Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mes

1
Main / .
Sep 06, 2006, 10:50 PM
That is why they are weak.
2
Main / ...
Sep 05, 2006, 06:10 PM
GOD FORBID she actually take any initiative and actually go and speak to a man!

Hehe...the price of cowardice.
3
Main / solution
Aug 29, 2006, 06:31 PM
Hey, I've got the perfect solution...

Don't Marry!
4
Main / yeah
Aug 19, 2006, 01:30 PM
Yeah, don't talk to American women.
5
Main / unreal...
Aug 16, 2006, 07:18 AM
Unreal...I wonder how far the mangina virus has spread.

First of all, in response to the Ranting Man, I've got news on a new invention...

Two letters...its called "KY"

It's unfortunate you couldn't read between the lines on my post.  Obviously, I'm not saying all sex between a man and a woman has to be like this.  But the bottom line is that a man is going to want sex more frequently than a woman; that's natural.  So therefore, a lot of the quicky, 5 or 10 minute sex that you have just to provide the man with the volume of sex he wants will be more like this.  The girl doesn't necessarily want it, she isn't particularly horny, but she accomodates her man because she loves him.  Lots of good lubrication in case she doesn't constantly feel like a cat in heat (god forbid).

As for wanting to do it when I'm not in the mood...would I do it?  Yes.  Absolutely.  It's called love.  If my girl/wife, say, wanted oral sex a little more frequently than I wanted to do it, and she only needed it for five or ten minutes...yes, I would do it.  It would be no big deal to me, but if it made her very happy, well then...she is my love and my friend after all.  I want her to be happy.

"To me, the way you and the previous poster put it, smells an awful lot like she is nothing more than a piece of meat. Sorry, that is how it appears. Sex should be more than that, in my mind that is....."

Sigh.  Can you read between the lines just a weee bit??

Obviously, overall, a healthy sex life should consist of more than just that.  But sometimes, a guy just wants a quicky.  And you are right.  I than instance, I want to just use my girl, my wife, as a piece of meat.  And when I'm done I'll probably give her a big fat kiss for being so cool about everything and my vile male needs!  She would probably get a big bouquet of roses the next day.

When people love each other they do things for each other, they accomodate when another even when they themselves are not a thousand percect into it.  

If I love my girl and she wants to go to a swap meet to look at trinkets...you know what?  I'll go.  I'll go even if I'm necessarily as "into it" as she is.  I'll just go...shuffle, around, hang out.  Enjoy the sun.  Look at a couple of things with my girl.  Maybe bring my portable radio or something.

Does this mean I'm being used as a "piece of meat?"  Should going to a swap meet be more than "just that?"

Sorry.  I wouldn't feel expoited by such a minor accomodation.  And neither should she by having somewhat frequent quicky sex with her man.
6
Main / bs...
Aug 15, 2006, 06:26 PM
Sex drive shmeck drive, this is a load of sh*t.  A woman's sex drive doesn't make a difference.  Why?  Because she doesn't even need to be aroused to make her man happy, to facilitate her man to have sex.

The bottom f*cking line:

All she has to do is SPREAD HER LEGS.

Spread her legs.  That's it.

That's it!

Great wonderful gourmet sex is a different story.  But if its just a quicky to make her man happy, she DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AROUSED.

Spread your legs.  That's it.

If a woman does not love her man enough to lie back on a bed and just relax while her man does his thing...dammit, the bottom line is she doesn't love him.

It taks so so so little effort for a woman to do this that her not doing it is clear sign of wanting control, or just straight up not loving her husband.

I mean, imagine if your wife reallly liked a 5 minute massage a couple of times a week.  It made her really happy.  You could do it for her while watching TV, so you go ahead and do it.  You love her, and it takes minimal effort anyway.

Dammit, it takes more effort that just sitting back on a bed and doing nothing.

The bottom line:  If a woman I've committed my life to won't do something for me that takes virtually zero effort because its just too much to ask of her...well...you don't love me.  Period.  That's it.  End of story.
7
Main / ???
Aug 14, 2006, 03:13 PM
Has this guy walked through some of the shopping malls of America and SEEN some of the fat pigs of women that walk through those places?

Women, universally health conscious?

HARDLY.
8
Main / I must say
Aug 02, 2006, 11:12 AM
Overall, I like what this article says, that at least some men are increasingly "going their own way" and not falling for the old wage-slavery trap, at least not in a society that rewards men less and less for their hard work.

(And by "reward", I don't mean just monetary rewards, but also socially, in terms of a stable marriage, a society in which women respect them, and where people generally respect, honor, and in some ways defer to men for their responsibiliity and hard work)

But at the same time, I don't want this phenomenon to be an excuse for men to become self indulgent and lazy.  I don't want men to decline as souls, as human beings, because of this phenomenon.

A man can "go his own way" and at the same time become a self actualizer.  He can continue to strive in life.  To work hard.  To do better.  To improve himself.  In spite of, and perhaps even because of, this environment that doesn't reward men too much for traditional hardworking behavior, that is, hard work in support of a family, children, etc...

What I mean is, you are now free to find those things that really turn you on, the you have a passion for, that make you tick.  You can do what you want to do, and become better and better...become masterful in it.

You can advance your education in field that you enjoy and in which there is a reasonable market for gainful employment.  If there is a job you like and is meaningful to you, but perhaps pays less that the typical corporate job that wears down so many family men, well then, you can take it, without worrying about what women will say, what your wife will say, what society will say...all that jazz...because you just like it.  Because you enjoy it and it is meaningful to you.  And then you can strive to do your best at it.  Or at least really well.

You can volunteer your time to causes you want.  You can travel if you wish.  You can become that river guide, that ski instructor, or music instructor.  You can get a Ph.D. in a field that you love and teach college.  You can do what you wish and become a self actualizer.

Going you own way and becoming your very best are not mutually exclusive.  They are actually very compatible.  

In fact, they may be one and the same.
9
Main / bah
Aug 02, 2006, 10:36 AM
Bah, who cares about what they say.  Part of "shrugging" means that, among other things, we don't care what the typical money-digging woman thinks about us.  

"Good luck finding a girlfriend with that attitude..."

or....

"You're lazy."

Hehe, my converations with most women wouldn't even go there.  They wouldn't even know my attitude towards work and women, because I wouldn't bother explaining it to most of them.  Because they're silly.  All they would know is that I am single and seemingly happy.

"Why are you single?"

"Oh, I don't know.  I guess I just haven't found the right one."

Hehe, and that's about it.  Just keep it there.

I never get into conversations of any significant depth with women.  Just hello, how are you, it's such a nice day, etc...just basic pleasantries.

They would never know me life goals, my work ethic, my desire to retire by 35, because I know they are silly and won't bother sharing those things with them.

"So what do you see in your future?"

"Oh, I don't know...work hard, be happy.  Maybe I'll find the right girl..."

Blablabla, just surface level stuff.  Keep the conversation light and happy.  Then I'll bring the conversation to things more adequte for a conversation with most females, like th flavor of her ice cream or something (yum!)

For the most part, with 95% of chicks...just keep it light and simple.  That's the kind of creatures they are.  Like when you're talking with children.

Works for me.
10
Main / again
Aug 01, 2006, 07:14 PM
Well again, their explanation of causality is skewed.

It's not that bilogically having a child itself somehow magically or instantly causes this planning-portion of your brain to develop.  It's that the act of parenting itself, and caring for a child, requires you to do lots of planning and thinking ahead, thus forcing you to use this part of your brain, and thus it develops.  Like a muscle.

The point is that you have to exert your mind in order for this part of the brain to develop.  It doesn't happen automatically.  Thus, the media's desire to get stupid man to say, "Oh, I want be smart too.  I want big strong prefrontal cortex.  So I have baby!" is ridiculous.  

You have to be a father who cares.  A father who gives a sh*t.  Otherwise it's like buying a weight set and letting it sit there and thinking your muscles will get strong.
 
Moreover, you don't have to be a father to think ahead, thus developing this part of your brain.  A successful businessman, or a man in med-school, or just a very responsible man in general, has to do a lot of planning to, so he also is likely to have this portion of his brain developed.

But just leave it to a journalist to misreport findings and try to use findings to try to lure another man into the trap.

At least they won't get me.
11
Main / pc
Jul 30, 2006, 09:06 PM
If it ever comes out that HIV as a cause of AIDS is a sham, it will be a huge debacle.

Most importantly, it will prove that political correctness, that being "sensitive to one's feelings" above all else does not come without a price.
12
Main / scary plausible
Jul 30, 2006, 05:26 PM
That video is scary plausible.  You know it's funny, but when lots of gay men began dropping like flies during the early 80s, the immediate repsonse from many doctors and scientists was that is was the drugs, the constant anal sex and introduction of foreign pathogens into your body, the stress, the entire lifestyle that was causing a collapse in the immune system.  Certainly makes sense.

But the gay community did not want to hear that.  They did not want to hear that their lifestyle, their drug use, their having anal sex with hundreds if not thousands of partners, the malnutrition, etc., was causing a collapse in their immune system.  It can't be me.  That would be a judgement on my lifestyle.  There must be some germ that is getting me...some virus...something "out there" that is giving poor helpless innocent me AIDS.

Funny...recently I've heard the same theory about obesity...that it is caused by some "virus" out there., hehe

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/07/28/fat.virus.ap/index.html

These are real doctors, "scientists" saying this, mind you...hehe.

When people do not want to take responsibility for their own actions, they always pursue some scapegoat, some reason "out there" for what is happening to me.

The US Department of Health, the Center for Disease Control, all being government -- that is, political -- organizations, collapsed to the pressure of the gay lobby and gave them what they wanted.  They gave them their scape goat, their deus ex machina.  They gave them HIV.

And they gave them HIV, an explanation for their disease, with little if any peer review or real scientific criticism of this theory.  At the outset, plenty of scientists debated HIV as the cause of AIDS, and studies have never proven a causal link between HIV and AIDS.  But the gay lobby had to have an answer, the answer they wanted to hear, so the government gave them one.

It's funny because it was around this same time that all sorts of formerly reputable institutions were collapsing to demands of political correctness.  It was at about this same time, the late 1970s I think, that the gay lobby pushed the American Psychological Association to take homosexuality off its DSM list as a mental disorder.  And in response to political, not scientific, pressure, the APA did just that.

A lot of liberal ideas stemming from the late 1960s were taking hold at that time.  For example, prior to the Stonewall Riots of the 1960s, homosexuals had an awful hard time even having their own nightclubs, their own venues where they could meet each other and partake in all kinds of libertine sexual activities.  The police routinely busted such establishments.  While certainly socially intolerant, such persecution by police departments had the effect of breakiing up widespread homosexual activity and, most importantly, anal sex, which can introduce all kinds of conventional diseases into your system.

After the Stonewall Riots of 1969, police persecution of these nightclub establishments ended...by the 1980s, they had grown considerably in number and had become quite commonplace and accepted in the gay community.  The activity that went on in those places likely became more salacious, as patrons could do as they wished without fear of being arrested by the police, much less judged by an increasingly tolerant society.

The growth in hard drug use occurred precisely at the same time, right alongside the growth in gay nightclubs, and increasing acceptance of the gay lifestyle.  Recreational hard drug use barely even existed prior to the 1960s as a widespread phenomena.  Throughout the 1970s, the drug culture grew and flourished and more drugs were put out on the street, the social stigma of using drugs lessened, and drugs got harder and harder (from marijuana to cocaine, heroin, etc).  Moreover, they became a large part of the gay club scene, as they inherently bring pleasure and it is difficult to have the stamina to party all night and have sex with hundreds of men without having these powerful stimulants to fuel it.

Could it be?  Could the HIV theory of AIDS be erroneous?

Well, then...what is "killing all those people?"

Oh, I don't know.  Maybe it's the crystal meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, poppers, constant partying, malnutrition, constant anal sex, emotional chaos, all which constitutes a constant assault on your body's system, destroying your immune system the same way you'd destroy the engine on your four-cylinder car if you drove it 120mph for hours and hours a day, for months on end, without even an oil change?

Maybe...just maybe THAT is what is killing all those people.

I saw the video.  And I for one don't buy the old theory any more.
13
Main / answer
Jul 29, 2006, 09:29 PM
In America girls hate me.

Overseas, girls like me.

That's it.
14
Main / ???
Jul 29, 2006, 09:05 PM
Gees...

It just seems to me that so many of these problems could be avoided if you just chose to not invite the government into your relationship through marriage.

All this mumbo jumbo about women having tons of sex before they "seal the deal"...gees, it sounds like you are selling a used car or closing on a house or something.  This is a relationship.  It is an ongoing thing.  Why SHOULD there be any deal to seal?

If two people stay together due to their own volition, and not some government contract, it seem issues like this would be avoided.  You wouldn't even need to have "the talk" with honey, because if sh*t changed, you could complain, let her know in the course of the relationship, and then leave it you weren't happy.  Without being taken to the cleaners.

You wouldn't need to worry about whether the talk with honey would be enforceable, because dammit...it is enforceable.  Look down.  There are your two feet.  That's how you enforce that agreement in the case of a breach of contract.  The fact that you have that leverage would strongly deter that sort of behavior from a woman, leading to a fair and more healthy relationship.

It's when government gets involved and takes away this natural leverage in relations between people, putting the power squarely on the woman's side of the court, that you get these sorts of perverse outcomes.  Marriage gives women defacto monopoly power over the whole relationship.  They can produce whatever quantity and quality of their "good" (sex, pleasant personality, support, cooking...whatever you value in women), and charge whatever price they wish, because the buyer, by government fiat, cannot leave and shop elsewhere.

If he goes, he is charged and exhorbitant penalty that deters this behavior.

Yikes!  Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.  I prefer a "free market" in relationships, with the simple rules of decency, honesty, and trust as being the only arbiters for my relationships.
15
Main / Why?
Jul 22, 2006, 11:16 PM
Why don't men ask for directions?

Hmm...

The question should be, "Why do women seek to have other people fix their problems and confusions for them at the first sign of difficulty, instead of trying to figure things out themselves?"