Quite often, since I’m male.
I once got set up to go out on a blind date by a co-worker, it was proposed to me as “My friend is coming to town and I would like you to take her out and show her around…”
Being the nice guy that I am I agreed and was pleasantly surprised when the friend turned out to be a bombshell, tall… blonde… curvy… most guys wet dream. She also happened to be annoying as hell and as dumb as a stick.
The hours we spent together were some of the longest I have ever had to endure.
When the night was coming to a close she made it quite clear that she wanted to get “recreational” with me, she seemed pretty shocked when I declined as I believe there weren’t many men who would have said no to having sex with this amazon.
Funny thing was, every time she came back to town she wanted to see me… unfortunately for her I was always busy.
I just wanted to re-iterate:
I don’t believe that men appreciate the qualities that females ‘reward’ with sex. From ‘players’ to the ‘not-getting-any’, men recognize female attraction as shallow and hypocritical; they never actually pick the males that represent what they talk about all the time as desiring. The males that males most enjoy as human beings are the ones least rewarded by females with sex. I have never disliked a person in my entire life. I’m sure if I started to corrupt my understanding of people and force myself to have opinions of ignorance, dissolving my compassion, I’d be much more sexually visible in the way that females select males.
Females create selective dynamics (by the nature of what this very question implies); that illustrate a lack of cognitive depth. ‘Hating’ someone is basically a cognitive luxury of ignorance. The qualities associated with it: gossip, critisism and story telling are the qualities that females attach sexual ‘rewards’ with. Males fundamentally understand as a group that females reward ‘bullshit’ with sex. The males most respected in male peer groups do not possess these qualities; as a result, there is a fundamental undertone of recognition that females do not select based what they proport to represent, and that their personalities represent counter-intelligence moreso than honesty and recognition of truth. That’s why you’ll hear players go on and on and on about how stupid women are… , simply by having the comparison of males who embody the more fundamentally human qualities of personality and integrity, and watching them get de-selected over and over and over again. This dynamic is very obvious to males. The result is a narrowing of the sexual field on the male end - it’s the same ‘idiots’ over and over again whom the females flock to before they settle down - leaving scores of sexually frustrated males without validation for embodying the path of greater integrity. While the personality thing is a noble cause indeed, take a step back and look what it selects… it ultimately selects an extremely narrow field of males who exhibit the most superficial aspects of personality (the ones that are very easy to spot and create). That this selection process is so convincingly rewarded by females; it re-enforces many males to emulate these most shallow qualities of personality in hopes of actually being able to have sex. There is nothing more bitter tasting to a male than the statement: “no games”. It’s like: “Oh, now, after all your fun, now you want a guy who doesn’t play games, well check out this middle finger sweetie…” What makes the statement even more ironic is that ‘gamers’ are still the ones that get selected. Females look like idiots to males in this regard. The whole ‘personality’, ‘like-dislike’ thing is a joke to males; who observe with astonishing consistancy females select these based on logical inconsistancy, which fundamentally makes them look ‘stupid’.
-Justhink