When Men Waste Women's Time

[Trump]

Tell them exactly what you want from them. I’ve never had to lie to get woman. They will actually be more attracted to you.

Really?

"I would love to just meet you and have sex. All that calling you and buying you stuff, listening to how everyone at work is not as smart as you. It's brutal."

 

[user43770]

Not really. If you want to "play the field," do that. Don't shack up with some pretty young thing, while you build your business, and then dump her when her eggs are 3yrs shy of turning into pumpkins. It's ****ing rude. You're supposed to be a man. Part of being a man is realizing you aren't planning to make babies with the chick you've been stringing along, for convenient, regular sex, and setting her free to find a guy who does want to make babies with her. She has a shelf life, and you're the MAN -- i.e., the responsible party.

I gave my baby brother a ration of **** about this, many moons ago, because he would string these girls on, for years at a time, with them thinking he was gonna marry them, then he'd line up some new chick, and start all over again. And *I* was supposedly the "*******," because I'd see a bunch of different girls simultaneously, and then ghost them after a couple weeks or a couple months(max), but I never lied to them, or shacked up with them, and made them think I was going to marry them.

I thought it was cowardly, lazy, and disgusting, personally. I derisively called him a "serial monogamist."

So, no, I've always said this: don't monopolize a woman's fertile years, if you know you don't want to make babies with her. That's robbing her of her purpose, even if she's too stupid to realize it. It would be just as bad for a woman to stay with you until you sold your company, and then clean out your bank account, and split the country.

You wanna be a player? Then, be a player, like a real man. Don't play house, like a ***** who's afraid he'll never get laid again.

Captain save-a-ho over here. When were you born again?

We're all used to this "man up" philosophy from your ilk. It's a joke at this point.

What? You need a bunch of healthy, young individuals to work and fund your boomer pension?

 

[AJ84]

Agreed. Several ladies have told me they are planning this, and that with me. If were to get married, etc. I said I cannot promise you anything. I am not God, I cannot predict the future. Only time will tell. They usually back off, but it comes up time after time.



What's wrong with having the kids first and then persuing a lady's career goals? A lady's bio clock is limited.. Her career opts can wait. If you look back, that is what a lot of ladies did in the past; if they selected to go into the work force. Now, many go into student debt, get married, have a career and have kids; then divorce (above-average).

We don’t live in the past. The cost of living is higher and the economic landscape is very different.

But let’s consider your suggestion. A career usually starts with a post secondary education:

Who is watching the kids while she is in college? And when she has to study? Or is the husband paying for daycare? Are there Daycare’s that operate around her class schedule, which will change every semester? Or is his job flexible so he can care for the kids around her schedule when daycare isn’t open?
Also who is paying for her college? Him? Her parents? Is she getting a student loan? Who is co-signing that? Him? She has no money right?

Maybe there’s a grandparent who can watch the kids for free and pay for her college education. Maybe that grandparent can also cook and clean when the mother is in class or has to study for an exam and the father is exhausted from a full day of work.

You don’t have kids do you? It’s not as simple as having kids first, then starting a career, and that’s when there are two parents let alone just one. You have no idea the amount of energy and arsing around required not including all of the unpredictable stuff that happens. Having two solid and reliable income sources and two reliable schedules helps a lot.

I wish it was as easy as you seem to think it is.

 

[Epic Days]

Really?

"I would love to just meet you and have sex. All that calling you and buying you stuff, listening to how everyone at work is not as smart as you. It's brutal."

You’ve never done that? So you listen to her flapping her gums about endless stupid $hit? You value her that much?

 

[RickTheToad]

We don’t live in the past. The cost of living is higher and the economic landscape is very different.

But let’s consider your suggestion. A career usually starts with a post secondary education:

Who is watching the kids while she is in college? And when she has to study? Or is the husband paying for daycare? Are there Daycare’s that operate around her class schedule, which will change every semester? Or is his job flexible so he can care for the kids around her schedule when daycare isn’t open?
Also who is paying for her college? Him? Her parents? Is she getting a student loan? Who is co-signing that? Him? She has no money right?

Maybe there’s a grandparent who can watch the kids for free and pay for her college education. Maybe that grandparent can also cook and clean when the mother is in class or has to study for an exam and the father is exhausted from a full day of work.

You don’t have kids do you? It’s not as simple as having kids first, then starting a career, and that’s when there are two parents let alone just one. You have no idea the amount of energy and arsing around required not including all of the unpredictable stuff that happens. Having two solid and reliable income sources and two reliable schedules helps a lot.

I wish it was as easy as you seem to think it is.

Actually, it is when a person is not a single parent. My sibling did it and I know others who've done it as well. Children in Connecticut go to pre-school at 4. When two people have childen, it's called a team. One works, the other takes care of the child until schooling. This doesn't happen any longer for the most part. We in the US also have these things called grants and scholarships for school. I received a full ride on my BA, and my MBA was paid by my employer.

If two people want it bad enough AND work together, it is very possible. Going the current way just leads to problems, dissapointment, and single moms. Yes, you seem to have done okay as single mom. You are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Epic Days]

If two people want it bad enough AND work together, it is very possible.

I’m not really sold on this concept. It is a Disney theorem. It’s not that I am unwilling to entertain it as a possibility, it’s just that I have not observed it.
True, people stay together but we don’t know the secrets. AND we know the exchange is off. She gets protection and survival but he gets less and less intimacy.
She gets unhappy and lifeless towards him because she isn’t feeling those things she needs to feel, to feel alive.

Society, has given her an out. “You deserve more girl. Next time don’t settle.”

 

[Epic Days]

I'm not listening to any woman's non-stop BS for pu55y or a pile of gold(well, maybe the gold).

It doesn’t work. And if the man listens, she knows he’s not for sex.

 

[RickTheToad]

I’m not really sold on this concept. It is a Disney theorem. It’s not that I am unwilling to entertain it as a possibility, it’s just that I have not observed it.

That's okay, but I've seen it. Yes, it's not the norm, but certainly possible.

 

[Epic Days]

That's okay, but I've seen it. Yes, it's not the norm, but certainly possible.

As there are no absolutes set in stone. You are correct.
Here is where it goes off the rails for me. And men need to know this...

It’s bait. It is the possibility of this that keeps men hoping and dreaming of his soul mate and ultimate partner. It’s a trap. It’s like the proverbial love song. The ultimate goal. It centers completely around the high value of a woman when her value to a man is utterly reliant on her ability to exchange feminine for masculine.

The odds are better playing the lottery yet a man will form a foundation of his existence upon it.

 

[RickTheToad]

As there are no absolutes set in stone. You are correct.
Here is where it goes off the rails for me. And men need to know this...

It’s bait. It is the possibility of this that keeps men hoping and dreaming of his soul mate and ultimate partner. It’s a trap. It’s like the proverbial love song. The ultimate goal. It centers completely around the high value of a woman when her value to a man is utterly reliant on her ability to exchange feminine for masculine.

The odds are better playing the lottery yet a man will form a foundation of his existence upon it.

Perhaps. I expect ladies to be ladies, nothing more, nothing less. There is no soulmate or the one. There is the one right now. Whether that, one right now, lasts depends on many moving parts and variables. As is in life, nothing is guaranteed. However, holding on to something that's already left the building is a fruitless endevour; dispite what TV and film has "taught" the average dude over the last 30 years. TBH, what they show on TV and film is the exact OPPOSITE of what a dude should do for the lady. Less reall is more. You need to keep her guessing what's the deal with you. Anxiety and not being 100% clear is the best way of acting being with a lady. She knowing and understanding that you will not put up with her crap and would leave after one fvck up is paramount. I've displayed this a few times on SS. They still reach out, I still ingore. Why? I assume that because they are attractive they've never had a dude just walk away. That's my ownly logical way of reading it. It's really mindboggling to see how these ladies really think. If 2 + 2 = 4, in terms of relations with the dudes, ladies can sometimes think 2 + 3 = 4 (I.E. makes little sense).

 

[AJ84]

Actually, it is when a person is not a single parent. My sibling did it and I know others who've done it as well. Children in Connecticut go to pre-school at 4. When two people have childen, it's called a team. One works, the other takes care of the child until schooling. This doesn't happen any longer for the most part. We in the US also have these things called grants and scholarships for school. I received a full ride on my BA, and my MBA was paid by my employer.

If two people want it bad enough AND work together, it is very possible. Going the current way just leads to problems, dissapointment, and single moms. Yes, you seem to have done okay as single mom. You are the exception, not the rule.

I never said it was impossible, but it’s not easy. It really does depend on two people being on the same page and taking a lot of things into consideration.

I don’t think a woman choosing to have a career first leads to an increase in single moms. I’m not sure where you are getting that statistic from. I imagine it can however lead to a decrease in such women even having children later in life perhaps because the biological clock doesn’t accommodate them putting off having kids.


So I get what you’re saying and ideally, the woman putting off work and focusing on child rearing would be best in terms of caregiving but financially you can take a hit.

One good thing we have is paid parental leave for employees. Unlike the US (which has the worst parental leave program compared to literally every other developed country) in Canada parents get up to 18 months paid parental leave. Everyone is entitled to 55% of their work salary during that time and some companies top up the parental leave salary so some employees get up to 90% of their salary.
But it they didn’t work for some time before getting pregnant, they don’t get it and the only person who can claim it is the one who worked and will be taking that time off.

Let’s face it, it’s the female who is most likely to take all or most of that time off (though sometimes parents split it because the 18 months is per family not per parent). If she had good income with employer top up prior to the leave, then she gets 18 months off with a smaller financial hit. And babies are EXPENSIVE. Diapers, bibs, the list goes on and on

Imagine you have a wife and child and they are relying solely on your income for the next four years. You have to pay all the household bills, the car or cars, and all the baby expenses on one salary? Maybe you make decent money and it’s not an issue but a lot of men only make an average salary, not everyone is wealthy but the doesn’t stop people from having kids right?

Again, not saying it’s not impossible but it’s a financial shock for the average family. Perhaps your brothers make good money or were able to really financially prepare for that and if this something you are considering in the future certainly you can get good advice from them on how they made it work.

But you already mentioned more than once that marriage and being financially on the hook for a woman is not what you want (which is exactly what will happen to you in your scenario) so really, I’m not sure why this is a concern for you anyway, unless your discussing this more as a hypothetical?

 

[RickTheToad]

I never said it was impossible, but it’s not easy. It really does depend on two people being on the same page and taking a lot of things into consideration.

I don’t think a woman choosing to have a career first leads to an increase in single moms. I’m not sure where you are getting that statistic from. I imagine it can however lead to a decrease in such women even having children later in life perhaps because the biological clock doesn’t accommodate them putting off having kids.


So I get what you’re saying and ideally, the woman putting off work and focusing on child rearing would be best in terms of caregiving but financially you can take a hit.

One good thing we have is paid parental leave for employees. Unlike the US (which has the worst parental leave program compared to literally every other developed country) in Canada parents get up to 18 months paid parental leave. Everyone is entitled to 55% of their work salary during that time and some companies top up the parental leave salary so some employees get up to 90% of their salary.
But it they didn’t work for some time before getting pregnant, they don’t get it and the only person who can claim it is the one who worked and will be taking that time off.

Let’s face it, it’s the female who is most likely to take all or most of that time off (though sometimes parents split it because the 18 months is per family not per parent). If she had good income with employer top up prior to the leave, then she gets 18 months off with a smaller financial hit. And babies are EXPENSIVE. Diapers, bibs, the list goes on and on

Imagine you have a wife and child and they are relying solely on your income for the next four years. You have to pay all the household bills, the car or cars, and all the baby expenses on one salary? Maybe you make decent money and it’s not an issue but a lot of men only make an average salary, not everyone is wealthy but the doesn’t stop people from having kids right?

Again, not saying it’s not impossible but it’s a financial shock for the average family. Perhaps your brothers make good money or were able to really financially prepare for that and if this something you are considering in the future certainly you can get good advice from them on how they made it work.

But you already mentioned more than once that marriage and being financially on the hook for a woman is not what you want (which is exactly what will happen to you in your scenario) so really, I’m not sure why this is a concern for you anyway, unless your discussing this more as a hypothetical?

I'm a gov't employee, but make a decent salary. Whether the dude or the lady takes time off or shares is between them. Usually, the one who earns less should take the time off and avoid daycare. Daycare in CT is about 2k a month + expenses. Basically, the lesser person, male or female, would be working for free instead of bonding with their offspring. But hey, what do I know. It's only been like this for hundreds of thousands of years....

You know, people can actually have kids without a marriage license.. I didn't start this thread, just chimed in. No need to get your g-string in a bunch. ;'p

 

[AJ84]

I'm a gov't employee, but make a decent salary. Whether the dude or the lady takes time off or shares is between them. Usually, the one who earns less should take the time off and avoid daycare. Daycare in CT is about 2k a month + expenses. Basically, the lesser person, male or female, would be working for free instead of bonding with their offspring. But hey, what do I know. It's only been like this for hundreds of thousands of years....

You know, people can actually have kids without a marriage license.. I didn't start this thread, just chimed in. No need to get your g-string in a bunch. ;'p

I have a gov’t job too. Daycare is about the same here very expensive and yeah sometimes it makes more sense for one parent to not work if their salary is going to all go toward daycare.

Again, I sense from your posts in this and previous threads that protecting your money and assets are crucial for you regarding women and yes that should be important. married or no, if your plan is to make sure the the mother of your children gets nothing, then be prepared to fight for sole custody. If your plan is to make sure she knows you can leave her at any time with nothing, then why the hell would any sane women put herself in a financially dependent situation on a man who is going to hold that over her head?

In the end, understand that the only way to protect yourself 100% is not to have kids at all.

I don’t wear g-string, have a great weekend

 

[Trump]

why the hell would any sane women put herself in a financially dependent situation on a man who is going to hold that over her head?

For the same reason any sane man wouldn’t put himself in an emotionally dependent situation on a woman who is going to hold that over his head.

 

[Roober]

Rubbish article!

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, regardless of whatever nonsense their partner may feed them.

 

[Epic Days]

A white night is the “beta” or so it’s called, guy that tries to protect women from “evil guys” that fuk her brains out and protects her from her own stupid $hit. Both self induced. But his help is all about him getting a chance to fuk her.

Even worse are the guys that do favors for women without exchange. Fixes her car. Carries out her garbage. Helps her move. The poor helpless thing. Lol

Those are white nights. Showing unearned attention to a woman with no exchange. It’s a very underhanded and slimy game used for him to get the girl.

So if a guy sees a girl getting raped? Oh hell no. Don’t help her, you will be a “white night”.
A guy is breaking into your neighbors house. Don’t you stop them. You will be a “white night”.

You intellectual passives are a pretty scary bunch. You turn sense into a perverted, inverted intellectual drill.

 

[Epic Days]

A guy pretends, or gives the wrong impression to a woman that he is long term boyfriend/husband material to get pvssy. Or he burns up her youth by giving those impressions. Then he uses her up and then already knows he’s looking for new pvssy.

Why not just be up front and let her know through actions and words that he wants to have a purely sexual relationship with her? There’s nothing wrong with that at all.


What’s so difficult with that? Or is it the need to always have a woman because you are so insecure and pathetic? It is feminine to have to have a woman before monkey branching to another.

Why not have plenty of women and they all know it? When a man does all the things above, I know he’s a coward. A girl in man skin. It’s not even close to masculine.

 

[Epic Days]

I will tell you the most important sentence I ever learned here.

A man offers a woman his version of love. Where she can find redemption, protection and femininity.

In a way, she is a directionless child. But she is also highly skilled in manipulating stupid, non-masculine men. It’s childs play to wreck them. I think in many ways...that those men deserve to be wrecked. How else will they grow?

I see it as a service to give women good sex. Gives them a break from all the little pathetic cuckable boys. Yeah, I’m her candy and reprieve from the little robots running around trying to save her.

Intellectual passives are like ants to a woman of any reasonable SMV if has not stripped his former persona away and made the transition to masculine.

 

[RickTheToad]

I have a gov’t job too. Daycare is about the same here very expensive and yeah sometimes it makes more sense for one parent to not work if their salary is going to all go toward daycare.

Again, I sense from your posts in this and previous threads that protecting your money and assets are crucial for you regarding women and yes that should be important. married or no, if your plan is to make sure the the mother of your children gets nothing, then be prepared to fight for sole custody. If your plan is to make sure she knows you can leave her at any time with nothing, then why the hell would any sane women put herself in a financially dependent situation on a man who is going to hold that over her head?

In the end, understand that the only way to protect yourself 100% is not to have kids at all.

I don’t wear g-string, have a great weekend

Can't argue with logic. I am coming from a logical POV, you are coming a emotional POV. Nothing wrong with that. However, yes, I am wanting to protect my stuff. Would I allow my significant other or children to go destitute? No I wouldn't allow that to happen. However, neither would the State. But come hell or high water, I refuse to allow sleazy atty's to rack up BS hours or the State tell me what to do with my assets or money. You are a lady, you have no idea when dudes go through in the court system. Would you like a peak? Just go one day into a family court (or whatever they call it up North) and see how the dudes are treated. They are treated like yesterday's newspaper thrown into the garbage after a dog urinated on it. I invite you to take just one hour of your day and sit in the gallery. Then, maybe, you'd understand what I've seen dozens of dudes go through first hand.

Oh, as for the g-string, consider wearing one. It's good for the bedroom.

 

[AJ84]

For the same reason any sane man wouldn’t put himself in an emotionally dependent situation on a woman who is going to hold that over his head.

Agreed. Neither gender wants to be stuck in a crappy relationship.