Not really necessary, but thank you for confirming his post anyway.
And here I thought it was because it was my birthday.
Don’t rush me - I’m thinking!
Regards,
Shodan
What’s more likely?
a) You are the problem.
b) Every single eligible woman is the problem.
If “someone” (surely not the archetypal ‘my friend’ :rolleyes: ) can’t find transactional sex, in 2017, then they’re not looking.
After all, if something is just a resource, then purchasing it is just a matter of entering the market.
Remember: Women first, then destroy the Earth.
In all of your comments on this topic, I don’t get the impression that a partner is something you wish to actually care about, rather than just receive services from.
I’m not going to argue that there are not ‘methods’ by which you can ‘get sex’ - of course there are. But the people who obsess over these 'methods, with only thoughts for their own benefit in the process, and without any mention of giving and caring, are scary assholes.
That an individual who wants sex isn’t getting it is not necessarily a problem at all objectively, not for society or humanity.
Well, I don’t accept your definition of good and bad. So start at a different point.
-
Your definition of “good” is not established.
-
You have established no connection between being good and getting sex
-
There is no problem for society if the only thing that is happening is that you aren’t having sex with the people you want to have sex with.
It’s not a “charge”, there’s nothing wrong with being gay.
And some women aren’t interested in being your sexual conquest, walled off from the rest of your life, and entirely disposable when a different body type walks by? I am shocked. Shocked!
I don’t have a “single sexual resource”, I have a wife. It turns out that women are people, not just the casing a vagina is installed in. They have personalities, interests, the whole deal! Crazy, I know.
Well, she got me to use dryer sheets, and close the shower curtain behind me so it doesn’t mildew. You got me there.
Like I’ve been saying: if you’re only interested in pickups, expect a lot of women not to show you any interest.
There’s zero hypocrisy in my marriage. I’ve never told anyone else not to flirt with women, date, get married, or have sex. I welcome others to do as I say, and as I do.
BTW, you are not in a position to judge your own affect.
The thing about open relationships is that you need to have a lot of trust and mutual respect for them to work. The attitudes you’ve described in this thread paint you as someone with very little respect for women - that whole, “Woman can’t have moral agency” thing is going to be a huge barrier between you and the sort of relationships you want to have.
Again, sex isn’t a resource, and thinking about sex in such a transactional way is going to be another barrier between you and the sort of relationships you want to have.
But in terms of what I did to make myself more attractive to other people? Lots of stuff. Most of it around making myself a better, happier, and more emotionally secure person. I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 27 or 28. This wasn’t because “women are bitches,” it was because I was insecure, anti-social, and didn’t really like myself too much. I worked hard on those issues - not so I could get laid, but just so I would be a better, happier person - and found that after doing that for myself, a lot of people (not just women) started to view me as a desirable partner.
All of my relationships with women have been explicitly casual. They started with a stated goal of friendship and physical intimacy, with a clear understanding that the relationship would not progress past that to any sort of long-term, permanent pair bond such as marriage. I’m also a polyamorist, and am currently dating a woman who is also a polyamorist. We would both regard any sign of sexual jealousy from the other person as an instant deal breaker.
Now, the women I’ve dated have certainly been outliers, in terms of their attitudes towards monogamy and long term relationships. But I only need one counter-example to disprove your, “All women…” generalizations. And I’ve got significantly more than one counter example.
Whoops, wrong thread!
Move along, nothing to see here!
Dahmer and Kemper were keepers too. They solved the smell problem with refrigeration.
Just because they are hitting you does not mean that they are gay. They are probably assaulting you because you smell of what you are physically or psychologically keeping. If you won’t seek psychological or psychiatric care, the least you can do is use refrigeration.
You have a long way to go. Seek professional help.
Learn to respect people regardless of their sex or their sexual orientation. Learn about what being a human is about. Stop shitting on women.
Human Action, I know there’s nothing wrong with being gay… the implication is that I’m a repressed homosexual because I refuse to use approach escalation (making an initial move in the sequence that implies sexuality in a gender dimorphic population when it’s hypocritical for a male to do) - you were telling me that because I’m not a hypocrite; that I must be gay, instead of men who use approach escalation being hypocrites (the definition of asshole).
Some men and women cannot have sex; or orgasms… those are resources that they don’t have; biological resources. They try to acquire these resources by finding scientists to stimulate their spinal cord so they can experience them. If they aren’t resources, they can’t even try to get them, let alone, ever actually get them. To experience something, implies that it’s a resource; that you either do or do not want. The methods that facilitate them are also resources, that you either do or do not want. The subject is the theory of consciousness of others that develops with time; who are distinct and different from us, some people don’t get very far in theory of consciousness. Some get very far.
So… you’re upset you aren’t getting any vagina despite trying to be what you view as non-hypocritical? Have you perhaps considered that you might be wrong?
In other words, by saying women are not “accountable” you’re declaring that women are not moral agents and therefore not actual people. Neither are gay men, apparently, in your warped universe. Only heterosexual men are capable of being good in your world (even if you think most aren’t) therefore everyone else is bad/evil.
I eagerly await the moment someone invites you to the Pit.
How is approaching women hypocritical, again? Are you under the impression that men tell women not to approach men, or what?
(And no, “hypocrite” isn’t the definition of “asshole”. Two distinct ideas, there).
“Must be” gay? No. Something you should think about? Yes. “Men who approach women are assholes” is about one step up from “Vaginas have teeth in them” for flimsy pretexts to avoid women. In this case, however, it’s probably better explained by your misogyny.
I think we already had this conversation three years ago, though.
Considering that you don’t seem to grasp that women are people, nor express a desire for anything but your own gratification, you might want to work a little harder on that last part.
It’s not about capability; it’s about requirement. If men complain that only assholes get sex, or get the most women, or the most sexual choice; then, in order to not be a hypocrite; they are necessarily accountable for the concept “Good”, which opens up a huge can of worms! Women and gays don’t have this complaint or observation, and certainly not to the magnitude heterosexuals men do; so they don’t have the same degree of accountability; it’s not a complaint in their populations.
I’m not saying women can’t be good people or gays can’t be good people… I’m saying that they don’t have the same pressure, constant and intense, ever-present, that heterosexual men have to this regard… it’s not a requirement in the same capacity; a woman is not a hypocrite for being a hypocrite, because if a heterosexual man is an asshole to her, he becomes the thing he hates; the asshole who got laid. There is a double standard; women aren’t under a moral obligation to accept it, men, by necessity, are. This doesn’t mean women can’t strive for it, it simply means that they aren’t allowed to be punished like men are for being in any way, a hypocrite, because that would make the man a hypocrite.
That’s a bit harsh. I think it’s more that everyone else is an object, to be acted upon by hetero men. Remember, this guy believes that the only moral question that exists is which men have sex with the most women:
Are you now claiming that women are essentially date-raping men? Oh, poor men, helpless slaves of their sex drives!
Are you a member of an incel group, perchance?
Respected by who? YOU? Why would they want the respect of someone who doesn’t consider them a moral agent, accountable, or fully human?
Still sounds to me like you’re pisssed off you’re not getting any. You’ve formulated this world-view that it’s all the fault of women, even if you say they’re not moral agents.
Again-
- women are automatons, all alike, no differences, that is, not individuals (not humans)
- the only important thing about women is that they have sex with men
- wah-wah-wah I’m not getting any even though I’m a nice person! The problem must be THEM not ME!
What about men who don’t complain that “only assholes get sex?”
You know, like most men don’t?
Forest Green - what are you prepared to unconditionally give to a woman?
Not ‘do, in order to get’, not ‘give, in order to [anything]’.
Give. What are you prepared to give, without any specific agenda?