Sloppy Tenths

I’m going to offer another insight into the sexes here, for those of you following the thread closely…

Men need to understand women, their minds, how they think, what they want, in order to have sex. Women do NOT need to understand men. And most women don’t care what men think, how men feel, etc. So empathy is a one-way direction, concerning gender. Men generally need to understand the pathology of women, but women do not need to inversely. Women honestly don’t care what men think or which values are important to men. So this will appear, pathologically, that women are much more selfish than men. It also explains the absence of women in Philosophy and other intellectually-dominated areas. Women simply don’t need to understand or know the areas of rationality that some men do need to.

An average woman can easily seduce and control an average man, using sex, or temptations/teasings of sex. The mere promise, that you will get laid eventually, is enough for women.

If women care to know the mind’s of men at all, then it would most likely be in the areas of fidelity and how to secure devotion. But again, most women don’t really care about this, as they don’t need a man’s fidelity, unless he is offering her something that she cannot find elsewhere, from another man. And how many luxuries, resources, qualities are there in humanity, that are so rare that one man holds a monopoly where other men could not replicate it? There are none.

Perhaps rare artistry is one of those quality. Maybe that’s why women flock to rock stars, or men who can offer such intense fame?

theblog.okcupid.com/the-case-fo … d8cabacdf5

A woman’s desirability peaks at 21, which, ironically enough is the age that men just begin their “prime,” i.e. become more desirable than average. Following that dotted line out, you can see that a woman of 31 is already “past her prime,” while a man doesn’t become so until 36.

So, OKC puts it at 21/36 while Aristotle claims 18/37 for the coincidence of the decline of powers. But this is severely frowned upon by society.

Because men are still trying to score one by being chivalrous. Men cannot help running to the aid of women and therefore will not be known as party to discussions such as this. Women are just unable to see behavior that would otherwise be viewed as offensive if they had their wits about them… or had perspective into being a man.

. Islam is still a system in which patriarchy still rules. The cultural and religious norms of Muslim countries still give the men all of the excuses to pursue heir needs while controlling and denying women’s. Even if a woman is raped, she is held accountable for it. This is how blatant and rediculous the justifications become when men get complete control over women. Even in the West, women were openly seen as subhuman creatures with no souls of their own, and treated as a man’s property. Their only redeeming virtue in the eyes of men was total obedience. Even now, women are seen as some kind of unaware hormonal zombies.

Because the only value the men like you ascribe to women is that of a walking incubator, and nothing more. Women’s own feelings or wishes, or individual persona, are not even relevant, and their emergence and expression, in fact, should not be encouraged. Because when they do come up, it becomes a threat to you and insecure men like you, as you scratch your head and say: a woman already has a vagina and a uterus, what more could she ask for?
Your perfect woman is one who either does not have her own individuality (easy going nature and low IQ), or has not yet formed one (very young). And if her individuality is allowed to be expressed, it is within strictly defined parameters (like baking cookies, doing various house crafts, and of course, being supportive to your views).
And good luck expecting your ideal woman to come up with anything ground breaking, except a new recipe.

P.S.; and you’re not being original, wrong, so don’t flatter yourself. Your originality only lies in the tonality of your own complaining, of not getting laid and not finding women to kowtow to your own ego.

Great song.

Precarious Manhood

Fwd to 7:00

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WALEvNCMsI[/youtube]

The authors report 5 studies that demonstrate that manhood, in contrast to womanhood, is seen as a precarious state requiring continual social proof and validation. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19025286

Men have to work to earn the right to not only be men, but human. And if they ever were in a situation requiring help, then by needing help they forfeit the right to it because they’re no longer men. 80% of completed suicides are men. There are 7 commissioned websites dedicated to women, but zero for men.

That is bullshit in light of the above. It is completely opposite: women’s feelings are all that matters while men are completely disposable.

Women don’t want equality, they want omnipotence and men are going to give it to them lest they be perceived as less than men.

The fact that you keep equivocating Western/White/European patriarchy with Islam, demonstrates to me how ignorant you are of your own heritage, history, and culture. The only comparison that can be made between Islam/Muslim patriarchal control of women, would be during the European dark ages, 400AD-1000AD, during a time when Roman Catholicism dominated all aspects of European life. Islam copied much of its current manifestation from there, as well.

However, if you knew even a slight inkling of history, then you would know that western culture “Progressed” beyond that long ago. For example, are you aware of Romanticism? Do you know what Romance is? Do you know what it means and signifies? Probably not, because your (female) privilege excuses your complete ignorance. You have no idea how good you have it, as white, western, woman. Basically you have everything handed to you on a silver platter, and it’s “never enough”.

You’re like a spoiled little girl. And your best counter-argument is “but but but… Islam!?!” No, it’s a fallacy, a false analogy.

Strawman argument, nobody is claiming this.

Women are privileged, and I agree with it. I like it that women are privileged. And as a man, I would like to privilege a woman more, if she values me and sexually desires me. I enjoy the trade. I enjoy the meeting of value. I enjoy the romance. Men and women are not equal, not the same, but do make perfect halves. Those who desire “equality” simultaneous admit their feelings of deep inferiority. It need not revolve around gender, although it can, and it does, concerning these topics. As mentioned, for example, a man can be very jealous (insecure) as a random woman can be very jealous (insecure). Therefore, such a comparison requires deeper investigation and examination.

But you gloss over this as-if it doesn’t mean anything. And it signals to me, more of your personal ignorance and inability to philosophize on the topic.

On the contrary, I’m very secure when it comes to loving women. You can try to shame and embarrass me, but it won’t work. I like fucking women, and women like fucking me too. It goes both ways.

Men use women for many ends. Women use men, too. Neither are innocent. So don’t pretend that you are, or that you can embarrass me under that same presumption.

As-if you don’t use men, for your own personal reasons and gains??? You’re no angel.

I do like young women, 17-24 is ideal. However I would like a woman with wisdom and a deep sense of integrity, pride, and individuality. Somebody like me, a female version of me, would be ideal. I was very wise and intelligent from a young age. So I would like that from a woman too. A woman who can challenge me, in some ways. Or a relationship we could both benefit and grow from.

The sex has to be great too, of course.

It’s not really a complaint. It’s more a verification of the general natures of men and women. You’re just excusing yourself for feeling offended or that some of my statements ring all-too-true.

Are you innocent? Or just that naive? You should demonstrate more wisdom on this topic.

. I did not create the rules, I only point to them, and I doubt that the previous women themselves created them. I mean, in US women didn’t even have the right to vote until 1920. Why is that?
Your own jealousy and ignorance of women is really showing through, and it tells me you really don’t understand women except through books and your own idealized notions. Like Romaticism, or a system of flattering obedient and chaste women- that is a man’s own creation, and women were supposed to fall for it. When this is just another way of buying women on men’s terms. Women sitting pretty wanting to be desired and owned, and men fawning over them. Creating elaborate sculptures, paintings, poetry, etc., worshipping the image. Look at Virgin Mary, the most chaste and holy woman that has ever existed because she is recipient of “god’s” will. Do you know of any work of Romantic period glorifying and exalting prostitutes? I doubt you will, because Romanticism is about morality, and morality is about strategically controlling behavior, controlling being the key word. It’s all disguised behind pretty words, and pretty images, but at core, it’s glorifying dead people who serve as sacrificial lambs for an ideal. I find it really funny that you think Romanticism is about respecting women themselves and not an artificial ideal of a woman. What is even more amusing is that you seem to be jealous even if that.

Better hurry up if you want a 10-15yr differential. Once you’re old, you’re old and nobody wants you unless you have lots of money. Don’t waste the youth card.

Women are much more superficial than men. I once had a woman tell me “I’m not superficial! I dated a guy in school who wore unfashionable jeans!” Women have types and the guy must fall into that category or he’s ugly as shit whereas men are more flexible: basically if a woman is younger, smaller, shorter than he is and doesn’t have buck-teeth or some physical eccentricity, he’s good. But women are far more picky in terms of physical attributes:

Women’s perception of men’s attractiveness may be more warped than men’s perception of women’s appearance. With the rise of pornography, plastic surgery and airbrushing, many people wonder — do guys know what real women look like anymore? The answer appears to be yes. When Rudder showed us a graph of the ratings men give to women on an attractiveness scale of 1 to 5 through OKCupid, there’s a normal distribution with fewer women falling at the 1 and 5 extremes and the grand majority getting ratings in the middle. However, when women rate men on a scale of 1 to 5 on attractiveness through the site, the graph skews sharply towards the lower end. Women overall rate many men as a 1, and shockingly few as a 4 or 5. Jokes Rudder, “A 3.8 for a guy is basically Hollywood material.” blog.ted.com/7-things-we-learne … f-okcupid/

It was so screwed up that OKC had to switch from a 1-5 scale to a yes/no rating.

So men are more pliable in terms of matches while women rate most men callously as a 1 and shockingly few as a 4 or 5. Once you get into your 40s and 50s, you can hang it up, not only because you’re old, but 28-32 yr old women are all kinds of screwed up. That’s the range where they’ve been burned by guys too much to risk it again, but the clock is also ticking, so the confluence of two obstinate forces drives them crazy and they won’t sober-up until 40 when they finally give up on clocks, forgive the men, and just want to have fun.

. No, you want to be the first and only, isn’t that the purpose of this “I don’t want sloppy tenths” thread? This is all about you wanting to control woman’s sexuality/choice.

. Here’s another example of your ignorance of women. If anything, I usually try to flatter men like you because I know just how deeply insecure they are on the inside, and how desperate they are for any kind of validation. I do it out of pity, not because I get something out of for it myself, or need to.
If a man opens a door for me, I make sure to look at him, smile, and graciously thank him, not because I’m handicapped and can’t open my own door, but because he really needs it.

Of course. Isn’t this the number one reason for this thread, after all?

You have a perverse notion of “control”. As-if my desire was capable of “controlling” women. You either have a promiscuous history, or you don’t. A woman’s past is not controllable. I can’t undo the past. So the idea that I mean to “control” a woman, is based on a fear that you are projecting. Maybe it applies to you and your current relationship. But it has nothing to do with me.

Your pity is misguided though, as-if I were seeking your approval. I’m not. I don’t really care about your opinion, when your opinion is so emotional and unreasonable. Your fallacies and errors have piled up. Why would I care about what an emotional, irrational woman, such as yourself, has to say? I mean, you’ve talked at length about Islam/Muslims, as-if it were in anyway comparable to this thread or my personal preferences. Big fallacy. Other than that, you’ve tried your best to undercut and ad hom me. But it doesn’t work.

You don’t really have any reasonable counter-arguments. To repeat my point from earlier, obviously, a woman such as yourself isn’t going to defend the virtue of chastity and prudence, when you-yourself cannot back it with history or valuation. Which women value their own virginity? Few, or none at all? Because females find a great power in sexual proclivity and tempting/luring men with the promise of sex. So obviously chastity is not something that you value, much, if anything at all?

It’s obvious.

That was Serendipper’s point. But it seems Chivalry is lost upon you, as it is lost upon other Feminists.

You see, Chivalry only makes sense when the “female privilege” is obvious. Yes, women are privileged, and arguably, should be so. That you have ignored this point the entire way, demonstrates that you cannot stay on topic, if at all.

Sex can be good whether it’s sloppy-tenths, sloppy-seconds, or first dibs. The point is about pride. But that has gone over your head, quite clearly, yes?

. This whole thread is about your own conflicting feelings. You say your pride is hurt when you get sloppy tenths even while admitting that you don’t mind second hand sex as long as it’s good sex. Otherwise why bring it up? Obviously it’s important to you as well. Like most men, you want it both ways; an improbable proposition unless you also peddle double standards and hypocrisy.

Lots of rockstars and actors getting throat cancer from sloppy tenths

billboard.com/articles/news … r-oral-sex

bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/h … story.html

blabbermouth.net/news/poison … al-cancer/

ultimateclassicrock.com/tom-hamilton-no-cancer/

I think it’s the same kind of psychology that’s also helping to drive the virginity sex trade throughout the world. Most of the documentaries focus on poverty but the demand itself comes from the certain men’s insecurity-based needs. Im pretty sure that these men are also using regular prostitutes, with whom they may have also become bored with, and so they go for an ultimate power trip by having sex with virgins, for which they are willing to pay a premium.

thedailybeast.com/the-pablo … n-medellin

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAXOC3P0Knw[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVf5jZe0aXw[/youtube]

What else is driving these men to want to have sex with virgin kids? Obviously, not wanting sloppy tenths is one of them. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can.

What double-standard and hypocrisy, though?

If a woman wants to be desirable, then being the town bicycle, is obviously not the way to go. She may receive a lot of sex, at the cost of respect. Society, people in general, do not respect prostitutes or promiscuous women. A chaste woman is respectable, if she is otherwise healthy, because she is harder to get at. With aristocracy and higher classes, it becomes more obvious. High-quality women are a challenge, and worth the risks and time involvement. Even when a man maybe sloppy-seconds, or fifths, or tenths.

Most men settle for what they can get. This is the bottom-line.

The virginity fetish and the purity myth was not a woman’s creation. It is an expression of a man’s own deep insecurity and possessiveness. You say a chaste woman is more desired and valued by society -you point to the rules of society without even understanding them, or seeing what lies behind them. To a man, a loyal woman is like a loyal dog and a man/society singing praises to her is like a man patting his loyal dog. He loves her, his loyal woman, just as he loves his loyal trained dog. By respecting a chaste woman he does not respect a woman, but his own created idea of a woman, his own ideal image of a woman. His creation. He domesticated the woman like he domesticated the dog. And some simple or naive women play the prescribed role because they think as long as they behave and play the role they will be loved and valued. Most of these women (and even men) never even achieved any kind of individuality and just settle for their prescribed roles, men loving an idealized image of a woman as an “ideal” man (his role), and woman loving a man, as his idealized woman (her role). The rules, themselves, however, were skewed in favor of a man, in order to satisfy his fears and needs, while extinguishing hers; woman submitting to a man, not just with her body, but also with her mind, her self. I think that most men simply cannot (with) stand a woman who is her own agent. She becomes a threat and some kind of otherworldly monster, to be either conquered, or slain. It must be a matter of man’s pride. So they stain their reputations, shame them, outcast them, or worse, stone or burn them at the stake. I wouldn’t be surprised in ancient men saw women’s true nature as an “evil beast” to be annihilated, as well.

Young Madonna with a child. In Middle Ages this was the rave of the day. You see the same image over and over again, hundreds and hundreds of portrayals is the same image, in every church and little chapel you step into. A young, maybe 13 or so, girl, with a baby. When I look at these images (or rather another copy of the same image) I cant help but see some rich dude behind it, with connections within the church, who likely bought a virgin girl bride and then paid good money to commission an artist to paint her with their child, as a Virgin Madonna. In a way, he made her immortal, but not as what she really was, or truly served as. There is also repulsiveness about it, hidden behind all the artistry. Like a reverence that pediphiles have for the innocence of the children they covet.
Now imagine that this propaganda image was seen by just about everyone at the time, perpetuating this myth of “holiness” and desirability, and in this particular form, that kept reappearing again and again.
A chaste young woman and a mother. Little girls would be introduced to it from a very early age and see it as an ideal as well. This is what they would be encouraged to emulate and grow up imitating. That god himself chooses and blesses chaste women over others, making her special - that must have been quite a compliment for women. This was the ultimate husbandry art (bravo!) - divine will, expressed in both positive and negative reinforcement. Who dared to challenge it? Only the devil and his spawn, for which he and his like would suffer for eternity. and if women did not wish to participate in glorified womb and sex trade (women as man’s chattel), they can always give themselves to Christ and live in a monastery - another way to keep tabs on female sexuality, lest it goes out of control.

There’s so many fallacies and flaws in your arguments, that you merely repeat, that addressing them is not really worth my time.

And “being loyal” is not based on gender. Men and women, both, demand loyalty from each other. That should be obvious and common sense. But of course, loyalty is earned. Loyalty is based on respect.

As long as you keep repeating your fallacies and flawed arguments, I’m not going to respond. Go ahead with the last word if you want.