FR:Chic gave me a BJ, started crying.

[iqqi]

70% of divorces are initiated by WOMEN.

Of course, as a woman it's in your best interest to shame men for something that YOU do twice as often.

Ummm, who exactly are you talking to, when you say "YOU"?!

I have never divorced anyone, so what exactly is your point again?

Ah yes. I am a woman, therefor I am all women. :yawn:

Allow me to weigh in on your last post:

I never claimed that all women are the same.

No, you just start one billion threads based on the premise of "ALL WOMEN" do this or that terrible thing.

You pathetic victim.

I don't get blindsided. My filter is fine. I just don't have the time or the desire to try to weed through a couple hundred chicks to try to find something I don't want in the first place.

This is why all your threads about all women are about how they did something vile and terrible to you and all men.

Guess what! Not all men have this same perception you do, because not all men have a broken filter, and get into situations with the low quality women you do!

Ah, but ALL women are low quality right? :yes: :yawn:

And you are so wise and smart, that you can see this when other HAPPY men cannot. They are just blind, right?

I know one thing. And that is that if you weren't so obsessed with women and how they do you wrong, you would not be on here starting one billion threads saying the same thing over and over again. You'd probably be interested in spending your time doing something that DOES NOT INVOLVE WOMEN.

That is just common sense to me.

Women (FEMININE, DESIREABLE women) seek to attach themselves to an ambitious male; they are not "ambitious" themselves.

Did you really just say that?

You can start with Cleopatra and work you way up. These women were way more successful than you will ever be, MAN. I know, I know, you are going to say something about Cleo going after ambitious men, but you are missing the point. AMBITION came first, the man came next. Then you have tons of modern, sexy, attractive women today that are full of ambition. Hell your statement is so retarded I kind of feel dumb addressing it. Why do women go to Harvard, if they are not ambitious? To meet men that go to harvard?

Ambition is a character trait, not a gender trait.

I know lazy women, and lazy men. I know extremely ambitious men, and extremely ambitious women. And yes, some of them are damn sexy, and made sexier by that trait.

The question has been posed before, and to the best of my recollection I cannot remember ANYONE being able to list ONE SINGLE TANGIBLE benefit of marriage for a man.

Most happily married men I know say it has something to do with being in love, with someone who has their back through thick and thin, who they can build a life WITH instead of doing it all solo.

Some people are interested in living a life that is about more than THEMSELVES.

Also, some men WANT families.

 

[ketostix]

The main thing I take issue with is the statement that "women are hard wired to do xyz". As if women are monkies that all will express xyz behavior as certain as instinct, and as if it's a good thing as nature intended. Well and also that a guy can meet all his sexual and relationship needs being an eternal bachelor. I never seen that happen too often.

I like to think there are quality women out there but they are so few and even fewer available that I can't honestly say I ever seen one. Today, women have all the options and leverage and zero accountability. There's really no way to over-emphasize how completely rotten and worthless virtually all American women are.

Bottom line is I don't believe the vast majority of men are ever going to find a quality woman to marry. They're going to have settle for a low quality woman to marry or not marry at all. But I also don't think guys being bachelors are going to be any better off.

 

[jophil28]

The main thing I take issue with is the statement that "women are hard wired to do xyz". As if women are monkies that all will express xyz behavior as certain as instinct, and as if it's a good thing as nature intended.
.

The reason that we have laws, conventions, morals, ethics, contracts and agreements is to regulate and divert the most destructive of our our 'natural drives'. Urges do not necessarily lead to behavior. Social conditioning, and the fear of consequences rightly assert control.

The term" hardwired" is poorly used in this context. IT is an electrical eng. term which just means ' permanently connected by copper wire'. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the geniuses in social science and has assumed the common meaning in which it is (mis)used here.

 

[speed dawg]

I seriously think jophil28 might be a genius.

 

[Sandow]

Good stuff here guys...and girls. I got some pretty good points out of this. I don't think there's anyone right or wrong, I mean we can talk about this all day and not reach a conclusion. Funny thing is, I believe in both sides...if that makes sense. Str8up's advice was spot on, yet Iqqi made really good points as well. I can totally relate with Str8up, yet identify with iqqi. I guess I just don't know yet, only experience and time will bring me the truth. Because I don't wanna settle down right now, I'm going to side with Str8up, though when I get older and want a family, I'll side with iqqi!, lol.

 

[STR8UP]

Because I don't wanna settle down right now, I'm going to side with Str8up, though when I get older and want a family, I'll side with iqqi!, lol.

So what you are saying is that while you are single trying to navigate the minefield you will heed the warnings, but when you get ready to settle down, all of that stuff goes out the window?

Ummm, who exactly are you talking to, when you say "YOU"?!

I have never divorced anyone, so what exactly is your point again?

This was in response to you implying that men are "vile" because one guys calls it like it is, when in fact it is YOUR gender who is guilty of said behavior more often than not. I wasn't making a judgment, and I wasn't the one generalizing. You brought it up.

So my point is, YOU (yes YOU YOU this time) point fingers at a man who would consider trading in his old wife for a newer model, calling him the "voice of mankind" and implying that this is a horrible thing to do, when in fact it is women who do this to men most of the time.

Simple enough for ya?

No, you just start one billion threads based on the premise of "ALL WOMEN" do this or that terrible thing.

You pathetic victim.

Do you have something in your ears? Er, I mean, are your eyes going bad? Cause once again, the only time I say the word "ALL" is when referring to biological urges, NOT behaviors which is what you have a big issue with.

If you are going to argue something at least get your facts straight and think about it before you make yourself look bad by reacting to what you wanted to hear, not what was really said.

This is why all your threads about all women are about how they did something vile and terrible to you and all men.

Again, if you are only going to hear what you want to hear, if you are only going to interpret things as "negative", you might as well give up because it's evident to anyone with half a brain that me pointing out the darker side of things does not equate to me painting women as "vile" and "terrible".

Guess what! Not all men have this same perception you do, because not all men have a broken filter, and get into situations with the low quality women you do!

You must not have read where I have posted many times that not only have I met decent women, but I have had decent g/f's in the past. Girls who even in a breakup displayed honorable characteristics.

The reason I have the perception I do is because I know that these women are very, very rare, and becoming increasingly MORE rare by the day.

And you are so wise and smart, that you can see this when other HAPPY men cannot. They are just blind, right?

Yea, kind of like a friend of mine who tries desperately to keep his marriage intact, meanwhile his wife is out sleeping with everyone but him.

That's the kind of happy I wanna be!

I know one thing. And that is that if you weren't so obsessed with women and how they do you wrong, you would not be on here starting one billion threads saying the same thing over and over again. You'd probably be interested in spending your time doing something that DOES NOT INVOLVE WOMEN.

I do lots of other things. I build businesses. I have an active family and social life. I travel a lot.

You, on the other hand, spend an awful lot of time obsessing over my "obsession".

You can start with Cleopatra and work you way up. These women were way more successful than you will ever be, MAN. I know, I know, you are going to say something about Cleo going after ambitious men, but you are missing the point. AMBITION came first, the man came next.

I'm sure we could plug you into a lie detector right now and you could make that ridiculous statement and still PASS with flying colors, but that doesn't make it any more true.

Just goes to show just how deluded women are regarding attraction.

Then you have tons of modern, sexy, attractive women today that are full of ambition. Hell your statement is so retarded I kind of feel dumb addressing it. Why do women go to Harvard, if they are not ambitious? To meet men that go to harvard?

Yep, and today we have a sky high divorce rate, lower rate of marriage in general, people having fewer children, and the other myriad of social problems that come along with "ambitious" women.

I will repeat myself again for your benefit- AMBITION IS NOT AN ATTRACTIVE TRAIT IN A WOMAN.

Go ahead and pursue your law degree, go ahead and placate yourself with martinis at happy hour with your girlfriends because you can afford it, just be aware that later in life you're gonna have to be "happy" with 15 cats to keep you company (or a lap dog husband, if you're lucky), because you won't be able to land a desirable man.

Most happily married men I know say it has something to do with being in love, with someone who has their back through thick and thin, who they can build a life WITH instead of doing it all solo.

Some people are interested in living a life that is about more than THEMSELVES.

Also, some men WANT families.

Again, tell me how being married allows you any specific benefits?

You can't.

 

[guru1000]

I gotta say, I side with STR8UP here.....

In a way, you do so too Guru through your own actions.

Anyone that dates and filters out 100 girls in a year must obviously know there are a LOT of unacceptable women out there.

You are assuming 100 girls displayed unacceptable behavior.

The question has been posed before, and to the best of my recollection I cannot remember ANYONE being able to list ONE SINGLE TANGIBLE benefit of marriage for a man.

Here is one,

Two additional hours a day earning rather than allowing women to be your focus.

 

[STR8UP]

Here is one,

Two additional hours a day earning rather than allowing women to be your focus.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

This board is my distraction from the real world.

A guy who used to date 100 women in a year telling ME that I'm focused on women? Ha.

And I find it even more amusing that the married guy can't even give one tangible benefit to marriage!

You guys are knocking 'em out of the park!

 

[guru1000]

I assume that you had them all for a very short period in your life.

Naturally. Looks and incompatibility are generally the biggest deal breakers. Unacceptable behavior for the most part begins after a rapport is in place. At this point she has already been thoroughly qualified so the chances of unacceptable behavior are slim.

Truth be told, most women didn't make it to date two because their looks were not up to par.

This board is my distraction from the real world.

You mean to say this board is venting from the real world.

A guy who used to date 100 women in a year telling ME that I'm focused on women? Ha.

Here you are short of 7000 posts and 300 threads with complaints about woman and the matrix. You will be here with another 7000 posts over the next seven years if you choose to continue. During this time, I will be earning.

You spend too many hours posting on Sosuave. What is the point of creating 7000 posts with the same end result, to discuss the female mind?

Str8up, bring results to the table.

 

[STR8UP]

That's funny. I just posted something about getting the hell outa here. But you have me pegged all wrong. I'm not frustrated with women in the slightest. I've gone through a few rough patches, sure, but your differing views color your perception of me.

And as for spending time posting here being a detriment to my success....hardly.

I've spent the past year or so developing a line of products and a personal brand based upon my knowledge of another subject.

Minimum- I let it play its course, work ten hours a week from anywhere in the world I wish to live, and make a healthy living. Best case- I continue to build it and eventually rake in millions every year.

And the funny part of it is that it all started from posting on internet message boards.

Imagine that!

 

[guru1000]

I agree mostly, I don't understand going on a first date with a woman who doesn't meet my attractiveness requirements however we all do things differently.

The part I have contention with is that even after qualifying women, many of them still pull "unacceptable behavior" stunts. I would say a great many of them do to most any man.

If these stunts are done previous to exclusivity, NEXT her. She has just shown you what's in store in the days to come. If she displays unacceptable behavior after exclusivity assuming you have properly qualified her and overtly expressed your boundaries, this is an indication of her sinking IL. You then have to evaluate the CONTEXT.

Most men are disrespected previous to exclusivity solely as a result of their SCARCITY. Abundance does not suggest 100 women per year but rather enough where a scarcity mindset cannot prevail.


Str8up, we may not agree on women but I am glad to see you have a more important matter under control, earning.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I can totally relate with Str8up, yet identify with iqqi. I guess I just don't know yet, only experience and time will bring me the truth. Because I don't wanna settle down right now, I'm going to side with Str8up, though when I get older and want a family, I'll side with iqqi!, lol.

Another chump who identifies with the only female in the thread, how novel,..

The reason that we have laws, conventions, morals, ethics, contracts and agreements is to regulate and divert the most destructive of our our 'natural drives'. Urges do not necessarily lead to behavior. Social conditioning, and the fear of consequences rightly assert control.

Not trying to draw blood here, but the real debate is whether the customs and cultural variations that you're holding up ARE the results of a socialized response to biological imperatives. That's the $10 word way of saying social contrivances are invented to make meeting biological ends easier. It's biological prompts that inspire the social methodologies to meet them.

The trouble with humans is you can't take the societal aspect out of the equation - we're social animals. And like every animal, we're innately opportunistic with regards to our own well-being and survival. So manipulating social structure to accommodate and put us at an evolutionary advantage will always be a natural recourse for us individually and as a whole. We do this on micro (personal beliefs and ego investments) and macro (societal mores) levels.

It's important to remember this is a nature vs. nurture debate, but it's the nurture that generally serves the nature, even when we're unaware of it.


STR8UP - "Never wrestle with a pig. You get muddy and the pig likes it."

 

[Sandow]

Another chump who identifies with the only female in the thread, how novel,.. [/I]

Really, chump? Hey Rollo I get more ass than you ever will. I don't really care if you believe me, but trust me, I do. Maybe it's because I don't have this ethnocentric, narrowminded, bitter view on the opposite sex. Like I said, I absolutely agree with a lot of Str8up's points. But I don't think its entirety is true. That's ok, it's an opinion board, agree to disagree. The same goes for iqqi. Listen, I'm doing something right Rollo, and it's because I'm not bitter, why would I? I couldn't be happier Hope's the same for you.

 

[Colossus]

I almost forgot the topic of this thread since the posts have become so polarized...

But, in response the driveway-BJ incident, 1) it's kind of funny, and 2) it really reveals who views gender sociology in absolutes (all women are...) and who has some wisdom.

I dont believe that anyone, man or woman, is categorically 'above' cheating. If they say so they are delusional. BUT, having said that, I dont think ALL women would give a stranger a bj in their driveway while their husband sleeps. Just like I dont think all men would rail a 20 year-old up the as$ while their wife is away at a women's retreat.

It's like this: are you capable of killing someone? Of course you are. Every human being has the capacity to make that choice. But that doesnt mean you will, and that doesnt mean it is your innate nature to kill, as in it's a destiny you cannot avoid. That's an extreme example, but it's the same with cheating. The problem with the "there's women for ya" attitude you pull out whenever you hear a story of whorishness is that you effectively paint the entire sex as abject. For every woman who flakes on you or lies to you over the phone while she is stroking some other guy's c0ck, there is a man who is lying through his teeth to get in a girl's pants and banging her best friend that night without even washing his d!ck. And he probably posts on SoSuave about how all women are hors.

For fvck's sake, cant we move past this defensive absolutism and focus on qualifying? All this disgust and smug esoterism under the guise of recognizing "the way things really are" is just a big buffer against getting played. If you view the female sex as fundamentally given to indecency, then you will always be suspect---nay, expecting--of such behavior. Stop being cowards and start qualifying women based on firm non-negotiables. This wont give you immunity to bad experiences, but it will greatly reduce the chances of you being subject to whorish behavior from classless women.

 

[piranha45]

Maybe it's because I don't have this ethnocentric, narrowminded, bitter view on the opposite sex. .

whoa ha hooo there killer, source code copied directly off the matrix is still source code.

 

[Jeffst1980]

Not trying to draw blood here, but the real debate is whether the customs and cultural variations that you're holding up ARE the results of a socialized response to biological imperatives. That's the $10 word way of saying social contrivances are invented to make meeting biological ends easier. It's biological prompts that inspire the social methodologies to meet them.
[/I]

I think if that were the case, we wouldn't be seeing historical paradigm shifts in societal structures and moral codes. If it's all to meet a static biological imperative, evolution would dictate that these areas would remain static as well.

Instead, we are seeing TECHNOLOGICAL changes impact these things, from the invention of the plow to the internet.

Technology is the agent of human evolution now; our bodies aren't going to evolve much more on their own, but the harnessing of technology is bound to provoke great changes in government, sociology, psychology, and ethics.

If passing on one's genes was all that mattered, none of this would be necessary.

Instead, I think this points to the fact that evolution seeks to TRANSCEND and replicate. By 'transcending,' I mean grow in complexity each generation.

Clearly, natural urges aren't going to transcend anything on their own. In order to increase complexity, there needs to be a peaceful sharing of resources among other humans. This is where societal codes of conduct come into play.

It's not about bending the laws to meet your own biological imperative, or just the biological imperative of the ruling class, it's about creating laws that will help humans continue to transcend and replicate. As it happens, the ruling class will have their imperatives met; but this is a mere consequence of evolution, not a cause.

Genes are only "selfish" when viewed in isolation; there is a much greater, organized force behind evolution.

 

[scrouds]

And I find it even more amusing that the married guy can't even give one tangible benefit to marriage!

I'll give you one tangible benefit to marriage, and probably the only reason I will marry.... To give your kids a proper home.

 

[iqqi]

This is funny. The master of a million "All women..." posts, saying that he does not view things as absolute, or "all women..."

And that he has had some decent relationships, with wonderful women, and he is not bitter or unhappy!

Ok, the million dollar question: then WHY are all of your posts b!tchfests about "all women...."!?!?!?!?

When in the history of SS have you posted one positive FR or post about "all women" or "any woman"?

LMAO! This is too much to take. Talk about identity crisis.

 

[jophil28]

Stop being cowards and start qualifying women based on firm non-negotiables. This wont give you immunity to bad experiences, but it will greatly reduce the chances of you being subject to whorish behavior from classless women.

"..qualifying woman based on firm non-negotiables .."
And that approach is what is frequently missing from this board. Why ?
Ultimately ,all the evol psych vs societal conditioning debates are just time-wasting masturbatory indulgences, evidenced by SRT*uPs frustrations and his spectacular lack of success with women, inspite of his 'grand' knowledge.

Surely, having a clear set of wants, needs, desires and objectives is primary, plus an equally clear list of dealbreakers for women's behavior will probably deliver most of your hopes and dreams.
I think that it is just that simple.

 

[jophil28]

Technology is the agent of human evolution now; our bodies aren't going to evolve much more on their own, but the harnessing of technology is bound to provoke great changes in government, sociology, psychology, and ethics.

If passing on one's genes was all that mattered, none of this would be necessary.

Great post.