patrick.net

IF you insist.

The most it can do is give you a degree of sexual satisfaction. This is not happiness.

If you want to claim that you can be just as happy getting your sex this way as through relationships, this may be true. But in order to be really happy you are going to need some good "connections" to other people that aren't sexual. That's actually what married folks are striving for, even if they only succeed (long term) half the time or less.

Ok, what if I date a regular woman, who despite being a so-called ordinary, but not-so bad person, has no taste in music?

So if I listen to the following, while banging a hoe, the hoe "pretends" to enjoy listening. And perhaps, she also likes the music as well, since she may also have some decent taste in pop rock music ...

www.youtube.com/embed/T8Xb_7YDroQ

Rin says

while banging

This probably has a lot to do with it.

P N Dr Lo R says

This probably has a lot to do with it.

Except that a non-hoe may complain about the *guy's* music and want to listen to some Taylor Swift, Beyonce, or Lady Gaga.

can someone tell me why f*cking wh*res won't bring me happiness?

Because fucking whores will bring you happiness.

Are you trying to short the market on hooker futures?

the ho don't love you. that's a good summary. sex is actually a commodity, but love is not.

now how to get a woman to actually love you and not just use you for money? see reddit redpill and chateau heartiste for very non-PC advice. maybe it works, maybe not, but i think their basic understanding is correct, namely that women sincerely love men who:

* do not unconditionally love them back
* have other options
* have various kinds of high status, like income, fame, accomplishments, and literal status (height)
* really don't give a fuck what people think of them

and those sites understand correctly that women hate weak men, men who are devoted to feminism, and men who are too in love with them.

love is not.

Here's the thing about so-called 'love' ... the ppl who're close to one are of two kinds, one are the early childhood friends, ages 5 to 12, and then, if one was in the military, those who'd fought in the trenches with you, during life or death situations. This is why, so many ppl, starting from World War I till Vietnam, maintain ties with their fellow Vets over the decades. The bonds they'd formed, have lasted forever.

After that, it's very loose and not very clear.

If anything, the alleged love between men and women, is the greatest lie of them all.

and those sites understand correctly that women hate weak men, men who are devoted to feminism, and men who are too in love with them.

Weak men: Yes

Men devoted to feminism: Depends on what you mean... Are you talking about guys who refuse to be "gentlemen" because it goes against their idea of feminism? If so, yes, I hate that. My men opened my doors and paid for my dinners. Not because I'm incapable of opening a door or affording dinner. But because it was the gentlemanly thing to do. If I wanted to split the bill, I'd go out with my girlfriends. But if you're talking about guys who support a woman's ability to reach her dreams even if it's outside traditional gender roles... obviously, I would disagree with that, as I think most women do, in fact, like that.

Men who are too in love with them: Again, that depends on what you mean. Men who act like doormats because they are so in love with their girlfriends and can't ever contradict them are definitely asking for trouble. If that's what you mean, I would agree. So, doormat -- BAD; Guy who loves me A LOT but is still his own person -- GOOD.

turtledove says

Not because I'm incapable of opening a door or affording dinner.

TD, a person like myself, has no issues, paying for a dinner. I mean c'mon, I work in the financial services industry. The issue is when a companion thinks that the very nature of her patronage, means free food and drinks, for hours on end.

turtledove says

Men who are too in love with them: Again, that depends on what you mean. Men who act like doormats because they are so in love with their girlfriends and can't ever contradict them are definitely asking for trouble. If that's what you mean, I would agree. So, doormat -- BAD; Guy who loves me A LOT but is still his own person -- GOOD.

A doormat is exactly that, a doormat. No one respects that. The problem is that the path towards love, forces many men to act like doormats. Since I'm past that age, it can't happen again. I'm past the age of love.

Rin says

Rin ... can someone tell me why f*cking wh*res won't bring me happiness?

It will, but only for a few hours.

Men have emotional needs just as women do. One of these needs is for a long-term, monogamous partner, the kind that gives you the emotional security of knowing that her offspring are also yours. Evolution has written these emotional needs deep into the genetic code and brain structure of male humans. We are not descendant from males who did not care about the exclusivity of sexual access to long-term mates.

Only about 4% of mammals are monogamous. The fact is that monogamy has huge disadvantages and is only a viable evolutionary strategy if something really, really important is offered in exchange for it. For males of any monogamous species that something is parental certainty. Only with parental certainty does it make evolutionary sense for a male to forgo other sexual opportunities and to devote the majority of his life to helping a mate and her offspring.

Neither prostitutes nor American women are satisfying this basic biological need for you, Rin, and largely for the same reason. Both can and do satisfy short-term mating desires, but not long-term ones. This leaves you with several options. You can give up on long-term options and just enjoy no-strings sex. You can seek a foreign bride. You can find happiness in things other than romantic relationships. Or, and I do not recommend this myself, you can take a page out of CIC's book and learn to appreciate the warm woolly embrace of sheep.

Dan8267 says

. You can give up on long-term options and just enjoy no-strings sex.

Yes, this is why I want to retire to Australia, where seeing hoes is completely legal.

Dan8267 says

you can take a page out of CIC's book and learn to appreciate the warm woolly embrace of sheep

I'll let Gene Wilder (w/ Woody Allen company) deal with that scenario ...

www.youtube.com/embed/ZbMa7BpPsNc

Rin says

Yes, this is why I want to retire to Australia, where seeing hoes is completely legal.

You have many more options than that, not Australia doesn't have a few nice places to live, but check out your options.

I'm partial to south Europe, myself, not for prostitution but just for life in general. I'd like to spend some time in the south coast of France, Italy, and Greece. Give the financial crisis, perhaps Greece is an overall good deal for long-term tourists right now. Plus, all that ancient Greek architecture and history to soak in...

Still, the south coast of France appeals to the romantic in me.

I want whores!

And what's so pathetic is that I could have 'em in mother England but not America.

Seriously, what was the purpose of the Revolutionary War? I'm less free here than back in England.

Rin says

And what's so pathetic is that I could have 'em in mother England but not America.

OMG! Has Nevada left the Union?

turtledove says

OMG! Has Nevada left the Union?

It's the deserts of Nevada, away from population centers. It's allowed in neither Reno nor Vegas city limits.

In contrast, I could be banging away in London, unfettered, listening to some classic Zeppelin.

Robert Plant: "I've been to London, seen 7 wonders" you get the rest ....

www.youtube.com/embed/gJ-v0CCfEqE

Rin says

Seriously, what was the purpose of the Revolutionary War? I'm less free here than back in England.

Wasn't that Patrick Henry's TRUE Address: "Give me Hookers, or give me Death!"

Ceffer says

Wasn't that Patrick Henry's TRUE Address: "Give me Hookers, or give me Death!"

Not according to Vaughn de Leath:

And do you remember Patrick Henry
Patrick Henry and that speech, that wonderful speech
When he cried, "Give me, give me liberty or black bottom!"

P N Dr Lo R says

And do you remember Patrick Henry

Ok, it still doesn't change the fact that it's legal to fuck whores in England but not in America, outside of a few desert communities in Nevada.

When are you going to screw a hooker that looks like the jedi actress in Star Wars VII?

turtledove says

and those sites understand correctly that women hate weak men, men who are devoted to feminism, and men who are too in love with them.

Weak men: Yes

Men devoted to feminism: Depends on what you mean... Are you talking about guys who refuse to be "gentlemen" because it goes against their idea of feminism? If so, yes, I hate that. My men opened my doors and paid for my dinners. Not because I'm incapable of opening a door or affording dinner. But because it was the gentlemanly thing to do. If I wanted to split the bill, I'd go out with my girlfriends. But if you're talking about guys who support a woman's ability to reach her dreams even if it's outside traditional gender roles... obviously, I would disagree with that, as I think most women do, in fact, like that.

Men who are too in love with them: Again, that depends on what you mean. Men who act like doormats because they are so in love with their girlfriends and can't ever contradict them are definitely asking for trouble. If that's what you mean, I would agree. So, doormat -- BAD; Guy who loves me A LOT but is still his own person -- GOOD.

ok, we agree on weak men. makes total sense from an evolutionary theory point of view. a woman with a baby is in need of protection. literal physical big strong man protection.

by "devoted to feminism" i mean the kind of guy who wears a shirt that says "this is what a feminist looks like" and hates "patriarchy" just as much as militant lesbians do. this means he also has no ambition, because, you know, it's wrong for men to have ambition because they already have so many advantages and have oppressed so many innocent people, etc etc. there is no chance this guy lifts weights.

by men who are too in love, i mean that the mere fact that valuing a woman very highly and quickly after meeting her makes her suspicious of your options in women and tends to kill her attraction. i had this discussion with my wife and she agreed. women frequently, maybe secretly, do not value themselves all that highly, so if you instantly value her above all else in the world, she thinks you're an idiot.

women frequently, maybe secretly, do not value themselves all that highly, so if you instantly value her above all else in the world, she thinks you're an idiot.

Pat, ask yourself this one question ... why is Turtledove, so fascinated by my threads? I mean really, I'm pretty much, nothing but insulting to the average American woman but yet, she's completely fascinated by how a man, can have virtually everything going right in life, but reject relationships.

You see, this is the true rise of the alpha male, a man who's financially, emotionally, and spiritually free, of the need of women, for any sense of validation.

I mean really, my posts here are just me criticizing society and calling on its bullshit, like my threads on Ivy League colleges and how it's about recruiting for management consulting and financial services firms and not education.

to carry it further, women have automatic triggers for attraction just like men do, but they are very different ones.

men like tits and ass, a pretty face, and hopefully a pleasant disposition (but not having one is not a deal breaker if the other factors are in place)

women like size and strength and social status, but most of all confidence. a man's not having confidence actually is a deal breaker for women.

both men and women size up these initial factors extremely quickly.

what happens after that depends on a zillion things, but the subtle game of initial attraction happens automatically on both sides.

Rin says

free, of the need of women, for any sense of validation

i'm not talking about validation, just companionship. it seems lonely never to be very close to someone over the long term.

i'm not talking about validation, just companionship. it seems lonely never to be very close to someone over the long term.

I disagree because many of those bonds were already formed back in childhood.

If adulthood is the only time when one forms bonds ... well, the train had left the station, ages ago.

Rin says

i'm not talking about validation, just companionship. it seems lonely never to be very close to someone over the long term.

I disagree because many of those bonds were already formed back in childhood.

If adulthood is the only time when one forms bonds ... well, the train had left the station, ages ago.

You can form a lasting bond with someone at any stage of your life. Many people find lasting love and happiness well into old age.

I find it self-evident from your threads that you are happy as a clam. Now, listen to what everybody says, wrap it up tightly, and jam it up a hoes ass, then ignore the fuck out of it. My advice, which you should also pound into a hoe's ass, is to search for a finance job in London. By the way, ass play costs extra.

YesYNot says

By the way, ass play costs extra.

hard to understand from evolutionary theory. she's not going to get pregnant doing that, so why is it highly valued?

read an interesting scientific article once about how women who swallow after a blow job are in fact more likely to then get pregnant by the same man from vaginal sex. it was theorized that something in the semen tells her immune system that "this guy is ok" and makes it easier for sperm from him later. wish i could find that article again. not a hoax.

hard to understand from evolutionary theory. she's not going to get pregnant doing that, so why is it highly valued?

Are we all evolutionary biologists? It's hard to understand why so many questions on this board are answered with evolution in mind. The evolution understanding lens seems to be applied to other people (i.e. women) more so than the budding philosopher poster (men). To the point, I imagine it has something to do with comfort level and risk. If a biologist thinks hard enough, (s)he might know that the vag is more suited to a good pounding than the ass. A hoe will surely know this from experience.

YesYNot says

It's hard to understand why so many questions on this board are answered with evolution in mind.

pesonally, i'm trying to continue thinking about evolution and behavior because it has been very successful in answering lots of hard questions in convincing and testable ways.

it does fail in some respects though. gayness does seem to be genetic to some degree, but it's very hard to explain via evolution.

YesYNot says

The evolution understanding lens seems to be applied to other people (i.e. women) more so than the budding philosopher poster (men).

evolution works great in understanding most male behavior too, men are just so simple and obvious as to hardly be worth talking about. women are more complicated, and many previously mysterious female behaviors can be readily brought into focus and understood through this new lens.

Rin,
Even though you're young, sounds like you have It All Figured Out, already.
Lonely At The Top, huh?

www.youtube.com/embed/UgWeTkrlnJ0

It's unlisted video if it doesn't work for you.

If someone's homosexual it's none of my business as long as they don't hurt others.
But having to submit to digit prostate exams, I am certain that being a gay male is an abomination.

men are just so simple and obvious as to hardly be worth talking about. women are more complicated, and many previously mysterious female behaviors can be readily brought into focus and understood through this new lens

I'd say this is mostly a matter of perspective. I do find some of the comments here, and from red pill types to be interesting. But usually, they are transparently one sided and odd. As one example, you often see some 'weak' guy complaining that 95% of the women are fucking 5% of the men. What is obvious to most people, is that this argument is at the very least an exaggeration. The argument most probably has some palliative effect to make the guy feel better about his lack of success.
Another blatant contradiction that I see a lot here has to do with fidelity. One one hand, you have some people portraying all women as incapable of fidelity due to evolutionary reasons. These people portray the guys as poor dupes with nothing but good intentions. No one is turning to the evolution lens when a guy's fidelity is in question. On the other hand, when fidelity is not in question, you have people claiming that all guys want is tits, ass, some good pokes, and less drama / crazy.
Reality is that evolution has given us the impulse to be faithful and loyal when trust is there, and always on the lookout for sex mating opportunities in general. As a species, our success requires cooperation at the societal (tribal) level and at the pair (parents) level. Simply trying to fuck more women or capture the best sperm is not the whole story.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Rin,

Even though you're young, sounds like you have It All Figured Out, already.

Lonely At The Top, huh?

Ultimately, if a man wants love, he should get himself a dog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_and_His_Dog

www.youtube.com/embed/5BDxqhI9qDw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

On the other hand, social liberals and many gay people believe homosexuality is natural, and therefore find the existence of homosexual sex in animals unsurprising. Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years.

YesYNot says

In the alternative hypothesis, women do the practical job of gathering (getting most of the calories), while the men act like peacocks going around getting the most scarce items to prove their mating worthiness.

This is wrong, because it conflates food mass with calories. The meat provided the majority of the calories, the berries, tubers, and nuts the minority of the calories - even though the food by mass was exactly reversed.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682.long

And hunting was far more dangerous - no hunting boar with a sniper rifle, but by an underpowered non-compound bow that could only shoot a few dozen feet and then without much force and had to have poisoned applied - or using a spear. Then the wounded beast, since one-shot kills with stone age weaponry being rare even among high experience hunters - tracked through the woods full of lions and tigers for hours.

Traditional Hunter Gatherers today, in New Guinea or the Khoi-San (Bushmen) of Kalahari Desert - have words for 'general hunger' and 'meat hunger', just like Eskimos have multiple exact terms for types of snow ('packed snow', 'loose snow', 'icy snow', etc).

Nature in it's diversity finds it desirable to transmit male traits in females and female traits in males, thus preserving both maleness and femaleness, which manifest in more direct and pure forms in individuals but as variables in others. These variations can be genotypic, phenotypic or in the case of humans psychogenic and developmental as well. Androgyny in women and mixed, indeterminate genitals in ostensible males and females are not common, but they are not uncommon, either. There are some with both sets of reproductive organs, and an occasional male with a double penis.

Also, sexually dimorphic species are mostly predominantly female with males only spun off to generate case specific reproductive variation and diversity. Humans and other creatures with generally equal ratios are simply the result of statistical evolution that favors those ratios. Human Beings have developed the odd meme that the species is "male" with the "females" the spin offs, whereas the reality is just the opposite.

The fact that female "ultra fems" generating males that may resemble them could be tagged a form of genetic narcissism. However, since psychogenic gay males run the gamut from fems to ultra butch male types, the variability again seems to be the predominate theme.

Guys, are you thinking a bit too much about this topic? Really, this isn't a field for some academic studies.

The bottom line is as simple as the following ... I like t*ts and some *ss. Really, once you're past that point, there's not much else.

All this discussion is a desecration of the purity of bonking hoes.