How to creep out the entire internet, lovelorn banker edition
Try dressing as a nun. Then maybe he'll go away.
Dating can be tough. It can be especially tough if your personality is a mixture of petulance and insecurity. And even tougher if you think you can argue someone who’s not interested in you into a second date with an angry, accusatory, sometimes hilarious, sometimes deeply unsettling 1600-word email. And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically here.
The email in question, written by a young investment banker named Mike to an unfortunate woman named Lauren after one less-than-great date, was posted on Reddit a couple of days ago, and has already gotten a lot of internetty attention, but some of you may not have seen it, so I thought I’d give it a little fisking anyway. Settle in; it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride. (Note: What follows below is most of the email; I’ve cut out a few passages here and there.)
Hi Lauren,
I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.
Well, we’re off to a not-so-good start. Perhaps she is, as they say, just not that into you?
FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email.
Gosh, I wonder why Lauren didn’t get back to him.
By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.
Google-stalking – always a nice touch. There’s no better way to charm a nice lady than by tracking down her personal information online.
I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.
Uh, what? She’s ignoring you, dude. She doesn’t want to go out with you. Seems to me she’s sending you a pretty unmixed message here.
Should she have responded to your voicemail and/or texts? In an ideal world, perhaps, but she may have sensed that you’d react precisely how you’re reacting now, and didn’t want to have anything more to do with your creepy, entitled bullshit.
And now Mike the banker makes his, er, “case” for why she should go on a second date with him:
Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:
-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.
You were flirting!! Hair-twirling = sex! If you don’t realize it you can google search it!!!
-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.
Eye contact is an Indicator of Interest. IOI! IOI! If you didn’t want to bear my children why did you look at me, with your eyes????
-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.
Well, not really. This is what people say to be polite at the end of a disappointing date, when they don’t want to see you again. If she wanted to see you again, she would have said something about making plans for a second date.
-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.
We had a conversation! You did not flee in horror! Therefore you must have my babies!!!
In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.
And sending someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you a long, creepy, accusatory tirade is polite?
Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship.
Dude, you do understand that she has to actually like you too in order for there to be a relationship?
I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.
You cannot argue someone into a second date! That’s not how it works.
Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you.
Gain utility? Really? DATING IS NOT MICROECONOMICS!
In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.
Well, banker dude. You’re getting some feedback now. All over the internet.
If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.
So your argument is that she should go out with you, even though she doesn’t want to go out with you, because life isn’t perfect and you’re probably the best she really deserves?
Way to sell yourself, dude.
If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on.
Well, she’s not really responsible for you thinking that every woman who twirls her hair in your presence wants to have your babies.
We have a number of things in common.
Oh dear, sounds like we’ve got another “logical” argument coming up here.
I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part.
Um, what?
I have no clever remark to make here, other than that Lauren is probably going to have to avoid going to the Philharmonic ever again, on the off chance she might run into banker Mike.
According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age.
YOU ARE RIGHT AGE. INTERNET SAYS SO. THEREFORE YOU MUST DATE ME.
I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common.
Also, you both require oxygen to live. Lauren, can’t you see that you and banker Mike are soulmates?
I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date.
Banker Mike: You said you wanted feedback. Here is some feedback. She was apparently not horrified by your physical appearance. It may be your horrible personality that needs some work.
Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so.
You’re fighting a losing battle here, dude. Just as you cannot argue someone into liking you, you cannot argue someone into being impressed that you manage your parents’ money.
In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.
And I’m the Queen of Denmark.
That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you.
Oy. As if this email wasn’t stalkerish enough already.
I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.)
This last bit I have no trouble believing.
I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.
I suspect that Lauren has already played out various scenarios in her head already, and that none of them end well.
Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too.
So now you’re being noble and “open minded” for trying to pressure a woman who wants nothing to do with you into a second date?
If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.
Now you’re just making my skin crawl.
I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.
Here’s a solution, dude: How about she never goes on another date with you, ever. Then you won’t ever have to worry about her being late ever again.
If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.
I hope you find the feedback that the internet has now provided you to be helpful.
If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).
Now we’re back on this again.
In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again.
Damn you, foul strumpet, and your devious hair-playing ways! Google it! GOOGLE IT!!!
I would like to talk to you on the phone.
I think you’ve pretty much guaranteed that this will never, ever happen.
Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.
Not much to misinterpret here, Mike. You’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that you’re an undateable creep.
Let me be serious for a moment. Forget about Lauren. Hell, forget about women in general for a while, and work on yourself. Get some therapy; you can afford it. Work through your bitterness, your petulance, your highly unattractive mixture of entitlement and insecurity. Stop being a “Nice Guy” and learn to be genuinely nice.
And don’t ever, ever, ever write another email like this one.
Posted on December 8, 2011, in creepy, evil women, men who should not ever be with women ever, nice guys, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 1,020 Comments.
MRAL has. And he didn’t seem very happy about it.
I was thinking of when you said that women who have more sex are worse people, and then, when we didn’t agree, acted astonished instead of actually putting forward any arguments. But thinking back, I think you might have said that people who have more sex are worse people, do while that’s totally wrong I did mischaracterize you unfairly when I said it was just women. So, pray: what is actually yucky about British women?
I have no idea why my iPhone has started autocorrecting “so” into “do” all the time. So is a word! Why are you making me look bad?
I’m sorry, no more mr nice guy, but could we not bring the autism spectrum into it? Please? I am raising an autistic child. Having no social skills is not the equivalent of being an jackass. My son has poor social skills; he continues to be friendly and nice even when people are pissed at him. And to diagnose someone with an ASD, that person needs to meet quite a bit more criteria than treating dating like a computer game or having entitlement issues. We don’t need to pathologize every objectionable behavior. Some people are just assholes, and it’s not a medical issue.
Let me share my best two stories of creepy people.
I use to write fanfiction in my spare time, and for a little while I had an e-mail correspondence with a guy who shared the same fave character from a series and also wrote fanfiction. Well, once, we were swapping fanfic ideas, and he suggested that in one of my stories, one woman should be sexually harassed and/or raped by two men but eventually fall in love with one of them. Even in my naive, barely teenage mind, that was a huge WTF moment. From a logical standpoint, the only way that kind of storyline could work is if you were talking Stockholm Syndrome, and I didn’t hate any of those characters enough to turn one into a rape victim and two into irredeemable assholes. From an emotional standpoint, I was seriously creeped out that he would even think of writing a story like that, and I stopped e-mailing him shortly after that.
The other time was when I was in a library, reading, and this one woman comes up to me and asks if I wanted to hear about her favorite book series. There was time to spare, so I figured I’d hear her out. Then she describes the first book in detail. Then the second book. Then the third. By the time she got to the fourth book, I was at my limit, so I used a softball game as an excuse to leave. Now, this wasn’t the creepy part. Long-winded and boring, sure, but not creepy. What was creepy was when she tried to follow me out of the library, pointing out exactly where the books were and practically demanding that I read them.
In these two scenarios, my description of ‘creepy’ had nothing to do with how they looked, had nothing to do their gender, had nothing to do with anybody asking me out. So, MRAL, when you try to claim that ‘creepy’ is a gendered slur, yeah, I’m not buying it at all.
So what’s particularly gross about us British ladies? I’m intrigued.
Yes, I’m married to one, so I need to know this quite urgently.
How about being British-born but raised in Canada? Does that make me more or less yucky? :D
“And most of this sympathy is coming from women.”
– “I can always find someone
to say they sympathize.
If I wear my heart out on my sleeve.”
“Now doesn’t that, in itself, rather comprehensively contradict his seemingly core belief that women are all ARROGANT FUCK BITCHES FUCK GASHES FUCK CUNTS?”
“But I don’t want some pretty face
to tell me pretty lies.
All I want is someone to believe.
Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you. “
MRAL is getting honesty, and lots of it.
But the ball is very much in his court. If his real life persona is anywhere close to his online one (and I suspect that even if he doesn’t yell out loud about ARROGANT FUCK TALL FUCK BITCHES, he gives the impression that he might), you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out why he’s been less than successful with women up to now.
He’s been offered lots of excellent advice, and might actually stand a chance of improving his life if he only took some of it on board.
(AHEM)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-10/young-uk-women-more-promiscuous-than-men-survey/234836
Young British women are more promiscuous than their male counterparts and more likely to be unfaithful, a new survey has revealed.
The study of 2,000 women in the UK, commissioned by More magazine, found that by the age of 21, women have had an average of nine sexual partners; two more than their male partner.
It also found a quarter of young women have slept with more than 10 partners in the first five years since losing their virginity, compared with 20 per cent of young men.
“Our results show that after decades of lying back and thinking of England, today’s twenty-something women are taking control of their sex lives and getting what they want in bed,” said More magazine editor Lisa Smosarski.
The average age at which respondents lost their virginity was 16.
More than half of respondents said they were not in love with the person they lost their virginity to and only 32 per cent believed it was important to be in love with someone before they had sex with them.
But if a woman met someone she really liked, 56 per cent would make him wait “a month or more” before she would have sex with him.
Of the women surveyed, 50 per cent admitted they had cheated on a partner and half of those had been unfaithful at least twice.
Only 25 per cent said they had a partner who cheated on them. If a man did cheat, 99 per cent of young women would dump him.
Indicating the influence of Britain’s tabloid newspapers, 60 per cent of women said they would kiss and tell for 20,000 pounds ($A45,000) if they had a one-night stand with someone famous.
The survey results were released less than a fortnight after an academic study found British citizens were the most promiscuous of any large western industrial nation, while Australians ranked fifth.
– AAP
And this is a problem because…?
Young British women are more promiscuous than their male counterparts and more likely to be unfaithful, a new survey has revealed.
Of the women surveyed, 50 per cent admitted they had cheated on a partner and half of those had been unfaithful at least twice.
Only 25 per cent said they had a partner who cheated on them. If a man did cheat, 99 per cent of young women would dump him.
DON’T YOU JUST LOVE THE DOUBLE STANDARD?
Indicating the influence of Britain’s tabloid newspapers, 60 per cent of women said they would kiss and tell for 20,000 pounds ($A45,000) if they had a one-night stand with someone famous.
AND A GENTLEMAN NEVER KISSES AND TELLS … BUT A LADY DOES?!
What double standard? Do you seriously think that a survey of men wouldn’t produce identical results?
Whatever: the only bad thing you mention is that English women seem more likely to cheat. But it also says “Only 25 per cent said they had a partner who cheated on them.”
That’s not particularly helpful… as not everyone knows when they are or have been cheated on. So only 25% may know they are/have been cheated on, but that doesn’t really have much relevance when it’s being compared to the amount who obviously know they cheated since it’s themselves. Did the researchers interview men to find out how often they admitted to cheating?
Also, how did they define cheating? And did they ask the women based on a particular set definition, or did they ask without setting a solid definition, so the woman would answer in regards to her own personal definition of “cheating”.
HEAVEN FORFEND!!!
25% reporting men cheating on them =/= to 25% of men reported cheating, fyi
An average of nine partners by the age of 21? I would like to know how they selected their sample, please. I completely believe that some people can achieve such lofty heights, but to be the average for all UK women? That seems…suspect. Either UK high schools enforce strict sex quotas for girls to keep those numbers up, or some lucky ladies are having a lot lot lotlotlot of sex. Those are the only two explanations, since I think we can all agree that sociological studies commissioned by popular magazines are beyond reproach.
If fewer women are lying back and thinking of England, is England going to start ranting about how the bitches have abandoned it for Brad Pitt?
It’s 2011, which means it’s either Ryan Gosling or Bradley Cooper :D
Maybe it’s me, but I don’t find that difficult to believe. I have had over ten partners, and I’m, 21, and only one of those was in high school. All but like 4 of those happened within the space of a year.
Though I have a tendency to flip the bird at social norms on slut shaming, soo…
What if the lady lies back and thinks of England being really kinky? And what exactly does one imagine when thinking of England — the queen? The queen in a latex bodysuit with a whip! The palace guards? Tying me up and talking dirty! Or an orgy! Oh my. Does it still count? ‘Cause maybe that’s what ‘em ladies who’re still lying back thinking of England are doing. It sounds kind of awesome…
Hey! I mentioned Gosling yesterday. Now, tell MRAL and all of the other dudes who use Pitt as the ultimate alpha in their ridiculous claims.
So, apparently young British women really like sex and this makes them unsuitable sexual partners? That only makes sense if you think the most suitable sexual partner is someone who doesn’t like sex.
Is it unpatriotic to lie back and think of Wales? Or whales?
Herp Derp, I think it means thinking of him
MRAL: I would ask everyone here to not use the C-word, please. It’s loaded with hate and shame.
Because bitch, cunt, gash, princess and nazi-like, (all to quote you) are so much less loaded phrases than Creep/Creepy. Who could ever thinks someone who referred to all women with those words was anything like as hateful any woman who refers to a specific man/set of behaviors as creepy.
The gall of such people. The sheer arrogant hubris of not realising how much more hateful the latter is than any combination of the former could ever combine to be.
“So, apparently young British women really like sex and this makes them unsuitable sexual partners? That only makes sense if you think the most suitable sexual partner is someone who doesn’t like sex.”
So, in your book, fidelity and faithfulness don’t count for much, if they count at all, eh? Ah, feminism, empowering women to abandon, betray, cuckold, and deceive men since the late 1800’s. And apparently, the AIDS (and other STDs) epidemic has taught you nothing about the value of chastity vis a vis promiscuity, no?
Condoms, of course, are never an option for anyone, right?
Whatever, no one here thinks cheating is okay. Most also think that having lots of sex with lots of different people is in no way the same thing as cheating.
Also, condoms are a thing.
Also, it is interesting to note that before the 1800’s, no woman ever cheated, ever.
“Having sex with a condom is like eating candy with a wrapper” Why do you think too many people really don’t want to use it eh?
Men cheating, of course, is just natural and normal and condemning that is shaming!
“Also, it is interesting to note that before the 1800′s, no woman ever cheated, ever.”
Not as a lifestyle choice or a political ideology, no.
Please also note that there are no tests for STDS either.
Nameless dudebro MRAL is obviously a sock puppet of another poster on this site(though I won’t say who I’m quite certain I know who it is! =P).
If you can prove this I’ll be impressed.
Also, men spread STIs (update: the term changed at least a couple of years ago) too? So as long as you think they shouldn’t be slutty mcslutslut-how-dare-they-enjoy-sex too. I mean it’s still a judgmental, crappy attitude, but as long as you hate everyone equally, and all that…
Cheating is a lifestyle choice? Where? Who is advocating cheating as a lifestyle choice?
I can offer anectdotal evidence too.
A: Short, curvy, dark hair. Face a bit flat.
B: Tall, very curvy, blonde, pale skin, classically “aryan” face.
C: Average height, pale blonde hair, slim, angular face.
D: very short, solidly built, red hair, angular face.
E: Average height, dark hair, a little padded, interesting face.
F: Average height, rounded, dark hair, quirky face.
G: Tall, slim, dark hair, angular face.
H: Short, average build, purple hair, rounded face.
I: Average height, voluptuous, dark hair, rounded face.
The ages run from 18-36 (at time of dating me). My age was from the same age, to about 12 years older.
The point… all these women, of various types, were interested in me. Average height, slight build, red hair, and angularly faced.
Some of them… lets see, about half, approached me.
Well then, better safe than sorry, am I right? After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Ah, but I guess delayed gratification is just too difficult, huh?
I have literally never seen anyone advocating cheating as a lifestyle choice. I have seen people advocate for polyamory, which involves informed consent of all partners.
Oh wait PUA’s advocate cheating as a lifestyle choice, perhaps you meant them?
Whatever: “Not as a lifestyle choice or a political ideology”
“Lifestyle choice”? Because I’m sure everyone gets up one morning and decides “I’m going to live a life of adultery and lying and YAY!” “Political ideology”? Can you please point me to one person ever who has ever stated that their political views include “YAY CHEATING WOOPWOOP”?
Unless of course being in a polyamorous relationship, or being in no relationship at all and having sex with various people counts as “cheating”.
Anyone feminist in my above comment, sorry for the omission.
I am pretty sure that to Whatever, a woman actually deciding to have sex on her own terms, whatever they are, constitutes cheating and is a crime against nature.
“Cheating is a lifestyle choice? Where? Who is advocating cheating as a lifestyle choice?”
Oh, please. As if! you don’t know…
http://www.angryharry.com/esPaternityFraud.htm
Wow Whatever, you sure showed me. This isn’t at all about how women who enjoy sex are gross. It’s about how women who enjoy sex and have 9 or more partners are gross.
The “it my partner cheats I’ll leave hir, but I have no problem sneaking around behind hir back myself” double standard is one many cheaters, not women, hold. Also, cheaters don’t tell their partners as a matter of course. Many people who have been cheated on don’t know. This isn’t news for you, is it?
Right, so what feminist organization advocates for Paternity Fraud as a lifestyle choice? If they exist, I am sure you can find them easily.
Ah, I see that British woman survey comes from More! magazine, which is a woman’s mag with a pretty heavy emphasis on sex. They’re best known for their Position Of The Week article as well as the erotic fiction they feature on a regular basis. When I was a schoolgirl, reading More! was considered really naughty so we all used to pass around one copy of it until a teacher at my Jesuit-run Catholic school caught us and gave us into terrible trouble.
So yeah, More! readers probably aren’t a terribly representative slice of the British female public. Even if they were, so what? As long as it’s safe and everyone’s consenting, I really don’t see a problem with sleeping with lots of people. Whatever sounds like the prissy, uptight Jesuit priests at my old school, tutting at More! magazine!
Cheating isn’t great though, and as Shora says no one here is saying it is.
If you’re complaining about using condoms, you have no right to complain about STDs
Why is it that I get the feeling that for you “delayed” gratification means “never having sex ever”?
i can think of someone we all know, but i dont want to make him appear here, too.
Oh, this is a gem:
Sure there are ways to prevent the spread of STIs, but they don’t make my penis feel as good! So women should have less sex so I can feel safer having it without protection.
I’m too lazy to make a pie chart, but this is the one I have in my head right now of MRA grievances:
45% – The law applies to me!
45% – Women have sex with people who aren’t me!
10% – Skidmarks, sidewalks, Katherine Heigl, miscellaneous completely ridiculous things!
What?
Enjoying sex and being in a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive conditions.
Other posters have already pointed out the absurdity of believing that women never cheated prior to the 1800s, so I’ll just point out that it’s entirely possible to be sexually active (as in the opposite of “chaste”) and significantly reduce your risks of STIs. It’s also entirely possible to be sexually faithful and contract an STI from your partner.
Like I said, you seem to believe that the best sexual partners are women who aren’t interested in sex. So, you know, enjoy that. I hope it works out for you.
If you really think this, you might be really bad at sex. Seriously. You might consider having sex with women who actually enjoy sex and see if that doesn’t change the experience.
Holly, where does “my children are my property and that bitch wants to steal them and also my money” go?
Viscaria, that’s under “the law applies to me.”
More! magazine. Are you kidding me? I can’t believe you take that rag seriously.
So, in your book, fidelity and faithfulness don’t count for much, if they count at all, eh? Ah, feminism, empowering women to abandon, betray, cuckold, and deceive men since the late 1800′s. And apparently, the AIDS (and other STDs) epidemic has taught you nothing about the value of chastity vis a vis promiscuity, no?
Fidelity and faithfulness are not the same as promiscuity.
Your source doesn’t have numbers to compare men/women for rates of self-admitted “cheating”. Your source doesn’t define cheating.
So I shall assume quantifiable sources and understood definitions have count for much with you.
I’ll also argue I have a firmer basis for this than you to with your assertions.
Oh right Holly, I’ve gotcha. Seems like a pretty good representation then.
Joanna: Of course he doesn’t take it seriously. He’s linking to AngryHarry and ranting about paternity fraud. He thinks it makes women look bad, so he quotes it.
Shora: Why is it that I get the feeling that for you “delayed” gratification means “never having sex ever, unless it’s with Whatever
FTFY.
Aside from the awkwardness of timing the optimum moment to put it on, I honestly think that there’s next to no difference between intercourse with a condom and without one.
In fact, because I came of age during the height of the AIDS scare, I first had sex without a condom when I was 25, because that was the first time I that I was truly certain that my girlfriend of the time had no STDs and even less intention of becoming pregnant. I expected it to be this amazingly mindblowing experience that I’d been denying myself up to then…
…but instead it felt exactly the same.
Whatever, a little debate tip:
If your thesis is “bitches be cheating,” don’t include the part about “bitches be having sex.” This is not only irrelevant, it suggests that you don’t know it’s irrelevant, and think that a woman having multiple sequential (or consensually polyamorous) partners is the same thing as cheating. (Or is just generally icky because ewww women having an independent existence.)
Focus on the cheating. Which, it turns out, happens about equally in both directions:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/cheating-wives
So maybe you have nothing at all to say except that you’re refining MRAL’s demand that we sleep with everyone to a demand that we only sleep with you. (Otherwise you’d have to wear a condom and that’s terribly inconvenient! Whereas saving ourselves for you requires no sacrifice of pleasure whatsoever.)
Since we’re stuck-up bitches when we don’t have sex and filthy whores when we have sex, we’re pretty much down to a DKM-like “assigned marriages at 14!” scenario here to make you happy.
Unless you want to sow your wild oats among multiple chaste-until-you women, in which case the whole thing just turns mathematically impossible.
@Wetherby: Depending on the condom, it can feel a lot better too ;)
@Joanna: So I’ve been told!
I’ve acquired more than nine partners in the first two years since I lost my virginity…
Also, if you don’t like condoms, you shouldn’t be complaining about that case of syphilis or gonorrhea or even HIV you’ll contract.
Alsoalso, it didn’t say whether the cheating was a mistake the person made once, in a bad period of their lives, that they feel guilty about, or a lifestyle choice.
And apparently, the AIDS (and other STDs) epidemic has taught you nothing about the value of chastity vis a vis promiscuity, no?
“Having sex with a condom is like eating candy with a wrapper” Why do you think too many people really don’t want to use it eh?
You really, really can’t whine about how women just don’t take protecting themselves and their partners from STIs seriously enough and then, all of eleven minutes later, whine about how you can’t be bothered to wear a condom.
Well, I mean, you can. But you look like a colossal moron when you do.
“I’m sure the guy is a fucked-up Asperger. These guys have no social skills and cannot understand body language. And when they are fucked up, they believe they are entitled to women. There’s a lot of guys like that that try to become PUAs because PUA seduction technique is like an algorithm. Of course these guys fail and they become even more angry against women. George Sodini probably had Asperger.”
Hey, I’m “an Asperger” Right here. Being a woman and stuff, for extra credit. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Knock that ablist total bullshit off. Kay.
I KNOW, based on interactions with men in the real world and online, that she’ll be talking shit about me, being mean, and calling me a cr**p behind my back.
MRAL, have you been studying your chart like I told you?
In all seriousness: People are not laughing at you behind your back for no reason. That is something your brain tells you to get you upset. Not a real thing.
The thing is, unless she covertly filmed MRAL and uploaded their awkward encounter to YouTube (which I completely agree would be a really shitty thing to do), what does it matter?
Maybe she is mocking him behind his back, maybe (far more likely) she isn’t… but he’s never going to know, so why worry about it?
There are too many man-haters, feminists, and just plain hateful women out there anyway, who see you, and your sex drive, as the enemy! There are also too many oversexed, nymphomaniacal, give-it-up-to-anyone (except you) uber-sluts out there as well! Modern women are either, as a rule, hopelessly frigid, with man-issues to boot, even downright lezzies, on the other hand, are nowadays hopelessly oversexed and human STD transmission factories. Use at own risk–even with condom!! Of course, long before you can cultivate a “relationship” with uber-slut, she is off and running with somebody else, sometimes a whole bunch of somebody elses…
This is not intended to be a counsel of despair, but maybe we men should look into self-sufficient (fantasy/masturbatory) alternatives.
There are beautiful glossy, full color prints of paintings of sweet old-fashioned girls, suitable for framing. There are collectable dolls, some of which are quite lovely. They are not (yet) cybernetic, but if you are gifted with imagination, you can give them very feminine names, personalities, etc. If you want to cuddle with something warm and soft, fluffy plush toys can do until something better comes along. These are, or course, like little lady lovely collectable dolls, NOT as good as real women, when women were worth something, but they ARE better than nothing!
Sooner or later, the message will get through to women, and they will realize that feminism and “unisex” is a blind alley, they will take pleasure and pride in their natural genetic based XX type femininity, and love and harmony will return to relationships. But a lot of women need to learn a lesson first!
Sorry, are you saying that lesbians are “hopelessly frigid”? Because a very good friend of mine is a lesbian, and that’s categorically not the impression she gives. In fact, I get the distinct impression that she has sex rather a lot, and thoroughly enjoys it.
And I’m also baffled as to why you think love and harmony are missing from modern relationships. My own relationship is blissfully harmonious precisely because we treat each other as equals and are prepared to make equal sacrifices when it comes to raising our children, which seems to be the polar opposite of what you believe.
But I applaud your desire to investigate “self-sufficient (fantasy/masturbatory) alternatives”, just as I applaud Brandon’s plans to have a vasectomy.