One thing worth noting, both in this thread and the one from 2014, is that you seldom or never refer to sex in the context of a relationship. You write about wanting to have sex with different body types, and the strategies of hitting on women, but never about dating, or the non-sexual aspects of a relationship with a woman.
In other words, it sounds like you’re only interested in casual pickups, and are frustrated that this is difficult.
Have you considering attempting a relationship with a woman, and not just sex?
In my experience, yes. If you’re regularly attempting to find an intimate partner, and are being consistently rejected, there’s a reason for that. And that reason is much more likely to exist in the person being rejected, then in fully one half of the entire human species.
No. There is no “stratification issue,” in either the heterosexual population or the homosexual population.
When I speak about the stratification of number of partners; the implication is more variety of bodies and personalities; women experience this more than men do, they appreciate it; but don’t reciprocate it to the male population.
As for the charge of hypocrisy; I can explain this all I want; I have a moral imperative to explain this, in order to not be the asshole through omission. I was much angrier about it in the past; now, I direct my anger – really just frustration at this point, towards facilitating a different universal structure that is the result of not wanting to be a hypocrite to get something good out of life.
I’m certain that you used methods that represent approach escalation in speech; or context of behavior; to suggest making the first move, in order to elicit that approach. I don’t do this; because it violates approach escalation hypocrisy in a gender dimorphic population. You can always use contradiction and conspicuous consumption to get females to approach you… men do that all the time. In this instance, however, the man approached first.
Or that, sure. Refusing to approach women, on the flimsy pretext that it’s immoral to do so, could well be a cover for suppressed homosexuality.
Just understand that if you only desire casual hookups, you’re limited to a much smaller pool of women than if you’re looking for a relationship.
55% of American adults are married. Another 26% are in a committed relationship. This is where most sex is happening, between people in a relationship.
The world of bar hookups, or wherever you’ve made these observations, is not the alpha and omega of sexual relationships, it’s a small sliver.
I don’t know what “approach escalation” means, so I can’t say if I used it or not. You still haven’t provided a useful definition of that term. Most of the women I’ve had relationships with have been significantly more financially secure than I was at the time of the relationship. At any rate, my “conspicuous consumption” tends to mainly be about buying comic books and video games, which have not (in my experience) been particularly useful in impressing girls. Mostly, they seemed to like me because I treated them like people, not like sex-dispensing vending machines.
I’m not repressed homosexual. That is a charge to deflect the point I’m making. In the context of gay men, they often tell me, if only you were gay, you’d be the perfect man.
I have relationships; my ideal is keeping relationships and having other sexual ones and keeping those —
The question I want you to ask yourself, in terms of what you call “committed relationships” what did you have to do to secure a single sexual resource?
Are you offended? “No, not me! I didn’t modulate my behavior just to secure any sexual resource! I don’t even think that way!”
BS! Women “smell” the proclivity to marry and sexual jealousy on a man… they can tell by speech and affect whether you have hypocritical orientation. If they don’t detect it, they will not approach. I don’t do anything weird or wrong, I don’t rattle on about this stuff in public. I have normal conversations with people… joking and stuff like that (I have been more agitated at times), but the signals of this type of psychology doesn’t pervade my affect.
My substantive earlier reply having been evidently ignored by the OP, I shall proceed to a less polite question than I might previously have withheld out of common courtesy:
Why should we care whether or not “non-hypocrite” heterosexual men have sexual access or not?
Seriously. I mean, really think about it. Imagine Dan Rather drawling it to you via the medium of a televised political debate - “Senator, you’ve been accused before by your political opponents that you downplay incidents of hypocrite men getting laid. How do you respond to such charges?”
[QUOTE=Forest Green]
I don’t do anything weird or wrong, I don’t rattle on about this stuff in public. I have normal conversations with people… joking and stuff like that (I have been more agitated at times), but the signals of this type of psychology doesn’t pervade my affect.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting, women aren’t objects? But if you want sex and don’t get it from them, the only problem is you – as if they don’t exist? You accuse me of objectifying people entirely, as was picked up by the quoting of my saying “what they’ll have sex with” - people in the present are nothing more than their present and past behaviors; which are “what’s”, who would you have sex with, is also a matter of what you’d have sex with.
Some people have married walls on streets… literally. To that person, as an animist, that wall is a who, and they are deeply in love with it - have sex with it etc… it is also a what; it is distinct; otherwise they couldn’t marry it. I don’t think marrying a wall is sexual dysfunction, or marrying a car as other people have…
Getting into the who/what distinction is still a matter of avoiding the overarching point - is the behavior that doesn’t facilitate sex, when someone wants it, bad by definition; given that there is more than one person involved, and the behavior that gets it, good by definition?
What I’m getting at is that good and bad are only measured by hypocrisy and contradiction; otherwise we can’t even communicate in this thread. If someone is good at this; thus good, and can’t find sex, is it really the case that they are the ones with the problem?
