The myth of the single woman

[ketostix]

This is your PERCEPTION based on previous relationships you have had.

This is where the REAL DIFFERENCE is in our opinion.

You might have had many cheating women in your past. I have had none.

The difference between us is CHOICE.

Because my CHOICE trumped NATURE led me to GREAT relationships.

Because NATURE trumped your CHOICE led you through a trail of cheating women.

You have always had the choice to SELECT. You CHOSE not to.

Guru1000 what you say you believed happened and perceive to be fact does not make it fact.

Then you make a comparison of a HEALTHY relationship to the roulette table in Vegas. With those kind of odds, you are already doomed to failure.

Hey ROLLO, do you hear this? File for a divorce; STR*UP feels it 1:32 your marriage will work!

See how ridiculous your comparison and thinking are.

STR8 did not say the odds were 1:32 he said they were about 50/50. what he said was hope, faith and beliefs alone does not change the facts or "odds".

Why do we have such conflicting opinions? Very simple. PERCEPTION.

If I indulged in your past experiences, I would have a JADED view as well.

So should I choose your VEGAS advice and share your jaded perception or continue to CHOOSE who I spend my time with.

OK you admit you just have a conflicting opinion and a different perception. That doesn't make the other person wrong and jaded and you right. The fact is, you cannot always totally predict a woman's future behavior from day 1.

 

[iqqi]

Guru1000 what you say you believed happened and perceive to be fact does not make it fact.

Well, Keto, Guru's outlook sure is a lot more positive than STR8UP's and your own, that is a fact. And it seems as if he is having much more positive experiences than the both of you's as well. That is a fact.

If your statement is "What you believe and percieve does not make it fact", then noone is right and noone is wrong. It is up to you to decide if you want to have a positive perception at that point. Which is in fact tied to positive experiences. Hmmmm. Huh.

Perception does shape reality.

STR8 did not say the odds were 1:32 he said they were about 50/50. what he said was hope, faith and beliefs alone does not change the facts or "odds".

STR8UP compared the odds to Vegas, which is not 50/50, and he even said the odds are stacked against you. Pretty negative.

OK you admit you just have a conflicting opinion and a different perception. That doesn't make the other person wrong and jaded and you right. The fact is, you cannot always totally predict a woman's future behavior from day 1.

A negative perception comes from being jaded, which I think STR8UP has admitted to being.

 

[3countriesPlan]

This is an excellent point. I always say women are chameleons. The exact same woman can play the part of virginal angel to one man who she senses is leading her that way and play the role of "dirty" slut to the other guy(s) who lead her that way. To the first guy she's a quality woman and to the other(s) she's well something entirely else. Now the question is which kind of girl is she really?

Girls do change their roles all the time. I know a girl who had had third date s*x with her ex and let him make s*x videos of them, now with her new bf (poor guy) she says she wants to save it for marriage (a year or two away) and doesn't plan on telling him shes not a virgin...

My own personal question is what guy do you want to be? Usually the guy they are kinky with is not a long term guy.. Ok I admit.. I'll pick short term debauchery!

 

[Latinoman]

The way I see it is just about every woman, "single", in a relationship, married, or not has at least one guy who is devoted and commited to her. If she's willingly cohorting with other guys and willing and wanting to fvck another guy then for all practical purposes she is "cheating" and for all intents and purposes she is "single". To me, taken on it's face there is little to no ethical difference.

The above quote is LITERALLY rationalization from a person that lacks accountability.

A married person that cheats is committing adultery. Adultery is more than reasons for a divorce and separation of goods and other finances. Futhermore, a spouse has AUTHORITY over medicals decisions on their spouse. They also, in the event in which a Living Will was not drafted, become authomatic beneficiaries in the event the spouse dies.

Putting marriage in the same level as other relationships is oversimplifying and justifying lack of accountability for our actions. We are man...we should know better.

I find it amazing you critisize potato for writing like a woman...but then I read the rationalization you wrote above and the lack of accountability..., I have to reach the conclusion that you also sound like one.

 

[Latinoman]

This is how I personally see things when it comes to getting involved with women.

I would not get involved in a serious relationship with a woman that

1- Is married
2- Is living with another man
3- Is engaged to another man
4- Cheats on a boyfriend with me and then dumps him after the fact

Because I only get involved in serious relationships with women that I find worthy. And I don't consider a woman in that list worthy of a relationship with me.

I would, however go in a relationship with a woman that I consider "quality" (under my standards) and that either

1- Is 100% single
or
2- Had a boyfriend...and dumped him before getting involved with me

It means that most women of quality have a boyfriend (I would say over 80%)...but not all of them are engaged or living with that man. In fact, most of them would probably leave him if they find a better man. Branch swing to women is the equivalent of plate spinning for men.

 

[Latinoman]

This kind of thread are interesting because it allows us to see who are the REAL DJs and who are not.

If you phuck a married woman...so be it. But don't come and justify that act by saying "she is the equivalent of being 'single'", because that is NOT true. Saying otherwise is simply justifying your action and dismissing any accountability.

That's the issue I have with this.

 

[ketostix]

This kind of thread are interesting because it allows us to see who are the REAL DJs and who are not.

If you phuck a married woman...so be it. But don't come and justify that act by saying "she is the equivalent of being 'single'", because that is NOT true. Saying otherwise is simply justifying your action and dismissing any accountability.

That's the issue I have with this.

You are missing the point. I'm not justifing anything. I'm saying a title of single, in a relationship or married means little when a women is ready and willing to cheat or branch swing. And I don't automatically consider a girl having the title "single" while she fukks anyone at anytime exactly quality.

 

[hithard]

This kind of thread are interesting because it allows us to see who are the REAL DJs and who are not.

.

You should be above these remarks.

Put emotion aside.

 

[STR8UP]

As smart as some of you guys are, I can't believe we are still on the whole "quality woman" and "justification" thing.

 

[Latinoman]

You should be above these remarks.

Put emotion aside.

I am emotionless. In fact, I stand by those remarks.

This thread will show who are the real DJs and who are not. It will show it by the way people post.

 

[Latinoman]

As smart as some of you guys are, I can't believe we are still on the whole "quality woman" and "justification" thing.

1- There are quality women out there. (noting that each one of us set the standards of what is "quality")

2- Justification is the primary tool a person that does not want to be accountable for his/her actions uses. Kind of a woman's trait.

 

[Latinoman]

You are missing the point. I'm not justifing anything. I'm saying a title of single, in a relationship or married means little when a women is ready and willing to cheat or branch swing. And I don't automatically consider a girl having the title "single" while she fukks anyone at anytime exactly quality.

And if my aunt had a cu_ck...she will be my uncle.

 

[ketostix]

And if my aunt had a cu_ck...she will be my uncle.

Well a piece of paper saying your aunt has "c_uck" doesn't automatically make it so either, now does it?

 

[hithard]

I am emotionless. In fact, I stand by those remarks.

This thread will show who are the real DJs and who are not. It will show it by the way people post.

Obviously there are dumb statements on this board. Or people find it hard to articulate what they are trying to say. But fanning the flames of the current mess on the mature mans forum is lowbrow. You are a respected member and poster. One that I also respect, and at times may disagree, but the majority agrees with.

This forum is currently split due to personal grievances from prior threads. And is degenerating at a fast rate. I don't want to see all future threads advice tainted by this. All members should aspire to a bit more at the moment.

 

[Latinoman]

Well a piece of paper saying your aunt has "c_uck" doesn't automatically make it so either, now does it?

However a piece of paper saying she is MARRIED...does make her one.

It is a LEGAL document. What is so hard to understand about that? Honestly, Keto, sometimes you debate for the heck of it.

 

[Latinoman]

Obviously there are dumb statements on this board. Or people find it hard to articulate what they are trying to say. But fanning the flames of the current mess on the mature mans forum is lowbrow. You are a respected member and poster. One that I also respect, and at times may disagree, but the majority agrees with.

This forum is currently split due to personal grievances from prior threads. And is degenerating at a fast rate. I don't want to see all future threads advice tainted by this. All members should aspire to a bit more at the moment.

I don't disagree with what you wrote.

The issue with this thread is that is a continuation of another thread.

I have NO problems with what the OP is articulating about cheaters and low quality women.

My problem is when he tries to call a MARRIED woman (cheater or not) "single". And when he says that LEGAL piece of paper means nothing. It shows ignorance of his part.

The fact is...that little piece of paper gives HER the right to make a decision (about life) when her husband is in a coma. In fact, gives her more right than his children and parents to make such decision.

The fact is...that little piece of paper gives HER the right to have more material goods coming her way in the event of his death. More right than his own children and parents.

Trying to downgrade the LEGAL importance of marriage in order to justify certain shoddy behavior is simply beyond explanation.

I have NO problem if he feels married women are fair game. That's his morals and his own personal values. My issue is when he tries to justify that by diminishing the legal importance of that piece of paper.

My responsibility here is to bring some sanity to the younger posters and also to make sure people understand certain facts. Legal facts that some of us that used to be married or are married understand.

 

[ketostix]

Trying to downgrade the LEGAL importance of marriage in order to justify certain shoddy behavior is simply beyond explanation.

I'm not downgrading any legal aspect of marriage. I'm saying a marriage does not legally bind a woman to not cheat or get a divorce. A person is free to divorce or not divorce for all sorts of reasons or no reason with no-fault.

I have NO problem if he feels married women are fair game. That's his morals and his own personal values. My issue is when he tries to justify that by diminishing the legal importance of that piece of paper.

What does anything I've said have to do with the legal importance of marriage? This is a straw man argument. If a woman is willing to cheat and whether she cheats or doesn't cheat all the legal "importance" of the marriage still applies and the marriage agreement is still in place until one or more parties decides to dissolve it.

My responsibility here is to bring some sanity to the younger posters and also to make sure people understand certain facts. Legal facts that some of us that used to be married or are married understand.

What legal facts? That it's illegal for a married person to cheat? I don't think so. If you're trying to make the point that the legal arrangement (marriage) is likely to dissolve if a woman cheats, then my point was the agreement has basically been broken before she cheats and will likely officially be dissolved (divorce) soon enough anyway. You're advising and putting the onus on the wrong person. It is the married person with the legal agreement, not the unmarried person.

 

[jophil28]

Here is a "theoretical " which I want you guys to assess and comment on ( it bears a resemblance to a real life experience )

I have a buddy called Ray, and he has started dating (and f**king ) a woman named Sandy. She is 40 years old .. They met six weeks ago. He is NUTS about her BUT she still lives with her second Ex H in their marital home BUT they are "legally separated" ..have been for two years. Apparently they sleep in separate rooms.

Anyways, Ray said that on their last date she told him a little about her history...
SHe had a B/f from age 17 to age 23 and they planned to get married (call him Chuck). One night Sandy goes out on the twon with her girls and meets David who flirted with her all night. HE tracked her down two weeks later (during which time Chuck bought her an engagement ring).

Sandy then started dating David in secret, and after 9 dates David asks her to marry him. She says 'yes' because she ," feels lust for the first time "... SO she breaks up with Chuck and married David BUT keeps in contact with CHuck in secret and goes out with him occasionally. THis goes on for a couple of years and Sandy and David have a rollercoaster of a marriage with numerous breakups.
Two years in, she is out on a dinner date with Chuck after telling her husband D that she will be "out of town on business for the night " and is caught out by David who catches them out in Chuck's car after dinner.

He takes her back a day later after tossing her out...their marriage continues for a few more years with affairs on both sides and eventually they break up -

What would YOU says to Ray if he was your buddy and came to you for advice because he has mixed feelings about being with Sandy ?

 

[ketostix]

Here is a "theoretical " which I want you guys to assess and comment on ( it bears a resemblance to a real life experience )

I have a buddy called Ray, and he has started dating (and f**king ) a woman named Sandy. She is 40 years old .. They met six weeks ago. He is NUTS about her BUT she still lives with her second Ex H in their marital home BUT they are "legally separated" ..have been for two years. Apparently they sleep in separate rooms.

Anyways, Ray said that on their last date she told him a little about her history...
SHe had a B/f from age 17 to age 23 and they planned to get married (call him Chuck). One night Sandy goes out on the twon with her girls and meets David who flirted with her all night. HE tracked her down two weeks later (in which time Chuck bought her an engagement ring).

Sandy then started dating David in secret and after 9 dates David asks her to marry him. She says 'yes' because she ," feels lust for the first time "... SO she breaks up with Chuck and married David BUT keeps in contact with CHuck in secret and goes out with him occasionally. THis goes on for a couple of years and Sandy and David have a rollercoaster of a marriage with numerous breakups.
Two years in, she is out on a date one night on a dinner date with Chuck after telling her husband D that she will be "out of town on business for the night " and is caught out by David who catches them out in Chuck's car after dinner.

He takes her back a day later after tossing her out...their marriage continues for a few more years with affairs on both sides and eventually they break up -

I'm not saying it was your intent Jophil but this totally illustrates my point how titles like single, engaged, married, seperated, etc only mean as much as the girl's integrity. And if she lacks integrity it doesn't matter if she calls herself single you're not likely to know who she might be screwing over or know her real dating history.

What would YOU says to Ray if he was your buddy and came to you for advice because he has mixed feelings about being with Sandy ?

I'd say to Ray that this woman Sandy lacks integrity and is unsuitable for a relationship and would likely run around on him and act "single" even if he was married to her. The most she would be good for is a FB.

 

[jophil28]

I'm not saying it was your intent Jophil but this totally illustrates my point how titles like single, engaged, married, seperated, etc only mean as much as the girl's integrity.
.

Curiously, Sandy swears up and down that she ADORED her husband David and was addicted to him- she refered to him as .. "he was my God " but she still ran around inside of her marriage to David with her old B/f - so much for the belief that HIGH IL will prevent a woman cheating.

It is not about Interest Level -it is about INTEGRITY as Keto points out.
Just because a woman is "addicted " to you, or has sky high IL does not eliminate her desire or her willingness to cheat . She cheats because she has defective personal principles and values.
She likely will not cheat in the first few months when all her emotional needs are being "supplied" by you, but eventually her old demons push her to resume deeply established behavior and she cheats simply because she is an habitual cheater .

The key to understanding Sandy's future treatment of Ray lies in her past behavior with David.