Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: getting increasingly irritable with my gf
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 86 (view)
getting increasingly irritable with my gf
Posted: 3/19/2010 12:12:46 PM

Toots, given your reposts, consider this long and hard. Obviously we are getting your side of the story but if she regularly gets in a snit about things and then does the passive aggressive silent treatment, blows things out of proportion, etc. you are going to be dragging dead weight plus the kids through a marriage unless you get all of this shit out in the open and solved before she walks down the aisle.

Even if your behavior caught her half asleep and made her feel like nothing but a vajayjay, you made an attempt to make up or at least not leave things with the incident potentially eating at you both all day and she was pouting.

UH- sounds to me like he's the one who was blowing things out of proportion and pouting. He doesn't get morning sex on demand after screwing twice a day for a week and he gets all butthurt and comes onto POF to **** about it?

OP, I'd get out of the relationship, and not because she has a problem. If you let something like that get you all bent out of shape, I can't imagine how you're going to deal with the harsh reality of having a family. Throw a more years plus a couple of kids into the mix and you're going to long for the days when this was your biggest problem.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 15 (view)
Buying an x box while on a date-acceptable or red flag?
Posted: 3/1/2010 11:43:52 AM
If he was really into you I doubt that would turn him off completely. Probably the chemistry just wasn't there for him. But for future reference I do think it was kind of rude. You were there to get to know this guy, not to drag him along while you run your personal errands.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 143 (view)
She has AIDs and is on POF. Is this the end of dating ?
Posted: 3/1/2010 8:07:13 AM

Just think. At least she told you. What about all the other people you've met and slept with, who didn't tell you, or who didn't know?

Exactly. OP, did you miss sex ed 101? How clueless are you? Are you not aware of the large percentage of people that have STDs? You ought to be thanking your lucky stars that she told you. Maybe you ought to think a little more realistically about the risks you take everytime you sleep with someone.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 167 (view)
Do you ever get bored with dating, sex, and everything else?
Posted: 2/24/2010 12:00:13 PM
I usually only go out with/meet people that I find interesting, so I'm not bored with it.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 81 (view)
Attempt to dispel the three day calling after 1st meet myth
Posted: 2/24/2010 8:51:20 AM
It all depends on context. I actually think it's a good practice, SO LONG AS your interest has been made known at the end of the first meeting and some solid intention of getting together again was made. In that case, two or three days is good, it gives me a chance to build anticipation, lets me know he has a life and is not going to come on too strong, and makes me wonder a little.

However, if it wasn't established that he was interested in meeting again after the first time, and THEN he waited three days before I heard anything from him, I'd think he was rude and would have lost interest by that time. If you don't establish that you're interested at the first meeting, you need to follow up sooner, like later that day or the next, with a text or something. You've got to let her know you're interested, but not overly eager.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 149 (view)
The email Test women are using
Posted: 2/24/2010 7:47:03 AM
You're both immature losers, and probably deserve each other.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 194 (view)
Woman and UFC
Posted: 2/18/2010 8:36:17 AM
I personally can't stomach it - I find it sickening. But people, both men and women, have had a thirst to see violence throughout history.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 96 (view)
Asking for a woman's hand in marriage
Posted: 2/17/2010 12:13:17 PM
If I ever get married, I would hope that my future husband would ask my parents/father for their blessing first. I think it shows class and respect for the family.I would be dissappointed if he did not. My family's opinion and blessing of a mate are very important to me. It's more of a gesture, it's not as if they are actually asking for permission or for the decision to be made for you.

The father was traditionally the head of the household, though with so many broken families these days that's becoming a rare phenomenon.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 20 (view)
Just want to be platonic friends
Posted: 2/9/2010 8:32:24 AM

Keeping her as a potential wingwome is just a bonus.

Give it up. Even if she's not interested in you at ALL, it would be a no-no for her friends to take you up on your interest when you knew her first. For one, they might think one or the other of you is interested even if you're not admitting it, two, it might make the friend feel bad if you weren't interested in her but you were in her friends. Even if she said she didn't care she might be resentful/jealous deep down. Three, it would put everyone in an awkward position if and when things fizzle out. Just...No.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 7 (view)
How do I act the next time we hang out?
Posted: 2/9/2010 8:09:35 AM
She's definitely giving you signals. I wouldn't kiss her right away, but I'd try being more 'touchy-feely' throughout the date and see how she reacts. You know, put your hand on her back and let it linger, etc. If she smiles/giggles/keeps eye contact you've got the go-ahead for another kiss later. It would be very smart and impressive to keep alcohol out of the situation or at least to a minimum, so you both know it's not just the booze talking.

If she keeps smiling and showing interest, then ask her if she wants to do something again over her vacation. Don't sweat v-day yet, you've gotta see how things go first. If everything is moving ahead, then yeah you need to take her out and/or do something for it. BUt first things first! Good luck!
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 36 (view)
I changed my profile again.
Posted: 2/5/2010 8:47:44 AM
It is not possible to weed out every person with a quality that you dislike from a profile. And you have NOT taken most of the suggestions that I've seen on say you don't want to scare good girls away, yet haven't changed your profile picture that many have told you is scary as hell. I suggested you whittle down your focus on the lack of money, and you ADDED to it. I don't think you really want advice.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 30 (view)
I changed my profile again.
Posted: 2/3/2010 10:47:12 AM
Ditto on the scary pics. You need some where you look like a human being and not a bodyguard. I guarantee pics of you smiling do not look goofy, what's goofy is the pic with your PHONE NUMBER posted at the top saying "call me". Sorry, but that is over the top cheesy and I'd have to wonder why ANYONE would post their phone number openly on the internet like that. Weird.

Also, I'd nix the "product expectations" section. Shining a spotlight on how 'poor' you are is going to eliminate a lot of women. Sorry, but it's the truth. Wanting someone who can afford basic needs (like the electrice bill) is not being a gold digger, and your focus on the subject would make me think that you have major issues with finances. Not a selling point at all. If it's extremely important to you for women to immediately know you don't have much money, a simple sentence like "I'm not rich but I can give you lots of things money can't buy" or something along those lines would suffice. Also calling women 'whores' is not attractive.

In general, I'd try to shorten it up a bit. It's pretty long.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
Is my profile fake & ghey?
Posted: 2/3/2010 10:09:58 AM
It looks great to me. You sound cool. Good job. Some info about what type of girls you like would be a good addition too.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
Posted: 2/2/2010 2:52:50 PM
I didn't read your prof. either;to be blunt the post was enough for me. Whiny babies are *not* attractive to anyone, especially women.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
Please make me feel like crap, 24/M
Posted: 2/2/2010 2:50:04 PM
Not sure what it said before, but I see nothing humorous in your profile right now at all, which is a shame, because I can tell you're funny by your first post on here. : ) It's fine but a little yawn-inducing; I'd try to show more of your personality through it.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
Posted: 2/2/2010 11:59:32 AM
You need a few more pictures. Also some info about what you look for in a girl would provide more insight into what kind of person you are.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
To the Women out there
Posted: 2/2/2010 11:55:42 AM
Your profile and your emails are both boring. The emails need to be more specific about why you are interested in them. "Nice smile" doesn't cut it. Show them you really read what they wrote and/or find something unique or interesting about their look in particular that makes them feel special and not generic. Also, don't ask someone to dinner before you've established some rapport and interest. Seems desperate and presumptuous.

As for your profile, it's dull and cliche. Surely there is more to you than liking walks on the beach and watching movies? You're not going to spark someone's interest with that. Show some wit, a sense of humor, or something unique about yourself and your interests so that you stand out. Right now you sound generic. Sorry to be blunt, but I hope this helps.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 72 (view)
Are introverts only attracted to introverts?
Posted: 12/27/2009 12:16:50 PM
According to the Myers-Briggs, introverts are best suited to be with extroverts in relationships. I'm an introvert, and I wouldn't want to be with another introvert. I need someone to balance me out.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
Broke it off b/c she wants to work at hooters or waitress at strip club?
Posted: 12/18/2009 12:45:53 PM
Why on earth would you need someone else's opinion on whether your choice was 'right' or 'wrong'? The only one who could possibly know that is you. If you made the right decision, you feel good. If you made the wrong one, you probably feel bad. It's that simple.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 384 (view)
Posted: 12/16/2009 11:59:01 AM
Imo I feel as though society makes it seem as though women are the only desirable gender they make it seem as though women have the power to chose more than the man, and as though women are the ones of value....

In almost every species, it is the female that SELECTS and the males that compete. It's called sexual selection. It's not 'society' unless you think that cardinals and peacocks are influenced by our social mores.

Men can live without women whether women believe it or not, and I know women think they can live without men, and maybe very few can, but I think women need men alot more than men need women..... So Women should definately also be pursuing men just as well..

By your assertion that women DON'T pursue, you disprove your own hypothesis that women need men more than men need women.

If you don't like pursuing, why don't you just NOT pursue, rather than wishing that OTHERS would change to suit your preferences?
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 118 (view)
Says we are not dating yet we are taking it slow.
Posted: 12/10/2009 9:16:46 AM
I - being XO - have not experienced an emotional reaction. Again....this was someone else's analysis - and that person is a MALE. Not me.

I don't experience emotion about debate.

Well, you sure fooled me. The tone of your posts is angry, judgmental, accusatory, and venomous. Addressing someone in a derogatory manner usually stems from some emotion. If you had no emotion surrounding your exchange, the tone of your language would be impartial, IMO.

made NO assumptions or presumptions.

And I do not HAVE TO BE NICE to total strangers just because they were stupid enough to have sex too young and to get knocked up and give birth.

You don't like being young, single and pregnant? Smarten up.
It's not my problem and I'm not obligated morally or ethically to care.

These sure sound like assumptions to me. Where did Kathy ever indicate that she disliked being young, single, and a mother? Where did she ever indicate that her choice to have her son was 'stupid'? In fact, I didn't see any indication in any of her posts that she is unhappy with her life. Those are YOUR presumptions. Which leads me to think they are projections.

As to knowing what Miss Kathy thinks when she looks at her do you know Mysti?

Me thinks you've presumed far more than anyone else in this topic.

Of course I don't "KNOW" for sure (and did not claim to), but I don't see any indication that Kathy resents being a mom or doesn't want her son. MOST normal people love their children, and, even when they are born in less than ideal circumstances, don't consider them a 'stupid' mistake.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 639 (view)
Women want commitment but he is upfront that it is not going to happen
Posted: 12/8/2009 2:28:02 PM

Women are hopeless romantics just as they are hopeless shoppers. They have been conditioned to believe that a long-term commitment such as marriage is their salvation. Salvation from what??? From their own self-pitty or self-loathing. They feel that the only way they can truly value themselves and life is if they can get a worthy man's approval by him wanting to stick around with her to infinity. LUDICROUS! They need to resolve this void they carry collectively and stop placing so much unnecessary pressure on men. Ironically, this is when we will start having some really long lasting connections because we will start to really get along...

One needs to take into the account that women have a much shorter biological window during which they can have healthy children. So, if a woman wants kids and a family (and many, if not most, do) then they do have a limited amount of time to attain that. I think this is where the perceived 'pressure' comes in. I don't think it makes someone self-loathing or self-pittying or in need of 'salvation' just because they want what most people consider the most important thing in life - a family.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 94 (view)
I had 3 drinks, she had 7
Posted: 12/8/2009 12:28:07 PM
I have to praise you for being a gentleman. A lot of guys would have either tried to take advantage of her, or blown her off right away as a waste case. I think that shows great character on your part. Maybe she was just nervous and got carried away. Good luck.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 625 (view)
On both sides of the ball......
Posted: 12/8/2009 12:09:50 PM

No one is attempting to break love down into rational terms.
No is is asking for reasons "why" someone loves someone else.

The question being asked is "what does marriage bring that non-marriage can't.

I gave my answer as to what it would bring for me that non-marriage couldn't. And apparently my answer was invalid because it was about my feelings rather than something 'objective'. This is the same place I end up in discussions with a few posters over and over again. Apparently if your reason is the way something makes you feel, it's somehow inadequate. Which makes no sense to me since we're talking about love and relationships, a subjective realm.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 88 (view)
Says we are not dating yet we are taking it slow.
Posted: 12/8/2009 10:09:00 AM

I also believe that XOthermic's rant is out of frustration that you can't see what seems the clear and right path.

How the hell could XOthermic know what is the 'clear and right path' for a total stranger? Why would XOthermic have an emotional reaction toward someone she doesn't even know? Her 'frustration' has to do with herself and whatever it is she's projecting onto Kathy. Her assumptions and presumptions are totally out of bounds.

People learn by experience and everyone's path is different. XOthermic might that Kathy getting 'knocked up' young is a terrible and tragic mistake for which she should be ashamed. But I doubt Kathy feels it was a 'mistake' when she looks at her beautiful son. Her family life, finances, and her past are none of your business. She asked for advice on a specific situation.While I think 'tough love' and straight talk definitely has it's function, I don't think that it's a total stranger's place to try and tell someone else the 'right' way to live their life. Why don't you worry about your own life before trying to fix someone else's?
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 605 (view)
On both sides of the ball......
Posted: 12/7/2009 12:52:31 PM

Why do women, see this as such a threat, that they would post what they did?

My guess is, they have dated a man like this in the past, had a similiar experience as the women he's dated...and are projecting their emotions about their experience onto this guy. I don't see that it's necessarily viewed as threatening.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 62 (view)
Says we are not dating yet we are taking it slow.
Posted: 12/7/2009 12:45:48 PM

Kathy, don't take it personal. Your young, happy, and very good looking.
Those 3 things alone are the reason people are unable to reply to your question.
Then once you top it off with having a person in your life, it makes it too much for some to handle.

You will be just fine, and all this will work out the way it's supposed to.
So don't let the weight of others sad lives bring you down.

Seriously.....people who have to criticize others to make themselves feel better are pathetic.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 105 (view)
Men 35-44, are we in the sweet spot?
Posted: 12/7/2009 12:41:11 PM

Women have a sweet spot. Real sweet.

Exactly. An attractive woman can 'get' guys in just as broad of an age range more easily than a man can.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 27 (view)
what is normal and what is crazy?
Posted: 12/7/2009 12:33:19 PM

The way I see it, if marriage and another child is your goal, you have to do away with the idea that being in love and marriage go hand in hand

Why do you think those things have to mutually exclusive?

Still, if that is what you want, you have to sweeten the pot by making legal arrangements that make sure he never gets punished financially, even child support if your marriage falls apart.

Why should she have to 'sweeten the pot'? I don't think she mentioned anything about wanting to coerce an unwilling man into marriage.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 132 (view)
Why is it when you're single, every woman around thinks you want HER man??
Posted: 12/7/2009 12:23:04 PM
Because they're jealous, and threatened by you.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 602 (view)
On both sides of the ball......
Posted: 12/7/2009 9:59:08 AM

The "objective" reason, for me at least, are:
Church (in all matters) is irrelevant.
State (in the matters of personal relationships) is irrelevant.
Society/tradition (in the matters of personal relationships) is not only irrelevant, it's ludicrously hypocritical. Bunch of pledge-breakers telling me I'm somehow lacking because - why? - I've won't make a public pledge I don't want or need. Spare me.

Those don't sound any more 'objective' than my reasons for wanting to be married though. Those are still your personal opinions and feelings.

I, for one, did not suggest that anyone who doesn't believe in marriage is 'lacking'. For everyone, it is a matter of personal choice and taste, and doesn't affect anyone other than the two people involved in a realtionship.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 51 (view)
Says we are not dating yet we are taking it slow.
Posted: 12/7/2009 9:02:38 AM

Yes i am a christian I am but a sinner at that, dont judge me for that. I am human regardless.

The people who are judging you on here need to quit looking at the speck in their brother's eye and look at the plank in their own.

I am going to wait it out im not stressin what it is just wanted some confirmation. He is a nice guy thus far other then not contacting me. Most of what you guys said is right im being played for.

If you desire a relationship, I think 'waiting it out' is a bad idea. What if things continued on like this for a year and he still didn't consider you two to be dating? How would you feel about the time and emotion you are investing in him? It sounds to me like he wants to keep his options open. Which is fine sounds like you are just focused on dating him.

Just an idea, you could talk to him about wanting a committed relationship (if you do) and give him a time (however long you decide) where you guys will re-evaluate where things are going. Let him know that you won't be in limbo indefinitely, and that if he still doesn't know after a certain amount of time, then you will be seeing other people. It doesn't sound like you approach relationships with a goal in mind, so that may not be your style. OR - you could start dating other people now, since you aren't in an exclusive agreement. That will either 1) Make realize he needs to define things, or 2) Keep your from being solely focused and invested in a guy that doesn't seem to be super into you, and give you other options.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 600 (view)
On both sides of the ball......
Posted: 12/7/2009 8:33:49 AM

Once again, I don't see much objectivity here. Yes, these are your feelings, which are not right or wrong, but the reality is that two people can be quite sure about sharing their lives together; have 100% love for each other; and care extensively about each other's feelings, without the need for marriage. The fact that you need marriage for these things to occur, doesn't negate the fact that they can all occur without it.

Well, I don't think that I claimed they couldn't. Before reading on these forums, I've never seen the need to provide objective reasons for one's preferences in love relationships. Honestly, I really don't understand how or why one would insist on needing objective reasons for their choices in a realm that is *entirely* subjective and personal. I already said I had no problem with people who don't want to marry. It's just not the lifestyle for me. Why does an 'objective' reason need to be given? I am seriously asking the question because I don't see what you are getting at. If you see no need for or point of marriage, what difference does anyone else's opinion on the matter make? How does another's wishes or desires in the realm of relationships affect you in any way?

Back to marriage. One doesn't need to swear by an oath of office in order to perform their position with loyally and honorably. But if that's what they plan to do, why WOULDN'T they be willing to make that pledge, when it is a traditional way of formalizing that promise in many many societies and structures? What are the 'objective' reasons for not doing so?
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 597 (view)
On both sides of the ball......
Posted: 12/6/2009 6:26:39 PM

That's an interesting question. So, to all the die-hard marriage fans out there, what does marriage bring that non-marriage can't? And please, save me the rhetoric. Objectivity much appreciated.

To me, it is just a deeper level of commitment. Marriage is the social norm in our society when a couple decides to share their lives together and have a family. If I met someone who was in love with me, wanted to be my life partner, and have a family with me, but he didn't want to pledge that decision with marriage, I would question his certainty. Because to me he'd be saying that he didn't want the ties to me that would make things more difficult than a simple walk-away.

Of course anyone can walk away from a marriage at any time as well, but it is a lot more complex than a boyfriend/girlfriend situation. Making a pledge or commitment such as marriage is taking a relationship from one level to the next. If a man didn't want to do this, I would feel like 1)He wasn't sure about wanting to share his life with me, and 2) He didn't love me enough to show me by making that commitment, and 3) He didn't care about my feelings enough to do something that was important to me. I want to be with someone who is so crazy about me and so sure that they want me as their life partner that they are *happy* to pledge that commitment in a tangible way.

I don't think of marriage as a contract. I think of it as a formal declaration that shows the level of commitment you have to being with that person through thick and thin. It's kind of like when people in office take oath. Of course it's not a guarantee...nothing in life is, and no one can forsee what changes the future may bring. But, a relationship where you are going to be sharing your lives, living together, sharing finances, having kids, being a family.....cannot remotely be compared to a friendship. So, for example, comparing marriage to forcing your friends to sign a contract is not a valid analogy.

So me, what marriage brings that non-marriage cannot is - it is a tangible way to declare, "I love you so much that I am not afraid of pledging my commitment to share my life with you and only you in this special way."

That's my personal rhetoric. I have no problem with people who don't wish to be married. They just want something different than I do.

As for the OP's question - one reason women 'don't listen' because there are countless examples of men who say the very thing the OP did, and then end up doing exactly what they said they wouldn't - getting married, having kids, etc. I've seen that happen so many times. Talk is cheap. People say one thing and do another all the time. Why do men still try to get in the pants of a woman who declares she 'doesn't sleep around'?
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
I've been asked to wait till he is ready... (three times)
Posted: 12/2/2009 2:53:15 PM

But I've noticed that there are never two people that love each other equally, unless they are both bat-sh!t crazy stalkers... In a fairy tale world passion is always there, you meet, fall in love, live happily ever after.. but we don't live in a fairy tale...

I've seen many people that love each other equally. It's RARE, but that is what makes it something ....extremely special and valuable. If it happened all the time, it wouldn't be 'special' now would it?
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
I've been asked to wait till he is ready... (three times)
Posted: 12/2/2009 2:26:46 PM

My first question is ... Do you think people fall in love with the person they're with when they are in the right place in thier life, or will they be ready to fall in love if the person is THE person?

My second question is ... Do you think people subcontiously plan thier lives around a person they believe thier life will involve in the future, but just aren't ready at this moment for them? Is this healthy or are you sabatoging potential mates?

Personally, I think the 'not ready' thing is BS. If someone wants an exclusive relationship and really wants that with YOU, why would they take the chance of letting you get away? Putting off marriage and kids until you are ready is one thing, but putting off having someone in your life *altogether* because you're not 'ready' sounds like an excuse to me. I've seen too many guys (and girls) who use that line and then next thing you know, there they are in the relationship/commitment they weren't 'ready' for.

Sounds more like they want to keep their options open and see if something better might come along before putting their eggs in one basket. They're not SURE yet. And that's NOT something I'd want the person I'm going to be with to feel about me.

My third question is ... Would you happily be with someone as thier 'smart' choice over thier 'passionate' choice?

No way. If I were to decide to be with someone solely based on what's logical and smart, without the emotional/passionate part of it, I would always be longing for someone to fill the emotional part. And vice versa. I would want to be both for my partner.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 438 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/30/2009 1:48:15 PM
I really wonder how many people out there actually want to be sharing their sexual partners to any significant extent.

Now who said that ???? I don't think anyone wants sloppy seconds.

What???? "No strings" means no expectations. That includes no expectations that your partner is going to be monogamous with you. Which means, they could be out f***ing a different person every night. Or maybe an hour before you came over.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 436 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/30/2009 1:40:49 PM

. Just like in NSA.. If you go in expecting something other than the sexual pleasure, respect for each other as humans and some half-decent non-sexual time together then you are attempting to extort seomething (other than what was agreed to) from the other.

I thought 'no strings' meant 'no strings', period. Now you're bringing in respect and non-sexual time together? Sounds like strings to me.

If you go to dinner expecting him to pay then you are exploiting his natural tendency to be generous. If you offer to pay and he refuses.. at least you know that he does it willingly and you haven't extorted his money because it is expected of him so he does it even though it's resented.

Obviously you haven't read the thread I'm referencing. I think it got deleted.The argument there was that even a woman offering to pay is insincere, since she usually doesn't mean it, and it is still exploitation because the guy will feel uncomfortable or look bad if he doesn't. Utter ridiculousness and total lack of personal responsibility. While in the topic at hand personal responsibility for one's feelings and actions is expected. Anyway, my fault for bringing in something that is off-topic.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 432 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:13:26 PM

If you are a woman capable of reproduction, you had damn well better be in a position to care for a child pretty much ON YOUR OWN, or completely at peace with the concepts of abortion or giving a baby up for adoption. Of course you may look to the legal family/civil court system for monetary contribution from the child's father, but that is NOT as simple as it sounds, and I would say that the scenarios of a woman living on Easy Street while collecting CS from 3 men for ONE child, or similar miscarriages of family/civil justice are anomalies.

By and large, I see "no strings" as something that only people who are incapable of reproduction should be participating in. Mature women who are through menopause, women who've had surgical procedures that preclude childbearing, and men who've undergone a sperm blocking medical procedure. I'm sorry, younger people, but creating unwanted children, or destroying life, are NOT ONE BIT FUNNY, "SHIT HAPPENS" or "GOING WITH THE FLOW".

If you as a young man or woman dream of being a parent, having a family, then I don't think you should be monkeying around with "no strings sex" involvements. Yes, I know that marriage/psuedomarriage doesn't guarantee that the child will ALWAYS have 2 loving and involved parents, but at least you ought to start out as you mean to go on!

This is of course only my personal opinion,but I'm inclined to agree(with some qualification) that people who are having sex with a "yah well" or " that's something that happens to other people" attitude towards unintended pregnancy, are idiots.
Cindy O

Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 431 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/30/2009 12:03:15 PM
I find it amusing that you are such a stickler for personal responsibility, except when it comes to men paying for dates -
I'm confused; Who decreed that it was a man's RESPONSIBILITY to pay for a date? Women work now, we can afford to pay for our own dates.. I certainly appreciate when he offers.. I certainly don't look at it as his responsibility though.

No honey...I meant that it's their personal responsibility to decide what they will and won't do.....In other threads Verityone has said that a man paying for a woman's meal is extortion/exploitation....I'm saying it's his choice. No one can be forced or pressured to pay for a date....since in his opinion no one can be pressured or exploited for sex - their actions are their responsibility.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 429 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/30/2009 11:38:46 AM
Women DON'T get USED for sex.
They HAVE consentual sex.
Is she ASSUMES that sex=relationship, that's HER problem.
If the guy LIES in order to have sex with her, she still wasn't USED for sex (sex is zero sum game, aka : quid pro quo).
She was MISLEAD.
But it's still not exploitation, as the sex was had by both (zero sum game).
She wasn't robbed of sex, she may have been robbed of a relationship (that she may have wanted), but that fact is, that it is OFTEN the case that even when the intentions are there (in both parties), that a relationship is NOT a given certainty (from either party).

But if a guy pays for a women's dinner, it's somehow NONconsentual? How is HE 'robbed' because he willingly PAID for a meal? Off-topic....but I find it amusing that you are such a stickler for personal responsibility, except when it comes to men paying for dates - then somehow, they are victims who lack the volition to decide what they will and will not do. LoL.

Their "scientific" findings regarding "oxytocin" are accurate. The "conclusions" drawn concluding that it makes females "bond" because of it, is nothing but conjecture.

Scientific research begins with hypotheses. Research isn't invalid just because it hasn't yet been subjected to meta-analysis. The social sciences, such as anthropology, also have a lot of evidence to back up those hypotheses as well.

I guess you're unaware of the other chemicals that are released. And completely unaware of how (to this day), it is not completely understood how they all work together to influence our thoughts and emotions.

Gee, wow, I was SO unaware of that. Thanks for the profound revelation. The chemcial that I focused on was the one that had directly to do with my point.

There is another study that has been just released, that was done with women, showed that the women who had "connections" with a partner, showed much higher levels of tolerance tp pain, when exposed to heat applied to their arms, when shown a picture of their "loved one"(sic), than when they were shown a picture of a stranger, or a chair.

I heard it on the "Zoomer Report", on the local Classical radio station here, just the other day ( if I can find the study, I'll post a link).

That correlates directly to the studies I read in college about how humans respond tremendously positive to touch, warmth, and affection. The studies were often linked to how people (often, neglected ones) in old folks homes, hospital wards, etc.. responded when they were visited by volunteers(strangers) on a regular basis, and what the effects were when the visits were altered in duration, and/or frequency.

Studies were done with neglected disabled (physically, or mentally) people when they were given pets (specifically trained dogs). Their brain patterns, and positive psychological (and resulting physiological) effects are very well documented.

The same positive "feel good" chemicals are release when people "give", that are released when people "get".

Those are the basis for many benevolent charities, and organizations.
It's not difficult for one to conclude that people DO need to be touched, and to feel warmth and affection. And that are plenty of reasons that they would seek to get that in ways OTHER than through "marriage, and commitment".

You dismiss the studies that I referenced, and then go on to offer up another 'unreliable case study' to back up your own conjectures?? Sounds like most of those studies don't even concern sexual relations specifically. If you want to call my 'evidence' weak, yours is even more so.....

That's why it's encumbent on women to be responsible for what outcomes occur to their bodies, when they want to have sex with a man, and not put the onus on men to
protect" them.
It's up to the woman to "prevent" herself from getting pregnant.
Men don't "get" women pregnant. Women "get" themselves pregnant, by having sex with men.

It takes BOTH a man and a woman to make a baby. Of COURSE the woman should be smart about it since she is the one who stands to shoulder the vast majority of the responsibility should a pregnancy occur. But to eschew your responsibility in the matter as if it doesn't concern you at all is just ignorant and childish, since by law a man WILL be at least financially responsible for their DNA should, god forbid, that ever occur. (Not to mention STDs, though once again, it is usually the men who just pass them around and the women who shoulder the consequences.)

I guess that is part of what bothers me so much about the nonchalant attitude toward NSA sex. Sex can have some very serious consequences. To face those consequences with one that you are in a committed relationship with is one thing - but when the participants have nothing in common other than a desire to f*ck, want no attachments or ties to the other person, and have no feelings beyond what the pleasure that person's body provides for could be a very devastating and ugly outcome indeed. It's not something that I, personally, take lightly, nor do I feel it wise for most women to do so. Especially after seeing some of the ugly sentiments expressed about women from NSA-men in this thread. But to each his own.......
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 379 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/29/2009 10:59:43 AM
Condoms aren't 100% effective either.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 269 (view)
A real woman
Posted: 11/28/2009 1:36:20 PM
In my opinion....a REAL woman follows her instincts, her gut, and her heart. She listens to herself above anyone else for guidance on what to be, how to live. She is feeling, compassionate, empathetic, loving, and protective- being designed as the nurturer, that is her core nature. She is strong, but her strength is grounded in her heart. She accepts the responsibility of bringing those qualities to the world, to her family, to her relationships, and to men. She is strong enough to abide by those principles even when it is easier and more popular not to. She recognizes the irreplaceable value of those gifts that are a woman's strength, and she doesn't compromise them. She knows that she is a goddess.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 362 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/28/2009 12:51:36 PM
Things are equal.
The "A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle" saying is equal with "A man needs a woman, like a fish needs a bicycle".
Even, Steven.

When we stop seeing threads on here posted from upset women because 'all men want is sex' or because they were used for sex and dumped, and when we stop seeing threads about men b*tching about being used for money, and/or not being able to get dates because they have no cheese, then you can say things are even steven. When I stop seeing my girlfriends broken hearted because sex didn't turn into a caring relationship, while the guy doesn't think twice, then we can call it even steven. Men and women are just not the same, don't think the same, don't feel the same. If you think they do, I honestly think you are blind. While I have no problem accepting that there ARE women out there who like the NSA sex arrangement, I just don't believe it is the majority. BTW, I referenced several articles on the science of hormones and oxytocin, not just one case study. I would like to hear your thoughts on them. Since you asked me for evidence I think it's only fair I get a response.

Of course it derailed into the allegations of men "hating" on women.
When all along, it's simply that because men and women (in this day and age) aren't reliant on each other, the dynamic in which sexual relationships occur, is accordingly different.
Mommy doesn't need Daddy to bring home the bacon, anymore, and Daddy doesn't need Mommy to cook it, anymore.

What can you offer to someone who has everything they want?
You can only offer them something they want, and don't have.

I find these remarks extremely ironic, since you rely on women to meet your sexual needs/wants. So you DON'T have everything you want, without THEM.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 314 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/27/2009 1:15:57 PM

a portion of these guys don't and god help the poor daughters that have a father like that.... After all these girls look to DAD to see what a man is, and their "daddy" is the man they going to be looking for... Isn't it nice to know that these men have NOT considered some man is going to see his little girl nothing more than a vagina???

Yeah....and I'm sure every father's dream is for his little girl to grow up and find a man to fvck her (with no strings attached) and then kick her out the door till he gets horny again. Hey, as long as she's getting a great orgasm what more could she ask for in a man, being that she can support herself and all?
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 310 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/27/2009 12:56:45 PM

Look, nobody vilifies men for NOT putting his d*ck in mothballs when he's not in some big ass "relationship" . Why are some people so bound and determined to NOT extend that same tolerance to a woman who prefers to neither put her hoohoo in mothballs, nor FORCE a "relationship" so that it's OK to have sex, even if it's a "relationship" that isn't very good. Double standard, anyone?

I for one believe that one can have an involvement that is less than a goal oriented longterm relationship, and still respect one's partner in the involvement as a human being. I've seen plenty of "real" relationships where the respect was just about non existent on one side or the other. It's about respect, not thinking one's sex partner is "wonderful".

I agree....BUT... let's consider BDJ's FWB situation. Is it RESPECTFUL? I see nothing respectful about saying that women have nothing to offer other than their vaginas. I wonder how BDJ's FB, who wants a relationship with him, would feel if she read his sentiments about how valueless and worthless women are today, aside from their vagina, and how he'll take just the sex since there's nothing else tangible there? I don't see those kind of statements as being respectful, or a "friend" to the other party in any way shape or form.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 309 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/27/2009 12:42:22 PM
I for one do not feel resentment. If someone has decided that sex is the sole thing that they desire from the other gender, and want to live that way, like animals, that is their perogative.

Ya, there's no resentment (nor prejudice) in that statement...

Coming together to fvck and then leave, "without the frills" as BDJ put it, IS the way animals mate. What has that statement got to do with resentment?

Then you'll have no problem accepting that a man might *expect* certain things to be proven to him before her commits, as well.

Of course I have no problem with that. What I, personally, find disturbing is the sentiment that when a guy finds a woman that doesn't measure up, it's ok to just utilize her vagina, because that's 'all she's good for anyway'. Of course if both parties know this is the case and agree to it, fine, but I find it extremely hard to believe that this is expressed bluntly and openly. I find it very hard to believe that there is a large portion of women who would be eager to shag a guy who tells her, "You're not good enough for me to want to actually date you or commit to you, but you're fvckable. So how bout we have sex until something better comes along? And remember, there are no emotional ties here and we have no responsbility to each other's feelings."

In the real world, this just doesn't happen very often. MOST guys who want the NSA scenario do NOT tell this to the chick. It's more along the lines of, "Let's just take things slow", "I'm just not ready to be in a relationship yet,", "I'm realy busy", blah blah blah. That's not being honest. One needs to call a spade a spade.

The reason there is a disconnect to you, is that you're working under the assumption that a "relationship" guarantee is being leveraged in order to EXTORT sex.

What you're NOT getting, is than many of us have NEVER had to promise, or even imply a committed relationship was going to ensue.

I do NOT have that assumption. But like I said, are the real, clear reasons for wanting the NSA situation given? I'm trying to make you aware that often in these situations a lot of guys are vague, and women 'fill in the blanks' for themselves.

Here is is in a nutshell.
During sex, both genders get f*****d.
When a man picks up the tab, only he gets f****d, out of his money.

The value of a random fvck with no emotional investement is USUALLY not the same for men and women. Did you read any of the articles I referenced? Either you don't know much about women, or I have somehow been extremely sheltered from interacting with the large numbers of women out there who enjoy getting fvcked by men who don't think they are good enough to date.

I can prove lots. The most recent one was proving what type of women I date, when I posted pictures of myself and her.
But I'm usually more amused to let people speculate.

You're projecting...

Seriously, some of you are not doing yourselves any favours by continuing questioning the veracity of my claim...

You're not really doing yourself any favors by continually trying to 'prove' how desired and high-status you are with the babes. The people who attempt to boast are usually the ones who are the MOST insecure, trying to convince themselves and others. Can't we have a discussion without you bringing it back to yourself?
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 225 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/26/2009 2:03:36 PM

A meaningless statistic, without qualifiers.
What kind of sex are "these" women having?

I've never missed provoking the big "O", once. (as an adult)

Not even ONCE.

A meaningless claim, without proof. Unless you actually possess her body, it is truly unlikely you can really know for sure. Men are really naive about this fact.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 223 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/26/2009 1:54:51 PM

We HAVE stopped placing value on it. This is WHY men have smartened up and finally figured out that this is a woman's only recourse to get what she wants. This is her only card to play. Sex in exchange for (whatever). She has nothing else to bring to the table but her looks and sexuality. That's it. Nothing more. Anything else men already have, so there's no void left. We lack a p*ssy of our very own or we'd be f*cking ourselves every 15 minutes and never accomplish anything, let alone leave the house to live a life/work/socialize/etc...

So KNOWING that the woman has only this to offer the as a means to an caught on and now don't fall for it anymore like they used to. No more dating. No more courting. No more "love" or romance. No family dinners. No holidays. No checking in. No "trust" issues. No drama. No hangups. No hassles. No strings. Just one sexual male finding one sexual female to bump uglies with. Man who likes sex meets woman who likes sex...and they f*ck. They see no value or importance or even relevance in anything beyond that. Just two people jumping to the last page of the book and sharing a passion release on each other from time to time. Two people who strip away all the facade that people promote, so they can get to the good stuff and just enjoy that as-is, where-is with little to zero expectations from one another beyond a mere "How fast can you be here?"

But nature loves a balance in all things. A Yin to Yang. A good to bad. An up to down.

So in saying that, there are most certainly people from both camps that are die-hard traditionalists that will continue to perpetuate the cycle of man meeting woman, wooing woman, showering woman with affection/gifts/touchy feely crap all in the hopes that maybe...just MAYBE he'll get into her pants after SHE feels that he has "earned" it through a series of checks and balances of validation/money spent/hoops jumped/etc. The men that have no issues at all admitting that they need to more or less buy their p*ssy (and are willing to do so)...and the women that more or less have it for sale (because like you said, they know it works).

Both camps exist.

Traditionalists and the FWB crowd.

One camp just finally awoke to realize that ultimately, if sex is the "brass ring"...the light at the end of the tunnel...the thing we gravitate towards and quest for...then why not just dispense with all the fluff and frills and nonsense and just get to the last page of the book in short order?

And the other camp resents it.

I for one do not feel resentment. If someone has decided that sex is the sole thing that they desire from the other gender, and want to live that way, like animals, that is their perogative. But I do not believe that all men, and especially your implication that somehow more desirable men, see women as a f*ck toy and that's it, period. AND....I am happy to stay away from those types. And YOU, admittedly, say that you DO desire a to me that just contradicts everything you've said above. If women have nothing you want other than a pvssy, why do you still want a relationship? I am just not understanding something here.

I do not feel ashamed to admit that I *do* expect a man to 'prove' himself to me before i would be in a relationship with him sexually and romantically. You also are saying the same thing: that a woman has to bring lots of 'somethings' to the table before you would commit yourself to a relationship with her. She has to prove herself to you. The only difference is that a woman apparently doesn't have to pass as many filters for you to just fvck her.

So we both are doing the same thing. Yet somehow for a woman who doesn't fvck outside of a relationship that means that she is using sex as a bargaining tool, yet for you it DOESN'T mean that you are using commitment as a bargaining tool. Where is the logic? It just sounds like resentment to me, coming from YOUR side of the camp.

I find it offensive that you claim women are only good for sex, just as I'm sure you would if I claimed men were only good for, say, picking up the tab. I guess that's what you are essentially saying, that women made men feel " useless" first. I just can't relate because that is not how my experience has gone. I know the unique value that a man brings to my life, and I know the unique value that I have to bring to a man's life, the things that he can only get from a woman who cares about him, and I'm NOT just talking about sex. To you, those things may have no value, but it is just false to say that they have no value to any man of substance. NEEDING something to survive, and wanting something that adds unique and meaningful value to your life, are two different things. I honestly feel bad for you if your experience is truly how you describe it.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 204 (view)
Guys that want no strings attached
Posted: 11/26/2009 10:53:43 AM
- uses sex to get a woman to court him/court him AT ALL
- uses sex to get a woman to pony up (see: pay for) their dates
- uses sex to get a woman to pay more attention to him
- uses sex to trap a woman into marriage (now this I'd LOVE to see)
- uses sex to get a woman to do as she's told (see: fall in line)
- uses sex to get noticed
- uses sex to poach another woman
- uses sex to get a woman to forgive him/take him back

I'll give you 72 hours. You sounded pretty sure of yourself that you KNOW there are some men that would fit the above descriptors and play "the same game" they shouldn't be that hard to find. Tell them to drop me a line and introduce themselves.

Alas and sadly, my inbox would just get creaky and cobwebs would fill the corners...because NO SUCH MAN EXISTS.

That's because in general, they CAN'T.

The only way that women could possibly use sex/sexuality to get anything from a man is because the men value it, want it, and need it enough to give something - goods, behavior, etc in exchange. It's called supply and demand. I'm not saying it's RIGHT, but an exchange requires a reciprocal relationship. Women do it because it WORKS....and that is every bit as much of the men's fault as it is the women's. When men stop valuing beauty and sexuality, women will stop 'using' it to get what they want.

Do you think that men wouldn't use their d*ck as leverage if they COULD? I'm sure they don't just because they are morally superior to women. Please. There ARE men who use their looks and their sexuality to get money, sugar-mommas, etc. It's just that there is a small % of men who can actually pull that off. I've known lots of good-looking guys who always play the "i'm broke" card to get women to pay for their dates, and girls who take them up on it.
Show ALL Forums