Pregnant or is she just freaking out?

Off Topic
181

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
My remarks were directed towards the attitude that no one is to be trusted and that women will fuck you around if given half the opportunity.[/quote]
More and more females ARE falling into this camp nowadays though; I see it everywhere. Males and females alike don’t have the same kind of moral fiber people from my parent’s generation seemed to when it comes to relationships. I dunno, it just seems that way.[/quote]

I don’t think its moral fiber so much as that generation was patriarchal. The women’s movement really unleashed the beast. Now women can act like men so the world is going to hell. I guess. [/quote]

No, they can not act like man.

No man ever has gotten the pussy pass-

We have no get out of jail card.
[/quote]

The Vag only has as much power as you allow it to.[/quote]

This sums up my thoughts exactly.

182

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theBeth wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
My remarks were directed towards the attitude that no one is to be trusted and that women will fuck you around if given half the opportunity.[/quote]
More and more females ARE falling into this camp nowadays though; I see it everywhere. Males and females alike don’t have the same kind of moral fiber people from my parent’s generation seemed to when it comes to relationships. I dunno, it just seems that way.[/quote]

I don’t think its moral fiber so much as that generation was patriarchal. The women’s movement really unleashed the beast. Now women can act like men so the world is going to hell. I guess. [/quote]

No, they can not act like man.

No man ever has gotten the pussy pass-

We have no get out of jail card.
[/quote]

The Vag only has as much power as you allow it to.[/quote]

That is true, but you and I know that most men grant it way to much power.

183

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
I don’t understand how this thread even became about misogyny. We can all influence nearly everything in our daily lives but can only control our own actions and reactions. As men we have a responsibility to ourselves (and society) to act like grown ups. The idea that women are out to screw men over is moot. You cannot screw someone over if they don’t allow you do. Unless the percentage of women raping men skyrockets in the near future I don’t think we have to worry about men getting screwed over. No one is forced to have any sex, never mind unprotected sex. It seems to me like folks are trying to blame their own mistakes/character flaws on the opposite gender. I agree with most everything AC has said but the cell phone litmus test is complete garbage in my opinion. The test is designed to root out betrayal of trust by betraying someone’s trust. If someone didn’t look through the phone then the relationship would be on uneven ground. Basically, what should have been said is you don’t trust women and no matter what they do you won’t trust them. This same sentiment is often seen in men who cheat on women. I don’t have data to back it up, but they are 1000000% more likely to accuse their significant other of cheating.

So just remember, every time you point a finger, there’s three more pointing back at you![/quote]

Obviously I disagree. How is opening the door or giving someone enough rope to hang themselves a betrayal of trust? No one HAS to look through my cell phone. I don’t look through another person’s cell phone. Women give men “shit tests” all the time. They are CONSTANTLY probing and testing you to see what you’re made of or if you have the personal power to say “no” to them. That’s a completely different topic for another thread, but if tests are good for the goose, they are good for the gander.

Now where you really start to lose me is when you say, “If someone didn’t look through the phone then the relationship would be on uneven ground”. It’s perfectly even because I haven’t looked through THEIR personal phone and they haven’t looked through mine. Until THEY stick THEIR nose where it doesn’t belong, secretly, behind my back, and pretend that they didn’t. It then becomes out of balance. And honestly, I’ve never figured out what they are looking for. I mean, I do this test relatively early in a “relationship”. Before any promises of exclusivity, or declarations of undying love and affection. There is nothing to “catch” me doing, because I’m not breaking my word when I haven’t GIVEN it! It’s a simple violation of privacy, that’s all. Plain and simple.

As for your next assertion that I don’t trust women and no matter what they do I won’t trust them, that is false. I DO trust women. TO BE WOMEN.

Next is the straw man argument that says, “well if you’re accusing women of cheating, then you’re 1000000% likely to be cheating your self” yet you self admittedly don’t have any REAL evidence to back up your assertion. For the record, I don’t “cheat”. Nor do I lie - I am brutally honest with women. If I’m not exclusive with a woman, then I am free to be with whoever I want, and if she asks, I will tell her. If I AM exclusive with a woman, I speak openly about my desires as a man. If I come to an agreement where I have a “hall pass”, then I follow through with it. If I do NOT come to an agreement then I simply keep it in my pants. If my needs are not being met, I “open the relationship”. NONE of the above is cheating, now is it?

184

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

That’s kind of my thought (except the God part). Unless you live in a war zone in which paranoia is well founded you risk living a sad, shriveled existence when you distrust everyone. You may not get burned but the price to your soul seems pretty high.
[/quote]

And again would you trust a man you barely know with 100000$

You would, wouldnt you?

Otherwise, your constant paranoia might damage your soul…

Or maybe you would engage in an activity that could lead to serious emotional, social and financial harm with a group of people who are known to reneg 50% of all time and there is shit all you can do about it?

Well, yes, you would do that too, because otherwise you risk bitterness.

BULLSHIT.

If you had the same reproductive rights as men, if you were in the same position as men are in al Western nations, women themselves would sew their vaginas shut.

The very fact that women have bit by bit and inch by inch made it so that they hold all the cards in the reproductive game and that they complete devalued the male provider role by choosing to get at our resources via state coercion instead of cultivating female virtues so that a man might commit means first and foremost one thing.

YOU DONT TRUST US ONE BIT.

But, you would like us to trust you.

Because the whole house comes down if we stop doing so in sufficient numbers. [/quote]

Okay.

I’m sure you understand calculating risk. You don’t give a random stranger $100,000. I would suggest you don’t stick your dick into a random stranger either.

You attempt to govern your behaviour in a manner that minimizes your own risk. That doesn’t mean treat everyone as though they intend to rob you or foist someone else’s child upon you. That means don’t fuck crazy or morally corrupt and don’t walk through dark alley’s at night. There is a vast distance between blindly trusting and distrusting everyone. It is the grey area in which most of us operate.
[/quote]

Sticking your dick in crazy is one thing, but even if you just meet a girl, how do you know she isn’t HIV positive? She could be a good girl and had a one night fling, or had an ex BF cheat on her. That isn’t an assault on her character, nor is it likely to show up on your “skank radar”. But it’s still a very real possibility in today’s world, right? Even if you both got tested before you had sex, HIV doesn’t show up right away…

I think all the “mistrust will shrivel your soul” talk is very ill conceived in a discussion of safe sex. Whether or not the fear is becoming a cuckold, an accidental pregnancy or catching a disease is irrelevant. Practicing safe sex is just smart. It isn’t inherently misogynistic. It’s the only thing a guy can do to have the best chance of protecting himself from a NUMBER of risks. What’s wrong with that?[/quote]

I think you misunderstood my intent because the thread has meandered all over the place. You should absolutely wear a condom. To do otherwise is foolish. Wearing a condom is right up there with 'don’t intentionally stick your dick in crazy".

My remarks were directed towards the attitude that no one is to be trusted and that women will fuck you around if given half the opportunity. This isn’t a shot at the men either. I’ve known plenty of women who consistently sleep with arseholes and then complain that all men are arseholes.

You take reasonable precautions in your life but don’t treat everyone and every situation like they or it will knife you in the back.[/quote]

Trust is earned, IMHO. If I’m casually dating someone, why should I trust them? I don’t KNOW them. Now that isn’t to say that I’ve never stuck my dick in crazy - those who have followed my posts over the years know that I’ve got a certain “penchant” for the erotic, exotic and a little psychotic. Having said that, I’ve also dated plenty of amazing, well adjusted women. But even so, they ALL failed the cell phone litmus test consistently.

The cell phone litmus test: Leave your cell phone in a certain exact position (not obvious) with a small hair being held under the phone, and you phone set on a certain spot at a certain angle, opened to a certain app/contact or whatever. When she comes over, leave her alone in the room with the cell phone and make an excuse to step out for five or ten minutes (or take a shower). They will NOT be able to resist the temptation! They will snoop through your shit every time. Most wont just stop with the cell phone, either. They’ll go through your medicine cabinet, your file drawers, your desk, your bedside table. I had more than one girl try to open my SAFE! It was hidden…

Try it sometime. SEE for yourself if they can be trusted. And treat them accordingly.

Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.

So if they ALL failed the cell phone litmus test consistently across the board, am I a misogynistic asshole for not trusting them? Or am I a smart person with data to back up my position, which is: MOST women cannot be trusted? Not saying they are bad people. But they cannot control their emotional impulses. They will make an emotional decision in the moment if they “feel” it will tell them more about themselves, their partner, their future or their horoscope sign. They will THEN use logic (chic logic) to rationalize their behavior after the fact. And as long as they never get caught, they will keep their mouth shut and never come clean about their indiscretion, whatever it may be.

In fact, they’ll try to make YOU feel bad for even insinuating it in the first place. If confronted with evidence of THEIR wrongdoing, they will attempt to turn it around and call YOU an asshole for “not trusting them” and confronting them with their bullshit. This can either devolve into child like attempts of winning your forgiveness, to psychotic episodes where they are throwing your shit and breaking things. After a particularly spectacular episode, I decided not to ever confront a women with her “darker side” again, and just accept it. MOST of them cannot handle the facts in an adult way. They’ve bought into their “facade” so completely that they confabulate their actions away and sweep it under the rug of their consciousness almost completely, almost as if it never happened.

Now I don’t “hate” women. Just like I don’t “hate” dogs. But I most certainly wouldn’t trust a dog in a room alone with a steak, now would I? But I would trust a dog to BE a dog… So obviously you have to treat a dog like a dog. You love your dog, you take your dog for walks, you shower your dog with affection and love, you give your dog a treat when it’s good and appropriate discipline when it’s bad. But you don’t expect your dog NOT to act like a dog, you don’t put it in a room with a steak (unless you want it to eat the steak and shit all over your carpet).

Same with women. I trust a woman to follow her nature and to BE a woman. Which is to say, I don’t trust her with a secret, I don’t trust her NOT to be overcome by her emotions and do something irrational, I don’t trust her not to misbehave if she believes she will not be caught, I don’t trust her not to tell her friends a “juicy gossip” about one of my clients, customers or business deals after I’ve asked her not to, I don’t trust her to have access to my money/assets, And if an opportunity for an “Erica Jong-esque” zip-less fuck arises, I trust her to take it and emotionally justify it after the fact and never to come clean about it. And I’m OK with that because I know what I’m getting myself into. So I LOVE women and accept them AS THEY ARE. But I most certainly don’t sugar coat it or pretend that they are something they are not.

And I ALWAYS wear a condom.[/quote]

I guess I can’t speak to your experience, only my own. I’ve always been of the opinion that you shouldn’t ask questions you aren’t sure you want answered and you shouldn’t spy through key holes if you’re going to bitch about what you see. As for secrets, two people can keep one if one of them is dead. I wouldn’t share my confidential client information with anyone because it’s not mine to share.

Every person develops a construct about their own personality. Men and women. We all rationalize our actions in a manner that makes us appear better to ourselves that fills in the cracks of our behaviour to more closely align in our own minds with what we wish it were. It doesn’t surprise me that the women you question would do the same. We all do it. I know I’ve explained my own shit-head behaviour away in a similar manner. Every person on the planet buys into their own facade. We need to in order to preserve our sense of self. We gloss over the edges and believe the lies we tell ourselves.[/quote]

Well, I’m not “bitching” about what I see spying through the keyhole, I’m simply taking action to protect my interests when what I see time and time again is not up to the standard of trust that I would accept. I certainly hope that I have not come across as “bitching”. I’ve taken every opportunity to keep things NON bitchy I think.

I do take exception to your statement that we ALL buy into our own facade. I have met many men who are very open and honest and don’t lie to themselves. I take pains to be brutally honest with myself and take my personal evolution very seriously. I don’t freely share that which I want to be held private.

As for my client’s information, I have never shared confidential information. What I was referring to was gossip. Even when specifically asked not to, they can’t help themselves.

185

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

That’s kind of my thought (except the God part). Unless you live in a war zone in which paranoia is well founded you risk living a sad, shriveled existence when you distrust everyone. You may not get burned but the price to your soul seems pretty high.
[/quote]

And again would you trust a man you barely know with 100000$

You would, wouldnt you?

Otherwise, your constant paranoia might damage your soul…

Or maybe you would engage in an activity that could lead to serious emotional, social and financial harm with a group of people who are known to reneg 50% of all time and there is shit all you can do about it?

Well, yes, you would do that too, because otherwise you risk bitterness.

BULLSHIT.

If you had the same reproductive rights as men, if you were in the same position as men are in al Western nations, women themselves would sew their vaginas shut.

The very fact that women have bit by bit and inch by inch made it so that they hold all the cards in the reproductive game and that they complete devalued the male provider role by choosing to get at our resources via state coercion instead of cultivating female virtues so that a man might commit means first and foremost one thing.

YOU DONT TRUST US ONE BIT.

But, you would like us to trust you.

Because the whole house comes down if we stop doing so in sufficient numbers. [/quote]

Okay.

I’m sure you understand calculating risk. You don’t give a random stranger $100,000. I would suggest you don’t stick your dick into a random stranger either.

You attempt to govern your behaviour in a manner that minimizes your own risk. That doesn’t mean treat everyone as though they intend to rob you or foist someone else’s child upon you. That means don’t fuck crazy or morally corrupt and don’t walk through dark alley’s at night. There is a vast distance between blindly trusting and distrusting everyone. It is the grey area in which most of us operate.
[/quote]

Sticking your dick in crazy is one thing, but even if you just meet a girl, how do you know she isn’t HIV positive? She could be a good girl and had a one night fling, or had an ex BF cheat on her. That isn’t an assault on her character, nor is it likely to show up on your “skank radar”. But it’s still a very real possibility in today’s world, right? Even if you both got tested before you had sex, HIV doesn’t show up right away…

I think all the “mistrust will shrivel your soul” talk is very ill conceived in a discussion of safe sex. Whether or not the fear is becoming a cuckold, an accidental pregnancy or catching a disease is irrelevant. Practicing safe sex is just smart. It isn’t inherently misogynistic. It’s the only thing a guy can do to have the best chance of protecting himself from a NUMBER of risks. What’s wrong with that?[/quote]

I think you misunderstood my intent because the thread has meandered all over the place. You should absolutely wear a condom. To do otherwise is foolish. Wearing a condom is right up there with 'don’t intentionally stick your dick in crazy".

My remarks were directed towards the attitude that no one is to be trusted and that women will fuck you around if given half the opportunity. This isn’t a shot at the men either. I’ve known plenty of women who consistently sleep with arseholes and then complain that all men are arseholes.

You take reasonable precautions in your life but don’t treat everyone and every situation like they or it will knife you in the back.[/quote]

Trust is earned, IMHO. If I’m casually dating someone, why should I trust them? I don’t KNOW them. Now that isn’t to say that I’ve never stuck my dick in crazy - those who have followed my posts over the years know that I’ve got a certain “penchant” for the erotic, exotic and a little psychotic. Having said that, I’ve also dated plenty of amazing, well adjusted women. But even so, they ALL failed the cell phone litmus test consistently.

The cell phone litmus test: Leave your cell phone in a certain exact position (not obvious) with a small hair being held under the phone, and you phone set on a certain spot at a certain angle, opened to a certain app/contact or whatever. When she comes over, leave her alone in the room with the cell phone and make an excuse to step out for five or ten minutes (or take a shower). They will NOT be able to resist the temptation! They will snoop through your shit every time. Most wont just stop with the cell phone, either. They’ll go through your medicine cabinet, your file drawers, your desk, your bedside table. I had more than one girl try to open my SAFE! It was hidden…

Try it sometime. SEE for yourself if they can be trusted. And treat them accordingly.

Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.

So if they ALL failed the cell phone litmus test consistently across the board, am I a misogynistic asshole for not trusting them? Or am I a smart person with data to back up my position, which is: MOST women cannot be trusted? Not saying they are bad people. But they cannot control their emotional impulses. They will make an emotional decision in the moment if they “feel” it will tell them more about themselves, their partner, their future or their horoscope sign. They will THEN use logic (chic logic) to rationalize their behavior after the fact. And as long as they never get caught, they will keep their mouth shut and never come clean about their indiscretion, whatever it may be.

In fact, they’ll try to make YOU feel bad for even insinuating it in the first place. If confronted with evidence of THEIR wrongdoing, they will attempt to turn it around and call YOU an asshole for “not trusting them” and confronting them with their bullshit. This can either devolve into child like attempts of winning your forgiveness, to psychotic episodes where they are throwing your shit and breaking things. After a particularly spectacular episode, I decided not to ever confront a women with her “darker side” again, and just accept it. MOST of them cannot handle the facts in an adult way. They’ve bought into their “facade” so completely that they confabulate their actions away and sweep it under the rug of their consciousness almost completely, almost as if it never happened.

Now I don’t “hate” women. Just like I don’t “hate” dogs. But I most certainly wouldn’t trust a dog in a room alone with a steak, now would I? But I would trust a dog to BE a dog… So obviously you have to treat a dog like a dog. You love your dog, you take your dog for walks, you shower your dog with affection and love, you give your dog a treat when it’s good and appropriate discipline when it’s bad. But you don’t expect your dog NOT to act like a dog, you don’t put it in a room with a steak (unless you want it to eat the steak and shit all over your carpet).

Same with women. I trust a woman to follow her nature and to BE a woman. Which is to say, I don’t trust her with a secret, I don’t trust her NOT to be overcome by her emotions and do something irrational, I don’t trust her not to misbehave if she believes she will not be caught, I don’t trust her not to tell her friends a “juicy gossip” about one of my clients, customers or business deals after I’ve asked her not to, I don’t trust her to have access to my money/assets, And if an opportunity for an “Erica Jong-esque” zip-less fuck arises, I trust her to take it and emotionally justify it after the fact and never to come clean about it. And I’m OK with that because I know what I’m getting myself into. So I LOVE women and accept them AS THEY ARE. But I most certainly don’t sugar coat it or pretend that they are something they are not.

And I ALWAYS wear a condom.[/quote]

I guess I can’t speak to your experience, only my own. I’ve always been of the opinion that you shouldn’t ask questions you aren’t sure you want answered and you shouldn’t spy through key holes if you’re going to bitch about what you see. As for secrets, two people can keep one if one of them is dead. I wouldn’t share my confidential client information with anyone because it’s not mine to share.

Every person develops a construct about their own personality. Men and women. We all rationalize our actions in a manner that makes us appear better to ourselves that fills in the cracks of our behaviour to more closely align in our own minds with what we wish it were. It doesn’t surprise me that the women you question would do the same. We all do it. I know I’ve explained my own shit-head behaviour away in a similar manner. Every person on the planet buys into their own facade. We need to in order to preserve our sense of self. We gloss over the edges and believe the lies we tell ourselves.[/quote]

Well, I’m not “bitching” about what I see spying through the keyhole, I’m simply taking action to protect my interests when what I see time and time again is not up to the standard of trust that I would accept. I certainly hope that I have not come across as “bitching”. I’ve taken every opportunity to keep things NON bitchy I think.

I do take exception to your statement that we ALL buy into our own facade. I have met many men who are very open and honest and don’t lie to themselves. I take pains to be brutally honest with myself and take my personal evolution very seriously. I don’t freely share that which I want to be held private.

As for my client’s information, I have never shared confidential information. What I was referring to was gossip. Even when specifically asked not to, they can’t help themselves.[/quote]

Fucking A.

186

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

Well, I’m not “bitching” about what I see spying through the keyhole, I’m simply taking action to protect my interests when what I see time and time again is not up to the standard of trust that I would accept. I certainly hope that I have not come across as “bitching”. I’ve taken every opportunity to keep things NON bitchy I think.

I do take exception to your statement that we ALL buy into our own facade. I have met many men who are very open and honest and don’t lie to themselves. I take pains to be brutally honest with myself and take my personal evolution very seriously. I don’t freely share that which I want to be held private.

As for my client’s information, I have never shared confidential information. What I was referring to was gossip. Even when specifically asked not to, they can’t help themselves.[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about you bitching. I was talking about people going through your personal things and bitching about what they find. I don’t think I’ve ever found your posts whiny or bitchy. They are often in contrast to what I believe and my own experiences but never bitchy. Interesting and thought provoking.

I still assert that we buy into our own facade. For the most part we don’t realize we’re doing it.

187

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
This isn’t really directed to the original poster but to everyone else who jumped to the conclusion that she is pregnant with another man’s baby. Perhaps people should try having sex/a relationship with a better class of person than one you think would screw around on you. You’re known by the company you keep. If it’s with a skank, what does that say for you?[/quote]
Too much logic.[/quote]

It lacks logic, to me.

If I’m afraid my wife is screwing around, then yes, I should be weary of myself because of the company I keep. If I’m concerned about someone else’s wife screwing around on them, that doesn’t say anything about my wife or myself, does it? After all, she’s not the one I’m concerned with. [/quote]

It’s more the frame of mind that they immediately think she’s a slut/skank. It seems like an over familiarity with that type of behaviour which leads me to believe they associate with people who behave poorly. I don’t expect the worst of people because I don’t marry, sleep with, hang with or become friends with people who I believe will shit on me. That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced it but it’s the exception rather than the expectation.
[/quote]

Fair enough - and I don’t totally disagree. [/quote]

I do, and here is why.

From an evopsych perspective, we have developed to err on the side of caution in many cases, because there are disproportionate risk/rewards.

If something rustles the grass it might be the wind, it might be a lion.

If you automatically assume its a lion, you may err often, but whats the harm?

If you automatically assume its the wind you may be right often, but only err once.

Its better to err on the side of caution if the risk/reward is laid out like it regrettably is , i.e. men having almost no reproductive rights in our society.

If the one exception can ruin you, better to be vigilant always.
[/quote]

Have fun being paranoid your entire life.

There is a tremendous harm in ALWAYS erring on the side of caution. It’s like Pascal’s wager when he says there is no risk in believing in God. There certainly is a huge risk in spending your entire life living by certain principles, worshiping a fictional character (if you’re wrong) and spending so much of the limited time you have devoted to God.

[/quote]

That’s kind of my thought (except the God part). Unless you live in a war zone in which paranoia is well founded you risk living a sad, shriveled existence when you distrust everyone. You may not get burned but the price to your soul seems pretty high.
[/quote]

And again would you trust a man you barely know with 100000$

You would, wouldnt you?

Otherwise, your constant paranoia might damage your soul…

Or maybe you would engage in an activity that could lead to serious emotional, social and financial harm with a group of people who are known to reneg 50% of all time and there is shit all you can do about it?

Well, yes, you would do that too, because otherwise you risk bitterness.

BULLSHIT.

If you had the same reproductive rights as men, if you were in the same position as men are in al Western nations, women themselves would sew their vaginas shut.

The very fact that women have bit by bit and inch by inch made it so that they hold all the cards in the reproductive game and that they complete devalued the male provider role by choosing to get at our resources via state coercion instead of cultivating female virtues so that a man might commit means first and foremost one thing.

YOU DONT TRUST US ONE BIT.

But, you would like us to trust you.

Because the whole house comes down if we stop doing so in sufficient numbers. [/quote]

I do not mean this as an insult, but you just general come off as someone who has socially and emotionally shut themselves off from the outside world. It must be lonely. [/quote]

I would wager thats how he comes off to everyone. [/quote]

I would wager that most people on internet boards come off very differently than they do in real life. [/quote]
bazinga

188

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
Most people don’t survive life. No one dies unscathed. I can wager if you talk to anyone here or in your life, they all have a sad or tragic story to share. How you carry on, conduct yourself and treat others is a choice. Don’t they say living well (and happily) is the best revenge? If you want to be a victim of your own sad/tragic incident(s) carry on as you are.[/quote]

I would say that wearing a condom is good insurance against being a victim of sad/tragic circumstance. An unplanned pregnancy or STD is life altering event. All the living well in world won’t put that genie back in the bottle.[/quote]

I cant read too many Angry Chicken posts-

I am accustomed to deal with pretentious bullshit, too much common sense overloads my shitjustgotreal-meter[/quote]

WTF?

He had a streak going until you interrupted him.[/quote]

Lies, look at the time stamps.[/quote]

Oyurishi wo itadakitaku zonjite orimasu!

(Sorry)[/quote]
lol

189

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.
[/quote]
Good to know

190

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
I don’t understand how this thread even became about misogyny. We can all influence nearly everything in our daily lives but can only control our own actions and reactions. As men we have a responsibility to ourselves (and society) to act like grown ups. The idea that women are out to screw men over is moot. You cannot screw someone over if they don’t allow you do. Unless the percentage of women raping men skyrockets in the near future I don’t think we have to worry about men getting screwed over. No one is forced to have any sex, never mind unprotected sex. It seems to me like folks are trying to blame their own mistakes/character flaws on the opposite gender. I agree with most everything AC has said but the cell phone litmus test is complete garbage in my opinion. The test is designed to root out betrayal of trust by betraying someone’s trust. If someone didn’t look through the phone then the relationship would be on uneven ground. Basically, what should have been said is you don’t trust women and no matter what they do you won’t trust them. This same sentiment is often seen in men who cheat on women. I don’t have data to back it up, but they are 1000000% more likely to accuse their significant other of cheating.

So just remember, every time you point a finger, there’s three more pointing back at you![/quote]

Obviously I disagree. How is opening the door or giving someone enough rope to hang themselves a betrayal of trust? No one HAS to look through my cell phone. I don’t look through another person’s cell phone. Women give men “shit tests” all the time. They are CONSTANTLY probing and testing you to see what you’re made of or if you have the personal power to say “no” to them. That’s a completely different topic for another thread, but if tests are good for the goose, they are good for the gander.

Now where you really start to lose me is when you say, “If someone didn’t look through the phone then the relationship would be on uneven ground”. It’s perfectly even because I haven’t looked through THEIR personal phone and they haven’t looked through mine. Until THEY stick THEIR nose where it doesn’t belong, secretly, behind my back, and pretend that they didn’t. It then becomes out of balance. And honestly, I’ve never figured out what they are looking for. I mean, I do this test relatively early in a “relationship”. Before any promises of exclusivity, or declarations of undying love and affection. There is nothing to “catch” me doing, because I’m not breaking my word when I haven’t GIVEN it! It’s a simple violation of privacy, that’s all. Plain and simple.

As for your next assertion that I don’t trust women and no matter what they do I won’t trust them, that is false. I DO trust women. TO BE WOMEN.

Next is the straw man argument that says, “well if you’re accusing women of cheating, then you’re 1000000% likely to be cheating your self” yet you self admittedly don’t have any REAL evidence to back up your assertion. For the record, I don’t “cheat”. Nor do I lie - I am brutally honest with women. If I’m not exclusive with a woman, then I am free to be with whoever I want, and if she asks, I will tell her. If I AM exclusive with a woman, I speak openly about my desires as a man. If I come to an agreement where I have a “hall pass”, then I follow through with it. If I do NOT come to an agreement then I simply keep it in my pants. If my needs are not being met, I “open the relationship”. NONE of the above is cheating, now is it? [/quote]

I could be wrong here but it seems as you follow a more guilty until proven innocent path, whereas I do not. Either way, we are both content with the way we live our lives no matter how different they may be. I think the obvious reason people take offense to what you and orion say is that your blanket statements also apply to our girlfriends and wives. We clearly just want different things.

The cheating comment may have been out of place but is relevant to the conversation. People tend to project upon others and I think this applies to you as well.

The whole purpose of my post was that we are only responsible for what we do and if people would do a better job reflecting upon themselves and weighing their decisions instead of just doing whatever feels good right now we wouldn’t run into many of these problems. That 50% chance goes down quite a bit if people try to figure out what they are doing instead of what the other person is doing.

191

[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Well, I’m not “bitching” about what I see spying through the keyhole, I’m simply taking action to protect my interests when what I see time and time again is not up to the standard of trust that I would accept. I certainly hope that I have not come across as “bitching”. I’ve taken every opportunity to keep things NON bitchy I think.

I do take exception to your statement that we ALL buy into our own facade. I have met many men who are very open and honest and don’t lie to themselves. I take pains to be brutally honest with myself and take my personal evolution very seriously. I don’t freely share that which I want to be held private.

As for my client’s information, I have never shared confidential information. What I was referring to was gossip. Even when specifically asked not to, they can’t help themselves.[/quote]

I wasn’t talking about you bitching. I was talking about people going through your personal things and bitching about what they find. I don’t think I’ve ever found your posts whiny or bitchy. They are often in contrast to what I believe and my own experiences but never bitchy. Interesting and thought provoking.

I still assert that we buy into our own facade. For the most part we don’t realize we’re doing it.[/quote]

I agree that EVERYONE has a persona/facade that they are invested in. But I think that when that persona is challenged or doesn’t hold up to close examination, women tend to lash out, go ballistic, get hateful and bring up that time two years ago when you did XYZ______. Most of the time when I’ve challenged a Man’s reality, he considers it, thinks about it and either accepts it or proves me wrong - emotion is left out (for the most part). He doesn’t try and kick my ass. Now this is speaking from “MY” experience and is by no means an absolute definitive blanket statement. It is a trend I’ve noticed.

I would also say that you and several of the other women that I’ve been privileged to interact with on this board have, in many cases, proven to be an exception to many of my ideas. But just because YOU and some of the women here (a competitive athlete population that hardly represents the majority of women one is likely to meet) are exceptions, that doesn’t invalidate my observations about MOST women. I always treat everyone I meet with an open mind and generally don’t rush to judgement. But I DO test just about everyone I meet, male or female. That’s just what my life experience (which is not typical) has taught me to do.

Cheers.

192

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.
[/quote]
Good to know[/quote]

If your information under your avatar is correct, you live in DC and can vouch for the areas that I’m speaking of. DC and Arlington has some of the highest concentrations of hawt single professional young women on the east coast. Most of whom are not crazy. I’m assuming you date and go out in DC. What areas do you frequent?

193

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.
[/quote]
Good to know[/quote]

If your information under your avatar is correct, you live in DC and can vouch for the areas that I’m speaking of. DC and Arlington has some of the highest concentrations of hawt single professional young women on the east coast. Most of whom are not crazy. I’m assuming you date and go out in DC. What areas do you frequent?[/quote]
I go to school in GA. I’m only here during my winter and summer breaks. I usually frequent the Columbia Heights, Van Ness, and Tenleytown areas when I’m out. Georgetown less frequently. I know what you mean about the women though. Almost never see the same ones twice unless I know them. I’m not dating right now.

194

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
I don’t understand how this thread even became about misogyny. We can all influence nearly everything in our daily lives but can only control our own actions and reactions. As men we have a responsibility to ourselves (and society) to act like grown ups. The idea that women are out to screw men over is moot. You cannot screw someone over if they don’t allow you do. Unless the percentage of women raping men skyrockets in the near future I don’t think we have to worry about men getting screwed over. No one is forced to have any sex, never mind unprotected sex. It seems to me like folks are trying to blame their own mistakes/character flaws on the opposite gender. I agree with most everything AC has said but the cell phone litmus test is complete garbage in my opinion. The test is designed to root out betrayal of trust by betraying someone’s trust. If someone didn’t look through the phone then the relationship would be on uneven ground. Basically, what should have been said is you don’t trust women and no matter what they do you won’t trust them. This same sentiment is often seen in men who cheat on women. I don’t have data to back it up, but they are 1000000% more likely to accuse their significant other of cheating.

So just remember, every time you point a finger, there’s three more pointing back at you![/quote]

Obviously I disagree. How is opening the door or giving someone enough rope to hang themselves a betrayal of trust? No one HAS to look through my cell phone. I don’t look through another person’s cell phone. Women give men “shit tests” all the time. They are CONSTANTLY probing and testing you to see what you’re made of or if you have the personal power to say “no” to them. That’s a completely different topic for another thread, but if tests are good for the goose, they are good for the gander.

Now where you really start to lose me is when you say, “If someone didn’t look through the phone then the relationship would be on uneven ground”. It’s perfectly even because I haven’t looked through THEIR personal phone and they haven’t looked through mine. Until THEY stick THEIR nose where it doesn’t belong, secretly, behind my back, and pretend that they didn’t. It then becomes out of balance. And honestly, I’ve never figured out what they are looking for. I mean, I do this test relatively early in a “relationship”. Before any promises of exclusivity, or declarations of undying love and affection. There is nothing to “catch” me doing, because I’m not breaking my word when I haven’t GIVEN it! It’s a simple violation of privacy, that’s all. Plain and simple.

As for your next assertion that I don’t trust women and no matter what they do I won’t trust them, that is false. I DO trust women. TO BE WOMEN.

Next is the straw man argument that says, “well if you’re accusing women of cheating, then you’re 1000000% likely to be cheating your self” yet you self admittedly don’t have any REAL evidence to back up your assertion. For the record, I don’t “cheat”. Nor do I lie - I am brutally honest with women. If I’m not exclusive with a woman, then I am free to be with whoever I want, and if she asks, I will tell her. If I AM exclusive with a woman, I speak openly about my desires as a man. If I come to an agreement where I have a “hall pass”, then I follow through with it. If I do NOT come to an agreement then I simply keep it in my pants. If my needs are not being met, I “open the relationship”. NONE of the above is cheating, now is it? [/quote]

I could be wrong here but it seems as you follow a more guilty until proven innocent path, whereas I do not. Either way, we are both content with the way we live our lives no matter how different they may be. I think the obvious reason people take offense to what you and orion say is that your blanket statements also apply to our girlfriends and wives. We clearly just want different things.

The cheating comment may have been out of place but is relevant to the conversation. People tend to project upon others and I think this applies to you as well.

The whole purpose of my post was that we are only responsible for what we do and if people would do a better job reflecting upon themselves and weighing their decisions instead of just doing whatever feels good right now we wouldn’t run into many of these problems. That 50% chance goes down quite a bit if people try to figure out what they are doing instead of what the other person is doing.
[/quote]

I’d say it’s not “guilty until proven innocent”. But rather, “closed until it’s demonstrated it’s safe to open up”. And when I test, and they fail, I don’t open up. I always give the opportunity.

As for your girlfriends and wives, I cannot comment. I can say that many women avoid “slippery” people, places and situations as a matter of course. That is smart. If you have a smart woman, then good for you. But I have seen MANY women cheat. In fact I’ve had many women wake up next to me in my bed, call their BF/Husband and the conversation always goes something like this, “Hi honey, I’m sorry I didn’t come home, I drank too much and spent the night at Karen’s house… I know, I love you too, honey”. And then they give me BJ…

Now, before people jump up my ass and call me a home wrecker, I NEVER ask if a woman has a man when I approach them. I always assume she is available. If she is taken, she’ll let me know and I’ll back off or recruit her to help me pick up other chicks. But if she comes home with me, then it’s fair to say that she’s declared herself in play.

195

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.
[/quote]
Good to know[/quote]

If your information under your avatar is correct, you live in DC and can vouch for the areas that I’m speaking of. DC and Arlington has some of the highest concentrations of hawt single professional young women on the east coast. Most of whom are not crazy. I’m assuming you date and go out in DC. What areas do you frequent?[/quote]
I go to school in GA. I’m only here during my winter and summer breaks. I usually frequent the Columbia Heights, Van Ness, and Tenleytown areas when I’m out. Georgetown less frequently. I know what you mean about the women though. Almost never see the same ones twice unless I know them. I’m not dating right now.[/quote]

Interesting. I haven’t really spent much time in those areas as they are more in the Upper NW area while I was further south. I did go to some of the Embassy stuff a while ago which was interesting, but I didn’t think there were many bars and clubs in those areas (besides G-town, of coarse).

196

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.
[/quote]
Good to know[/quote]

If your information under your avatar is correct, you live in DC and can vouch for the areas that I’m speaking of. DC and Arlington has some of the highest concentrations of hawt single professional young women on the east coast. Most of whom are not crazy. I’m assuming you date and go out in DC. What areas do you frequent?[/quote]
I go to school in GA. I’m only here during my winter and summer breaks. I usually frequent the Columbia Heights, Van Ness, and Tenleytown areas when I’m out. Georgetown less frequently. I know what you mean about the women though. Almost never see the same ones twice unless I know them. I’m not dating right now.[/quote]

Interesting. I haven’t really spent much time in those areas as they are more in the Upper NW area while I was further south. I did go to some of the Embassy stuff a while ago which was interesting, but I didn’t think there were many bars and clubs in those areas (besides G-town, of coarse).[/quote]
I live near the Mt. Vernon station. I don’t have much reason to frequent bar abundant areas as of yet since I’m under 21 and therefore pretty limited in my reach as far as women in this district are concerned unless they’re close to my age (i.e. girls that went to my high school, girls that know people I went to high school with, or girls that attend the universities in this city, etc.)

197

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.
[/quote]
Good to know[/quote]

If your information under your avatar is correct, you live in DC and can vouch for the areas that I’m speaking of. DC and Arlington has some of the highest concentrations of hawt single professional young women on the east coast. Most of whom are not crazy. I’m assuming you date and go out in DC. What areas do you frequent?[/quote]
I go to school in GA. I’m only here during my winter and summer breaks. I usually frequent the Columbia Heights, Van Ness, and Tenleytown areas when I’m out. Georgetown less frequently. I know what you mean about the women though. Almost never see the same ones twice unless I know them. I’m not dating right now.[/quote]

Interesting. I haven’t really spent much time in those areas as they are more in the Upper NW area while I was further south. I did go to some of the Embassy stuff a while ago which was interesting, but I didn’t think there were many bars and clubs in those areas (besides G-town, of coarse).[/quote]
I live near the Mt. Vernon station. I don’t have much reason to frequent bar abundant areas as of yet since I’m under 21 and therefore pretty limited in my reach as far as women in this district are concerned unless they’re close to my age (i.e. girls that went to my high school, girls that know people I went to high school with, or girls that attend the universities in this city, etc.)[/quote]

That explains it! LOL When you turn 21, hit me up - We’ll party angry chicken style.

198

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Now, you can argue that, “oh, you’re just dating low quality women”. But I disagree. I lived for many years in Washington DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood (close to the U street, K street, Adams Morgan, Dupont, and the Verizon center hot spots). I dated women from high end establishments, jazz clubs, concerts on the mall, expensive bars and restaurants, women I met in parks and bookstores, at the monuments and museums, Tourists and Locals, etc… Not just skanks I picked up at meat market clubs (although if I just wanted to chase down a gazelle for the night, I certainly had no problem going to a meat market for easy pickings and I never bothered to give them the cell phone litmus test cuz it was a one time thing, but I digress…).

Most of them were either college students or had very good professional jobs either on “The Hill”, for non profit groups, law firms, fortune 500 companies, etc… and sure there were a few waitresses, bartenders, strippers, “artists”, musicians, etc… thrown in their for good measure as well. My point is, certainly not all of them could have been crazy. That’s statistically impossible.
[/quote]
Good to know[/quote]

If your information under your avatar is correct, you live in DC and can vouch for the areas that I’m speaking of. DC and Arlington has some of the highest concentrations of hawt single professional young women on the east coast. Most of whom are not crazy. I’m assuming you date and go out in DC. What areas do you frequent?[/quote]
I go to school in GA. I’m only here during my winter and summer breaks. I usually frequent the Columbia Heights, Van Ness, and Tenleytown areas when I’m out. Georgetown less frequently. I know what you mean about the women though. Almost never see the same ones twice unless I know them. I’m not dating right now.[/quote]

Interesting. I haven’t really spent much time in those areas as they are more in the Upper NW area while I was further south. I did go to some of the Embassy stuff a while ago which was interesting, but I didn’t think there were many bars and clubs in those areas (besides G-town, of coarse).[/quote]
I live near the Mt. Vernon station. I don’t have much reason to frequent bar abundant areas as of yet since I’m under 21 and therefore pretty limited in my reach as far as women in this district are concerned unless they’re close to my age (i.e. girls that went to my high school, girls that know people I went to high school with, or girls that attend the universities in this city, etc.)[/quote]

That explains it! LOL When you turn 21, hit me up - We’ll party angry chicken style.[/quote]
lol cool

200

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

As for your girlfriends and wives, I cannot comment. I can say that many women avoid “slippery” people, places and situations as a matter of course. That is smart. If you have a smart woman, then good for you. But I have seen MANY women cheat. In fact I’ve had many women wake up next to me in my bed, call their BF/Husband and the conversation always goes something like this, “Hi honey, I’m sorry I didn’t come home, I drank too much and spent the night at Karen’s house… I know, I love you too, honey”. And then they give me BJ…

Now, before people jump up my ass and call me a home wrecker, I NEVER ask if a woman has a man when I approach them. I always assume she is available. If she is taken, she’ll let me know and I’ll back off or recruit her to help me pick up other chicks. But if she comes home with me, then it’s fair to say that she’s declared herself in play.[/quote]

Um yes.

How come that I am 6000 miles from where he is at, and I would sign that in heartbeat?

NAWALT?

Meh…