Deluded Old Scrapper Birds On Dating Sites

[PopGun]

23 hours ago, Errol said:

That's why the author of the article basically advises men to not get married.

Can't argue with that.

[Austin Allegro]

23 hours ago, ccc said:

I don't think he even particularly likes her. 

I think there is very strong social conditioning which tells people they must be in a relationship, even if they don't like each other. 

It's worse for men because if a woman wants to bed-hop she can do so with very little effort, unless she is horrendously unattractive or has ludicrously high standards (ie, a DOSB). Even then she can still chop and change far more easily than a man can, unless he is very good looking and rich, or preferably both. 

We've been told since puberty via American films, TV etc that we must be 'dating' and be in a 'relationship' or we are social rejects, and that being in a 'relationship' is the secular equivalent of the Buddhist reaching Nirvana. It's no wonder people are scared to be on their own!

[JoeDavola]

5 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

I think there is very strong social conditioning which tells people they must be in a relationship, even if they don't like each other. 

It's worse for men because if a woman wants to bed-hop she can do so with very little effort, unless she is horrendously unattractive or has ludicrously high standards (ie, a DOSB). Even then she can still chop and change far more easily than a man can, unless he is very good looking and rich, or preferably both. 

We've been told since puberty via American films, TV etc that we must be 'dating' and be in a 'relationship' or we are social rejects, and that being in a 'relationship' is the secular equivalent of the Buddhist reaching Nirvana. It's no wonder people are scared to be on their own!

I think often when men are in a relationship they think it's their job to make things work 'no matter what', and that the end of a relationship is still entirely their fault regardless of how the other party has behaved.

[Austin Allegro]

Just now, JoeDavola said:

I think often when men are in a relationship they think it's their job to make things work 'no matter what', and that the end of a relationship is still entirely their fault regardless of how the other party has behaved.

That was pretty much what I was like during my marriage. However, an Indian friend of mine summed it up by the following philosophical statement: 'Love is like a f*rt: if you have to force it, it's probably sh*t'. 

[ccc]

18 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

I think there is very strong social conditioning which tells people they must be in a relationship, even if they don't like each other. 

It's worse for men because if a woman wants to bed-hop she can do so with very little effort, unless she is horrendously unattractive or has ludicrously high standards (ie, a DOSB). Even then she can still chop and change far more easily than a man can, unless he is very good looking and rich, or preferably both. 

We've been told since puberty via American films, TV etc that we must be 'dating' and be in a 'relationship' or we are social rejects, and that being in a 'relationship' is the secular equivalent of the Buddhist reaching Nirvana. It's no wonder people are scared to be on their own!

Yep very much agree.

[Austin Allegro]

Just now, ccc said:

Yep very much agree.

One thing that's changed is that in the old days, being a celibate man was often seen as a positive thing, eg, you were a 'confirmed bachelor' and this gave you time to pursue important things in life. Sherlock Holmes would be one such role model, although fictional. Most of them probably did a spot of whoring from time to time, or were homosexuals, but it wasn't considered odd or tragic. 

A celibate woman, however, was an 'old maid' or 'on the shelf' and was seen as a failure. 

By contrast, nowadays, a 'confirmed bachelor' is code for a homosexual or perhaps even a paedophile, whereas a single woman, particularly one who has chosen career over family is 'empowered', 'liberated' etc. 

[Sledgehead]

1 hour ago, Austin Allegro said:

By contrast, nowadays, a 'confirmed bachelor' is code for a homosexual or perhaps even a paedophile, whereas a single woman, particularly one who has chosen career over family is 'empowered', 'liberated' etc. 

Was thinking that red was always the case, green new.

Then I remembered this old number: who would write a song celebrating anything that, at the time was dodgy, and include it in a squeaky-clean movie?

And then I saw the dance routine, and that guy who played "Gloria" in "It ain't half hot Mum".

And then the BBC and police conspired to imply the green.

 

[dances with sheeple]

12 hours ago, Austin Allegro said:

That was pretty much what I was like during my marriage. However, an Indian friend of mine summed it up by the following philosophical statement: 'Love is like a f*rt: if you have to force it, it's probably sh*t'. 

"And if it is sh*it she will probably make YOU clean it up"

[John51]

On 4/26/2017 at 10:32 AM, JoeDavola said:

I think often when men are in a relationship they think it's their job to make things work 'no matter what', and that the end of a relationship is still entirely their fault regardless of how the other party has behaved.

Was like that well before feminism so it's probably genetic. To my mind, the person that gets the blame is de facto the person that has the clout to make sure that things happen THEIR way. If it then goes pear shaped, they do indeed deserve the blame.

iow, leadership.

The old movie 'The Servant' covered it well. It takes some time setting up the just 2 men in a house scenario but it's eerily like a drunk captain marriage from then on. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057490/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

[JoeDavola]

1 hour ago, John51 said:

Was like that well before feminism so it's probably genetic.

Yep I agree.

[Austin Allegro]

3 hours ago, John51 said:

Was like that well before feminism so it's probably genetic. To my mind, the person that gets the blame is de facto the person that has the clout to make sure that things happen THEIR way. If it then goes pear shaped, they do indeed deserve the blame.

iow, leadership.

The old movie 'The Servant' covered it well. It takes some time setting up the just 2 men in a house scenario but it's eerily like a drunk captain marriage from then on. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057490/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

I agree, but it is difficult to be a leader if there is not at least some willingness of the other party to be led, just as a government can only really work with the consent of the governed. In pre-feminist days, it was the norm for a woman to submit to her husband; even the early feminists still did this, they just believed that women should be entities in their own right not simply adjuncts of their husband. But to say that you believe a husband should be a leader nowadays would simply elicit gales of laughter from women, or open-jawed disbelief. 

[developer]

Did you guys know the average male has 14 sexual partners over their lifetime? 

My good looking friends who you could say are in the top 20% all have over 100 and they are still in their 20's. So possibly 200 over their lifetime. That's more than 10x more.

It seems the top 20% of men sleep with the top 80% of women. That's why the average women are shooting above their league. A lot of these Chads are happy to sleep with average looking women if it means they can up their tally for number of pussies hit.

[200p]

Mandingo has made over 500 movies. That's probably at least 500!

[Turned Out Nice Again]

6 hours ago, John51 said:

The old movie 'The Servant' covered it well. It takes some time setting up the just 2 men in a house scenario but it's eerily like a drunk captain marriage from then on. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057490/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

+1. Watched it again recently. Very RP movie. Also the relationship dynamics with the 2 women.

[Turned Out Nice Again]

1 hour ago, developer said:

Did you guys know the average male has 14 sexual partners over their lifetime? 

My good looking friends who you could say are in the top 20% all have over 100 and they are still in their 20's. So possibly 200 over their lifetime. That's more than 10x more.

It seems the top 20% of men sleep with the top 80% of women. That's why the average women are shooting above their league. A lot of these Chads are happy to sleep with average looking women if it means they can up their tally for number of pussies hit.

I once saw Tom Hanks interviewed on this topic. I think he claimed a personal "notch count" of 3 or 4.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

16 minutes ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

I once saw Tom Hanks interviewed on this topic. I think he claimed a personal "notch count" of 3 or 4.

Loser.

[developer]

2 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

I once saw Tom Hanks interviewed on this topic. I think he claimed a personal "notch count" of 3 or 4.

And you believed that?

[ccc]

Indeed. If he said that then it's nonsense. It's not 3 "or" 4. If it's that low a number they will know exactly.

Like when a burd says "about" ten. If it's around that number she knows exactly what it is. 

[Turned Out Nice Again]

6 hours ago, ccc said:

Indeed. If he said that then it's nonsense. It's not 3 "or" 4. If it's that low a number they will know exactly.

Like when a burd says "about" ten. If it's around that number she knows exactly what it is. 

He actually said a fixed number; I just can't remember what it was. He's been married 2 times, first at 21, then to his current wife of 28+ years and says  that he never slept around.

My point is that if even somebody with his opportunities has a low personal N count, the low general average quoted before isn't so unbelievable.

[Steppenpig]

My notch count is pretty low (5 or 6) and I would have to think it through to arrive at the exact figure. It's too depressing though. Actually, it's probably about the same number as cars i have owned. That would be a slightly more challenginging exercise for my brain.

[JoeDavola]

Many people I know settled down before their mid 20's, maybe had 3 boyfriends/girlfriends over that time period, and most have a notch count of no more than 5. They all seem happy enough in long term relationships.

I think the averages are brought up by the eternally single serial dating types, who remain single into their mid 30's and beyond.

[wherebee]

My notch count is under two dozen.  However, much of that was compressed into my post red pill, post divorce, pre second wife period.  If I had known when 18-30 what I learned mid thirties about the realities of women, my **** would have fallen off.

[lid]

17 hours ago, ccc said:

Indeed. If he said that then it's nonsense. It's not 3 "or" 4. If it's that low a number they will know exactly.

Like when a burd says "about" ten. If it's around that number she knows exactly what it is. 

multiply a girls count x 3 and divide a guys count x 3 i think is the rule

[PopGun]

On 27/04/2017 at 7:02 PM, developer said:

 

My good looking friends who you could say are in the top 20% all have over 100 and they are still in their 20's. So possibly 200 over their lifetime. That's more than 10x more.

It seems the top 20% of men sleep with the top 80% of women. That's why the average women are shooting above their league. A lot of these Chads are happy to sleep with average looking women if it means they can up their tally for number of pussies hit.

I'm sure they weren't exaggerating.

[ccc]

1 hour ago, PopGun said:

I'm sure they weren't exaggerating.

There's no need to in the UK. British burds are easy.

Any semi decent looking bloke out there who actively tries to get a shag on a weekly basis will.