[speakeasy]

Interesting thoughts:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/24738

[Rocco81]

Dan Savage is a flaming homo ... of course most guys like him encourage promiscuity esp. in women. We all know men are horny, its no big fucking secret. I am not married for a reason (well many reasons) but when I do decide to be married with a family that is part of it. Deal with it.

I do think it has to be a one on one basis as far as what is right for each couple.

EDIT: After seeing this and thinking more about it...he does bring some solid points to the table, however I think as men we must keep this kind of thought out of the minds of women and the whol "equality" movement. Just as children do, many women will do shit all in the name of equality and "fairness".

[speakeasy]

American society seems to have an almost witch-hunt like attitude toward infidelity. I mean many people truly care about the sex and marriage lives of their politicians like it matters vis-a-vis their ability to perform their job. Clinton was impeached over a blow job he got on the side. I don't think that would've happened anywhere else in the world. I'm not saying cheating on your wife is okay, but I think in much the world, even many other Western countries, cheating is seen as something undesirable, but not unforgivable, esp if the man does a good job of taking care of his family. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, men of power are pretty much expected to have a mistress. Nobody is surprised when they cheat, that's just what they do. Their wives don't like it, but the main purpose of marriage is to provide for your family. I don't think it's seen as the great flaw in character that it is in America where it can cost people their jobs. I'm not encouraging people to go out and do it, but it is interesting to compare sentiments from different cultures to better understand your own.

Like Savage says, if a man fucked 2 women on the side during the duration of a 40 year marriage while taking good care of his family, I'm inclined to say he was a pretty good husband. I think that's how most people feel around the world. But in America, it has a very all or nothing view of marital infidelity and if a guy were to stray once in a lifelong marriage, he is a scumbag that should be divorced and the wife should get most his assets. When the Tiger Woods thing happened, I posted on my facebook that it was ridiculous that this woman is being given half a billion dollars because Tiger cheated, and I had women saying he should be paying even more, as if she did something to earn hundreds of millions of dollars. I think the rest of the world is more sensible on this issue and Americans(women) are completely neurotic.

[Kona]

(11-02-2010 11:30 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

When the Tiger Woods thing happened, I posted on my facebook

I don't have facebook, so let me say this: Every time people talk about marital infidelity somehow Tiger get's rolled in.

Now, every not white American knows exactly what they did to the best damn golf player in history is 100000% American white people racist crap. The white guys that run and play golf were sick of some mixed kid being better than them at their game so the first little thing he did wrong they had their white buddies over at the tv stations crucify Tiger. Can't Tiger not even be a member at a bunch of the country clubs he beat a bunch of white folks at?

If the guy Phil Mickelson fucked around the news would say "Phil cheated on his wife" the it would say "wow, he's a lefty" then that would be it. You get a black guy out there, or whatever Tiger is, playing better golf and banging a whole hell of a lot more chicks than the white boys, somebody needs to put a stop to that.

His wife getting the billions, who the hell cares. Tiger doesn't. He just wants to go whack little golfballs far. He could take his other billions and go somewhere everyone else is brown and hide forever. That's why I bet he comes back hard over the next few years. The guys got balls, and uses them.

Aloha!

[oldnemesis]

(11-02-2010 11:30 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

American society seems to have an almost witch-hunt like attitude toward infidelity. I mean many people truly care about the sex and marriage lives of their politicians like it matters vis-a-vis their ability to perform their job. Clinton was impeached over a blow job he got on the side.

And like everything in America, it is ridiculously hypocrite. Meaning, a lot of people are just talking the "holier than thou" talk, but none of them is walking the walk (except walking the Appalachian trails, I believe). I meet new immigrants from Russia quite often, and one of the first thing I tell him is to pretty much ignore everything people here say to you about themselves - they're not telling you what they are, they're telling you what they thing they are, and it may be something completely different. This is the main reason to completely avoid any relationship with American women - how could you live with someone who is in constant denial to themselves?

Despite the "free speech" image, only few people here have balls to stand up and voice their real opinion. Dan Savage is one of them, and he has my respect, even though sometime I do not agree with him. But on this topic I do agree with him.

Quote:

I don't think that would've happened anywhere else in the world.

Second that. I was still in Russia at that time, and pretty much everyone was like, "are Americans really THAT stupid?". I mean, if he took it in the ass from Osama Bin Laden, it would at least be newsworthy, but a blowjob from a chick? Gimme a break, only in puritan America this could be news!

Clinton question actually pops up quite often in discussions with Europeans. Now I can tell them that yes, a lot of Americans are really stupid, because they allowed their TV network and stupid talk show hosts to do all the thinking for them.

Quote:

I'm not saying cheating on your wife is okay, but I think in much the world, even many other Western countries, cheating is seen as something undesirable, but not unforgivable, esp if the man does a good job of taking care of his family. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, men of power are pretty much expected to have a mistress. Nobody is surprised when they cheat, that's just what they do. Their wives don't like it, but the main purpose of marriage is to provide for your family. I don't think it's seen as the great flaw in character that it is in America where it can cost people their jobs. I'm not encouraging people to go out and do it, but it is interesting to compare sentiments from different cultures to better understand your own.

Completely agree.

Quote:

When the Tiger Woods thing happened, I posted on my facebook that it was ridiculous that this woman is being given half a billion dollars because Tiger cheated, and I had women saying he should be paying even more, as if she did something to earn hundreds of millions of dollars.

This is the same American hypocrisy in action. Apply the decipher rules: ignore all justifications/explanations. Look on what people are asking for, and ignore why. Basically the message is that he needs to pay more because he has money to pay more. But try to tell them about Finnish traffic fine system (where the amount of fine depends on your income), and they'll immediately label it as fucking left-wing communism trying to rob people from their hard-earned money.

[speakeasy]

http://www.slate.com/id/2276071/pagenum/all/#p2

Quote:

For the most part, Russian women shrug off the fooling around. It's seen as unavoidable and natural. Men are slaves to hormones. Why get worked up over that, or the weather? "My sister's husband cheats on her," says Tanya, of the underwear story. "She knows this for a fact, but she doesn't cheat on him. When I ask her why she stays with him she says, 'I'm going to split up with him over some nonsense? He'll get it out of his system and settle down.'" "Faithfulness in marriage is seen as something that is nice but unrealistic," says Moscow sociologist Irina Tartakovskaya. She points out that if women don't really expect it of their husbands, they can pre-empt feelings of shock and betrayal.

Women also put up with infidelity because there are simply more of them. Since World War II, when the Soviets lost 27 million people, there have been real or perceived shortages of men in Russia, who have one of the lowest life expectancies in the developed and developing worlds—age 62, compared with 78 in the United States. There are nearly 10 percent fewer men than women here between the ages of 15 and 64. In the aftermath of World War II, a single man could father children with multiple women because it was the only way for many women to start families. Sixty-five years later, even perfectly sculpted Russian women talk about the fierce competition for a mate. (This is also how they explain why they are always dressed to the nines.) "Men are not afraid to lose their women here," a 23-year-old Muscovite named Olga told me. "But for a woman, who the hell knows if you'll ever find another one?" This recalls a Billie Holiday-esque traditional Russian women's saying, "He may be bad, but he's mine."

Wow! And in the west, a woman can walk away with half your shit just for rubber-necking at a another woman's ass.

[oldnemesis]

(12-06-2010 04:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Wow! And in the west, a woman can walk away with half your shit just for rubber-necking at a another woman's ass.

By the way, I wonder if this is really a typical case, not something which just happened a few times?

As far as I understood, the myth comes down to three things:

1. An ability to dissolute the marriage based on behavior. However sonce Oct 2010 all 50 states allow no-fault divorce. Which means that you do not need to show (and validate in court) the reason to divorce your spouse. Makes the behavior of your spouse completely irrelevant here.

2. Splitting the communal property. Everything acquired during the marriage is a communal property (with few exceptions), unless there were special agreements in place. It matters for billionaires who marry trophy wives, but I don't see how it could matter for average Joe. My wife works as much as me, and while she makes less than me, she works more at home and with kids, so half of what we made is definitely hers.

3. Alimony. If you didn't marry unequal (i.e. you're not a billionaire with trophy wife), and you both worked and made similar money, I see no reason why the court would give any spouse an alimony. The cases where it was given were typically exceptional.

Did I miss something?

[playa_with_a_passport]

(12-06-2010 07:07 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

2. Splitting the communal property. Everything acquired during the marriage is a communal property (with few exceptions), unless there were special agreements in place. It matters for billionaires who marry trophy wives, but I don't see how it could matter for average Joe. My wife works as much as me, and while she makes less than me, she works more at home and with kids, so half of what we made is definitely hers.

Off the top of my head, I can think of one type of average Joe who often get raped anally with no lube by Family Court Judges during divorce proceedings. Those unlucky bastards are guys who are lucky enough to still have defined benefit Pension plans. Military, Civil service and private Union workers still get a pension based on time on the job. Those pensions are considered communal property. Thus, the old lady gets a piece of your pension equal to how many years the marriage lasted. I know a correction officer whose wife gets 50% of his 50K a year pension for life and that amount doesn't include the $$$ he has to fork over for child support.

Let's also not forget after 10 years of marriage, she's entitled to half your social security check as well.

[Jim Kirk]

Playa - just hit that one. Anyone civil servant - cop - fireman - teacher - is simply cannon fodder in a divorce. You can't hide a pension or send it to Switzerland or put it in someone else's name. The worst divorces I have ever seen were cops and fireman's.

[oldnemesis]

(12-07-2010 05:57 PM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

Off the top of my head, I can think of one type of average Joe who often get raped anally with no lube by Family Court Judges during divorce proceedings. Those unlucky bastards are guys who are lucky enough to still have defined benefit Pension plans. Military, Civil service and private Union workers still get a pension based on time on the job. Those pensions are considered communal property. Thus, the old lady gets a piece of your pension equal to how many years the marriage lasted.

Interesting. I googled it, and yes, you're right. But I see the reason for that - pension payments are type of deferred income, when you pay today and receive it in future. To pay into the pension fund today, he uses his today income, which is communal property. This means the spouse is also investing into the pension, and therefore should benefit from it as well. Same is true for a spouse investing in 401(k).

Quote:

I know a correction officer whose wife gets 50% of his 50K a year pension for life and that amount doesn't include the $$$ he has to fork over for child support.

Cases like that always make me wonder why guys marry women who do not want to work? If his wife worked, he'd get half of her 401(k) in divorce.

Quote:

Let's also not forget after 10 years of marriage, she's entitled to half your social security check as well.

This one needs a little clarification:

1. The way I read it first was that your social security check is cut in half, and she gets half of it and you get the second half. If someone read it the same way, this is misunderstanding. From SSA: "The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the amount of benefits your ex-spouse or their current spouse may receive."

2. She can receive either half of your SS check, or 100% of hers (whatever is larger), but not both.

3. It works for you as well - you can receive half of her SS check, or 100% of yours.

So I don't see the point here. I mean, fine, the government wants to pay my ex-wife more, but it doesn't come from my money, so why would I care?

[playa_with_a_passport]

(12-08-2010 04:15 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(12-07-2010 05:57 PM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

Off the top of my head, I can think of one type of average Joe who often get raped anally with no lube by Family Court Judges during divorce proceedings. Those unlucky bastards are guys who are lucky enough to still have defined benefit Pension plans. Military, Civil service and private Union workers still get a pension based on time on the job. Those pensions are considered communal property. Thus, the old lady gets a piece of your pension equal to how many years the marriage lasted.

Interesting. I googled it, and yes, you're right. But I see the reason for that - pension payments are type of deferred income, when you pay today and receive it in future. To pay into the pension fund today, he uses his today income, which is communal property. This means the spouse is also investing into the pension, and therefore should benefit from it as well. Same is true for a spouse investing in 401(k).

Not necessaly, Some govt agencies even have non contributory pensions plans(Port Authority, the agency who owned the World Trade Center is one of those agencies) Ex wifes are still entitled to half even in those cases where the employee did not contributed a single cent, just like your wife would be entitled to half if you won the Lotto. Pensions are worth their weight in gold and are way more valuable than any 401k. So even if an ex wife is making big bucks 100k+ a year,she would gladly fork over half of her 401k in order to get a guaranteed monthly payment for life. Plus, she gets the pleasure of spending your money buying toyz for her boy toy.

For example, in order for the ex wife of my buddy to get an annuity that pays 25k a year(50% of 50k) for life she would have to fork over 500k(http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/inve...lator.aspx) to an insurance company to buy an annuity. So my buddy would only come up ahead if his wife had over 1 million bucks in her 401k. My point is still valid, you don't need to be wealthy in order for a divorce to be financially devastating. In fact, average Joes get it the worse because they are more likely to work for a paycheck. Thus, they cant hide their assets as easly as say Tiger Woods would.The only guys who have nothing to worry about divorces are guys like the Kevin Federalines who basically are glorified bums.

[oldnemesis]

(12-09-2010 02:52 PM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

Not necessaly, Some govt agencies even have non contributory pensions plans(Port Authority, the agency who owned the World Trade Center is one of those agencies) Ex wifes are still entitled to half even in those cases where the employee did not contributed a single cent, just like your wife would be entitled to half if you won the Lotto.

You are still contributing, it just doesn't come in form of deduction from your salary. It is kind of "missed gain" contribution - one could work for Port Authority and have pension without contribution, or work for similar private company and make $50K a year more.

Quote:

Pensions are worth their weight in gold and are way more valuable than any 401k. So even if an ex wife is making big bucks 100k+ a year,she would gladly fork over half of her 401k in order to get a guaranteed monthly payment for life.

She only gets pension for the years you were married, so if you work 30 years to get your pension, to get 50% of it she should be married to you for 30 years. With making over 100K a year she'll likely fund it at max, i.e. 15K a year, and even considering 5% growth rate, her 401(k) would worth 1M after those 30 years. Not exactly a bad deal.

Quote:

For example, in order for the ex wife of my buddy to get an annuity that pays 25k a year(50% of 50k) for life she would have to fork over 500k(http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/inve...lator.aspx) to an insurance company to buy an annuity. So my buddy would only come up ahead if his wife had over 1 million bucks in her 401k.

Which, as you see, is very possible. And if the growth rate goes up to at least 8% (5% is kinda low), her 401k would worth 1.7M (!) after 30 years.

Quote:

My point is still valid, you don't need to be wealthy in order for a divorce to be financially devastating. In fact, average Joes get it the worse because they are more likely to work for a paycheck.

But how? If average Joe's wife works and makes similar to what he does, I don't see how divorce will affect him at all. If she does not, this is a different story - but why would you marry someone who doesn't want to work?

[subutai]

DO NOT GET MARRIED.

I REPEAT.

DO NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER GET MARRIED.

If you forget everything else, DO NOT GET MARRIED.

If you can keep that in your head, then here's another:

DO NOT HAVE A CHILD UNLESS YOU ARE 100% SURE IT IS WITH THE RIGHT WOMAN.

[playa_with_a_passport]

(12-09-2010 05:35 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

You are still contributing, it just doesn't come in form of deduction from your salary. It is kind of "missed gain" contribution - one could work for Port Authority and have pension without contribution, or work for similar private company and make $50K a year more.

I should have been more specific. I am only talking about Union represented Port Authority blue collar employees(Janitors, electricians, Police, etc) not management. Case in point, Port Authority Police Officers make around 90K base without overtime and fringe benefits. They also get to retired in 20 years regardless of age and do not contribute to their pension. The entry level requirements to become a Port Authority cop is 60 college credits, I am not aware of any private sector job that pays the same amount of money to community college graduates in NYC.

Quote:

she only gets pension for the years you were married, so if you work 30 years to get your pension, to get 50% of it she should be married to you for 30 years. With making over 100K a year she'll likely fund it at max, i.e. 15K a year, and even considering 5% growth rate, her 401(k) would worth 1M after those 30 years. Not exactly a bad deal.

That's assuming the marriage even lasted that long. But you are correct, she'll get a pro rated pension covering the amount of time she was married. But chances are that the monthly pension she is going to get is going to be greater than 50% whatever money you would be entitled to from her 401K. Plus, she can game the system, if she knows the marriage is going down the shitter, she'll just stop contributing to her 401K. Watching Suze Orman is one of my guilty pleasures and she always advises women who are in rocky marriages to tough it out for at least 10 years so they can get what they "deserve."

Quote:

Which, as you see, is very possible. And if the growth rate goes up to at least 8% (5% is kinda low), her 401k would worth 1.7M (!) after 30 years.

She will only make that much money in the best case of all possible scenarios. We'll have to assume that she was maxing out her contributions since her first day of marriage, that there wasn't a single bad growth year in those 30 years and that she never took a leave of absence to raise kids or take care of an elderly relative.

Quote:

But how? If average Joe's wife works and makes similar to what he does, I don't see how divorce will affect him at all. If she does not, this is a different story - but why would you marry someone who doesn't want to work?

You are right, If a husband and wife make exactly the same amount of money and have the similar assets divorce would just cancel each other out. However, in real life this is seldom the case, most guys out there are still "marrying down." The issue is not so much that some women don't want to work, the problem is that women in general do not make as much as men because they like to go into careers that don't pay well(teachers, social worker,nursing, etc) Also, I believe that it is the men who come up with the bright idea of having the wife quit her job and stay at home raising the kids.

[oldnemesis]

(12-09-2010 06:04 PM)subutai Wrote:  

DO NOT GET MARRIED.

I'd say, before marrying a girl, think about how you gonna do if you divorce her.

Quote:

DO NOT HAVE A CHILD UNLESS YOU ARE 100% SURE IT IS WITH THE RIGHT WOMAN.

Ditto.

[oldnemesis]

(12-10-2010 12:10 AM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

The entry level requirements to become a Port Authority cop is 60 college credits, I am not aware of any private sector job that pays the same amount of money to community college graduates in NYC.

Being a cop is a difficult job for the spouse as well. For example, if he gets wounded and cannot work anymore, in the event of divorce she may have to support him (alimony).
And both those requirements can be waived through pre-nup agreement.

Quote:

That's assuming the marriage even lasted that long. But you are correct, she'll get a pro rated pension covering the amount of time she was married. But chances are that the monthly pension she is going to get is going to be greater than 50% whatever money you would be entitled to from her 401K.

I'm not sure about that, but I'm too lazy to draw a plot in Excel.

Quote:

Plus, she can game the system, if she knows the marriage is going down the shitter, she'll just stop contributing to her 401K.

Then more money go to family and can be invested into something else (like stocks).
Although I knew a couple who had separate checking accounts; I wondered why did they even marry?

Quote:

She will only make that much money in the best case of all possible scenarios. We'll have to assume that she was maxing out her contributions since her first day of marriage, that there wasn't a single bad growth year in those 30 years and that she never took a leave of absence to raise kids or take care of an elderly relative.

- The amount you contribute depends on you too, both of you should plan the budget. Budgeting is a must to discuss before you merge your finances. But generally it makes sense to max out 401k to pay less in taxes.
- Average long-term growth is between 6-9%, and bad years are followed by good years.
- Kids care is also subject to discuss. For example, we only took minimal leave of absence of three months, and both of us work despite having three kids, one of them being infant.
- Same with taking care of someone. Marriage is a compromise where both parties decide what to do, and how it would affect everything. If both of you are planning to live separate lives and don't want to compromise, don't marry.

Quote:

You are right, If a husband and wife make exactly the same amount of money and have the similar assets divorce would just cancel each other out. However, in real life this is seldom the case, most guys out there are still "marrying down." The issue is not so much that some women don't want to work, the problem is that women in general do not make as much as men because they like to go into careers that don't pay well(teachers, social worker,nursing, etc)

Teachers here in CA getting good pensions, and some nurses make well over 100K a year. But nevertheless, if those guys "marry down", or marry those who do not want to work - and they don't get prenups to protect themselves, what can I say? Sucks to be them.

Quote:

Also, I believe that it is the men who come up with the bright idea of having the wife quit her job and stay at home raising the kids.

As I said, this is something to discuss before getting married or having kids. Staying at home is not necessary. We are raising kids without staying at home. So did our parents (in Soviet Union staying at home wasn't even an option - everyone had to work unless disabled). So do a lot of Asians here in Bay Area. It is possible. But if the dude is against it, and wants his wife to quit - he should be prepared to pay for what he wanted. This is just fair.

[Thorne]

I have a crazy theory regarding this. What if, in theory, we as men also openned up to the idea of controlling that primal male genetic jealousy inherited from evolution, for female sexual infidelity (much more stronger in males for the genetic cost it has), then they wouldn't be able to use sex as a weapon. If we don't care then they wouldn't have anything to throw at us anymore. We'd be on an even field.

No more angry sex for revenge with a stranger and so forth. Some women know the power they have and use it to "even the score" when they feel neglected or whatever the legitimate reason they think they have for it. They manage sex like an asset they decide to give and take away and if we aknowledge the game that way we will always have a lot more to lose. Some women even do it because it's "wrong", hip or modern, but some really don't want to do it and regret it after the fact.

If having kids is not an immediate purpose, there's no reason for them to hold that power anymore. It would demistify the whole issue, it would be like legalizing drugs (I don't do them, but for me is the only way to win that war, like with alcohol in the 1930's), so everybody would do what they want because they really want to do it.

I can see however, that some logistics would have to be involved, like a paternity test for every pregnancy, more STD testing, etc. But it would be both "politically correct" in our assumption that we are equal genders, and beneficial for our peace of mind as men.

[oldnemesis]

(04-03-2011 11:41 PM)Thorne Wrote:  

No more angry sex for revenge with a stranger and so forth. Some women know the power they have and use it to "even the score" when they feel neglected or whatever the legitimate reason they think they have for it.

"Revenge sex" seem to be a part of Western culture. For example, I could not imagine a Russian or Asian chick doing it. Still remember the first time I've seen it a few years ago, when a chick in a bar told me she is married, and went out to get laid because her spouse let his visiting mother to stay in their home. She seemed to be more excited about the "revenge" thing than about the actual sex. I told her to seek therapy.

[UrbanNerd]

(12-10-2010 01:24 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

I'd say, before marrying a girl, think about how you gonna do if you divorce her.

This is the #1 rule when considering marriage. I am glad someone else thought about it. Folks look at me sideways when I say this.

[Dueyz]

(12-09-2010 06:04 PM)subutai Wrote:  

DO NOT GET MARRIED.

I REPEAT.

DO NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER GET MARRIED.

If you forget everything else, DO NOT GET MARRIED.

If you can keep that in your head, then here's another:

DO NOT HAVE A CHILD UNLESS YOU ARE 100% SURE IT IS WITH THE RIGHT WOMAN.

I disagree, but barely. I'd say NEVER get married unless you're more sure of it than any other choice you've ever made in your life x10. Even then, it's still a crap shoot. (Especially in America)

I would agree completely that you should NEVER EVER EVER have a child with someone unless you're sure it's with the right woman. Even then, it's still a crap shoot. (Especially in America)

*These are just a couple of the reasons I'm beginning to agree that women should be sought after outside the U.S.

[Dueyz]

(04-03-2011 11:41 PM)Thorne Wrote:  

I have a crazy theory regarding this. What if, in theory, we as men also openned up to the idea of controlling that primal male genetic jealousy inherited from evolution, for female sexual infidelity (much more stronger in males for the genetic cost it has), then they wouldn't be able to use sex as a weapon. If we don't care then they wouldn't have anything to throw at us anymore. We'd be on an even field.

No more angry sex for revenge with a stranger and so forth. Some women know the power they have and use it to "even the score" when they feel neglected or whatever the legitimate reason they think they have for it. They manage sex like an asset they decide to give and take away and if we aknowledge the game that way we will always have a lot more to lose. Some women even do it because it's "wrong", hip or modern, but some really don't want to do it and regret it after the fact.

If having kids is not an immediate purpose, there's no reason for them to hold that power anymore. It would demistify the whole issue, it would be like legalizing drugs (I don't do them, but for me is the only way to win that war, like with alcohol in the 1930's), so everybody would do what they want because they really want to do it.

I can see however, that some logistics would have to be involved, like a paternity test for every pregnancy, more STD testing, etc. But it would be both "politically correct" in our assumption that we are equal genders, and beneficial for our peace of mind as men.

Good points, especially the use of sex as an asset. The value of ANY asset is based upon demand. Men (Westernized men especially) have brought much of this issue on themsleves. When you treat women the way we tend to, you empower their sense of value in this asset. Like any persons who grow into the realization that they posess an inert asset, most will learn to base their actions upon it. The only way to calm this behavior down, is to stop rewarding it. In other words...don't treat women as though their sexual attention is something you can't live without.

[Thorne]

I just was thinking... according to any spiritual teaching, in order to be in the path to "illumination" we need to be able to detach from desire. Could it be that lack of control and overly excessive indulging of physical and material pleasure is making it even harder for us to get women? aren't we giving them too much power because of it? could it be that our current capitalist mindframe also applies to women and isn't the right way to go?

it's ok to think in abundant terms, because it makes any woman expendable and we'll act non needy, which is attractive. But what's the limit between gaming one we don't really like too much? is it investing too much knowing that maybe after we fuck her we won't want to see her again anyway?? could it be us being more selective will help improve the conditions overall?

[Moma]

(04-07-2011 12:58 PM)Thorne Wrote:  

I just was thinking... according to any spiritual teaching, in order to be in the path to "illumination" we need to be able to detach from desire. Could it be that lack of control and overly excessive indulging of physical and material pleasure is making it even harder for us to get women? aren't we giving them too much power because of it? could it be that our current capitalist mindframe also applies to women and isn't the right way to go?

it's ok to think in abundant terms, because it makes any woman expendable and we'll act non needy, which is attractive. But what's the limit between gaming one we don't really like too much? is it investing too much knowing that maybe after we fuck her we won't want to see her again anyway?? could it be us being more selective will help improve the conditions overall?

You are making some very strong valid points and I like how you are thinking.

I honestly think that every man should have at least three or four women that he is attracted to for regular sex and possibly rotate a new one into the mix every month so that even has he goes out prospecting for new pussy, he is totally cool and aloof (immune) to one trying to use sex as a weapon.

[Gmac]

(04-08-2011 08:32 AM)Moma Wrote:  

he is totally cool and aloof (immune) to one trying to use sex as a weapon.

Bingo. Roissy had a great post on this earlier in the week and I agree...

[Thorne]

yeah, that's the thing, even cool, aloof, cocky-funny, non-needy attention, it's still attention, and women feed off of it like superman from the sun. If we think abundance we're still may be giving away too much of it anyway. And for what? for being horny, or honestly what's the percenteage of girls fucked by guys that they really like? how many of us when finished wanna get the hell out of there or have her eject out of our bed?

Lately with the semi-ONS I've had (saw them two or three times after the first night and had sex too) I have felt physically drained the next day. REally fucking tired!! like I gave away my energy for nothing (and yeah funnily enough one of them told me she felt "recharged"). Real Cocoon-like.

But I also understand that in order to have game we need to practice so with no practice you won't be able to get the pussy you want to choose. Maybe the way to go is being more selective and only pursue women that you have a real intellectual and physical connection with and that's it. Really set the bar high for them, so they also need to grow as people and not make it enough for them just BEING a woman. Either way we need to stop being so basic and superficial. We may be rewarding the wrong things (beauty is natural and efortless for the chicks that have it, whereas smart chicks do work hard to grow).