[Hotwheels]

Post some of your classic responses to your game on OKC here.

Just got this one:

Are you fucking kidding me? *laughing right out loud* Uh, thanks for the compliment and all, but to be honest if your primary conversational gambit (and qualifier for female companion) is: “Do you wear heels?” The answer in this case is: There is no way you’ll ever find out.

Do a lot of women respond to that? Seriously? For the record – I’m not angry, offended or affronted… I just can’t believe that any woman would read that and be compelled to respond. Like, “Wow… clearly this guy is going to be a really stimulating, engaging and challenging partner. Can’t WAIT to tell him if I wear heels or not!” *chuckling*

Also, the reason our match percentage is so low is that there is a large amount of clashing. Quite huge it would seem. For instance:

"Do you feel there are any circumstances in which a person is obligated to have sex with you?"

Your response:
"Yes If you're married sex is part of the deal. Not saying it has to be on demand but total denial isn't an option and it does say ‘any circumstance’ “

Really? What a douchebag point of view… are we living in the DRC or something? So, if partner A does not want to have sex (for whatever reason) and is refusing to do so, partner B has the right to... what? Take sex? Force themselves upon the other? Oh wait! I've got it! You call your mom, or the cops (or whatever authority figure makes you happy) and tell them your husband/wife won't give up the sweet sugar for you! How unfair it is that they would make their own decision regarding when and with whom they will have sex! I'm sure that’ll straighten everything right out. *laughing*

Sorry Tiger, but I've never seen a law that says one spouse has to fuck the other. You can *think* that someone else is as obligated as you want to, that doesn’t mean that they *are*. Realistically a spouse absolutely has the right to not have sex with their partner, just like that partner has every right to leave and find someone else. My suggestion? Trying marrying someone you're sexually compatible with in the first place. If that changes then find someone else. Geez.

Or how about this one?

“Someone you like is drunkenly flirting with you. You know that with a sober mind this person would never engage in casual sex, but now it seems that they're willing. What do you do?”

“Take advantage of the situation. Depends how drunk they are. Some people need booze to do what they really want to do. Totally smashed I probably wouldn't.”

Wow. Glad to know that your moral boundaries “probably” lie somewhere in the vicinity “totally smashed”. I’m sure all the girls whom you nailed after they’d had a few drinks (when they otherwise wouldn’t have slept with you) really appreciate that. It’s also comforting that you clearly know what other people want to do when their judgment is impaired. I’ll totally admit it’s a two-way street… maybe they should know better than to be drinking around you by now.

Or, my favorite:

“Do you bring up STD results/risk factors before you start fooling around?”

“No, not usually”

Classy. You know “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does not work with pathogens… right? Like not at all? I’m just sayin’, and condoms certainly don’t protect against everything.

So yeah… call me what you will (I must seem like a feminist puritan to you *laughing*) but given our vast difference in opinion on several very important topics, I’m not thinking we’re a great match here.

Good luck finding a heel-wearing (and possibly slightly drunk) woman that you can guilt or pressure into sex with outdated cultural ideals about marriage.

Enjoy the weather!

Not sure about what compliment she's talking about but whatever.

And she wonders why she's single.

[germanico]

In many countries, refusing sex or not having it in the frequency a partner requires is grounds for divorce.

Quote:

And she wonders why she's single.

I pity the fool that turns that status around for her. And I will guarantee you, there will be one. Poor bastard.

[BortimusPrime]

Guess this was CL and not okc, but same idea:

"It's not that I'm not interested, it's just that you're not a good online communicator... Having made no attempt at any juncture to keep the conversation going with a comment that relates to anything I originally posted, or posing a question, I'm not inclined pull teeth for give'n'take.

I was willing to overlook your lack of conversation for the exchange of photos, but given that I wrote multiple paragraphs about myself in the post and have many times that in my profile, I believe it's fair to expect a response that composes at least a relevant sentence addressing a mutual interest or inquiring about something of curiosity."

I'm guessing she got the sense I was lukewarm, and needed to preemptively reject in order to preserve her eggshell of an ego. People like this are pathetic really, they have such low self esteem that the only way they can feel good about themselves is by lashing out at others. Now me personally, I don't do this because I have a healthy ego with reasonable boundaries...just like Jesus or Gandhi.

[durangotang]

(03-18-2012 05:14 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Good luck finding a heel-wearing (and possibly slightly drunk) woman that you can guilt or pressure into sex with outdated cultural ideals about marriage.

She nailed my type She forgot cooking, cleaning, and raising children too.

This thread had me laughing hard. You should respond and post her response on here.

[Timoteo]

"Sorry Tiger, but I've never seen a law that says one spouse has to fuck the other. You can *think* that someone else is as obligated as you want to, that doesn’t mean that they *are*. Realistically a spouse absolutely has the right to not have sex with their partner, just like that partner has every right to leave and find someone else. My suggestion? Trying marrying someone you're sexually compatible with in the first place. If that changes then find someone else. Geez."

The American woman in a nutshell. The mere expression of affection to your partner is some kind of imposition. That the woman alone should dictate when and how often sex can occur, and a man has no say in it. That sex cannot and will not occur on any occasion when she is not "in the mood." She hides behind the concept of "rights," making a man's desire to fuck his wife akin to coercion or...RAPE. Or that it's HIS fault for marrying someone he isn't compatible with sexually, when everyone knows it's usually women's sexual behavior that changes AFTER you marry them (like chicks will do certain things sexually before marriage, but cease after the ring and ceremony). And if a man suggested divorcing a woman who won't fuck him, he would be universally condemned by women for being a pig. Yet she does just that. This is a Class A cunt.

[WesternCancer]

(03-19-2012 12:36 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

"Sorry Tiger, but I've never seen a law that says one spouse has to fuck the other. You can *think* that someone else is as obligated as you want to, that doesn’t mean that they *are*. Realistically a spouse absolutely has the right to not have sex with their partner, just like that partner has every right to leave and find someone else. My suggestion? Trying marrying someone you're sexually compatible with in the first place. If that changes then find someone else. Geez."

The American woman in a nutshell. The mere expression of affection to your partner is some kind of imposition. That the woman alone should dictate when and how often sex can occur, and a man has no say in it. That sex cannot and will not occur on any occasion when she is not "in the mood." She hides behind the concept of "rights," making a man's desire to fuck his wife akin to coercion or...RAPE. Or that it's HIS fault for marrying someone he isn't compatible with sexually, when everyone knows it's usually women's sexual behavior that changes AFTER you marry them (like chicks will do certain things sexually before marriage, but cease after the ring and ceremony). And if a man suggested divorcing a woman who won't fuck him, he would be universally condemned by women for being a pig. Yet she does just that. This is a Class A cunt.

Someone needs to do an in depth unofficial case study of marriage. Meet a girl, bang her every which way possible, get married (with a fake ceremony, name, priest whatever) and see the decline. I bet you could make mad cash off a book. Then you just pack up and leave one day.

[Cincinnatus]

Hilarious, especially the part concerning marriage and sex.

Modern women don't seem to understand that marriage has historically existed as a kind of arrangement in which a man trades his excess labor and resources in exchange for sex and the right to reproduce. "Dowry" anyone?

Personally I think a spouse refusing sex should be grounds for divorce without penalty.

[Timoteo]

"Personally I think a spouse refusing sex should be grounds for divorce without penalty."

Actually, withholding sex IS grounds for divorce (but I don't know about the "without penalty" part). It's considered a form of abandonment and/or emotional abuse when a spouse refuses sex when there is no legitimate physical or emotional reason. Most people probably wouldn't list this as the sole reason for filing for divorce, but it's probably one of them.

[Timoteo]

(03-19-2012 01:23 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 12:36 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

"Sorry Tiger, but I've never seen a law that says one spouse has to fuck the other. You can *think* that someone else is as obligated as you want to, that doesn’t mean that they *are*. Realistically a spouse absolutely has the right to not have sex with their partner, just like that partner has every right to leave and find someone else. My suggestion? Trying marrying someone you're sexually compatible with in the first place. If that changes then find someone else. Geez."

The American woman in a nutshell. The mere expression of affection to your partner is some kind of imposition. That the woman alone should dictate when and how often sex can occur, and a man has no say in it. That sex cannot and will not occur on any occasion when she is not "in the mood." She hides behind the concept of "rights," making a man's desire to fuck his wife akin to coercion or...RAPE. Or that it's HIS fault for marrying someone he isn't compatible with sexually, when everyone knows it's usually women's sexual behavior that changes AFTER you marry them (like chicks will do certain things sexually before marriage, but cease after the ring and ceremony). And if a man suggested divorcing a woman who won't fuck him, he would be universally condemned by women for being a pig. Yet she does just that. This is a Class A cunt.

Someone needs to do an in depth unofficial case study of marriage. Meet a girl, bang her every which way possible, get married (with a fake ceremony, name, priest whatever) and see the decline. I bet you could make mad cash off a book. Then you just pack up and leave one day.

And to further support his findings, he should interview several married men and ask them if their sex lives with their wives followed a similar arc. Of all the married guys I know that have shared info on their sex lives, EVERY ONE OF THEM has told me of long droughts, for no good reason.

[Hotwheels]

(03-19-2012 05:04 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 01:23 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 12:36 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

"Sorry Tiger, but I've never seen a law that says one spouse has to fuck the other. You can *think* that someone else is as obligated as you want to, that doesn’t mean that they *are*. Realistically a spouse absolutely has the right to not have sex with their partner, just like that partner has every right to leave and find someone else. My suggestion? Trying marrying someone you're sexually compatible with in the first place. If that changes then find someone else. Geez."

The American woman in a nutshell. The mere expression of affection to your partner is some kind of imposition. That the woman alone should dictate when and how often sex can occur, and a man has no say in it. That sex cannot and will not occur on any occasion when she is not "in the mood." She hides behind the concept of "rights," making a man's desire to fuck his wife akin to coercion or...RAPE. Or that it's HIS fault for marrying someone he isn't compatible with sexually, when everyone knows it's usually women's sexual behavior that changes AFTER you marry them (like chicks will do certain things sexually before marriage, but cease after the ring and ceremony). And if a man suggested divorcing a woman who won't fuck him, he would be universally condemned by women for being a pig. Yet she does just that. This is a Class A cunt.

Someone needs to do an in depth unofficial case study of marriage. Meet a girl, bang her every which way possible, get married (with a fake ceremony, name, priest whatever) and see the decline. I bet you could make mad cash off a book. Then you just pack up and leave one day.

And to further support his findings, he should interview several married men and ask them if their sex lives with their wives followed a similar arc. Of all the married guys I know that have shared info on their sex lives, EVERY ONE OF THEM has told me of long droughts, for no good reason.

[Neo]

I find these girls attitudes and comments as hilarious/disturbing as the next guy.

However with that said, I'm wondering why you guys would express your real views to these girls? 95 times out of 100, arguing with her before sex is a complete game killer. If she's hot and I want to bang there's no way in hell she's going to learn about misogynistic views or views on drunken hookups, these topics will simply never come up in a conversation.

[Hotwheels]

What she was quoting were my answers to some questions on OKC. I never brought them up or pointed them out myself.

Saying that, I wonder if the best move on OKC would be to have two profiles. One with lots of questions answered to vet broads before contacting them with the other profiel with few if any questions answered.

[BortimusPrime]

(03-19-2012 05:58 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

What she was quoting were my answers to some questions on OKC. I never brought them up or pointed them out myself.

Saying that, I wonder if the best move on OKC would be to have two profiles. One with lots of questions answered to vet broads before contacting them with the other profiel with few if any questions answered.

I learned long ago that filling out an okcupid profile honestly was a waste of time. It's ironic considering the girls will fill out profiles with random weird shit, but they have absolutely no tolerance for it from guys.

[j r]

(03-19-2012 05:58 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

What she was quoting were my answers to some questions on OKC. I never brought them up or pointed them out myself.

Saying that, I wonder if the best move on OKC would be to have two profiles. One with lots of questions answered to vet broads before contacting them with the other profiel with few if any questions answered.

If you want to use the questions to screen girls, just answer the questions, but don't make them public. You can just base who you message on how high your matching percentage is. That said, the whole idea of compatibility is overrated when you're looking for bangs. It might be worth it to screen out the prudes, but otherwise, who cares what they think about various topics? There is a time and a place where you can challenge a chick's beliefs and have it build attraction, but online all such things should be avoided.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

That reminds me of that "a sad bitter end on okcupid" post that Roissy / Heartiste did a while ago. It's an incredibly long ramble by a 45 year old woman in her profile that illustrates the entire modern dating market all at once. Crazy stuff, just like the stuff here.