Wait…
I just got the joke. Hahahaha!! Fuck you, on edge. Haha.
Nope. Completely different girl, though that one was pretty incredible too.
[quote]on edge wrote:
I was being cryptic and thought you would pick up on it.
[/quote]
I picked up on it right before you posted this. It occurred to me that your choice of words (“teenaged witch”) seemed a little too deliberate, I thought about it for a moment, and then the penny dropped.
Man, that was a long time ago. I’m kinda glad the SAMA forum is gone. I don’t know if I’d want our thousands of flirty posts to each other in the Asian Vixens thread remaining online in perpetuity.
[quote]Lift or die wrote:
Counter points
1.Is this multiple meeting or same day? If it is the same day who is to say that the girl your having sex with several hours later is not doing this to every guy she meets or do you think your that special?
- Men for the most part . Men invest the time effort, money, and seduce. Women do not typically. Men value sex more. Women can have sex whenever they want. Most men cannot. Women are making the selection sexually most of the time unless men can offer other things (money, alpha characteristics, status power).
If a man has these things at greater level then the sexual value of the women then he will make the selection because if the girl does not want him there is always more that will.
So who possesses more skill the man who has amassed (money, power, alpha characteristics) and beds women with ease as a result of this or the women who throws her self at men and says fuck me? This is why women should not give her sexuality away freely but to a deserving man because she is setting the market price for it (scarcity) if everyone has (or had) something then its not really that valuable, aka sluts.
-
Refer to point one. If she is having sex with most guys soon after meeting them she is setting her market value low basically saying all guys deserve me even the pieces of shit. If pieces of shit deserve you what does that make you? I think you know the answer
-
Men and Women are not the same, Men and Women are not the same.
Men’s sexual objectives in encounter with a woman. From a evolutionary perspective impregnate as many women as possible (Hit it and quit it) (Alpha characteristics) . Or option 2 find mate with desirable mother qualities raise children (Beta characteristics provide for mother)
Woman’s sexual objectives. Find mate for protection, provision and child rearing (Beta provider) or Good genes theory find alpha with good genes raise children independently.
OR OPTION 3 The reality of today. Find Beta mate for protection,provision and child rearing. Have sex with Alpha who has good genes get Beta to provide and raise children while Alpha impregnates. WIN-WIN for Mother. LOSE LOSE for father. Win for Alpha
Or the alternative that was much easier in the past because the imbalances of power between Men and Women were much greater. Men can be both Providers (Beta) and Lovers (Alpha) and they will be the ones who have successful marriages but this is become rarer as the power between men and women begins to equalize. This is why Men must hold the power in relationship because if not she will just look for a BBD (Bigger Better Deal).
You can believe in the world where men and women are the same but just because you believe it doesn’t mean it exists. Perhaps you should look at Human Sexuality from a Evolutionary Basis.
This is what I have put together through life experience as well as Human Sexuality from a Evolutionary Basis.[/quote]
Main points:
Orion is trying to say that all women are like this. I argue that some of them may be, but NOT all of them. So…
-
What I’m saying is that sleeping with a guy immediately does not make her a slut. She may be one and it may even be an indicator - but it’s not proof by itself.
-
I see what you’re trying to say. But there are men who’ll fuck a tree and girls who pick their targets carefully. What I’m saying is that you shouldn’t value a person based on his/her number of partners without including quite a few other factors. It’s too short-sighted for my taste.
-
That’s the point - ARE we talking about a girl who’ll fuck about anyone? And how many of these are there, percentage-wise? I’ve known some, yes, but most girls I know are picky.
-
Aah, that theory. Did it ever occur to you that humans mate even when the females aren’t fertile and that we are one of the few species who can feel lust? That sex isn’t just there for procreation but establishes social ties etc.? How does homosexuality play into this? Seriously, it’s not as simple as “strong Caveman need fertile Cavewoman for to make baby, durr”.
I just think Orion is massively simplifying.
[quote]orion wrote:
To your man point.
It is no problem for a somewhat attractive woman to sell her vag.
None.
To sell a dick can be quite a bit of work.
…
The make equivalent of a slut is a beta orbiter, cuddle bitch and emotional tampon and they dont get not much respect either, because whereas the slut gives away sex without committment the beta orbiter gives away committment without sex.
Both signal that they do not value themselves what they have to offer, so nobody else does either. [/quote]
A good point, admittedly. But that was just one of the arguments I brought forth, so you’re cherry picking…
In the end it boils down to what we have experienced. My experience seems to differ greatly from yours; for instance, I’ve had sex with quite a few women BECAUSE I was being nice. So maybe I didn’t get into touch with all the oh-so-prudish bitches you seem to dislike? I don’t know. Just keep in mind that the world contains more than what you’ve seen with your own eyes.
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Wow, I’ve gained alot of respect for Mr. Walkway in this thread.
I share alot of his sentiment towards the subject matter. I think the world needs more guys like him who actually value the act of sex. So many guys are only after one thing, lower their standards drastically, and women are often forced to sell themselves on being sexy rather than smart or interesting to talk to. [/quote]
I did and still do to some degree.
However, getting bj’s from a guy for GH changes the dynamic.
[/quote]
This
And his complete lack of respect for women. [/quote]
See, I’m almost ok with that, since he holds himself to just as high of standards. To me, I’m impressed by his level of conviction, and how he hasn’t wavered in his stance.
Also, I haven’t read what he’s saying as that he mistreats women or anything…just the opposite. He has been quite supportive and overly nice to them, and internally feels that none of them have quite deserved his respect.
Analogously, I was a physics TA for about 4 years, and I can say I never met a single student who was “smart” by my standards or impressed me in any way. This isn’t the same thing as saying I think all students on the west coast are dumbasses.[/quote]
I guess I am confused then.
I am quite picky both when I comes to dating and just friends in general. I had no problems finding a decent amount of very smart women to hangout with through undergrad in a medium sized school. I don’t know how your school worked but the smart people that I knew in undergrad never interacted with TAs
Also if you’re unable to find smart articulate women by the time you are out of undergrad its time to start changing where you attempt to met women. Just my opinion. It’s interesting reading these variable view points[/quote]
There are plenty of lazy inept grad students in the system also. Present company excluded.
I know professors that took on PhD students with 900 GRE scores (Q+V old scores) in a science field. Cronyism is alive and well in academia.
[/quote]
Never said anything about grad students but I do agree there will be stupid people everywhere. Many docs I have met are idiots, to me at least. Same with ppl in my class and some residents I have met. But I have also met some Insaely brilliant people and people that are “average”.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]theBeth wrote:
I find this vindicating, since you seem to be pretty close to my “type”.[/quote]
I find this more than a little enigmatic.
Which part of my story did you find vindicating?
I guess you’ll have to describe your “type”. Then we can determine how close I actually am to it. [/quote]
“Vindicating” was the wrong term. I simply meant that I’m glad that a guy of your demeanor fell in love with a girl with short hair. I have a fighting chance to bewitch a Scout sporting tough dude with a great vocabulary and sharp wit.
Sorry, the mods have told us SAMA is still archived somewhere. You just need to know where to look.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Sorry, the mods have told us SAMA is still archived somewhere. You just need to know where to look.[/quote]
I know where to look!
There was an Asian Vixens thread???
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
Sorry, the mods have told us SAMA is still archived somewhere. You just need to know where to look.[/quote]
I know where to look!
There was an Asian Vixens thread??? [/quote]
No there wasn’t. Definitely not.
Strictly a rumor, for which there is no evidence.
[quote]theBeth wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]theBeth wrote:
I find this vindicating, since you seem to be pretty close to my “type”.[/quote]
I find this more than a little enigmatic.
Which part of my story did you find vindicating?
I guess you’ll have to describe your “type”. Then we can determine how close I actually am to it. [/quote]
“Vindicating” was the wrong term. I simply meant that I’m glad that a guy of your demeanor fell in love with a girl with short hair. I have a fighting chance to bewitch a Scout sporting tough dude with a great vocabulary and sharp wit. [/quote]
Aha. Well, for the record, the young siren I was rhapsodizing about actually had very long hair. This was not the most captivating of her charms, but it didn’t hurt the overall effect. Looking back, I guess I’d have to say that I’ve been with, or been attracted to, more women with short hair than with long. Long hair is like makeup to some extent. Almost every woman looks good with it, the really attractive ones look good even without it.
I like your new avatar, by the way.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
Sorry, the mods have told us SAMA is still archived somewhere. You just need to know where to look.[/quote]
I know where to look!
There was an Asian Vixens thread??? [/quote]
No there wasn’t. Definitely not.
Strictly a rumor, for which there is no evidence.[/quote]
The WayBack Machine will prove you lie.
But I’m currently distracted by the Red Head Love thread… so it might be a while until I find it.
nighthawkz do you like straight up not believe in evolution or what’s the deal here?
[quote]csulli wrote:
nighthawkz do you like straight up not believe in evolution or what’s the deal here?[/quote]
As you’ve doubtless noticed if you’ve spent any time ob PWI, the number of people on these forums who do not recognize the validity of evolution is simply staggering.
However I do not believe that Nighthawkz is one of their number.
First, unless I greatly miss my guess, he is a European, and hardcore creationism is predominantly a Former British Colonies thing (Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind being the Four Horsemen of the IDiocalypse), but also because in a previous post he compared his frustration of arguing with Orion to “… arguing about science with a creationist”, as scathing an indictment of Orion as I’ve ever heard on these forums.
Anyway, no creationist would have used such a construction. It would have come out more like “arguing about truth with an evolutionist”.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
nighthawkz do you like straight up not believe in evolution or what’s the deal here?[/quote]
As you’ve doubtless noticed if you’ve spent any time ob PWI, the number of people on these forums who do not recognize the validity of evolution is simply staggering.
However I do not believe that Nighthawkz is one of their number.
First, unless I greatly miss my guess, he is a European, and hardcore creationism is predominantly a Former British Colonies thing (Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind being the Four Horsemen of the IDiocalypse), but also because in a previous post he compared his frustration of arguing with Orion to “… arguing about science with a creationist”, as scathing an indictment of Orion as I’ve ever heard on these forums.
Anyway, no creationist would have used such a construction. It would have come out more like “arguing about truth with an evolutionist”.[/quote]
Quit busting holes in the corner I was trying to back him into!
I know he is not a creationist, and yet he seems to have some kind of selective disregard for the differences between males and females and why/how they came to be.
It vexes me. I’m terribly vexed.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
nighthawkz do you like straight up not believe in evolution or what’s the deal here?[/quote]
As you’ve doubtless noticed if you’ve spent any time ob PWI, the number of people on these forums who do not recognize the validity of evolution is simply staggering.
However I do not believe that Nighthawkz is one of their number.
First, unless I greatly miss my guess, he is a European, and hardcore creationism is predominantly a Former British Colonies thing (Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind being the Four Horsemen of the IDiocalypse), but also because in a previous post he compared his frustration of arguing with Orion to “… arguing about science with a creationist”, as scathing an indictment of Orion as I’ve ever heard on these forums.
Anyway, no creationist would have used such a construction. It would have come out more like “arguing about truth with an evolutionist”.[/quote]
Quit busting holes in the corner I was trying to back him into!
I know he is not a creationist, and yet he seems to have some kind of selective disregard for the differences between males and females and why/how they came to be.
It vexes me. I’m terribly vexed.[/quote]
Stop being vexed
And anyway, csulli, if you want to use the word “vex” to its utmost potential, might I suggest a different modifier. “I am sorely vexed” sounds so much better. Some would say it is a cliche, but you just can’t argue with the old constructions.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, csulli, if you want to use the word “vex” to its utmost potential, might I suggest a different modifier. “I am sorely vexed” sounds so much better. Some would say it is a cliche, but you just can’t argue with the old constructions. [/quote]
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And anyway, csulli, if you want to use the word “vex” to its utmost potential, might I suggest a different modifier. “I am sorely vexed” sounds so much better. Some would say it is a cliche, but you just can’t argue with the old constructions. [/quote]
;)[/quote]
Oh, all right. I’ll give you that.