Sloppy Tenths

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.

Sloppy tenths applies to men also.

There is no way I would consider a man to marry if he were poor or promiscuous. There is nothing admirable in poverty and only creates hardship for the woman and any future offspring. Poverty in a man represents and shows his failures. I don’t want to be responsible for a man’s upkeep.

Physical looks in a man. I have never been attracted to ‘Hollywood’ type men. Looks are not that important, health is.

So when did you get your lobotomy?

This makes perfect sense in my experiences. Refreshingly honest.

Yeah, you realize, don’t you Shieldy, that you’re reinforcing the stereotype that women only like men for their money, right? Thanks for providing yourself as a living example.

Why wouldn’t they? Money is value. In the real world, emotional support, political agreement, physical attraction are all things that one can survive without. Gotta have that money and if you don’t have enough then life becomes a bitch really fast. It’s like one of those things that everyone really knows but doesn’t like to talk about…I mean…everything is, and always has been for sale. There’s always going to be those who complain about the price.

Totally agree with you Mr R, beautifully said.

There is a price for everything and that includes looking after yourself.

Gib wrote:

Why did you chose to ignore that I also stated I would look for a man of honourable character and good health?

Gib…What woman wants a man who struggles with a drug or alcohol addiction, and

Urwrong1000…

if a woman has the audacity to express certain attributes she deems necessary in her man of choice she is labelled ‘a snob’. LOL

You want the best of and in a woman, in that case you have to present equally or beyond for her.

That wasn’t a separate statement from how I interpret it. You said a man’s wealth status is indicative of his character and health.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFKt1z7cHAY[/youtube]

I know this wasn’t directed at me, but this is one of those cases where we get to say: it has nothing to do with you being a woman (AFAIK). It has to do with you being… Australian!

Gib wrote:

How so? unless you have been refused entry.

OOOH SNAAPP!!!

No I didn’t say that. Common sense will tell you that not all men of wealth are of honourable character and some have the ‘love’ of money which then renders it useless.

Money is a necessity today in this society and without it misery prevails.

Mr Micawber’s famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Charles Dickens, David Copperfield

Interestingly, the inspiration for this quote is attributed to Dickens’ own father, a perpetual debtor who eventually wound up in the Marshalsea debtor’s prison. This period of time for Dickens, who was only 12 years old, had a profound effect on him.

.