Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tairos, I live in Los Angeles, so of course I see pretty young women with icky old (rich) men all the time. I pity the girls, because money really isn't everything. I couldn't imagine having to snuggle up with some old geezer just because he's willing to buy me clothes and a car. Yuck. And I realize the men living that lifestyle couldn't care less, but it would really bother me to think that someone is with me only for what I could buy them, that they didn't care about me as person at all. It's not a fulfilling way to live; it's a very empty, cold existence.
Whether it's a fulfilling way to live or not depends on what it takes to fulfill you. And you can always turn the lights off when you snuggle up to the old geezer. There's a lot less variation between people in the dark.
I'm not promoting young women with older men but when I see them I see a woman with a deep need to be taken care of. I feel sorry for them too but not because of the relationship they're in. I feel sorry for them because they don't feel secure enough with themselves to take care of themselves. Instead they make themselves dependent on another person but a lot of women do this.
Well then, it's a good thing that's not what I said, isn't it?
I said no adult owes another adult a social relationship. And if some women want to screw badboys, what business is it of yours? Don't go after women who are attracted to that type of man if you think it's a problem.
Do you really think just because you're a "beta" women should shower you with attention and affection just for the fact that you're a man and you exist? Obviously you do. Because FSM forbid you do any self-introspection and ask what it is about YOU that prevents you from attracting the type of attention you want. It's so much easier to pout, bawl and blame others with people under the same delusion. That way you don't have to change anything about yourself because the problem's not with you. (Protip: It totally is with you).
You are correct. No one owes anyone else anything, however, we agree to give things to others in return for things being given to us. For example, I agree not to kill you in return for you agreeing not to kill me. We both get something. Every relationship is a trade off. We give to get. The problem with people like the killer in California is that they want to get without giving. Somehow they think they are owed something without giving something. If they were giving something of substance, they wouldn't have any problem getting something of substance. When you talk about women as if they're a commodity, they're going to walk away unless they're selling it.
Men have a lot of control here as they are judged on things they control like success in addition to looks. Women look for more than just a good looking man. We want men who will care for us, care about us and take care of our children. Women respect men who provide those things. While looks do come into play because women are programmed to seek mates who have characteristics they want to pass on to their children, if you happen to be too ugly to play the game, the game isn't lost. You still have women who are too ugly to play the game to choose from and the way our society emphasizes how women look, there are a lot more women who don't make the cut than men who don't make the cut. A man can make himself more attractive by being a good provider and showing positive attention to women. Women can only see the plastic surgeon or cake on make up.
You are correct. No one owes anyone else anything, however, we agree to give things to others in return for things being given to us. For example, I agree not to kill you in return for you agreeing not to kill me. We both get something. Every relationship is a trade off. We give to get. The problem with people like the killer in California is that they want to get without giving. Somehow they think they are owed something without giving something. If they were giving something of substance, they wouldn't have any problem getting something of substance. When you talk about women as if they're a commodity, they're going to walk away unless they're selling it.
Men have a lot of control here as they are judged on things they control like success in addition to looks. Women look for more than just a good looking man. We want men who will care for us, care about us and take care of our children. Women respect men who provide those things. While looks do come into play because women are programmed to seek mates who have characteristics they want to pass on to their children, if you happen to be too ugly to play the game, the game isn't lost. You still have women who are too ugly to play the game to choose from and the way our society emphasizes how women look, there are a lot more women who don't make the cut than men who don't make the cut. A man can make himself more attractive by being a good provider and showing positive attention to women. Women can only see the plastic surgeon or cake on make up.
I definitely agree that we do owe it to others to treat them as we expect to be treated, both for our own benefit and the benefit of others. I'm not saying the default relationship status should be antagonistic or we should be jerks to one another just because we can.
The problem is people like Elliot Roger (and tairos, and a few other people in this thread) who see women not as people who sharing time with and getting to know is its own reward, but prizes they're owed just for showing up equipped with a penis. And when those objects don't behave like they think they should, they act like a child with a broken toy. The idea that a woman's value is somehow decreased because she gets older or previously slept with other men (who are somehow inferior to them) is particularly telling.
After reading pages and pages of this thread, I just have a few comments:
- Yes, the '70s were much more sexual than today, particularly for young people. There was no HIV and few people had ever even heard of herpes. Current society is much more sexually repressed, but our consumer society is drenched in light porn.
- Yes, Rodgers was a nut case. The contribution of society is open to question, but the Vikings had a berserker problem, where men would go crazy and start killing everyone in sight. This was 1200 years ago.
- How quickly they forget. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 government workers in Oklahoma city, in response to the murder of 82 Texans by the BATF and FBI, for which no one was ever prosecuted.
- Rodgers started his killing spree by knifing his three male roommates. That's hard to blame on misogyny.
- Rodgers started his killing spree by knifing his three male roommates. That's hard to blame on misogyny.
He stated in his manifesto many times he hated men who were more successful than him with women. The reason he killed his male roommates was to have the apartment to himself so he could lure other people inside to torture and kill slowly. He wanted to cut their heads off and carry them around in a bag to dump on the street during his rampage.
His original plan was to go to a sorority house and kill all the occupants, but they (wisely) would not let him in so he had to improvise. If he had been able to gain entry, the female body count probably would have been much higher.
This is why no one wants a "nice guy." They claim to be all these great things - "a supreme gentleman" - yet they are none of those.
A gentleman would never gun down a group of people for not liking him.
Huh? I ALWAYS prefer a "nice guy". My BF is one of those. He doesn't claim to be anything but a good man. And he is absolutely that. Please don't generalize...especially about "nice guys", because there ARE some out there.
Bringing the topic back to the OP, I'm glad zenthropa started the thread. I'm going to be thoroughly honest I stopped posting in the relationship section after repeatedly reading from people who were lamenting they couldn't get a girlfriend. I stopped posting when someone pointed out in another thread, I can't remember what it is, they get no support and only anger from people on this forum. I didn't respond to that thread but I remember thinking that, that was probably accurate and I was guilty of it. So, I stopped responding.
I'm going to be thoroughly honest again. I was tempted for a while to start a thread about how on this forum and others whether guys who can't get dates will end up acting out in some way. My suspicion has kind of always been that these people are a little bit mentally unbalanced. I'm not referring to the regular person who has trouble getting a date, but instead to the person who kind of lives an online lifestyle which includes lamenting about not being able to get a date.
I completely agree with you. I have always felt that.
My son is a "nice guy", and he has a very nice girlfriend who obviously recognizes what a good man he is. My son is the kind of man who would cover a drunk, passed out girl with a blanket - as opposed to guys who think they're human beings but demonstrate the opposite by not only taking turns raping such a girl, but also take pictures and videos of it all. He had one other relationship that didn't work out, and he didn't have a girlfriend at all until he was 21. Luckily, he knew enough to reject most of what pop culture has to offer these days, and stayed away from the party girls. He realized that you can't find a caring girlfriend/wife that way. Nice guys don't always finish last.
It is interesting how the "no matter what you do in life, you still deserve nothing" mindset crops up both in the workplace (as scattered all over the City Data Employment forum) and in the dating world.
As you said, when it reaches the point where those who did "everything right" get nothing for their efforts, they are going to start questioning the society itself and the injustices within it. In short, they aren't going to be willing to "play ball" anymore and shoulder the burden of others while getting nothing out of it except "well, keep working harder" and "nobody owes anyone anything, no matter how hard they work."
Now, this doesn't apply to the killer - what he did was wrong and he was clearly off his rocker - but it does apply to the overall notion of trying to disassociate rewards from actions just so the privileged elite can have ever more at the expense of others.
That's a very good point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
