Are men jealous of women?

[accelafine]

My 'forum Casanova' comment was a JOKE Perhaps 'predator' would have been a better word. As you both live in Yorkshire then I suppose 'hooking up' was inevitable. It's impossible to know what's true or not with you anyway. You flit from one extreme to the other, often in the space of less than a minute--giving accounts that are the exact OPPOSITE of each other.
A 'two year 'in love' relationship' is a really big deal. Hooking up occasionally for coffee (or whatever) over a two year period and having it eventually 'fizzle out'... not so much.
So why have you singled out Harbal for exposure and not all the other forum members who have been trying to get into your underwear? I think we all deserve to know who these predatory males are

[godelian]

Real love, if it exists, is possible within the romantic Western way of life, but not in this godelian crap. The latter is just sex for money - anyone can do that. So weak.

Exactly. What he calls a 'traditional woman' is just a prostitiute. He has no shame at all. And the mother is complicit. It's just gross. There's no love. It seems utterly pointless and empty.

The so-called "romantic Western way of life" is complete bullshit.

If at least it worked, I would possibly consider it, but it obviously doesn't. Just look around you. The western dating market is a complete failure. The online dating apps merely amplify the fact that the underlying assumptions governing this market are utterly nonsensical.

It does not work and it will never work.

The proof is always in the pudding.

Furthermore, there are ancient texts that, ages ago already, encoded the deeper truth about human nature:

Quran. An-Nisa 4:34. Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.

A traditional woman is a respectable and honorable person. It is you who should be ashamed of your own feeble attempts at overruling the laws of God and nature.

[Skepdick]

Quran. An-Nisa 4:34. Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.

A traditional woman is a respectable and honorable person. It is you who should be ashamed of your own feeble attempts at overruling the laws of God and nature.

It always amazes me the appeal Islam has over Beta males. I guess that's why they think they are entitles to dominion over the other sex.

A traditional woman is a respectable and honourable person. It's just that if she won't subject herself to your dominion - to you she's neither respectable; nor honorable.

[godelian]

It always amazes me the appeal Islam has over insecure males who are still conflicted about their own place in the social order; and who seek a submissve; not a life partner.

There are undoubtedly men who exist somewhere and who seek a "life partner". I personally don't need one. If I needed one, I would obviously recruit one. I would just tell the HR department to put out an advert and start vetting candidates. However, I simply do not see the use for that kind of arrangement. Why would I hire someone that I do not need? Make it make sense!

What works for me, is some kind of tribal, customary wife, which in modern terminology, is much more akin to a sweet "sugar babe".

By the way, the Quran, just like the Torah actually, is a superb codification of the truth about human nature. These ancient scriptures are simply spot on.

[accelafine]

Quran. An-Nisa 4:34. Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.

A traditional woman is a respectable and honorable person. It is you who should be ashamed of your own feeble attempts at overruling the laws of God and nature.

It always amazes me the appeal Islam has over Beta males. I guess that's why they think they are entitles to dominion over the other sex.

A traditional woman is a respectable and honourable person. It's just that if she won't subject herself to your dominion - to you she's neither respectable; nor honorable.

He's a muslim? FFS. That explains everything. Pathetic, inadequate males who have to oppress women to make themselves feel 'manly'.

[accelafine]

Real love, if it exists, is possible within the romantic Western way of life, but not in this godelian crap. The latter is just sex for money - anyone can do that. So weak.

Exactly. What he calls a 'traditional woman' is just a prostitiute. He has no shame at all. And the mother is complicit. It's just gross. There's no love. It seems utterly pointless and empty.

The so-called "romantic Western way of life" is complete bullshit.

If at least it worked, I would possibly consider it, but it obviously doesn't. Just look around you. The western dating market is a complete failure. The online dating apps merely amplify the fact that the underlying assumptions governing this market are utterly nonsensical.

It does not work and it will never work.

The proof is always in the pudding.

Furthermore, there are ancient texts that, ages ago already, encoded the deeper truth about human nature:

Quran. An-Nisa 4:34. Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with.

A traditional woman is a respectable and honorable person. It is you who should be ashamed of your own feeble attempts at overruling the laws of God and nature.

What a pathetic little man you are. Shove your bs religion up your arse.

Here's a drawing of mahummid for ya:

[godelian]

He's a muslim? FFS. That explains everything. Pathetic, inadequate males who have to oppress women to make themselves feel 'manly'.

Do you know of any CEO who would ever ask the HR department to recruit some kind of co-CEO? I do not need a co-CEO. I am not paying for that. In the end, it is my money, isn't it?

[Skepdick]

There are undoubtedly men who exist somewhere and who seek a "life partner". I personally don't need one. If I needed one, I would obviously recruit one.

That's hilarious You don't "recruit" a partner. You recruit an employee. You enter into a partnership with a partner.

You don't "need a partner" because you are emotionally immature; insecure and you don't like competition. Your psychology is that of a dictator. You don't kow how to share/seed control because you are incapable of recognizing anybody else as your equal. And you most definitely wouldn't recognize anybody as a mentor. Because you don't think you have anything to learn.

I would just tell the HR department to put out an advert and start vetting candidates. However, I simply do not see the use for that kind of arrangement. Why would I hire someone that I do not need? Make it make sense!

Because you think like that You see other humans as resources/slaves.

What works for me, is some kind of tribal, customary wife, which in modern terminology, is much more akin to a sweet "sugar babe".

Yeah, what works for you is a woman who can't hold you accountable to your own bullshit.

LIke I said - dictator.

By the way, the Quran, just like the Torah actually, is a superb codification of the truth about human nature. These ancient scriptures are simply spot on.

You learned nothing from religion. If you think religion is about affirming, not overcoming human nature.

[godelian]

What a pathetic little man you are. Shove your bs religion up your arse.
Here's a drawing of mahummid for ya:

Do you really think I care? You simply do not understand how these things work. There are indeed some hot-blooded individuals amongst the believers who jump on the opportunity to loosely cause "damage" to people who try to insult the religion. Of course, at that point, I don't lift a finger either. I just enjoy the spectacle. Again, I don't care. Where is the popcorn?

[godelian]

You don't "need a partner" because you are emotionally immature; insecure and you don't like competition.

So, if I set up a business which ends up making a lot of money and I decide that I do not need a partner, I am immature or insecure? Well, in that case, Steve Jobs was also immature and insecure. So, in that case, I am in good company.

Your psychology is that of a dictator. You don't kow how to share/seed control because you are incapable of recognizing anybody else as your equal.

It is my business. I made the effort to make sure that it makes a lot of money. Do you really believe that I will give shares away to a "partner"?
No, I only "recruit" people for the business. I absolutely do not want partners.

Yeah, what works for you is a woman who can't hold you accountable to your own bullshit.

Do you really believe that I am going to recruit someone, pay their living expenses and some allowance on top of that for someone whose job description would be to "hold you accountable to your own bullshit"? Are you kidding me? Who the hell does that? That job does not exist!

[Skepdick]

So, if I set up a business which ends up making a lot of money and I decide that I do not need a partner, I am immature or insecure? Well, in that case, Steve Jobs was also immature and insecure. So, in that case, I am in good company.

Wow. What a terrible take! Steve Jobs couldn't exst without Wozniak. And Apple couldn't exist if either of those were missing.

They brought something different-yet-essential into he PARTNERSHIP.

It is my business. I made the effort to make sure that it makes a lot of money. Do you really believe that I will give shares away to a "partner"?
No, I only "recruit" people for the business. I absolutely do not want partners.

"a lot" is relative. Suffice to say that there are exactly ZERO Fortune 500 companies with sole ownership/dictatorship as their internal structure.

Wonder why?

Do you really believe that I am going to recruit someone, pay their living expenses and some allowance on top of that for someone whose job description would be to "hold you accountable to your own bullshit"? Are you kidding me? Who the hell does that? That job does not exist!

A good leader does precisely that.

I guess you aren't one of those.

[accelafine]

He's a muslim? FFS. That explains everything. Pathetic, inadequate males who have to oppress women to make themselves feel 'manly'.

Do you know of any CEO who would ever ask the HR department to recruit some kind of co-CEO? I do not need a co-CEO. I am not paying for that. In the end, it is my money, isn't it?

I think you are a troll, and a really thick one.

[Skepdick]

He's a muslim? FFS. That explains everything. Pathetic, inadequate males who have to oppress women to make themselves feel 'manly'.

He's not a muslim, but Islam appeals to him. For obvious reasons.

[Skepdick]

Do you know of any CEO who would ever ask the HR department to recruit some kind of co-CEO? I do not need a co-CEO. I am not paying for that. In the end, it is my money, isn't it?

If you are CEO of a Fortune 500 company it's most definitely not your money. It's the shareholders' money.

Now you may well be the majority shareholder, but your appointment as a CEO is at the discretion of the board of directors.

Q.E.D you are actually incapable of operating in social structures where you are NOT in total control e.g you are a dictator.

The irony of course, is that control freaks such as yourself are incompetent leaders who don't know what their own blind spots are; and are incapable of delegating or augmenting themselves with people better than them.

[godelian]

They brought something different-yet-essential into he PARTNERSHIP.

My business exists already. It is already making ample amounts of money. I do not need a partner for that.

If I need a secretary, do I also need to give away shares to her? No, I just get HR to recruit one for me, and she won't get shares.

"a lot" is relative. Suffice to say that there are exactly ZERO Fortune 500 companies with sole ownership/dictatorship as their internal structure.
Wonder why?

Because the original shareholders went public and started SELLING shares and NOT GIVING AWAY.
I will never give away shares. Forget the whole idea because it simply won't happen.