this is the crux. I still haven't figured out why women come here and what sort of women they are. Don't yall have a female version of sosuave somewhere?Rosemarie said:
(yes I said 'yall', I'm a southerner too hehe)
Advice for the Lady
- Thread starter SouthernGal
- Start date
(yes I said 'yall', I'm a southerner too hehe)
I saw it mentioned a couple of times in this thread that guys (or women even) who have/had ONS are low quality. This is false. Not only do I know several high quality men who've had ONS, I have too, and I'm quite sure I'm plenty of quality.
Planning and executing quick sex between two consenting adults with no strings attached is an example of maturity, not low quality. Folks, it's just sex. There isn't anything divine about it.
Planning and executing quick sex between two consenting adults with no strings attached is an example of maturity, not low quality. Folks, it's just sex. There isn't anything divine about it.
This has been touched on already, but let me tell you how this sounds to me;SouthernGal said:
You're conflicted in your mind. You actually really do want a "relationship" (that won't necessarily end). When you say you expect friendship beyond the sex, that's what you call a relationship. Please don't insult us by calling what you want something less than that. The perfect ending for you in this endeavor would be the daddy, but you're admitting you'd settle for one step less - which is a guy committing to meeting your emotional needs beyond sex. Sweetheart, those are relationships you speak of. So, if you want even a chance of having a guy that's my caliber, don't insult his intelligence by saying or even implying that you're not looking for a replacement daddy (in the optimal scenario). Of course you are, and the smart ones will resent that you'd even think they'd believe that lie.
My suggestion is to either 1. change your expectations or 2. be honest about what you want. If you want only meaningful relationships, then end any encounter with a man when it's obvious to you that you won't get that. Yes, sometimes this will occur after he's gotten in your pants. Chalk those up to slick guys; or just plain deceivers.
Rollo's write-up was 100% spot on too. If you can come to accept how you got to the stage where you are, it will help as you move forward. As RT said, you're playing a role that has worked time and time again. Eventually, some man will come along and accept the sacrifice. I never would, but I'm not AFC either. I want to raise only my own kid(s) which is what I'm doing.
Do not be too easy. If you are too easy to get, she will not want you. If you are too easy to keep, she will lose interest in you. If you are too easy to control, she will not respect you.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
What you have here is a classic Schedules of Mating dillema.
All you're seeing is methods women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male's genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she's capable of attracting. Rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by a biologicaly seated need for security, the feminine develops social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also a centuries long feminine social convention established from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins.
I've aleady detailed in many prior posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them (such as having the second kid with the Bad Boy). So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely, aware of is a bit naive.
It's simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it's offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and any potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction, where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic pairing for his reproduction (i.e. she's gotta be hot), but this criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no one's ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 17 times the amount of testosterone women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men.
That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young, a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. Thus, with so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding with, but also to know that his progeny will benefit from both parents involvement.
One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.
Social Convention
To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "prerogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman. This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.
This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders 'savior' mental schemas for men's breeding schedules - Capn' Save a Ho) and even marriage itself.
Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.
Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.
Reproductive Schedules
This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still ƒuck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women.
Cheating
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.
In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.
Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.
I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.
All you're seeing is methods women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male's genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she's capable of attracting. Rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by a biologicaly seated need for security, the feminine develops social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also a centuries long feminine social convention established from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins.
I've aleady detailed in many prior posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them (such as having the second kid with the Bad Boy). So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely, aware of is a bit naive.
It's simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it's offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and any potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction, where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic pairing for his reproduction (i.e. she's gotta be hot), but this criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no one's ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 17 times the amount of testosterone women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men.
That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young, a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. Thus, with so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding with, but also to know that his progeny will benefit from both parents involvement.
One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.
Social Convention
To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "prerogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman. This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.
This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders 'savior' mental schemas for men's breeding schedules - Capn' Save a Ho) and even marriage itself.
Good Dads vs Good Genes
The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.
Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.
Reproductive Schedules
This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still ƒuck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women.
Cheating
For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.
In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.
Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.
I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.
The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with a single mother when compared to a woman without children.
However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past' the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother's bad decisions (bad from his own interest's POV) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It's important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children's fate.
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.
The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with a single mother when compared to a woman without children.
However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past' the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother's bad decisions (bad from his own interest's POV) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It's important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children's fate.
jophil28
Master Don Juan
This is the warcry of the self-righteous woman who is convinced that she is noble and superior for sacrificing her life as a sexual woman to the demands of being a mother. This is the stereotypical woman who continues to "mother" their children when the child is 42 years old , unemployed ,on the couch with the TV remote and a Dominos for company. The "kid" needs mommie because he has "special needs' . The reality is that mommie NEEDS the kid to be dependent and incompetent and has created a life for him as such. HE is her lifelong project,and she is glowing in the knowledge that she is always "needed" .Rosemarie said:
Fortunately the OP is still enough of a woman to want more that this codependent, self imposed delusion of importance.
And here we have a prime example of a man who considers normal motherhood to be a pathology because it interferes with his desire to get his knob waxed on his terms.jophil28 said:
The most potentially dangerous thing a single mom can do to her kids is bring an unrelated male into the home. Even worse to bring in a string of them. I don't understand the FB or ONS thing (non-intimate sex bores me, and I there's nothing more ghastly than a series of first nights!), but I can still see problems with both even if the kids never meet the men in question. Even from a financial standpoint it's probablynot responsible, and here's why.
Take your standard date. You barely know the guy. Even if you've had coffee a few times, you still barely know him. Setting aside the expense involved in attracting him (gym membership, hot clothes, make-up, hair crap, nails, membership to Match.com, bar nights, etc.), you still have to foot the bill to amuse him as well as pay for the babysitter. After all, you have to prove that you're not looking for a new daddy, right?
I'm the kids' sole provider. My sis and BIL were fairly young, and what little they had in terms of assets was pretty much drained in the wake of the accident. There's a bit set aside for college, but not so much that I can get away with not putting in more, especially if I don't want the kids on my couch when they're 40, and I don't. That pretty much eats the cougar maintenance money.
As far as what to do with the date money, three tickets to Speed Racer and a large popcorn strike me as a lot more fun than feeing a relative stranger in hopes of an occasional, intimacy-free shag. Heck, we'll have a picnic in the park, and put that money in the bank, too! Even worse is the idea of engaging in said shag in hopes of some actual intimacy down the line.
If single mothers are being offered more anywhere on the dating market, I'm all ears.
....cue the sound of crickets chirping....
In other words, my kids need college more than guys like Jophil need any amusements my body might offer, and my time is better used in being the provider than in searching for a Male Provider needle in a haystack full of users.
jophil28
Master Don Juan
Normal motherhood in not pathological and nobody ever suggested that is is.Rosemarie said:
However canceling your life as a sexual woman certainly qualifies as pathology.
You might want to review Rollo's posts on "Buffers" and how humans use these as protection against possible rejection. Motherhood is a perfect buffer.
Have you bought the green minivan yet?
Peace and Quiet
If you currently have too many women chasing you, calling you, harassing you, knocking on your door at 2 o'clock in the morning... then I have the simple solution for you.
Just read my free ebook 22 Rules for Massive Success With Women and do the opposite of what I recommend.
This will quickly drive all women away from you.
And you will be able to relax and to live your life in peace and quiet.
Here is the thing...if you meet a random woman and you engage in a ONS...you are lacking either options or you are not selective. Same goes for the woman.azanon said:
I don't know...if a woman engages in one-night-stands with random men...that tells me that she does NOT have standards. A woman (and for that matter a man) that lacks standards is part of the bunch.
Are YOU high quality? We don't know you. And it depends how "high quality" is defined. I mean, I am sure that to your wife you are probably "high quality", after all you two have been married for YEARS! But other than that...we don't know you.
Wow, very good insight from many people. The downside of it though, is that for the most part it will be wasted when presented to women. This isn't what they want to hear, hell, some men don't want to hear it, but there's just something about guys in general that makes us interested in making logical deductions (testosterone maybe?).
I know there are some women out there who get/accept this but they're extremely rare, I haven't met one personally yet that I could talk to about things I consider "truths" about human behavior.
It's great that I can come here and see discussions like these though, it helps my understanding about both sexes, even life itself. I've become really good at reading people's intentions, to the point I almost feel guilty at times, but I also realize I'm human and not standing outside of all this.
I know there are some women out there who get/accept this but they're extremely rare, I haven't met one personally yet that I could talk to about things I consider "truths" about human behavior.
Rollo Tomassi said:
This is precisely why you'll probably never convince a woman that she's doing this. They are either unwilling or incapable of using this type of reflection on themselves, it involves looking beyond the ego.Rollo Tomassi said:
It's great that I can come here and see discussions like these though, it helps my understanding about both sexes, even life itself. I've become really good at reading people's intentions, to the point I almost feel guilty at times, but I also realize I'm human and not standing outside of all this.
SouthernGal
Don Juan
To clarify:
1. The 24 year old is only a friend-nothing more.
2. I know the circumstances around marrying bad boy were not good-learned from it.
3. Perhaps looking at younger men was an attempt for me to hold on to my youth (i.e. I still have it) whereas it typically IS older men that come on to me.
4. I am not interested in ONS.
5. What is AFC?
6. Self-worth. Yes, my self-esteem is low-but I am working on that.
7. I am interested in being honest with men; not seeking ONS etc. I AM NOT seeking marriage, would not be opposed to a relationship.
1. The 24 year old is only a friend-nothing more.
2. I know the circumstances around marrying bad boy were not good-learned from it.
3. Perhaps looking at younger men was an attempt for me to hold on to my youth (i.e. I still have it) whereas it typically IS older men that come on to me.
4. I am not interested in ONS.
5. What is AFC?
6. Self-worth. Yes, my self-esteem is low-but I am working on that.
7. I am interested in being honest with men; not seeking ONS etc. I AM NOT seeking marriage, would not be opposed to a relationship.
Again, is sex offered to single mothers on terms that will make it enjoyable for me? I'm not hearing that, not from anywhere. Mostly we're seen as a kind of free prostitute and sugar mama all rolled into one. My natural feminine sexuality doesn't lend itself well to that kind of thing.jophil28 said:
My maternal instinct gives it a resounding no. Why risk the kids' future and physical safety on something that has worse odds than Vegas?
jophil28
Master Don Juan
I agree momma.Rosemarie said:
You should resign from the dating pool (or slap yourself whenever the urge to get with a single man takes you)
Not every female is qualified to be a woman it seems.
You would still benefit from an understanding of how humans use "buffers" to ward off the pain of possible rejection by the opposite sex.
What about that minivan for the kids?
Peace and Quiet
If you currently have too many women chasing you, calling you, harassing you, knocking on your door at 2 o'clock in the morning... then I have the simple solution for you.
Just read my free ebook 22 Rules for Massive Success With Women and do the opposite of what I recommend.
This will quickly drive all women away from you.
And you will be able to relax and to live your life in peace and quiet.
When you are broaching the subject with a potential FB, you should check the opinions before taking the discussion further. Use the, I have an acquaintance... and describe your ideal situation. As you can see from the thread, there are a lot of strong opinions about the subject.
I have had two FBs, one was a single mom. These were in my "Nice Guy" days. Both did not last long. I was not comfortable with them and I called them off because:
- I was uncomfortable with the "No, not tonight" whether it was me or her saying no.
- I didn't have other options and wasn't comfortable chasing a relationship with an FB in the background.
My lessons from this were:
Make sure that the rules for No are clear.
Make sure that your FB has other options (active or actively going out and meeting others).
AFC = Average Frustrated Chump, a.k.a. Nice Guy, a.k.a. Wuss
I have had two FBs, one was a single mom. These were in my "Nice Guy" days. Both did not last long. I was not comfortable with them and I called them off because:
- I was uncomfortable with the "No, not tonight" whether it was me or her saying no.
- I didn't have other options and wasn't comfortable chasing a relationship with an FB in the background.
My lessons from this were:
Make sure that the rules for No are clear.
Make sure that your FB has other options (active or actively going out and meeting others).
AFC = Average Frustrated Chump, a.k.a. Nice Guy, a.k.a. Wuss
I heard you the first time as was obvious by my post. For the record, I still think you're wrong. Another thing you might want to consider here, is that you and I both know that it's possible you're calling yourself low quality with this opinion.Latinoman said:
What option sounds more exciting than a ONS with a brand new woman? Do you recognize that I just asked you a rhetorical question? Ok, I admit, you're entitled to your opinion. You are certainly entitled to opine that the same woman over and over is more exciting to you, no matter how in conflict to Darwinian theory such an opinion will be.
To clarify, it is my opinion that I am a man of high quality. You are certainly entitled to disagree based upon a different definition of what constitutes a high quality man, from me.
It's perfectly ok for you to feel this way, but be careful not to speak for all women. It's common knowledge to the DJ that some women are figuratively asexual, by decision or simply physically, and not very susceptible to sexual coercion. An adept DJ picks up on these types quickly and usually move along in short time to the next woman.Rosemarie said:
Remember the high school boy that quips, "if you won't, a thousand others will". He's actually right, you know.
I was sort of wondering too, because the cheating is forgiveable, especially where it concerns a male.Nighthawk said:
"Cheating" isn't unnatural. What's unnatural is marriage. If a man occasionally acts like ....... a man, I think there are worse things than that. It's case-by-case but there should be, in most instances, far more damning things that happened than simply cheating to justify a divorce with a man.
I read an article a few weeks back showing some recent research on supposed "mates for life" in the animal kingdom, particularly certain birds and mammals actually showed that episodes of infidelity occurs in many of these cases as well. It seems there really aren't that many genuine mates for life and when it does happen, its quite unnatural.
Never try to read a woman's mind. It is a scary place. Ignore her confusing signals and mixed messages. Assume she is interested in you and act accordingly.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.