The biggest difference between dating and friendship

[diplomatic_lies]

I think the biggest, and perhaps only difference between dating and friendship is sex.

Think about it. All the other aspects of dating - companionship, having fun, having someone to lean on - these are found in friendship.

But sex is the single thing that makes dating different. You don't suck your friends off, after all.


What'd you think?

 

[CLOONEY]

Getting physical in general. Some girls will take a long time to give you sex, but they will eventually, all of them, if you date them for long enough. So I dont agree with your answer, the main difference is a girl you are dating will touch you, and let you touch her, she will not do this with a friend, and if she does, she is a hor!

 

[quest]

Originally posted by CLOONEY
So I dont agree with your answer, the main difference is a girl you are dating will touch you, and let you touch her, she will not do this with a friend, and if she does, she is a hor!

i agree.. she's a wh*re..

but why?

i've got no issue with f*cking one of my female friends. its such a double standard.

 

[Bonhomme]

Well, there are friends with benefits

... but that's a whole different category.

More like dating, though, I'll grant that.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Yeah you can f*ck your female friends, but then they wouldn't just be friends.

Also by "sex", I'm also referring to making up, getting head, etc. So its more about physical affection.


I was listen to this guy on the train tell a girl that his favourite part of having a girlfriend is the companionship and friendship. But I asked him, don't you already have the companionship/friendship bit with friends? If that was the most important part of dating, why do we even need to date?

 

[CLOONEY]

Originally posted by diplomatic_lies
Yeah you can f*ck your female friends, but then they wouldn't just be friends.

Also by "sex", I'm also referring to making up, getting head, etc. So its more about physical affection.


I was listen to this guy on the train tell a girl that his favourite part of having a girlfriend is the companionship and friendship. But I asked him, don't you already have the companionship/friendship bit with friends? If that was the most important part of dating, why do we even need to date?

U can have companionship with a friend, and many older people do. But in your younger stages, you look to find a woman to share your life with, its just the natural instinct you have. Not to mention, when you are younger, everyone would rather a companion they can get physical with than one they cant!

 

[Pook]

Long long ago, before I found this website and all, I did have female friends. Currently, I have no female friends as female friends seem to be an impossibility for me now.

Every girl I *try* to be friends with wants to date me, screw me, etc. But what about girls who already have a guy, including wives and girlfriends? Same story.

"Do not brag, Mr. Pook! You have the opposite of the AFC problem."

No, it is something else entirely. Men and women view love and relationships very differently.

Husbands, steady boyfriends, and chivalrous males hate me because I am free. I don't have to go to the girlfriend's house and to keep her company because she "feels alone". I don't have to go see her stupid family, engage whatever rituals she comes up with. I can leave my place when I desire, return when I desire, meet anyone I wish, do anything I please. Many of these males, I suspect, married very young and never fulfilled their adventure of life.

Since I have so much more available time (since I'm not spending it all on a fiance or wife's incessant desires), I am investing it in myself. I'm not better than these guys, but I end up wittier, fitter, more worldly, because of this additional time. Since I'm more of a 'developed male', so to say, perhaps they have more interest?

One thing is for sure, women do NOT see dating as 'friendship with sex'. Behind that pleasant baby-like face march the thoughts she has had for her entire life. Your role, as a 'man', is to work for her your entire life. Ask older men, married and divorced, for verification if you're skeptical. This is why women will see your material goods and ambitions, never your intellect, your interest in discovery, the universe, etc.

I would say the biggest difference between friendship and dating is addiction.

"Did he say addiction?" Yes, he did. Friendship carries on due to similiar interests, having fun, and so on. Dating/marriage occurs and ensues due to addiction. Some guys suspect that it is sex that the guys are addicted to. This misses the mark. We have been so conditioned to find females in our presence normal, that when they are not there, it becomes abnormal. As has been observed, older married couples don't have sex. So how does the couple keep working? Addiction. This addiction is the addiction of female praise. Even old men will do what they can to please their wives, even when it brings great discomfort to themselves. Some men have become so conditioned that even if the wife does not praise, he takes that as displeasure and immediately starts "doing things" to obtain back the praise. There is a reason why in old couples, if the wife dies first, the man either remarries or dies.

Males have become more religious than ever before. The religion? Romance. The deity? Their self-picked goddess, a young woman. "I will do ANYTHING for women!" the men say. They will easily buy houses that will take them 30 years to pay off just for them. He won't admit how stupid his woman actually is, so that 'stupidity' turns into divinity. He believes his woman is capable of great emotions and abilities because he projects his own emotions and sense of self onto his woman. Woman is shrouded in more mysticism and pomp than any king or pope.

"What! Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Burn the Pook! Burn the Pook!"

Just answer this question: Who is the deity of the DJ Bible? "Why, the Don Juan!" Are you sure? Think long and hard.

 

[Create Reality]

There are woman you date that you could find companionship with. There are women who you date that you'dd rather just have a good time with. With the women I've experienced it's much more the latter.

Hey Pook, are you gay?

 

[Create Reality]

 

[PVSSY-EATER]

no his is not gay, just speaking the truth....next you will ask are you a preacher?

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by Create Reality
There are woman you date that you could find companionship with. There are women who you date that you'dd rather just have a good time with. With the women I've experienced it's much more the latter.

Hey Pook, are you gay?

No. A lot of women will wish that the Don Juan is, just to ease their conscious. "What!? He isn't totally smitten with me? He *must* be gay!"

Imagine if you used that line if a girl turned you down for a date. You go, "What!? Are you gay?" Interesting how its asked ONLY when men don't do what women want.

If a girl turns down a guy: "She has good standards, and is the embodiment of feminine virtue!"

If a guy turns down a girl: "OMG is he gay!?"

It is never asked, 'Maybe he has something better to do? Maybe he is concentrating on something? Perhaps he is a writer making a book? Or a musician composing a piece? Perhaps he is busy shaping the beginnings of a business? Maybe he is in training for a sports championship?'

Apparently, none of these can apply. If a man is single and chooses to be that way, something is *wrong* with him. To many of these types of women, man is nothing more than a natural resource growing from the ground to give her The Big House (tm), The Big SUV (tm), the kids and the dog. Rather emphasize discovery, companionship, adventure, we find many women emphasize materialism. Many women can't realize why men aren't rushing to the alter for them. Look at the plunging marriage rates. No wonder Mars Shrugged.

 

[Cbaoth]

Originally posted by Pook
No wonder Mars Shrugged. [/B]

Bit of an objectivist are you Pook?

Funnily enough, objectivist women are among the small percentage of women who do not belong to your descriptions above (which are very accurate for most).

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by Cbaoth
Bit of an objectivist are you Pook?

No. Not an objectivist.

But using literature as a source of wisdom is not a bad idea. What addition to the transformation of young man into demi-god is needed if not a touch of wisdom?

This is from Mencken, written early in the 20th Century:

This was not always the case. No more than a century ago, even by American law, the most sentimental in the world, the husband was the head of the family firm, lordly and autonomous. He had authority over the purse-strings, over the children, and even over his wife. He could enforce his mandates by appropriate punishment, including the corporal. His sovereignty and dignity were carefully guarded by legislation, the product of thousands of years of experience and ratiocination. He was safeguarded in his self-respect by the most elaborate and efficient devices, and they had the support of public opinion.

Consider, now, the changes that a few short years have wrought. Today, by the laws of most American states--laws proposed, in most cases, by maudlin and often notoriously extravagant agitators, and passerby sentimental orgy--all of the old rights of the husband have been converted into obligations. He no longer has any control over his wife's property; she may devote its income to the family or she may squander that income upon idle follies, and he can do nothing. She has equal authority in regulating and disposing of the children, and in the case of infants, more than he. There is no law compelling her to do her share of the family labour: she may spend her whole time in cinema theatres or gadding about the shops an she will. She cannot be forced to perpetuate the family name if she does not want to. She cannot be attacked with masculine weapons, e.g., fists and firearms, when she makes an assault with feminine weapons, e.g.,snuffling, invective and sabotage. Finally, no lawful penalty can be visited upon her if she fails absolutely, either deliberately or through mere incapacity, to keep the family habitat clean, the children in order, and the victuals eatable.

No matter what you believe, we are all in Nature's Kingdom and are obedient to her rules. Like it or not, the man is going to be working his entire life. And the husband will be seen as the workhorse to the wife. Just as when we were Nice Guys, we learned and adjusted to Nature.

But what about women? Many of them have not come to terms. In Two Treatises of Government, John Locke came about with his 'life, liberty, and property' actually from the marriage couple. The ever 'Modern Woman' says, "I am not my Husband's property!" and so treats many guys as her husbands.

In Russia, property was seen as 'barbaric'. But, despite any laws, Nature reigns supreme. When you own something, you cherish it. You protect it. You take care of it. When property becomes communal, everyone abuses it, abandons it, and no one takes care of it. By rejecting any and all attitudes of being one man's property, the women end up, by default, becoming communal property. They become 'fvcked and chucked', abandoned, and not taken care of. And no man wants to buy damaged goods.

Let us apply the Atlas Shrugged analogy here for a second. In the novel, when the nation went communistic, the producers went on strike. If, say, American women emulate that attitude, "It is not our money. It is MY money" "Sex after marriage? Hah!" "The laws of the State encourage me to divorce", then what result is possible for men but to go on a marriage strike? (Google 'marriage strike' and see what comes up)

Each year when demigraphics come out of lowering marriage rates, an accompanying article is released that is asked, "Why won't young men marry?" And the answer is the same: "This is the men's fault." Indeed. How DARE a young man not marry a woman and raise some other guy's kids. How DARE a guy not marry women who believe sex in marriage is a 'chore'. How DARE a guy not marry women who have no respect for men in general, who only see men as a workhorse.

What would occur to society if Mars Shrugged? What if men stopped marrying the women? What if men stopped 'courting' the women? And to top it off, what if Western Men married foreign brides?

Many of our fellow posters in Eastern Europe, South America, and Asia will be perplexed by this. What does geography have to do with the women? Apparently more than I ever thought possible.

I'll let Mencken have the last word as he sums up the issue the best:

Now view the situation of the husband. The instant he submits to marriage, his wife obtains a large and inalienable share in his property, including all he may acquire in future; in most American states the minimum is one-third, and, failing children, one-half. He cannot dispose of his real estate without her consent; He cannot even deprive her of it by will. She may bring up his children carelessly and idiotically, cursing them with abominable manners and poisoning their nascent minds against him, and he has no redress. She may neglect her home, gossip and lounge about all day, put impossible food upon his table, steal his small change, pry into his private papers, hand over his home to the Periplaneta americana, accuse him falsely of preposterous adulteries, affront his'friends, and lie about him to the neighbours--and he can do nothing. She may compromise his honour by indecent dressing, write letters to moving-picture actors, and expose him to ridicule by going into politics--and he is helpless.

Let him undertake the slightest rebellion, over and beyond mere rhetorical protest, and the whole force of the state comes down upon him. If he corrects her with the bastinado or locks her up, he is good for six months in jail. If he cuts off her revenues, he is incarcerated until he makes them good. And if he seeks surcease in flight, taking the children with him, he is pursued by the gendarmerie, brought back to his duties, and depicted in the public press as a scoundrelly kidnapper, fit only for the knout. In brief, she is under no legal necessity whatsoever to carry out her part of the compact at the altar of God, whereas he faces instant disgrace and punishment for the slightest failure to observe its last letter. For a few grave crimes of commission, true enough, she may be proceeded against. Open adultery is a recreation that is denied to her. She cannot poison her husband. She must not assault him with edged tools, or leave him altogether, or strip off her few remaining garments and go naked. But for the vastly more various and numerous crimes of omission--and in sum they are more exasperating and intolerable than even overt felony--she cannot be brought to book at all.

The scene I depict is American, but it will soon extend its horrors to all countries. The newly enfranchised women of every one of them cherish long programs of what they call social improvement, and practically the whole of that improvement is based upon devices for augmenting their own relative autonomy and power. The English wife of tradition, so thoroughly a femme covert, is being displaced by a gadabout, truculent, irresponsible creature, full of strange new ideas about her rights, and strongly disinclined to submit to her husband's authority, or to devote herself honestly to the upkeep of his house, or to bear him a biological sufficiency of heirs. And the German Hausfrau, once so innocently consecrated to Kirche, Kuche und Kinder, is going the same way.

What has gone on in the United States during the past two generations is full of lessons and warnings for the rest of the world.

 

[dietzcoi]

Pook is correct, of course.

Unless you marry a woman with a great career and who does not want kids, the man is being set up to be a chump. Yes, I know many of your do not want to see the truth, you are too deep in the matrix.

Dietzcoi

 

[Create Reality]

Now view the situation of the husband. The instant he submits to marriage, his wife obtains a large and inalienable share in his property, including all he may acquire in future; in most American states the minimum is one-third, and, failing children, one-half. He cannot dispose of his real estate without her consent; He cannot even deprive her of it by will. She may bring up his children carelessly and idiotically, cursing them with abominable manners and poisoning their nascent minds against him, and he has no redress. She may neglect her home, gossip and lounge about all day, put impossible food upon his table, steal his small change, pry into his private papers, hand over his home to the Periplaneta americana, accuse him falsely of preposterous adulteries, affront his'friends, and lie about him to the neighbours--and he can do nothing. She may compromise his honour by indecent dressing, write letters to moving-picture actors, and expose him to ridicule by going into politics--and he is helpless.

Let him undertake the slightest rebellion, over and beyond mere rhetorical protest, and the whole force of the state comes down upon him. If he corrects her with the bastinado or locks her up, he is good for six months in jail. If he cuts off her revenues, he is incarcerated until he makes them good. And if he seeks surcease in flight, taking the children with him, he is pursued by the gendarmerie, brought back to his duties, and depicted in the public press as a scoundrelly kidnapper, fit only for the knout. In brief, she is under no legal necessity whatsoever to carry out her part of the compact at the altar of God, whereas he faces instant disgrace and punishment for the slightest failure to observe its last letter. For a few grave crimes of commission, true enough, she may be proceeded against. Open adultery is a recreation that is denied to her. She cannot poison her husband. She must not assault him with edged tools, or leave him altogether, or strip off her few remaining garments and go naked. But for the vastly more various and numerous crimes of omission--and in sum they are more exasperating and intolerable than even overt felony--she cannot be brought to book at all.

The scene I depict is American, but it will soon extend its horrors to all countries. The newly enfranchised women of every one of them cherish long programs of what they call social improvement, and practically the whole of that improvement is based upon devices for augmenting their own relative autonomy and power. The English wife of tradition, so thoroughly a femme covert, is being displaced by a gadabout, truculent, irresponsible creature, full of strange new ideas about her rights, and strongly disinclined to submit to her husband's authority, or to devote herself honestly to the upkeep of his house, or to bear him a biological sufficiency of heirs. And the German Hausfrau, once so innocently consecrated to Kirche, Kuche und Kinder, is going the same way.

What has gone on in the United States during the past two generations is full of lessons and warnings for the rest of the world.

That doesn't sound like freedom to me either, Pook.

Sounds more like a woman boycott!!!

 

[Luveno]

I think the biggest, and perhaps only difference between dating and friendship is sex.

All the other aspects of dating - companionship, having fun, having someone to lean on - these are found in friendship.

But sex is the single thing that makes dating different.

I'd have to disagree with you there, diplomatic lies.

There are many men and women out there who have occasional sexual escapades as friends only, with no strings attached and no obligations to each other.

Conversely, there are plenty of people who are dating that never have sex, but continue dating for a long long time.

Those points there diminish the weight of your statement.


I would say that the biggest difference between dating and friendship is control.

I consider myself somewhat of a cynic when it comes to human nature. For Western society(since it is the only one I have lived in) it appears that the central purpose of living is to accumulate more power than the next guy, and through those accumulations be able to exert your will over the ones with less than you. Money is like this. Religion is like this. Racism is even like this. People live to control others.

In a relationship, one party very often has control of the other. I will speak of AFCs: the girl owns them in a relationship. Sex or not, if the guy ends the relationship, the female becomes very upset because she can no longer control him. She misses the power.

Conversely, the woman drops the guy for another, more "alpha"(I hate that term) guy. She does not feel a loss because this new guy gives her a higher social standing. Although she may not be able to control him, through his association with her she will be able to control others through jealousy or admiration, or even money. Her ex, the AFC, would be sad because he just lost someone that gave him higher social standing, and thus allowed him to exert control over others in his circle. He believes that he will not accumulate a girl like that again and will no longer be looked upon as a powerful man who can gain an attractive girl. Thus, his social vaule drops.

With power comes the ability to make other people do what you want or do not want them to do. With enough power, you can do that without them evening knowing they're under control.
We are all under the control of someone. Its a shame that men sell their souls to women, or anything for that matter, to gain status and control over other, lesser, men.

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by Create Reality
That doesn't sound like freedom to me either, Pook.

Sounds more like a woman boycott!!!

Hencken does not describe a woman boycott but a marriage boycott.

Look, it is time to create the order of your own life. Don't just accept you have to do something because it is 'expected'. Many young men think they must get good paying job and marry. Who is to be more respected? The waiter who is pursuing his musical ambition or the accountant who took accounting just because 'that was what people wanted'? Is it the guy who married just to please his parents or the guy who decided to put it off so he could have his own adventure?

We need to define our own life rather than let other people define it for us.

 

[Bonhomme]

Indeed

It's pretty daunting to think a fellow can unwittingly be a gal's sperm donor at his expense without her having any responsiblilty to hold up her end of the bargain, so to speak, but that's the way the law is.

Anything to do with marriage and/or kids is so inequitable it would be laughable were it not so tragic in terms of what it does to men's lives. We have everything to lose, and anything we gain is strictly dependent upon on the actions and intentions of others, especially the mother. Consider the Bridget Marks case.

This sometimes backfires on the woman, too, if she wants to have a baby, and is genuinely well-intentioned, and not wanting to take advantage of some poor chump.

Bonhomme's law of laws: Laws are of greatest practical benefit to those who can most effectively use them to malicious ends.

 

[George Gordon]

Originally posted by Pook
Every girl I *try* to be friends with wants to date me, screw me, etc. But what about girls who already have a guy, including wives and girlfriends? Same story.

"Do not brag, Mr. Pook! You have the opposite of the AFC problem."

I know what you mean. For me, it's a problem. Would you consider writing a tip on how to deal with women's boyfriends who are friends?

Whenever their girlfriends try to get my attention, the boyfriends get antsy. They're my friends and I want to prevent any animosity between us. Yet the more I try to pull back, the more the girls seem to work for me.

On the other hand, if act the same way around them as single women, the girls move forward.

!GEORGE GORDON!

P.S. EMPTY YOUR MAIL

 

[penkitten]

uh getting laid ... most friends wont lay you but a date might