The education of children in modern times

[Kaylla]

Women only find 5% - 10% of all the men attractive based on just their appearance. In my opinion, finding men generally physically unattractive is even a biological necessity. Furthermore, a man's physical attractiveness is only of short-term value.

Concerning any other man, a woman will not be attracted to his appearance but only to what he can do for her. This entire setup is meant keep the money flowing from men to women, in line with biological imperatives.

So, that is how every woman of mine gets addicted to attending family events wearing upmarket brand clothing and expensive shoes and bags, her body covered in an excessive amount of 24-carat pure gold jewelry, because for women that is a flex, as the other women know that it pays off big time to be the bitch of a stinking rich guy.

They are addicted to flexing. They enjoy the prestige. Other women look up to them. I am usually not there but they all know that there is someone like me behind all of that.

Somewhere deep in her lizard brain, every woman knows that making her own money pales in comparison to getting it from a man who happens to be stinking rich.

Listen to your own hind brain. It will tell you that finding a man to spend money on you, even just modestly, is not optional. If you cannot find that man, then you are a biological loser.

I grew up going to a Baptist church in Texas, so all the talk about staying a virgin until marriage is not new to me.

So I know girls who stayed virgins until marriage - and there were not, in most cases, happy marriages. Their men screwed around before and after the marriage - and when their wives got fed up with the screwing around and left, were not all that interested in their children. (And dont get me started on how many men who want church going virgins are "old fashioned" - which is code for "abusive assholes". )

As to expensive gold jewelry - if my wife decided to gift me with that I would assume that she has lost some marbles. We have some farm equipment that has been around since at least the Nixon administration and could self-destruct any moment - replacing that takes priority over expensive gold jewelerly.

[godelian]

So I know girls who stayed virgins until marriage - and there were not, in most cases, happy marriages. Their men screwed around before and after the marriage - and when their wives got fed up with the screwing around and left, were not all that interested in their children. (And dont get me started on how many men who want church going virgins are "old fashioned" - which is code for "abusive assholes". )

A man is only as faithful as his options. Women all want the same 5% of men and then complain that they end up sharing them.

So, they set up a Facebook group "Are we dating the same person?", as if that would change anything to the logic in the situation.

Of course, they are dating the same person! If she finds him attractive, they all do.

A marriage with a man you find quite unattractive albeit useful, can be unhappy. Life may end up revolving around avoiding intimacy.

But then again, a marriage with a guy that is so attractive that you end up sharing him with lots of other women, can also be unhappy. The attractive man even values you less than the unattractive one because he can effortlessly get all of that elsewhere. So, yes, a man with lots of options may end up becoming an arsehole to the very women who give him his options.

[attofishpi]

So I know girls who stayed virgins until marriage - and there were not, in most cases, happy marriages. Their men screwed around before and after the marriage - and when their wives got fed up with the screwing around and left, were not all that interested in their children. (And dont get me started on how many men who want church going virgins are "old fashioned" - which is code for "abusive assholes". )

A man is only as faithful as his options. Women all want the same 5% of men and then complain that they end up sharing him.

You are making so many generalizations that from my observations are bollocks.

Whenever I am in a relationship with a woman and get 'hit on' by other, often more attractive (and possibly more intelligent) women, I turn it down.

..er, I believe in love. When I am in a relationship it's because of LOVE man, love is what makes me happy (and lots of good sex of course )...so Y would I C_heat on that?

[godelian]

Whenever I am in a relationship with a woman and get 'hit on' by other, often more attractive (and possibly more intelligent) women, I turn it down.

Is that the exception or is that the rule?

Do men generally turn down attractive women who make themselves available to them for sex without requiring any form of commitment?

I am referring to men in the real world here; not in some kind of Lalaland that doesn't even exist.

[attofishpi]

Whenever I am in a relationship with a woman and get 'hit on' by other, often more attractive (and possibly more intelligent) women, I turn it down.

Is that the exception or is that the rule?

Do men generally turn down attractive women who make themselves available to them for sex without requiring any form of commitment?

Male friends of mine as far as i am aware don't cheat, although there is a rumour about why a recent relationship fell apart with one of them.

When we were younger I have to admit many of my male friends did the dirty on their girls, personally I never did and YES I have plenty available to me. It was a rule I had, maybe it's the Christian in me (all my male friends are atheists )

[godelian]

Male friends of mine as far as i am aware don't cheat, although there is a rumour about why a recent relationship fell apart with one of them.

When we were younger I have to admit many of my male friends did the dirty on their girls, personally I never did and YES I have plenty available to me. It was a rule I had, maybe it's the Christian in me (all my male friends are atheists )

Men may say that they won't do it. They undoubtedly even mean it when they say it.

However, put an available and seriously attractive woman in front of him and let him try to fight the temptation. I am not talking about him approaching her or initiating anything. No, she keeps signaling to him that she is available.

The reason why many men don't cheat, is because they can't. There simply is never an attractive woman signaling to them that she is available. In that case, it is not hard at all, not to cheat.

For most men, it is not difficult not to cheat.

The men who cheat, however, do it all the time.

Women want the same few men. For these men, not cheating amounts to putting in an Herculean effort into ignoring the gigantic herd of clearly available attractive women. A man is a cheater because women turn him into one.

Concerning morality, yes, it is a sin.

However, for a man it is of relatively low gravity akin to shoplifting, unless he thereby infringes on the rights of a husband (or a protective father or brother). For a married woman, however, it is a major sin, of the gravity level of murder.

In both cases, it is a sin, but not of the same gravity.

[attofishpi]

Male friends of mine as far as i am aware don't cheat, although there is a rumour about why a recent relationship fell apart with one of them.

When we were younger I have to admit many of my male friends did the dirty on their girls, personally I never did and YES I have plenty available to me. It was a rule I had, maybe it's the Christian in me (all my male friends are atheists )

Men may say that they won't do it. They undoubtedly even mean it when they say it.

However, put an available and seriously attractive woman in front of him and let him try to fight the temptation. I am not talking about him approaching her or initiating anything. No, she keeps signaling to him that she is available.

The reason why many men don't cheat, is because they can't. There simply is never an attractive woman signaling to them that she is available. In that case, it is not hard at all, not to cheat.

For most men, it is not difficult not to cheat.

The men who cheat, however, do it all the time.

Women want the same few men. For these men, not cheating amounts to putting in an Herculean effort into ignoring the gigantic herd of clearly available attractive women. A man is a cheater because women turn him into one.

Concerning morality, yes, it is a sin.

However, for a man it is of relatively low gravity akin to shoplifting, unless he thereby infringes on the rights of a husband (or a protective father or brother). For a married woman, however, it is a major sin, of the gravity level of murder.

In both cases, it is a sin, but not of the same gravity.

You are a very perculiar 'man'.

A sin? I couldn't give a rats arse about "sin". The reason I don't cheat on love, is because of what my man Christ did & suffered through to insist on Love & Trust..FAITH. What kind of scumbag "Christian" would I be to cross that line?

So no, THE most attractive woman in the world to most men would have to fight me from keeping her from attempting to even give me a blow-job.

I don't even find attraction in women of that nature - it's a turn off (call me a woman if ya want).

You don't know what a REAL man is.

[godelian]

So no, THE most attractive woman in the world to most men would have to fight me from keeping her from attempting to even give me a blow-job.

I don't even find attraction in women of that nature - it's a turn off (call me a woman if ya want).

You don't know what a REAL man is.

There actually are men who can say this because it truly reflects reality.

For example, Mick Jagger (when he was younger).

After every concert, there would always be beautiful women, "groupies", queuing at his door to give themselves to their idol. It was physically impossible for him to have sex with the overwhelmingly vast majority of them. Therefore, he is not lying when he says that he has routinely had to reject the most beautiful women in the world.

Most men don't have this problem.

Concerning "You don't know what a REAL man is", I am not trying to define how a man should be. I merely observe the world around me and describe what I see. You keep making the same mistake of confusing "how things are" with "how things should be". You seem to have a problem distinguishing between both.

Furthermore, "real men" are the ones that you can observe around you, warts and all. The men that exist in your fantasy are not "real men". They are just a figment of your mind.

[attofishpi]

Mick Jagger now!? A "man" that had sex with loads of underage girls and apparently David Bowie.

"real" man.

btw, we don't all get turned on by the same thing. I've gone to fems places (very sexy women) and once through the door they start going hard (snogging hard) like in the f'ing movies - does NOTHING for me.

[godelian]

Mick Jagger now!? A "man" that had sex with loads of underage girls and apparently David Bowie.

"real" man.

Yes, Mick Jagger is physically "real", warts and all.

I am merely observing reality. I am not recommending how it should be. That is not what it is about.

[attofishpi]

Mick Jagger now!? A "man" that had sex with loads of underage girls and apparently David Bowie.

"real" man.

Yes, Mick Jagger is physically "real", warts and all.

I am merely observing reality. I am not recommending how it should be. That is not what it is about.

If that's your reality, what you observe of men that you are friends with, then get new friends.

[godelian]

If that's your reality, what you observe of men that you are friends with, then get new friends.

Mick Jagger is not my friend. I don't even know him personally.

Furthermore, I do not put people under pressure with a view of changing their views or their behavior. That is not my rôle. I consider misbehavior to be ultimately self-defeating, in accordance with the theory of karma: If we misbehave, we will suffer later in this life or in a later life. If we suffer today, it means that we have misbehaved earlier in this life or in an earlier life.

I remember once chatting in a venue in Bali with two tall and muscled African-American guys who looked like NBA basketball players. Suddenly, two Japanese girls who were standing not far away from us frantically started signaling that they wanted their attention. These guys couldn't be bothered much, actually. They were apparently used to this. So, they kept chatting with me, while the Japanese girls were getting impatient. They did not approach by themselves but they clearly wanted to be approached. The whole situation was embarrassing. After a while, I left. The African-American guys wanted me to stay, but I had enough of the whole thing. I don't know if they eventually went to the Japanese girls anyway.

So, in a sense, yes, I ended up chatting with other guys because the environment around the two basketball players had become irritating.

[attofishpi]

If that's your reality, what you observe of men that you are friends with, then get new friends.

Mick Jagger is not my friend. I don't even know him personally.

Furthermore, I do not put people under pressure with a view of changing their views or their behavior. That is not my rôle. I consider misbehavior to be ultimately self-defeating, in accordance with the theory of karma: If we misbehave, we will suffer later in this life or in a later life. If we suffer today, it means that we have misbehaved earlier in this life or in an earlier life.

I remember once chatting in a venue in Bali with two tall and muscled African-American guys who looked like NBA basketball players. Suddenly, two Japanese girls who were standing not far away from us frantically started signaling that they wanted their attention. These guys couldn't be bothered much, actually. They were apparently used to this. So, they kept chatting with me, while the Japanese girls were getting impatient. They did not approach by themselves but they clearly wanted to be approached. The whole situation was embarrassing. After a while, I left. The African-American guys wanted me to stay, but I had enough of the whole thing. I don't know if they eventually went to the Japanese girls anyway.

So, in a sense, yes, I ended up chatting with other guys because the environment around the two basketball players had become irritating.

You seem to be missing my entire point.

Clearly you base all sexual attraction on human form, many of us don't. You also insist women in particular, focus on financial materialistic attributes to a potential partner. Although I can agree that many do, my sister is one of those and we don't get along particularly well, many DONT.

Your happiness appears to revolve around having women at your beck & call and are quite ok with them being around you because of wealth. Personally, I'd spend little more than one evening with such people. Women that are into designer fashion etc..no matter how well proportioned, I find them extremely unattractive and I know I won't enjoy sex with them ANYWHERE NEAR as much as I do with what you would consider 'plain jane' that makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

I can tell, we are both polar opposites. I feel I'd be unlikely to spend more than an hour with you without starting to feel bored and want to leave.

[godelian]

If that's your reality, what you observe of men that you are friends with, then get new friends.

Mick Jagger is not my friend. I don't even know him personally.

Furthermore, I do not put people under pressure with a view of changing their views or their behavior. That is not my rôle. I consider misbehavior to be ultimately self-defeating, in accordance with the theory of karma: If we misbehave, we will suffer later in this life or in a later life. If we suffer today, it means that we have misbehaved earlier in this life or in an earlier life.

I remember once chatting in a venue in Bali with two tall and muscled African-American guys who looked like NBA basketball players. Suddenly, two Japanese girls who were standing not far away from us frantically started signaling that they wanted their attention. These guys couldn't be bothered much, actually. They were apparently used to this. So, they kept chatting with me, while the Japanese girls were getting impatient. They did not approach by themselves but they clearly wanted to be approached. The whole situation was embarrassing. After a while, I left. The African-American guys wanted me to stay, but I had enough of the whole thing. I don't know if they eventually went to the Japanese girls anyway.

So, in a sense, yes, I ended up chatting with other guys because the environment around the two basketball players had become irritating.

You seem to be missing my entire point.

Clearly you base all sexual attraction on human form, many of us don't. You also insist women in particular, focus on financial materialistic attributes to a potential partner. Although I can agree that many do, my sister is one of those and we don't get along particularly well, many DONT.

Your happiness appears to revolve around having women at your beck & call and are quite ok with them being around you because of wealth. Personally, I'd spend little more than one evening with such people. Women that are into designer fashion etc..no matter how well proportioned, I find them extremely unattractive and I know I won't enjoy sex with them ANYWHERE NEAR as much as I do with what you would consider 'plain jane' that makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

I can tell, we are both polar opposites. I feel I'd be unlikely to spend more than an hour with you without starting to feel bored and want to leave.

That wasn't a response to what I wrote but rather some kind of prefabricated conclusion.

You like to judge other people. However, you are the kind of person that the ministry of justice will frantically avoid appointing to the position of judge.

In fact, the survival of any society existentially depends on avoiding to appoint people like you as a judge.

Can you imagine what would happen if the judge did not respond to the argument at hand but instead jumped to some prefabricated conclusion?

You judge other people on their observations of the world and not for what they have done.

As a matter of fact, concerning opinions, it is not even permitted to judge people for their opinions but only for their actions.

You regularly criticize Keir Starmer but it is obvious that he would never do a thing like that, such as judging people for having a different opinion from his own. He would merely disagree and stick to his own opinion.

In fact, I am sure that this is one reason why you don't like him. Unlike you, he does not judge people for their opinions while you think he should. Liz Truss at least lasted 7 weeks in office. You wouldn't.

It is the people who are the least suitable to judge who are the most judgemental.

[attofishpi]

What a load of codswallop!! Seriously, what planet are you on?