Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RVM45]

I think the Victorians had a good handle on how a Gentleman should behave.

The Ideal and NOT the skin-deep lip service many hypocrites practiced.

Ask yourself:

"Would this be appropriate to say to a young and unmarried Queen Victoria?"

Well then, its not appropriate to talk that way to a Convenience Clerk who Moonlights as a Stripper EITHER.

A REAL Man never loses. One loss is enough to Destroy all the intrinsic worth that he will ever have.

Yet "Ecclesiastes" teaches that The race is not necessarily to the swift nor the battle to the strong—but time and circumstance happens to everyone.

So a Real Man avoids anything that even remotely smacks of competition.

People always ask:

"Can you shoot pool or Basketball—or whatever?"

Sure provided that "Winning" is of no importance to you.

What about if you apply for a job?

Even though it might—and has—cost me a great deal—once I realize I'm being directly compared to someone else…

PLEASE give the position to him!

Can you defend your life?

Sure because dying isn't a loss or a dishonour no matter how inconvenient it my be.

Living or Dying—like the score in a pick-up Basketball game—is of No Importance.

But anytime you attempt to court a woman you are in competition with every man she ever dated before you and every man that she might date in the future.

This is an Existential Fact. You might not THINK of it as a Competition. She might not THINK of it as a Competition. None of her other Gentalman suitors may THINK of it as competition…
 
Nonetheless, on Judgement Day God will point at a crowd and say;

"You allowed each and every one of those men to Count Coup against you while you're on Earth and your Position in Heaven is Permanently Lowered as a Consequence.

{Counting Coup against other doesn't raise your own stock at all—just lowers theirs.}

So if you don't want other men to have an opportunity to Count Coup against you—don't chase women.




…..RVM45

[Mountain Prepper]

First let me applaud your position.

I am going to assume it is a religious one.

You wish to stick to that, for good or bad results as you live here on this planet in the time you have - that is your choice.

If it is one of pain and suffering self-inflicted for the reason of "betterment of the soul" and "glory to God"

Good for you brother!

I think the Victorians had a good handle on how a Gentleman should behave.

The Ideal and NOT the skin-deep lip service many hypocrites practiced.

Ask yourself:

"Would this be appropriate to say to a young and unmarried Queen Victoria?"

While I understand your initial point, and do not mistake being a Cad for one who has no manners. I grew up in a rather strict southern household, I am told my social manners are rare refreshing in todays world.

I question the reference to that particular Queen as it is historically evident that she was actually easily seduced and quite the hussy with Albert, so distraught at the loss of his "manly services" she went black after his death, then relenting to biology with a horseman servant as a lover later. While quite dashing (as noted by the queen) the queen was quite ordinary pudgy and dour in countenance and filled with artificially inflated self-value (spoiled in the same way current western women in mass are now) while Albert was fit, attractive, intelligent, and educated.

Well then, its not appropriate to talk that way to a Convenience Clerk who Moonlights as a Stripper EITHER.

While agreed, I also do not agree that any person male or female should ever be placed on a pedestal there is no more value in the First Lady than a street-walking crack whore... In the right circumstances all women (and people) are capable of any station. Politeness to all elevation for none.

A REAL Man never loses. One loss is enough to Destroy all the intrinsic worth that he will ever have.

Yet "Ecclesiastes" teaches that The race is not necessarily to the swift nor the battle to the strong—but time and circumstance happens to everyone.

Objectively true? Yes "luck" happens - it is a quantifiable statistical anomaly, that flows with variations and constraints.

So a Real Man avoids anything that even remotely smacks of competition.

This sounds as a personal code derived from a combination of places, it is not universal to even the evolving behaviors starting with the medieval "code of chivalry" as one would expect I cannot argue a subjective personal opinion as this belongs to you, I disagree but again it ends in trying to fit facts into belief and logic and reason mean nothing in that world, and can never.

People always ask:

What about if you apply for a job?

Even though it might—and has—cost me a great deal—once I realize I'm being directly compared to someone else…

PLEASE give the position to him!

As a father of children, with a former fully dependent spouse I was expected to feed and house all of them - I and many others cannot and never could afford this, the epitome of folly to the point of foolishness - I climbed to the highest points in the corporate world in my field by effort and intrinsic talent - I EARNED that! Effort, sweat, toil both physical and mental can earn rewards, I would sincerely propose that there is noting un-gentilmanly about this in the least.

Can you defend your life?

Sure because dying isn't a loss or a dishonour no matter how inconvenient it my be.

Living or Dying—like the score in a pick-up Basketball game—is of No Importance.

We will have to disagree here, and yet circumstances do change parameters, this is not a reasonable universal statement, in that I feel it needs clarification as it is not a black or white subject (much on self-defense has been hashed out here on the boards).

But anytime you attempt to court a woman you are in competition with every man she ever dated before you and every man that she might date in the future.

This is the nature of all mammals, our particular species of ape is not immune, we are rather hard-wired for this.

This is an Existential Fact. You might not THINK of it as a Competition. She might not THINK of it as a Competition. None of her other Gentalman suitors may THINK of it as competition…

Anyone with eyes can see it is EXACTLY that, it is in the hard-wired genetic code!
 

Nonetheless, on Judgement Day God will point at a crowd and say;

"You allowed each and every one of those men to Count Coup against you while you're on Earth and your Position in Heaven is Permanently Lowered as a Consequence.

A religious position I have no input into, I recognize part of that is counter to nature and biology and therefore I feel justified in my view to reject in effect we recognize an impasse that cannot be resolved by logic and reason therefore "agree to disagree" and go to another point.

{Counting Coup against other doesn't raise your own stock at all—just lowers theirs.}

So if you don't want other men to have an opportunity to Count Coup against you—don't chase women.

…..RVM45

Or never want to have sex, children, a family or marriage (if so inclined) then that may well be the case. By statistical analytics from time to time something may filter down but this is a big filter and represents much lost opportunity. I prefer to not have life filter for me but to aggressively search for what I want and continue on with endless self-inprovement for my own sake.

[Tahn L.]

Not in rebuttal to any specific reply or position but just to further share my thoughts and experiences and to respond to Mountain Prepper’s articulate expressions on dating.

I see three basic positions concerning heterosexual relations. I am not qualified to comment on any other.

 Monogamous, promiscuous and celibate. I’m sure there are many variations of each. For example, if you only have sex with one person at a time but change that person daily, would that be serial monogamy or promiscuous. I will let others debate the intricacies of these definitions.

 I came into physical maturity during the “sexual revolution”. The sixties and “free Love”. I cannot remember all the women I enjoyed having sex with but I do remember many of the acts themselves. This may seem perverted and perhaps/probably it was, depending on your definition but turn a young virile male loose in a bed full of hot and willing women and what will happen, will happen. At least it did with me and many of my friends because it was exciting and well, lots and lots of “fun”. It was most certainly promiscuous by any definition and probably includes, other words as well, including debauchery, lewd, libertine and so on. I am not defending my actions at all but merely attempting to describe my journey.

Now I will fast forward a half decade to having a monogamous relation with my wife. Many of those memories/images of wanton behavior were still in my mind and here is where I see that previous behavior as affecting my relationship. No single woman can ever live up to the combined behavior in sex of the many partners I had. At least I haven’t met her.  It became, to say the least, a strain on our relationship. Perhaps she had this same difficulty since she was also a member of my generation. This tension grew as the newness of our sexual relations wore off and we aged. I won’t go in to the various aspects of this but merely wish to say, that without a doubt, in my case, my past behavior affected my current relationship. It was not a benefit but a detriment.  Others may be different.

 After twenty some years and two wonderful children, we agreed on divorce. We actually held hands in the courtroom when the dissolution was legally confirmed, on Valentine’s Day. It wasn’t a lack of love per se but more a drifting away from the list of compatibility I started this thread with. Time changes things and people.

The divorce was two decades ago. I had several dates at first but sex seemed the first criteria on the ladies mind. I was lucky and steered away from this, having realized that my earlier wanton behavior and susceptibility to women had been a detriment to a lasting and loving relationship. I was determined not to repeat my earlier errors. I stopped “dating” and moved online to communicate with many wonderful women, whom I could keep at “arms length” during the process. It worked, as after many long and fruitful discussions, I found a serious lack of a critical component (list above) in every one.

There is one other important aspect of not being promiscuous now, while still wanting that wonderful partner that meets my criteria and I meet hers. I don’t want a partner that is constantly dating and engaging in sleepovers every week or month. I am not putting those women down (no pun intended) , not at all. To each their own and Mtn. Prepper, I hope you have a wonderful journey as you see fit to live your life as you wish. There might not be such a lady out there for me but the deciding thought that formed my current lifestyle was this. What if there IS such a wonderful person and she is now living a celibate life, having learned her lessons also, waiting for the right guy to come along and I meet her but have a blond on one arm and a redhead on the other and she takes in the situation immediately and decides, I am not worthy of her. The perfect woman and I failed her, even before we met. That would hurt. Actually, it would be devastating. I will stay celibate, God willing and Nature allows, just in case we meet. I want to be worthy, if at all possible.

Good luck to all, regardless of your actions and beliefs, in finding true happiness and hopefully, true and lasting love.

[Adventurer, Explorer, Inquiring Mind.]

See, this is where I see unicorn farts, bro.

This is no different than those who think that cops are great people (not because "some great people may choose to become cops out of a misguided belief that there they can do the most good."  I mean the people who say "cops are intrinsically good, as a profession, just a few bad apples ruining the rest of the really "good" men cracking heads, stealing lives and money and enforcing tyranny on men and women and even children who are often by far their betters.

I say this with some knowledge of the kinds of people who've enforced these unscientific mindsets.

For example, the original purpose of so many of these dictates in religious texts were attempts to CODIFY good behavior.  Good behaior isn't the bullshit self sacrificing crap we got once The State moved in and declared itself the final arbiter of all truth.  Good behavior back when it truly was good was the kind of behavior which kept disease from spreading, kept the tribesmen from killing each other over stolen property or offspring's origins disputes, and allowed them to not get slaughtered by neighboring tribes attempting to prey on them.  You will carefully note that the early biblical texts include the same or similar ancestor worship (heavily pruned in newer versions) which ALL tribal societies practiced.  The entirety of Kings 1/2 deal with kings who built, did, consecrated/failed/offended and then died and went to rest with their ancestors (the general verbiage boils down to this each time.)

This is because those documents were written by people for whom The State was a new construction.  The kings, as far as they could tell were still men from their own tribes.

All that feel good "romantic" bullshit is just a coat of sugar we put on the reality of existence.  We ALL fear loneliness.  The most fearful sound is no response when we do something.  Talking in an empty house, tree falling in the forest or a hammer dropping on an empty chamber.  It is cause without effect.  That's why lonely people in Wyoming get dogs, or go hang out at coffee shops with other old men, many of whom HATE each other, but will get together nonetheless, merely to avoid the loneliness that is probably the true essence of HELL.

We're free to create fictions, gods, goddesses, lovely womanly creatures of grace and beauty (which is often enough an attribution NOT AT ALL deserved, but created by our shakespearian education in school about Romeo And Juliet and MacBeth and other related crap.  We have fictions built on foundations of fictions.  This is like building a castle of sand on a foundation made of AIR.  Or maybe not even air but VOID.  The reason everything we're taught is wrong is because if God truly exists, and if all that is in nature is truly created by that one God, then to build unnatural systems which DEFY the very rules of existence is to be insane.  So romantic love, along with all this other crap, is a thin sugar coated veneer built on top of the fact that we're all a bunch of smelly, disgusting, shit stained, short lived monkeys with megalomaniacal delusions of grandeur.  (Seriously... God loved the monkeys best?)  Some of us try to achieve more, and the religious freaks drag us down into a hell of their own creation to rot in the mud alongside them.  And the best we have left now is to put a woman or someone else on a pedestal??

Wow.  Megalomania sans ambition, I'd say.

[Tahn L.]

DF,  I am confused. Were you replying to my last post or another?

[Mountain Prepper]

merely wish to say, that without a doubt, in my case, my past behavior affected my current relationship. It was not a benefit but a detriment.  Others may be different.

“I don’t know if I am in horror of the fact that you sin knowingly or respect it. I believe I much prefer an honest sinner to those who insist on rewriting all traditional morality to suit themselves.” - anonymous religious woman

Yes some can and are damaged by some behavior they may not be ready for or wired for, my hope is that you can find something that fits close enough to what you want to fit your needs. (Nothing is ever perfect, so some compromise is necessary.

[Mountain Prepper]

DF,  I am confused. Were you replying to my last post or another?

The problem may well be a process of revealing or awakening to concepts that are not easy to take in light of years of conditioning.

He is making a point about "pedestalizing" women in a "Disney" way that is an objectively observed and noted phenomenon.

It is often shocking (and possibly unfair) dished out in large servings to any unaware.

[Tahn L.]

My confusion was the fact that I put no religious connotation into my two posts, except for the old Missouri saying "God willing and the creek don't rise" which I have modernized to "God willing and nature allows". In all due respect, I don't believe that I put women on an unrealistic pedestal either. I merely stated my history and current goals for finding a mate. I know several women who fit those "standards" but they are all married and to pretty great guys .

Perhaps I will not find her but I certainly see nothing wrong with setting my own standards for a mate. Not trying to set them for others. The reason for my second post was merely to show that I am not unexperienced in promiscuous behavior, quite the opposite. My intent was to describe how that behavior affected ME, in later life. No put down of others or of their lifestyle, as I believe I stated.

As to accepting someone who is "not perfect", I have no illusions that any of us are perfect. We all have flaws. I merely wish to find a lady that fits my criteria, which I listed in the first post. Don't think I will change any or compromise on those. I am looking for compatibility in a mate, not a committee to compromise with.

I have several lady friends who come out to my "retreat" to visit and we always have a great time but sex is not involved except for some occasional honest truth talk.

I believe I am as awake to most concepts as any, being an avid reader and libertarian but being awake to them and accepting them are two different things.

Anyway Mtn.Prepper, I thought your feelings and sharing were interesting and merely wished to relate what "maybe" could happen later in life. Since I am now 70, I have adopted the expression that "Old age does not give you wisdom but CAN give you perspective". My age might have something to do with our different perspectives and feelings. I don't believe that celibacy would have been possible FOR ME in my twenties through my late forties.

Peace, Love and Brotherhood Through Equal Rights And Firepower.

[Mountain Prepper]

The question can be:

If I have one life to live and one precious lifetime to do it in, what is more important; a commitment to oneself in learning and securing the best options for a lifetime or being committed to the principle of self-sacrificing commitment?

My confusion was the fact that I put no religious connotation into my two posts, except (...)

It may well be the words and definitions presented as in: "Monogamous, promiscuous and celibate" to start with. And as has been stated eloquently before the idea of "serial monogamy" is not monogamy at all (thank you Silver BTW).

We are an ape species that is not biologically wired for monogamy, I think that there are enough studies available on line and historical president enough to prove that beyond a doubt. Of course this is a "sliding scale" where we could get caught up in endless citing of individual cases -and of course the individual proclivities only "test the rule" not "prove the rule" as simple analytics should be without bias to gain data (data being without moral or directional weight, data being only a reference to that same).

Morality being a social and religious construct (that is constantly in flux and changing i.e.: abrahamic religious law, and how it is not followed and that subsequently rationalized.)

In all due respect, I don't believe that I put women on an unrealistic pedestal either. I merely stated my history and current goals for finding a mate. I know several women who fit those "standards" but they are all married and to pretty great guys.

Of course pointing to outlying examples only shows the scope of the "sliding scale" outlying examples do not indicate the norm, only place it on any scale of measure.

Pedestal-ization in this case is a specific term that you may well not be familiar with. In this case and because I know how it is being used (the term) yes, without reservation you are placing women outside of the measurable norm and it would fit the specific definition our compatriot DF is referring to (and I would as well).

Perhaps I will not find her but I certainly see nothing wrong with setting my own standards for a mate.

On this concept, we will agree without reservation - what is good for you as a choice is your "standard" and using a religious reference "Bless you brother with all speed and good luck!" a happy, satisfying and productive life is good for humanity as a whole.

The reason for my second post was merely to show that I am not unexperienced in promiscuous behavior, quite the opposite.

Our species is polygamous with somewhat opposing sexual strategies male is situationally polygamous (if possible - distribute genetics) by default and the female serially polygamous (if possible - collect genetics). Using the word promiscuous is placing a moralistic term on an observable behavior indicating a religious (or socially judgmental) view.

I am not saying that you cannot have a religious (or socially judgmental) view just showing how it indicates something to the reader.

My intent was to describe how that behavior affected ME, in later life. No put down of others or of their lifestyle, as I believe I stated.

As is perfectly acceptable, and I understand, simply expanding on this communication.

As to accepting someone who is "not perfect", I have no illusions that any of us are perfect. We all have flaws. I merely wish to find a lady that fits my criteria, which I listed in the first post. Don't think I will change any or compromise on those. I am looking for compatibility in a mate, not a committee to compromise with.

Perfectly acceptable for your goal, whereas I understand that fulfillment for my desires has to come from various sources as I understand that I will never (or very unlikely) find all I would desire in a single individual (in my case woman) so my compromise in the "not perfect" is to gather portions of this from several sources.

I have several lady friends who come out to my "retreat" to visit and we always have a great time but sex is not involved except for some occasional honest truth talk.

Noting wrong with this, and by obverse I choose my biological programing and extensive skills to communicate and enjoy my time and connections.

I believe I am as awake to most concepts as any, being an avid reader and libertarian but being awake to them and accepting them are two different things.

This is true, as you well know "what has been seen cannot be unseen" but many choose to ignore or rationalize away the unpleasant parts. I choose to look at all the information political, social, and sexual and fact is that real life is a "bitter pill" in all of the listed aspects. The very existence of this board and in a wider sense political views like libertarian exist because the narrative and the facts are not often "the same".

Anyway Mtn.Prepper, I thought your feelings and sharing were interesting and merely wished to relate what "maybe" could happen later in life. Since I am now 70, I have adopted the expression that "Old age does not give you wisdom but CAN give you perspective". My age might have something to do with our different perspectives and feelings. I don't believe that celibacy would have been possible FOR ME in my twenties through my late forties.

All presentations given with fact and individual perspective should be considered, how we evaluate that depends on our ability and desire to expand our personal knowledge.

I can tell you without reservation that when presented with the political manipulation of the populace I was shocked and angered, when I found out about the social manipulation of the populace, I was disappointed and depressed, and when I found out about the sexual manipulation of the populace... I was shocked, angered, depressed, disappointed, and eventually enlightened...

[Tahn L.]

Having trouble with quotes so please forgive the format.

"If I have one life to live and one precious lifetime to do it in, what is more important; a commitment to oneself in learning and securing the best options for a lifetime or being committed to the principle of self-sacrificing commitment?"

I do not necessarily see a distinction between the two, nor do I see that being committed to a principle of commitment as being self-sacrificing. I have found that FOR ME, I have learned, through experimentation and learning, that I feel that a commitment to one lady is the best option. Others may reach different conclusions.

"It may well be the words and definitions presented as in: "Monogamous, promiscuous and celibate" to start with. And as has been stated eloquently before the idea of "serial monogamy" is not monogamy at all (thank you Silver BTW)."


I certainly did not mean any religious connotation in my use of those words, although after looking them up, there are secondary uses which could infer such.

"We are an ape species that is not biologically wired for monogamy, I think that there are enough studies available on line and historical president enough to prove that beyond a doubt. Of course this is a "sliding scale" where we could get caught up in endless citing of individual cases -and of course the individual proclivities only "test the rule" not "prove the rule" as simple analytics should be without bias to gain data (data being without moral or directional weight, data being only a reference to that same).
"

Well, we are supposed to be “thinking apes” and as such, supposedly have the ability for our minds to overrule our hardware. If we did not, we would still be raping every hot young female we encountered and killing every potential rival, as a rule rather than an exception.

"Pedestal-ization in this case is a specific term that you may well not be familiar with. In this case and because I know how it is being used (the term) yes, without reservation you are placing women outside of the measurable norm and it would fit the specific definition our compatriot DF is referring to (and I would as well).
"

Certainly my goal for a mate is not the norm but definitely at an extreme end of a scale, unless the scale is circular. I was not aware of the term “pedestal-ization” and I thank you for explaining it, although it sounds like one of those words made up by people who fail in their attempts at something and then wish to denigrate their failed goal. Perhaps I will not find her but I certainly see nothing wrong with setting my own standards for a mate.



"On this concept, we will agree without reservation - what is good for you as a choice is your "standard" and using a religious reference "Bless you brother with all speed and good luck!" a happy, satisfying and productive life is good for humanity as a whole."

Thank you Brother and the same back at you.


"I am not saying that you cannot have a religious (or socially judgmental) view just showing how it indicates something to the reader."


As I stated earlier (I hope) I was describing behavior, rather than a moral view and I certainly did not mean to be judgmental. To each his own, if aggression is not used. I do not believe that polygamy or any form of multiple commitments indicates promiscuous behavior. Promiscuous behavior is multiple sexual partners “outside” of a committed relationship.

 "As is perfectly acceptable, and I understand, simply expanding on this communication."



And I thank you for your expansion. Sorry for the delay in responding but solar power and old equipment severely limits my time on line.