statement had all the implications Matt accused you of) will get you into hot water if you back up anything else said by that person. When logic and emotion go head-to-head, emotion always wins.

I completely understand the reaction post people had to his statement, I just attempt to look at everything as objectively as possible, and a lot of times people automatically assume anyone with an objective mindset is supporting that view as being "right", or "moral".

This kind of stuff is one of my hobbies, so it doesn't bother me at all. I understand how to play the political game, but unless it has a direct impact on my life (or substantially more than some petty argument on a random internet board will have) I'll typically call it like I see it. It's more entertaining that way.

[mstrofbass]

It's what I said before: by detail-trolling and not explicitly clarifying his position, he lumped himself in the same boat. It's not on me to clarify his intent; if he wasn't in support of that position, he should have said as much instead of butting in.

As you have already been called out on, I explicitly stated I was not in support of that position prior, but I was in support of his conclusion.


Then you find the earlier post from him "hating most women" and then trying to further detail-troll his way out from under that, and it's not at all unreasonable to see the connection here - especially given that your bog-standard "-ist" of any stripe isn't actually going to come out and admit he hates blacks/jews/women/whatever else.

It's the ramifications and consequences that matter. If that's not what he meant, so be it. He needs to be (far) more careful with his wording and with his argumentation strategy.

I can't believe you keep trying to get out of this. You said I thought women should be treated as second class citizens. Taking "hating most women" as me thinking they should be treated as lesser than men is an untenable leap.

[PMDL]

Get out of what? Reading what you wrote? LMAO.

[mstrofbass]

Get out of what? Reading what you wrote? LMAO.

But I never wrote anything that leads to the implication I think women should be second class citizens. *shrugs*

[EJLouis]

WTF? This is the weirdest forum fight I've ever seen.

One second it's a death match, the next it's a misunderstanding of the "Vive la différence. Le me buy the next round." kind.

To be honest, I've followed it from the beginning and didn't know WTF until I read the Cliff Notes from CThomas.

Thanks CThomas. You can do my homework anytime.

[CThomas]

... it's not at all unreasonable to see the connection here...

Well, that depends on your reading comprehension level. If it's fourth grade or lower, then making that connection should be expected. If you claim to have been to university, you should be shot.

If there are ramifications and consequences to what he said, then it is up to you demonstrate those ramifications and consequences. Or, if you're not quite sure, ask him to clarify his position. Politely. The burden of proof usually rests on the accuser, you know.

And I'm not up to speed with internet jargon. Does "detail-trolling" mean the same as "calling on someone to back up their assertions with proof that, if it existed, would be some three clicks away"?

[PMDL]

If there are ramifications and consequences to what he said, then it is up to you demonstrate those ramifications and consequences. Or, if you're not quite sure, ask him to clarify his position. Politely. The burden of proof usually rests on the accuser, you know.

As much as you're trying to be cute with the reading-comprehension insinuations, you really didn't pay very much attention, did you?

That seems to be the going theme here, so I'm not surprised.

[TTT]

Gary is just laughing his man cans off right now..

[Velkku]

Everything is all right until your girl lifts more than you!
RIght?