[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Trustworthy.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Trustworthy.[/quote]
Gives a damn.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Not sure about anybody else, but that has changed quite a bit for me over the years.
Orion: What you focus your thoughts on in life is what you will attract. What you attract to you - or seek out - mirrors how you see and feel about yourself. Quality and quantity is subjective and based on an individual’s self-values. When people “fuck me over” they are simply being true to their own values. As long as I stay true to mine, I can view it as a learning tool, neutralize it and move on. I’m not going to lump everyone I meet in a category based on my negative experiences and human nature and decide that they’re all going to fuck me over because that is exactly what I’m going to attract.
I’ll concede that the way I treated, gave to, and took care of my ex was most definitely a sign of me being codependent. What you speak of, liking someone more after you do things for them is codependent behavior. It’s not the way a healthy interdependent relationship should function. My wake up call was becoming self aware of my own codependency. What I said about buying dinner or booze for past lovers was half joking - I’ve only done it a few times and just in a LTR, but it was admittedly a tool of manipulation. As for him sticking his dick in a skank behind my back and lying about it, I’m not raw about it. He gave a clear expression of his values that didn’t honor mine, making us incompatible. Things that happen which can be percieved as negative are there to be learned from. There is no happy without sad, ugly without beautiful. One makes us better appreciate or learn from the other. Balance in everything. The negative traits we see in others are also within us in some form, that is why we recognize them.
After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.
I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
The problem is men. The problem is always men. Women only live by their instinct, so there is no problem. Men don’t understand the value of their sperm. The dumbest thing to do if you are a men is to masturbate and give out your sperm to thin air. After this the next dumbest thing is to give it to a women. Some animals die after they have sex. Blowjob =you lose.
It is very very hard to keep your sperm but that is what being a man is about. When you keep it for a while, all the women will come to you. Some passionate womens will get off only by being close to you and the magnetism of your sperm. But you know they just want your energy. Women don’t really care about men, they want to fill their vacuity with your explosive energy in order to produce more of their own vacuous energy. They have the secret of life, but you have the power. They are not your friend or your enemy.
The goal of a women is to get a man’s energy. They don’t understand it and they don’t try to understand it. Women don’t intellectualize life. Their function is to get the sperm. That is why they try to be pretty, that is why they like to dance, etc. They are equipped for that. It is their function.
Only if you make love without ejaculation you get to keep your energy and balance it with the women’s energy. You need to balance your energy to feel good. You can satisfy her without ejaculating and make her stay with you.
Nothing is free in life and everything balance itself. The pleasure you don’t get when you abstain naturally come back to you in your daily life.
Do not be angry if you don’t get womens. Just don’t ever masturbate.[/quote]
If you’re right, then this girl is our biggest enemy.
(NSFW)
[quote]theBeth wrote:
After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.
I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]
Just to respond to that one quickly.
No, we are not monogamous.
Women prefer rotating polyandry, men polygamy when they can get it.
However, civilization is about either diverting or downright repressing insincts and I start to wonder whether those religions were not so much prudish and anti sex but more along the lines of realistic when it comes to human nature and pro civilization.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
The problem is men. The problem is always men. Women only live by their instinct, so there is no problem. Men don’t understand the value of their sperm. The dumbest thing to do if you are a men is to masturbate and give out your sperm to thin air. After this the next dumbest thing is to give it to a women. Some animals die after they have sex. Blowjob =you lose.
It is very very hard to keep your sperm but that is what being a man is about. When you keep it for a while, all the women will come to you. Some passionate womens will get off only by being close to you and the magnetism of your sperm. But you know they just want your energy. Women don’t really care about men, they want to fill their vacuity with your explosive energy in order to produce more of their own vacuous energy. They have the secret of life, but you have the power. They are not your friend or your enemy.
The goal of a women is to get a man’s energy. They don’t understand it and they don’t try to understand it. Women don’t intellectualize life. Their function is to get the sperm. That is why they try to be pretty, that is why they like to dance, etc. They are equipped for that. It is their function.
Only if you make love without ejaculation you get to keep your energy and balance it with the women’s energy. You need to balance your energy to feel good. You can satisfy her without ejaculating and make her stay with you.
Nothing is free in life and everything balance itself. The pleasure you don’t get when you abstain naturally come back to you in your daily life.
Do not be angry if you don’t get womens. Just don’t ever masturbate.[/quote]
If you’re right, then this girl is our biggest enemy.
(NSFW)[/quote]
I wonder, if there is something to his hypothesis, why so many porn stars end up looking like washed up coke fiends.
They should be supercharged with energy.
In fact, sometimes it comes out of their nostrils.
I should have click this thread sooner. X has some golden ones in this thread, keep it up.
Anyone remember the girl who auctioned her virginity on Ebay? Kind of reminds me of this.
I wonder what the “qualifications” are for being a “daddy”. 6 figures, 7 figures… why waste money like that? Its incredible.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Can’t speak for the younger guys, but I always pay when I invite someone. Male or female. And NO I’m not always trying to fuck everyone I invite somewhere!
If someone invited me to dinner, or to an event of some kind, I would assume they were paying (but I would be prepared to pay my share if I felt it appropriate).
It’s funny when I’m out with some of my close friends, we all fight for the check. Some of them have gone to great lengths to “get” the check before the rest of us.
As for expecting sex from dinner, I have plenty of depth in my “seduction repertoire” to where I don’t need to take a woman to dinner or <<>> to have sex with her. If I take someone to dinner, it’s because I enjoy thier company and wish to explore their personality in a comfortable setting. Historically, this attitude has led to many an enchanting evening, which could lead to sex if I chose to take it that way. But that is not always the case.[/quote]
Living in Asia, one fights for the check a lot when going out with friends. In Hong Kong and Indonesia more so than Japan. It’s a status thing, I suppose: it just seems low-class to go Dutch… which is kind of funny, since Indonesia was a Dutch colony.
As far as the man paying for a dinner date, primate mating ritual explanations aside, I don’t know if it’s a generation thing or a cultural thing, but I agree with Angry Chicken. If I ask a lady out to dinner, I wouldn’t consider making her pay for her food. It just doesn’t seem right. And no, there’s no implicit expectation of sex in return: there is a certain inherent satisfaction in providing something for someone that you care about, and as long as nobody feels taken advantage of, or an obligation unfairly put on them, then I don’t see the harm.
Of course, I also open doors for women and offer to carry heavy stuff for them so I suppose that makes me a caveman.
[/quote]
I’m the same breed of caveman. What horrible misogynistic creatures we are.[/quote]
Me three :-(. Though I’m not physically that old. I was just always of the assumption that on a date you pay. After you are going steady, sure you can split, or she can pay every now and again, but I also have the mentality of being the provider and protector of my relationship/family too. Instinctual or just trying to be a gentleman/chivalrous I don’t know, but if it was instinctual it’d be a lot more common.
I’ve found that female friends that tended to be more assertive still tended to be appreciative when a guy was willing to pick up the tab on a meal. It may not be necessary, but the gesture of being a gentleman still seems appreciated. I say this from the experience of having dinner with a what would be a cougar and her sister while on business - they both made more than me, but appreciated the gesture, since it was something I offered without thought/naturally and I wasn’t directly trying to impress.
I think its the attempt to impress that’s a turnoff than anything. And I forget the comedian that said - if a guy is being nice to you, he’s just offering some dick (think it was Chris Rock).
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Quality is a woman not thinking everything is about her always.
Quality is a woman very quickly trying to help you in whatever it is you are trying to do assuming this is being reciprocated.
Quality is NOT thinking you know everything all of the time.
Quality is not being a bopper…or choosing a guy based on his brand names worn.
Quality is just being quiet some times and NOT asking “what are you thinking about”.
Quality is being there no matter what if asked for help and asking questions later. Trust me, do that, and I will do the same.
Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.
Quality is on the downfall.
Entitled Bitch is on the rise.
I haven’t heard the term “bopper” in ages. And I agree, X.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Quality is a woman not thinking everything is about her always.
Quality is a woman very quickly trying to help you in whatever it is you are trying to do assuming this is being reciprocated.
Quality is NOT thinking you know everything all of the time.
Quality is not being a bopper…or choosing a guy based on his brand names worn.
Quality is just being quiet some times and NOT asking “what are you thinking about”.
Quality is being there no matter what if asked for help and asking questions later. Trust me, do that, and I will do the same.
Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.
Quality is on the downfall.
Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]
^ this whole thing should be written on every box of tampons, every piece of makeup, every handbag label, shoe box, and any other trivial piece of bullshit that women indulge in.
The concept of a sugar daddy convention does not surprise me one bit, other than it being held in Northern Cali.
I would think some shit like this would be in Vegas of all places.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.
Quality is on the downfall.
Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]
I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death. Most times when a guy says “I don’t want to” its just that. No hidden agenda. Women seem to look at a duck an see a Prince in the Making or a rat with feathers. When all it really is, is a fucking Duck. I think I’m cool with a snap judgment over a “what does he really mean” 9 out of 10
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Quality is a woman not thinking everything is about her always.
Quality is a woman very quickly trying to help you in whatever it is you are trying to do assuming this is being reciprocated.
Quality is NOT thinking you know everything all of the time.
Quality is not being a bopper…or choosing a guy based on his brand names worn.
Quality is just being quiet some times and NOT asking “what are you thinking about”.
Quality is being there no matter what if asked for help and asking questions later. Trust me, do that, and I will do the same.
Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.
Quality is on the downfall.
Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]
Great list
I think it can also be applied to both sexes
[quote]theBeth wrote:
Orion: What you focus your thoughts on in life is what you will attract. What you attract to you - or seek out - mirrors how you see and feel about yourself. Quality and quantity is subjective and based on an individual’s self-values. When people “fuck me over” they are simply being true to their own values. As long as I stay true to mine, I can view it as a learning tool, neutralize it and move on. I’m not going to lump everyone I meet in a category based on my negative experiences and human nature and decide that they’re all going to fuck me over because that is exactly what I’m going to attract.
I’ll concede that the way I treated, gave to, and took care of my ex was most definitely a sign of me being codependent. What you speak of, liking someone more after you do things for them is codependent behavior. It’s not the way a healthy interdependent relationship should function. My wake up call was becoming self aware of my own codependency. What I said about buying dinner or booze for past lovers was half joking - I’ve only done it a few times and just in a LTR, but it was admittedly a tool of manipulation. As for him sticking his dick in a skank behind my back and lying about it, I’m not raw about it. He gave a clear expression of his values that didn’t honor mine, making us incompatible. Things that happen which can be percieved as negative are there to be learned from. There is no happy without sad, ugly without beautiful. One makes us better appreciate or learn from the other. Balance in everything. The negative traits we see in others are also within us in some form, that is why we recognize them.
After a couple decades of observation and experience, I am not jaded but I do wonder if humans are really programmed to be monogamous - Or is that a construct of religion and society that has turned into a preprogrammed expectation.
I’d recommend John Demartini’s books, especially “The Breakthrough Experience” and “The Heart of Love”. Tough reading, but life altering.[/quote]
You are awake 
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.
Quality is on the downfall.
Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]
I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death. Most times when a guy says “I don’t want to” its just that. No hidden agenda. Women seem to look at a duck an see a Prince in the Making or a rat with feathers. When all it really is, is a fucking Duck. I think I’m cool with a snap judgment over a “what does he really mean” 9 out of 10
[/quote]
Technically there is a reason for “I don’t want to” which would be what she wants hear when that is the answer. Or I am way off base. But I know whenever I say no I don’t want to. That is not the end of it. There is a reason I don’t want to
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.
Quality is on the downfall.
Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]
I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death. Most times when a guy says “I don’t want to” its just that. No hidden agenda. Women seem to look at a duck an see a Prince in the Making or a rat with feathers. When all it really is, is a fucking Duck. I think I’m cool with a snap judgment over a “what does he really mean” 9 out of 10
[/quote]
Technically there is a reason for “I don’t want to” which would be what she wants hear when that is the answer. Or I am way off base. But I know whenever I say no I don’t want to. That is not the end of it. There is a reason I don’t want to[/quote]
Of course a reason may go deeper but the deep end may only go as far as “just don’t feel like it”. However the need to dig into a soul for every grain of reason is why women see shit that is not there.
I would rather a women look at me and think “not into him” than go “I can fix him into my version of perfection”. That line of thinking is why women go back to guys that smack them upside the head for forgetting the hot sauce. They want to see the scared child that was abused by daddy and feel like he can be fixed. No he is the ass who hit you for nothing.
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
In fact, I doubt that you can discern “quality” from “non-quality” when it comes to women.
So what you would or would not do, lets see, shall we?
[/quote]
I’d be curious to hear how different guys describe quality.
[/quote]
Quality is saving the quick judgment and looking deeper into what a man is really about.
Quality is on the downfall.
Entitled Bitch is on the rise.[/quote]
I have questions on this “X”.
Women do this “look deeper” stuff to death.
[/quote]
Nah, they do the “I think I know him based on my preconceived notions” thing to death. That is why so many get taken for a ride by any guy who knows how to play by those rules…ie. dress the part and act the part of someone well off.
I truly think most women want to live in a real life soap opera…so they see things in terms of a shocking season finale. That’s not looking deeper. If they did that, the guy selling crack on their couch wouldn’t be on his 3rd illegit kid with someone else.
That’s wanting fantasy in place of reality.