Let's Process Our Feelings II

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Anyway, going back to a gender divide about these feelings, I wonder if women are inclined to question the durability of wonderful relationships because of the endless gaming they encounter in youth?

[/quote]

No, they are inclined to do that because they bat consistently out of their league as long as they have the upper hand in the SMP.

Of course they get hurt. [/quote]

I don’t think I’m batting out of my league, or ever have. I’ve still gotten hurt.
[/quote]

You think you are safe from the fallout because you play it right?

There is no shelter, you will have to deal with men who dealt with women before you.

If I had to design a system on purpose that breeds a surplus of bitter, cynical bastards I think I would just take the currents system without too many changes.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Anyway, going back to a gender divide about these feelings, I wonder if women are inclined to question the durability of wonderful relationships because of the endless gaming they encounter in youth?

[/quote]

No, they are inclined to do that because they bat consistently out of their league as long as they have the upper hand in the SMP.

Of course they get hurt. [/quote]

I don’t think I’m batting out of my league, or ever have. I’ve still gotten hurt.
[/quote]

You think you are safe from the fallout because you play it right?

There is no shelter, you will have to deal with men who dealt with women before you.

If I had to design a system on purpose that breeds a surplus of bitter, cynical bastards I think I would just take the currents system without too many changes. [/quote]

Or, you could simply hold yourself up as the ideal.[/quote]

That would be a lie.

Not only for me, but for almost everyone.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Anyway, going back to a gender divide about these feelings, I wonder if women are inclined to question the durability of wonderful relationships because of the endless gaming they encounter in youth?

[/quote]

No, they are inclined to do that because they bat consistently out of their league as long as they have the upper hand in the SMP.

Of course they get hurt. [/quote]

I don’t think I’m batting out of my league, or ever have. I’ve still gotten hurt.
[/quote]

You think you are safe from the fallout because you play it right?

There is no shelter, you will have to deal with men who dealt with women before you.

If I had to design a system on purpose that breeds a surplus of bitter, cynical bastards I think I would just take the currents system without too many changes. [/quote]

Tim wasn’t angry at women, he was morally bankrupt.

If I were self-pitying and interested in maintaining a lousy status quo I would take out my anger at Tim on someone else and call it feminism and call it fair.

However, I would much rather learn from it and move on to something nicer, in the process protecting both myself and someone else who “plays it right” from the bitter, cynical people who are looking to take their anger out on someone else. They can have each other and mistrust and shit test to their hearts’ content.

I mentioned, right, that Hockey had the experience you fear? Paying child support and couldn’t see his kids? He didn’t date for a long time because he was angry at women. But then he decided that was stupid; that one person isn’t everyone.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I mentioned, right, that Hockey had the experience you fear? Paying child support and couldn’t see his kids?[/quote]
:frowning:
I hope his situation has improved in that regard.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I mentioned, right, that Hockey had the experience you fear? Paying child support and couldn’t see his kids?[/quote]
:frowning:
I hope his situation has improved in that regard.[/quote]

Yes. He withdrew for a couple of years so there wouldn’t be the fighting, but when they were old enough he pushed again. It’s all good now - they’re out of the house, but even before that my understanding is that their mom shifted when they were 10-12 or so.

The mom sounds pretty wacky, even to hear their daughter tell about her (volatile, self-centered). Hockey has remained on good terms with his ex’s family, which reassures me. His romantic history sounds a lot like mine, actually. I think he’s a rescuer.

I hope he doesn’t think I need rescuing.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Anyway, going back to a gender divide about these feelings, I wonder if women are inclined to question the durability of wonderful relationships because of the endless gaming they encounter in youth?

[/quote]

No, they are inclined to do that because they bat consistently out of their league as long as they have the upper hand in the SMP.

Of course they get hurt. [/quote]

I don’t think I’m batting out of my league, or ever have. I’ve still gotten hurt.
[/quote]

You think you are safe from the fallout because you play it right?

There is no shelter, you will have to deal with men who dealt with women before you.

If I had to design a system on purpose that breeds a surplus of bitter, cynical bastards I think I would just take the currents system without too many changes. [/quote]

Tim wasn’t angry at women, he was morally bankrupt.

If I were self-pitying and interested in maintaining a lousy status quo I would take out my anger at Tim on someone else and call it feminism and call it fair.

However, I would much rather learn from it and move on to something nicer, in the process protecting both myself and someone else who “plays it right” from the bitter, cynical people who are looking to take their anger out on someone else. They can have each other and mistrust and shit test to their hearts’ content.

I mentioned, right, that Hockey had the experience you fear? Paying child support and couldn’t see his kids? He didn’t date for a long time because he was angry at women. But then he decided that was stupid; that one person isn’t everyone.

[/quote]

A few points:

Men dont shittest, at least not in the way women do, we dont get wet if we lose.

Then, the bar set for you is lower, I assume that he has had his children and thats that, you simply cannot rip his hard out that way. Therefore, he can either take or leave you.

Whether AWALT or NAWALT, what does it matter if the worst is behind you? He is not super enlightened, he just is already frivource raped and therefore free.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Anyway, going back to a gender divide about these feelings, I wonder if women are inclined to question the durability of wonderful relationships because of the endless gaming they encounter in youth?

[/quote]

No, they are inclined to do that because they bat consistently out of their league as long as they have the upper hand in the SMP.

Of course they get hurt. [/quote]

I don’t think I’m batting out of my league, or ever have. I’ve still gotten hurt.
[/quote]

You think you are safe from the fallout because you play it right?

There is no shelter, you will have to deal with men who dealt with women before you.

If I had to design a system on purpose that breeds a surplus of bitter, cynical bastards I think I would just take the currents system without too many changes. [/quote]

Tim wasn’t angry at women, he was morally bankrupt.

If I were self-pitying and interested in maintaining a lousy status quo I would take out my anger at Tim on someone else and call it feminism and call it fair.

However, I would much rather learn from it and move on to something nicer, in the process protecting both myself and someone else who “plays it right” from the bitter, cynical people who are looking to take their anger out on someone else. They can have each other and mistrust and shit test to their hearts’ content.

I mentioned, right, that Hockey had the experience you fear? Paying child support and couldn’t see his kids? He didn’t date for a long time because he was angry at women. But then he decided that was stupid; that one person isn’t everyone.

[/quote]

A few points:

Men dont shittest, at least not in the way women do, we dont get wet if we lose.

Then, the bar set for you is lower, I assume that he has had his children and thats that, you simply cannot rip his hard out that way. Therefore, he can either take or leave you.

Whether AWALT or NAWALT, what does it matter if the worst is behind you? He is not super enlightened, he just is already frivource raped and therefore free. [/quote]

True, we both have much less to lose this time around and it IS freeing. However, I strongly suspect that if we’d met sooner and we got to the point of considering it he would have children with me regardless. But I could be wrong. He’s had a vasectomy (OR SO HE SAYS).

I think men absolutely shit test. There’s thread after thread about it here. It would never in a million years occur to me to look at someone’s phone* if AC hadn’t brought up that he booby-traps his. That’s not a shit test? Of course it is.

*Not that I look now.

Don’t you guys have anything better to do on the weekend? :wink:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Anyway, going back to a gender divide about these feelings, I wonder if women are inclined to question the durability of wonderful relationships because of the endless gaming they encounter in youth?

[/quote]

No, they are inclined to do that because they bat consistently out of their league as long as they have the upper hand in the SMP.

Of course they get hurt. [/quote]

I don’t think I’m batting out of my league, or ever have. I’ve still gotten hurt.
[/quote]

You think you are safe from the fallout because you play it right?

There is no shelter, you will have to deal with men who dealt with women before you.

If I had to design a system on purpose that breeds a surplus of bitter, cynical bastards I think I would just take the currents system without too many changes. [/quote]

Tim wasn’t angry at women, he was morally bankrupt.

If I were self-pitying and interested in maintaining a lousy status quo I would take out my anger at Tim on someone else and call it feminism and call it fair.

However, I would much rather learn from it and move on to something nicer, in the process protecting both myself and someone else who “plays it right” from the bitter, cynical people who are looking to take their anger out on someone else. They can have each other and mistrust and shit test to their hearts’ content.

I mentioned, right, that Hockey had the experience you fear? Paying child support and couldn’t see his kids? He didn’t date for a long time because he was angry at women. But then he decided that was stupid; that one person isn’t everyone.

[/quote]

A few points:

Men dont shittest, at least not in the way women do, we dont get wet if we lose.

Then, the bar set for you is lower, I assume that he has had his children and thats that, you simply cannot rip his hard out that way. Therefore, he can either take or leave you.

Whether AWALT or NAWALT, what does it matter if the worst is behind you? He is not super enlightened, he just is already frivource raped and therefore free. [/quote]

True, we both have much less to lose this time around and it IS freeing. However, I strongly suspect that if we’d met sooner and we got to the point of considering it he would have children with me regardless. But I could be wrong. He’s had a vasectomy (OR SO HE SAYS).

I think men absolutely shit test. There’s thread after thread about it here. It would never in a million years occur to me to look at someone’s phone* if AC hadn’t brought up that he booby-traps his. That’s not a shit test? Of course it is.

*Not that I look now.

[/quote]

No.

You still dont understand what a shittest is.

A shittest is a test women launch instinctively or semi instintively to test out whether they have found a sexworthy partner.

If she “loses” he has proven to be sufficiently masculine to get her as wet as october.

If a man “tests” he does so deliberately and he hopes to win.

If AC traps his phone he hopes she will leave it alone and he wont get even a little bit wet if she does not.

If you order your man around and he ignores it, you will.

If you order HG around and he says, I dont follow orders bia…, darling… —> E swoons…

If AC leaves phone around and girl snoops… -----> you dirty rotten whore…

Not even remotely the same.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Don’t you guys have anything better to do on the weekend? ;-)[/quote]

No!

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Don’t you guys have anything better to do on the weekend? ;-)[/quote]

I did it! I went hiking and planted wild flowers and drank mud slides and got sort of drunk because omg, so yummy! And watched a playoff game and had homemade buffalo wings and then went happily to bed.

I was supposed to be A) cleaning and B) organizing my closets when I was posting. Which is what I’m supposed to be doing again, because I have A) company coming and because B) my closets are a mess.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Anyway, going back to a gender divide about these feelings, I wonder if women are inclined to question the durability of wonderful relationships because of the endless gaming they encounter in youth?

[/quote]

No, they are inclined to do that because they bat consistently out of their league as long as they have the upper hand in the SMP.

Of course they get hurt. [/quote]

I don’t think I’m batting out of my league, or ever have. I’ve still gotten hurt.
[/quote]

You think you are safe from the fallout because you play it right?

There is no shelter, you will have to deal with men who dealt with women before you.

If I had to design a system on purpose that breeds a surplus of bitter, cynical bastards I think I would just take the currents system without too many changes. [/quote]

Tim wasn’t angry at women, he was morally bankrupt.

If I were self-pitying and interested in maintaining a lousy status quo I would take out my anger at Tim on someone else and call it feminism and call it fair.

However, I would much rather learn from it and move on to something nicer, in the process protecting both myself and someone else who “plays it right” from the bitter, cynical people who are looking to take their anger out on someone else. They can have each other and mistrust and shit test to their hearts’ content.

I mentioned, right, that Hockey had the experience you fear? Paying child support and couldn’t see his kids? He didn’t date for a long time because he was angry at women. But then he decided that was stupid; that one person isn’t everyone.

[/quote]

A few points:

Men dont shittest, at least not in the way women do, we dont get wet if we lose.

Then, the bar set for you is lower, I assume that he has had his children and thats that, you simply cannot rip his hard out that way. Therefore, he can either take or leave you.

Whether AWALT or NAWALT, what does it matter if the worst is behind you? He is not super enlightened, he just is already frivource raped and therefore free. [/quote]

True, we both have much less to lose this time around and it IS freeing. However, I strongly suspect that if we’d met sooner and we got to the point of considering it he would have children with me regardless. But I could be wrong. He’s had a vasectomy (OR SO HE SAYS).

I think men absolutely shit test. There’s thread after thread about it here. It would never in a million years occur to me to look at someone’s phone* if AC hadn’t brought up that he booby-traps his. That’s not a shit test? Of course it is.

*Not that I look now.

[/quote]

No.

You still dont understand what a shittest is.

A shittest is a test women launch instinctively or semi instintively to test out whether they have found a sexworthy partner.

If she “loses” he has proven to be sufficiently masculine to get her as wet as october.

If a man “tests” he does so deliberately and he hopes to win.

If AC traps his phone he hopes she will leave it alone and he wont get even a little bit wet if she does not.

If you order your man around and he ignores it, you will.

If you order HG around and he says, I dont follow orders bia…, darling… —> E swoons…

If AC leaves phone around and girl snoops… -----> you dirty rotten whore…

Not even remotely the same. [/quote]

Everyone tests. Tests vary depending what each individual is seeking, but everyone tests. How do I know what H will do if I order him around, since I don’t order people around? I can only imagine he would find it extremely off-putting, as I would if he ordered me around. Whether or not his refusal cued me that he’s worthy, that sort of test would probably cue him that I’m not.

As I recall, I deemed him “sexworthy” after a day spent snowshoeing. He was patient and funny and strong and. . .I dunno, sort of perfect. There weren’t any tests, unless it was hauling me out of the stream I’d fallen into or helping me get back up when I slid face-first down a steep hill. By that time we’d been out several times and I’d followed him through the holidays and was getting to know him and couldn’t find anything NOT good about him. I don’t think I was being an asshole to see if he’d take it.

Also, he displays more of what I think of as “game” now that we’re together than he did in the initial stages. Negs and kinos and such (i.e. teasing and touching and such).

Really, Orion, you need to stop all of this craziness and go find yourself a nice woman. How much more time are you going to waste crouched over in fear? So worst case you lose half your shit. How much is it worth, really? People recover from financial setbacks.

You also need to realize that continuing on this path puts you in the way of your feared outcome. If you seek young women who seek men of higher status for its own sake, you will find yourself with someone who’s after your status, not you. Find someone who likes what you like and stop worrying about what she did as a 22-year-old.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[/quote]

Ha! I knew you had 2 legs!

Oh, and I started back with the company making aluminum frames again.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

You also need to realize that continuing on this path puts you in the way of your feared outcome. If you seek young women who seek men of higher status for its own sake, you will find yourself with someone who’s after your status, not you. Find someone who likes what you like and stop worrying about what she did as a 22-year-old.

[/quote]

First of all, no woman will ever like me for “me” but for what I represent.

Second, no, I will not stop worrying about her past beccause it is the best predictor of her future behavior I have and if she has ridden the carousel, she is ruined.

If only because she would be lacking impulse control and has the foresight, social intelligence and time preference of a gerbil.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[/quote]

Ha! I knew you had 2 legs!

Oh, and I started back with the company making aluminum frames again.
[/quote]

You’re happy there? It’s a good move?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

You also need to realize that continuing on this path puts you in the way of your feared outcome. If you seek young women who seek men of higher status for its own sake, you will find yourself with someone who’s after your status, not you. Find someone who likes what you like and stop worrying about what she did as a 22-year-old.

[/quote]

First of all, no woman will ever like me for “me” but for what I represent.

Second, no, I will not stop worrying about her past beccause it is the best predictor of her future behavior I have and if she has ridden the carousel, she is ruined.

If only because she would be lacking impulse control and has the foresight, social intelligence and time preference of a gerbil. [/quote]

First of all, I didn’t suggest you find a woman who likes you for “you.” (lol) I suggested you find someone who likes what you like. You know, common interests? So that you can have an enjoyable life. Relationships are not built on SMV, they’re built on compatibility.

Second, no, past behavior is not the best predictor of future behavior in your age range, and you have no real way of knowing her past behavior anyway. Present behavior is a far better way to understand who and what she is. How does she live? You should, at 40, be dating women who’ve had a chance to establish themselves. Is she tidy? Is she meeting her basic needs and then some? Most importantly, assuming those answers are yes, is she debt free or mostly so - or even better yet saving money? These are your indicators of self-control and fiscal responsibility, without which you’ve got someone who needs to game others for money.

As for past behavior with men, how does she behave with you? That’s how you tell who she is. You’ve got a lot of poor behavior under your belt, sexually speaking. It’s the height of hypocrisy not to imagine people grow and change. Personally, I would not accept someone like you or AC because of your pasts. You’ve both been WAY too promiscuous for me. That you seem to think there should be a near-virgin out there for you blows my mind.

In summary: get over the bad girlfriend you had years ago and get to know someone. Stop gaming them. Use those skills to be sexually exciting later, after you establish that you like one another.

[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, no woman will ever like me for “me” but for what I represent. [/quote]

That’s a pretty limiting belief.

Are you capable of liking a woman for “her”, or just for what she represents and offers/provides/does?

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, no woman will ever like me for “me” but for what I represent. [/quote]

That’s a pretty limiting belief.

Are you capable of liking a woman for “her”, or just for what she represents and offers/provides/does?[/quote]

^^ YEAH. What about that??