How Young is too Young to Date?

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Jeez, I take a little break and come back to find that all of my friends except Emily are pervs! (And she’s sleeping with a perv!)

Testy seems safe, but he’s not really my friend. (Joking, joking!)

AC, I’m intrigued by your view that you don’t manipulate anyone. How does that square with your often-described “find their emotional pressure points to get what you want” strategy?

And don’t you rage at me, or I’ll tell Dave on you! :slight_smile:

I’m genuinely looking for your thoughts here.[/quote]

I’m curious to hear AC’s feedback here, too. I’m inclined to think there’s some cognitive dissonance at play, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding.

I suppose I am sleeping with a perv, but it’s so much fun. And waking up with one is just as nice!

[/quote]

I don’t know, maybe I’m mellowing out in my old age, but at this point in my life, I really have no “agenda” with anyone. I’m really focusing on my career, which is VERY challenging and rewarding along with making sure my kids are on the right track (I have a son that is in first grade and a son who is a senior in HS). I simply don’t have the time to date that I used to.

Also, I think you have me painted with a rather “Machiavellian” brush… While I did take a little detour in life to study “The Game”, that was almost a decade ago. And the only reason I did it in the first place was because one of my best friends was into it (as in he actually created products and gave seminars). I was pretty much what “they” (meaning PUA’s) would call a “natural”. When I learned some of that material, it merely “named” and “labeled” things that I already knew and did. I did find some value in a lot of the material that focused on personal evolution, but I would say that over 90% of the “game material” you find on the internet is bullshit designed to take keyboard jockey’s money.

Did I read a lot about evolutionary biology and psychology? Yes I did. Did I apply some concepts to some things I was already involved in (the Mankind Project)? Yup. But all that means is that I gained a very in depth understanding of social dynamics. I “see” people’s motivations and emotional triggers just as plain as you see the words typed on this page. I “see” the “matrix” of social interaction and have a context to influence the interaction SLIGHTLY - it’s not like I’m a hypnotist or anything… That’s no more “manipulative” than buying a girl flowers or a drink, or paying her excessive compliments to get her to like you… No one seems to complain about men who do THAT (besides the fact that it doesn’t work LOL).

What I know and what I do isn’t “evil”, “manipulative” or “negative”. No amount of “game” is going to make a woman sleep with you if she isn’t attracted to you. I’ve focused on making myself and my life a work of constant evolution. I’ve been moving in a positive direction for twenty years. Some people find that attractive, some people don’t. I certainly can’t walk into a bar, point to a random woman and accurately say, “I’m going to sleep with THAT one” and then work some manipulative magic trick that somehow convinces them to fall into my bed… I just start a conversation and talk to them, listen to them and ask open ended questions while developing a rapport.

Is that any more manipulative that guys that post pictures of themselves snowboarding or rock climbing? Basically, all they are saying is, “look at me! I’m adventurous!”. I don’t have a facebook or anything, so I present my strengths and skill sets more subtly, which, I would submit for your consideration, is a more powerful way to do it. That fact sub communicates MANY positive things… So am I being “manipulative” or “exploiting weakness” by doing so? I would argue that I’m being more authentic than the average bear…

Couple that with the fact that I NEVER lie to people to get what I want (lies have short legs and it’s far more trouble than it’s worth) and I say I’d have to take exception to your assertion that I have a “find their emotional pressure points to get what you want” strategy. In fact I don’t believe I’ve ever typed those words, or if I did, it was in a specific context and not my over all world view AT ALL…

I have a golden rule when it comes to relationships: I do everything in my power to make sure a woman is BETTER in some way for having known me. I play win:win. I do NOT want the karma/drama of leaving a trail of broken women in my wake. Have I EVER had relationships that ended badly? Sure have. Do I take pains to ensure that the frequency of that is less and less? Sure do.

The bottom line is I’m a fun guy who’s easy on the eyes, has bit of disposable income, has a wealth of life experience and I’m a very good communicator. A lot of women find that attractive. So should I turn DOWN women who want to sleep with me so I’m not judged by people who live a more traditional lifestyle? Or should I have fun, enjoy life and keep on moving and evolving and learning and having great experiences? I know what I want and I know where I’m going and I communicate it very clearly. I don’t think I’m experiencing cognitive dissonance and I don’t see how my actions could be so “offensive”…

If you ask most of the women I’ve dated, they’ll tell you I’m a great guy and that they had a great time with me.[/quote]

Thanks for the lengthy response.

FTR, I never thought you were trying to work “evil” on others, have expressed respect for you several times, and look forward to us actually meeting someday (as we surely will).

Having said that, I hope we can discuss this in person someday, so I can explain the nuances of my view, and not have to worry about coming off as attacking in any way.

Thanks again.[/quote]

I would second this as well. There is no lack of respect on my part or belief that you’re doing anything malicious, AC. I believe that you’ve worked very hard to become something of a renaissance man. As someone similarly invested in personal growth, I admire that. I have also used tools I’ve gained from you to work with young men.

Like Chushin, I see nuances that I feel you do not (specifically relating to women and relationships) that come from my own experiences and studies here on the other side of the gender aisle. That’s all.

I am NEVER after insulting you. Just respectful discourse about matters I share an interest in.

Well I hold BOTH of you in very high regard and I’d jump at the chance meet either of you IRL. I think anytime a person is viewed through the “lens” of a forum, things get distorted. For example, the amount of time and energy I expend on “women/dating/relationships” is fairly small. Now that may seem odd given the amount of posts I have on the topic here over the years, but I assure you I DO have a full time job!

In fact, I AVERAGE over 70 hours a week… I’ve taken less than five days off this year, including weekends (I’ve worked nearly 3000 hours to date). I don’t have TIME to be playing games with twenty chicks and putting in the necessary effort to live that lifestyle. When I was in the mortgage business, I had a lot more time and was able to mix business with pleasure quite often. But that chapter of my life has been closed for years now. And I’m at a far better place than I was then. So methinks the two of you MAY have an out dated opinion about what’s rolling around in my little brain these days.

As for women being “just people”, I refuse to concede that there are “no differences” between the sexes. That’s just plain wrong. Just as the sky is blue and water is wet, I KNOW that what motivates women is far different that what motivates men ON A PRIMAL LEVEL. That is not to say that instinct cannot be overcome with social conditioning, logic (in some cases) and other things. But men and women ARE wired differently. And I know that to be true just as I know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

And by “different”, I certainly don’t mean “inferior”. I mean just DIFFERENT. And there are VALID biological, historical, sociological and anthropological reasons for these differences.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

And by “different”, I certainly don’t mean “inferior”. I mean just DIFFERENT. And there are VALID biological, historical, sociological and anthropological reasons for these differences. [/quote]

Yeah well, anyone who has understood that women are different and HOW they are different, approaches a point sooner or later where he believes them to be inferior and totally unfit for civilization.

While the “inferior” bit is a tad unfair in my opinion, because in many areas they are indeed superior, it just so happens that that superiority can easily rip a civilization apart if it goes unchecked.

Not that male feral nature could not do that too, it just never goes unchecked.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I have also used tools I’ve gained from you to work young men.

[/quote]

Gawd I love cougars!

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I have also used tools I’ve gained from you to work young men.

[/quote]

Gawd I love cougars![/quote]

}:expressionless:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Well I hold BOTH of you in very high regard and I’d jump at the chance meet either of you IRL. I think anytime a person is viewed through the “lens” of a forum, things get distorted. For example, the amount of time and energy I expend on “women/dating/relationships” is fairly small. Now that may seem odd given the amount of posts I have on the topic here over the years, but I assure you I DO have a full time job!

In fact, I AVERAGE over 70 hours a week… I’ve taken less than five days off this year, including weekends (I’ve worked nearly 3000 hours to date). I don’t have TIME to be playing games with twenty chicks and putting in the necessary effort to live that lifestyle. When I was in the mortgage business, I had a lot more time and was able to mix business with pleasure quite often. But that chapter of my life has been closed for years now. And I’m at a far better place than I was then. So methinks the two of you MAY have an out dated opinion about what’s rolling around in my little brain these days.

As for women being “just people”, I refuse to concede that there are “no differences” between the sexes. That’s just plain wrong. Just as the sky is blue and water is wet, I KNOW that what motivates women is far different that what motivates men ON A PRIMAL LEVEL. That is not to say that instinct cannot be overcome with social conditioning, logic (in some cases) and other things. But men and women ARE wired differently. And I know that to be true just as I know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

And by “different”, I certainly don’t mean “inferior”. I mean just DIFFERENT. And there are VALID biological, historical, sociological and anthropological reasons for these differences. [/quote]

I don’t claim that women are the same as men, I claim that at the end of the day men and women WANT the same things. Safety and security (both physical and emotional), a sense of accomplishment, good sex, minimal worry/anxiety, and some good fun. They want to respect and be respected by intimates - professional and personal. They want to come home to a warm, welcoming place. They want their children to thrive.

The above assumes a healthy, functional adult, of course. That women tend to focus on the interpersonal/emotional and men tend to focus on the concrete does not impact their want of the same outcomes. It just speaks to how they go about achieving these outcomes.

Hockey and I are buying a house together. When we wrote our lists of “must haves” his was entirely practical and mine was entirely emotional. So we’ve now got a contract on a house with a cozy kitchen fireplace and the amps he needs for his tools.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.[/quote]
The good ol’ devil’s threeway Eiffel Tower.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.[/quote]
The good ol’ devil’s threeway Eiffel Tower.[/quote]

Er, right?

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.[/quote]

That is not a threeway, that is a train.

Source: Patrice O´Neal

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.[/quote]

That is not a threeway, that is a train.

Source: Patrice O�´Neal

[/quote]
LOL

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.[/quote]

That is not a threeway, that is a train.

Source: Patrice O�´Neal

[/quote]

To me anything beyond two people is sort of yucky, regardless of gender combo. George Michael and I believe that “sex is best when it’s one on one.”

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.[/quote]

That is not a threeway, that is a train.

Source: Patrice O�?�´Neal

[/quote]

To me anything beyond two people is sort of yucky, regardless of gender combo. George Michael and I believe that “sex is best when it’s one on one.”[/quote]

Yeah well, while I disagree with “yucky”, I like one on one better too, however, some things you just do so you have done it.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

…A threesome isn’t some magical/superior or unattainable event. It’s just sex with two people…

[/quote]

Well…it’s not magical, per se, and it’s not unattainable but it certainly is superior in many ways. After all it IS twice as much pussy at the same time.
[/quote]

Or twice as much penis.[/quote]

Yep, a smart, sexy lady like you deserves twice as much penis every now and then. Tell us about the last you had it. If you don’t mind. Please.
[/quote]

Haha, have not tried it (cf. post noting “sort of yucky”).

But penises not attached to people I’m in at least strong like with are yucky to me even as solo acts.