““Justhink, I do define it beforehand. I define every major ‘need’ I am going to have before I sleep with anyone so that noone is surprised.””
That sounds like a LOT of game just to get there.
““A car is not one of those things. A monogamous and commited relationship is.””
Good for you, this however is not a commitment any reasonable male would make (and you happen to be a large majority in terms of women on this point). If the male is 15, this promise is pointless; if they never disingenuously conceed to this rediculous promise, they will most likely not recieve sex unless they fork over cold hard cash for it; the years do go by…
Next thing you know; you’re a 30 year old honest male who hasn’t been laid (just because they had the integrity and wisdom to reailze that this promise is not practical from a young age, and consiquently (having had no experience) in which to judge, even more illogical at older ages. The guys mentioned above won’t even make it through your radar in the first place to recieve the altimatum; so it’s not particularly relevant (one does generally seek to find someone stupid enough to asnwer in the positive a demand that they make on a persons entire life.).
""Companionship is NOT implied in the act of sex. A companion requires more than someone moaning in your ear and leaving you in the wet spot - at least, for most of us. “”
Companion has a pretty neutral connotation; as in: someone or multiple someones in proximity. I have “company” over doesn’t even suggest you particularly like them, nor does the sentiment that you have someone to keep you company… it connotates YOUR need or feelings of obligation, more than their need or sense of duty.
“”“but I know plenty of folks who get laid after such events, so I’m guessing that someone, somewhere gets something out of it. Pleasure, perhaps!”""
Drugs, peak experiences burned in the brain from drug use, logical consistancy malfunction resultant from drug use…
If you use drugs or deal drugs, this entire situation becomes wholly different - you’ll recieve quite a bit of sex just from being a drug user.
Non-drugged dancing? The environment is so professional that those who don’t already have life-partners are at least ‘commitedly dating someone’; or probably sociopathic (as in singles folk dancing etc…)
““A coworker looking over my shoulder seems to think that perhaps you’ve never been in love. And likely never had sex with a good woman. But I digress I do, however, think your responses are needlessly wordy and pedantic and that you’re far from making your point with them. Not everyone is going to fit your definitions.””
I believe in less efficient, more efficient
less consistant, more consistant
My experience in life, without fail, is that more efficient always equals less consistant. I always default to: more consistant.
Consistancy defined from the axiom: “It is more logical to commit suicide than to:”
Often the answer that pops in my head in regards to women is:
It is more logical to commit suicide, than to simulate a behavior that they would appreciate; even if it were the behavior you might engage in, were your intent of sex not a consideration.
However, since your intent is in consideration!; one must weigh the thought that the act is not consentual on the womans behalf, should it come to arise (even though with a higher cognitive age, they might appreciate the manipulation of their indentured system to force action against their current will. Ultimately though, it is arrogant and presumtuous to risk that a woman might agree with your opinion of “what they will appreciate when they become older”.) The first way, is to aquire their definitions of terms and determine their cognitive age (the transparent act of which totally negates the resource virtually all women require for sex). The way one observes this is by comparing their smiles and laughter against words and phrases from others or themselves, that require suicide logically to preceed speaking them. If they appreciate these types of corruptions of logic with lightheartedness, and thus proceed to engage with them, then it has become evident that they possess an exceptionally young cognition. Thus, the entire basis for implicit trust has been divided through a non-peer territory; and the advantage is a perverse pedefilia akin to the negation of ones very existence.
“Love” is player language; it ultimately creates non-transparency, and trust violation. The word means nothing; either spoken against or spoken for. It is like calling an atheist a religous person for saying God doesn’t exist. Words like attatchment (axioms and conditions must be provided), momentary appreciation (axioms and conditions must be provided) – make sense to me shrug.
I’m not the only nice guy who doesn’t get any…
I can’t assert this enough on behalf of ‘nice’ guys… every thing that males are using to achieve sexual reward are weapons clearly laying upon the floor, to which nice guys predict their pick up with astonishing accuracy, and will not pick up themselves.
It’s not a matter of ability once sex occurs (something worthy of being judged upon for the sake of sex itself); but rather ones ability to completely massacre other human beings, based on a lack of knowledge they possess; in which to force the sexual situation in the first place. Females are horrendously infamous for choosing the person who has determined through their words and actions; that they are least deserving of the life they have - for all acts given to them are from illusion.
Back to the OP - sooooo… it’s quite reaonable that guys choose prostitutes =)
-Justhink
I do, however, think your responses are needlessly wordy and pedantic and that you’re far from making your point with them. Not everyone is going to fit your definitions.
and covers a myriad of other terms, including attachment and momentary appreciation (doesn’t his ass look nice today? Yes indeed.)
) and frankly although they’re fun, they get mind-numbing pretty quickly.