Why do a lot of women expect MORE for LESS?

[Mangina]

Bad men and women as well as good men and women exist in equal numbers but society doesn't teach men to avoid being suckered by the bad ones. We give women all kinds of messages on how to avoid ending up in a bad relationship or bad marriage so why not give teach men how to choose more wisely?

 

Some guys do not have a whole lot of dating options like me so I am more likely to ignore red flags and things like sexual history because I have a very limited amount of girls who like me in a romantic way.

[Rejected Rosebud]

What bugs me the most about this topic, is that some women actually do cut of sex. Why? If a woman is having great sex with her partner, it seems insane to decide they no longer enjoy it. There has to be a deeper reason.

If she thought it was great there is no way she'd cut it off (whoops! bad choice of words there! )!! What one person thinks of as "great" might not be experienced like that by their partner you know.

[Mangina]

He said some but instead of saying they understand and giving him a way to dodge these kind they get defensive and pretend they do no know what he is talking about if they are not these type or the some as he said then why are they offended

[Anela]

All you talk about is the negative behavior of men. But when the negative behavior of women is pointed out.. you either defend it, attack the person pointing it out, or have nothing to say.

 

Why is that?

 

Maybe because I know more women than you do, and happen to be a woman?

 

I don't judge all men by the behaviour of a few. I'll happily defend the good ones, should they ever need it.

[dreamingoftigers]

He gets "crucified" because he's a massive bellend.

 

Of course there are a significant amount crappy women out there, we all know this and that cannot be disputed. In any way. This thread is about painting them as a majority and purposefully placing women "on the defensive" - that's his aim here.

 

It's not the message that's the problem . I don't know why the women don't just put him on ignore personally but who am I to judge? I replied!

 

I was having fun in the thread this aft until that little bit reminded me about work etc.

 

I think a lot of us have fun on these threads, they are so ridiculous and so common.

 

And really, how are women going to refuse to participate in a thread where they mention chocolate?

[Anela]

With my PUA tactics I have dated and slept with a lot of women in the last 10 years.

 

I base my opinions off of that.. as well as the other women I observe through friends and at work. I see the relationships my male friends have with women too.

 

Since PUA tactics are designed to screw with a woman's self-esteem, you're only helping to make all of this worse.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I have never heard of anybody calling a stay-at-home mom a lazy, useless leach or anything like that.

They say that the woman who stays at home and doesn't contribute financially sees the man as a "walking wallet" it's all over these boards!!

[Rejected Rosebud]

I didn't say that....

 

I said, lot's of women are sexual before the ring, and after the ring somehow have a "I don't do that anymore" game they play...throwing a 180 if you will.

How do you even know, you are sexual and you don't have the ring, if you ever do let us know what women act like after they're married, I am not married yet so I don't know either! Where do you come up with this stuff from anyway, from married guys who tell you they need sex from you because their wife won't give them any? Do you know that that's a line??

[Rejected Rosebud]

Again.. why do we have to avoid discussing the flawed women I'm talking about?

Flawed women? You mean the ones who enjoyed sex before they were married and then had the nerve to want a great committed relationship?? Don't go out with them! What's to talk about, it's simple, I'm sure those women aren't chomping at the bit to have a chance with you either!! :bunny:

[ascendotum]

Men need to walk with the first sign of a woman pulling a bait and switch. Also if she is not making an effort to be more loving then you need to stop making the effort. Give back what you get.

 

I know this thread is 1 one sided but I just to say like a few of the guys have posted here, like a few of my friends, things went down hill when the dotted line got signed (house or marriage or baby asap). They didn't see it coming though, but a few of us looking on from the sidelines we could see she wasn't the most passionate for him, but things tanked when it became harder for the guy to just say 'I'm out of here' and walk. There was a baby now or they had a lot more to loose asset wise + because they had struggled in their 20s with girls, they were a bit desperate not to be single anymore (no doubt the women knew it and had the upper hand). As for the 'stop making an effort' I'm for that as well, 'like for like' and 'give as good and you get', but really it just leads to a resentful sucky relationship unless you get some consolation by getting some pleasure on the side (I know you are against cheating)

[William]

OK, reading the last page or so, I'll weigh in here and remind people that our civility and respect rules apply to everyone equally so those of you who are lambasting fellow members personally are on my short list for an exodus from this forum, and permanently. This seems to crop up from time to time whenever the clique here perceives a threat to its modus operandi. My compliments for your highly skilled, yet offensive debating tactics and my promise to you that, in a debate with moderation, you will lose and be gone from this place.

 

Moderation is currently deciding what to do with the thread starter so my advice would be to shut up and move on. You've said enough here.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I don't agree with the OP for the most part but why is Gloria getting crap for defending men. Must women always side with women no matter what and vice versa for that matter? Are incapable of looking past blind gender loyalty.

What are you talking about, I reacted negatively to her claims that women cut off sex after they "get the ring," should not put their kids in any kind of care, and use men for money, <redacted> it's really alarming coming from a woman! In what way is talking <redacted> like that about women "defending men"?? I can't see that at all!! Edited December 14, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Mangina]

I know this thread is 1 one sided but I just to say like a few of the guys have posted here, like a few of my friends, things went down hill when the dotted line got signed (house or marriage or baby asap). They didn't see it coming though, but a few of us looking on from the sidelines we could see she wasn't the most passionate for him, but things tanked when it became harder for the guy to just say 'I'm out of here' and walk. There was a baby now or they had a lot more to loose asset wise + because they had struggled in their 20s with girls, they were a bit desperate not to be single anymore (no doubt the women knew it and had the upper hand). As for the 'stop making an effort' I'm for that as well, 'like for like' and 'give as good and you get', but really it just leads to a resentful sucky relationship unless you get some consolation by getting some pleasure on the side (I know you are against cheating)

Struggling with dating in their 20s and desperate is me now

[dragon_fly_7]

I don't agree with the OP for the most part but why is Gloria getting crap for defending men. Must women always side with women no matter what and vice versa for that matter? Are incapable of looking past blind gender loyalty.

It sounds like she's insulting women that decide to go to college and be something in life too. It's like she's saying that ''a woman waiting till marriage for the right man (otherwise why mentioned the word ''innocence'' when speaking about the white dress), never going to school but only wanting to be a housewife'' is the best option ever and how that's the way how it should be..that the 1950's should be the way and how that's missed.

 

 

I'm in college, have slightly less than a year to finish it and I find that more important than not ever studying and only knowing how to cook and clean for the rest of my life, never being able to make something of myself if the marriage were to go sour and finding myself totally unprepared if that were to happen. So yes, it was offending to hear that a woman wanting to have a higher education is being referred to as ''a waste of time''.

Edited December 14, 2014 by dragon_fly_7

[MissBee]

Hmmm.....I've been married a long time. Parenting, too.

 

I maintain my weight because I want to be healthy and attractive. Also, I like to wear string bikinis and look good in them.

 

I am respectful to my husband because I respect him. It's mutual. Also, I love him.

 

I have regular sex with my husband because I'm sexually attracted to him. Also, I love him.

 

The slave stuff is more role play.

 

In terms of people becoming slaves...it seems quite the opposite really, as most women become the mother, the cook, the cleaner, the fixer in charge of keeping the house afloat and everyone's lives on track. I'm not even understanding how a man becomes a slave when the work of a slave often falls on women in terms of having to do a bulk of the domestic duties and child rearing, which in many cultures is seen as "how it is" or a "natural role", certainly in American culture esp if one is more traditional, even though women work now, they still end up having to do all this PLUS have their careers. Growing up that's how it was in my home and even looking at people's families these days a lot of times it's the same. My dad and mom worked but my mom was the one who cooked, cleaned, washed clothes, helped with homework, fixed things, managed the house, managed the kids when we were young and waited on a husband....so if anyone was a slave it was her...not my dad. He could go to work, come home, watch tv, do whatever else.

 

And unsurprisingly, in marriages where a woman does essentially become the cook, cleaner, chauffeur, primary child rearer, entertainer, secretary, everything...if she also goes on strike or doesn't have the energy or feel sexy enough to also want to give random bjs and have sex, she's a vile witch who changed....meanwhile the husband who does nothing or a fraction of what she does is what? The victim of some vile witch who trapped him into a marriage. Interesting how it's not discussed that many men are also guilty of wooing a woman during dating and is all romantic and wonderful and then once he's married or they move in the romance goes out the window and now he's expecting a live-in housekeeper who also has sex with him. I don't see how anyone cannot draw parallels between the two. Seeing that usually these things aren't isolated but play off of each other, where BOTH people tend to take each other for granted or start to want "more for less."

[xxoo]

In terms of people becoming slaves...it seems quite the opposite really, as most women become the mother, the cook, the cleaner, the fixer in charge of keeping the house afloat and everyone's lives on track. I'm not even understanding how a man becomes a slave when the work of a slave often falls on women in terms of having to do a bulk of the domestic duties and child rearing, which in many cultures is seen as "how it is" or a "natural role", certainly in American culture esp if one is more traditional, even though women work now, they still end up having to do all this PLUS have their careers. growing up that's how it was in my home. My dad and mom worked but my mom was the one who cooked, cleaned, washed clothes, helped with homework, fixed things, managed the house, managed the kids when we were young and waited on a husband....so if anyone was a slave it was her...not my dad. He could go to work, come home, watch tv, do whatever else.

 

And unsurprisingly, in marriages where a woman does essentially become the cook, cleaner, chauffeur, primary child rearer, entertainer, secretary, everything...if she also goes on strike or doesn't have the energy or feel sexy enough to also want to give random bjs and have sex, she's a vile witch who changed....meanwhile the husband who does nothing or a fraction of what she does is what? The victim of some vile witch who trapped him into a marriage. Interesting how it's not discussed that many men are also guilty of wooing a woman during dating and is all romantic and wonderful and then once he's married or they move in the romance goes out the window and now he's expecting a live-in housekeeper who also has sex with him. I don't see how anyone cannot draw parallels between the two. Seeing that usually these things aren't isolated but play off of each other, where BOTH people tend to take each other for granted or start to want "more for less."

 

I can attest that, in my marriage, there is no imbalance of labor. We each work our butts off so that we can chill together, with an attitude of wanting to help each other.

 

It's probably not a coincidence that we also have lots of sex.

[MissBee]

I can attest that, in my marriage, there is no imbalance of labor. We each work our butts off so that we can chill together, with an attitude of wanting to help each other.

 

It's probably not a coincidence that we also have lots of sex.

 

Makes sense!

 

I think in more equitable households this is probably the case...as that level of care and simple teamwork translates into more positive feelings (whereas the opposite can lead to resentment) and more positive feelings make for more affection and intimacy and ultimately sex. Also on the practical side the sharing of work means one person won't be overly tired and thus the time and energy available for fun, romance and sex increases.

 

Whereas if things aren't equitable and you feel taken for granted, not romanced and just feel kind of like a housekeeper or "mom" or generally misunderstood the resentment rises, the passive aggressive responses rise (or outright aggressive ones) and the sex decreases. Communication is also key here as I imagine more equitable households tend to also have better communication along with the teamwork where things get resolved before they have a chance to become huge resentments.

[ascendotum]

Struggling with dating in their 20s and desperate is me now

My advice would be to not let it show. Without doubt the guys I know who struggled also tended to have lacklustre marriages/long term defacto relationships. I felt sorry for those guys who kind of got dudded in the 20s when it came to fun & romance and then when they got the LT/settle down relatiosnhip they were desperate for with a woman they found attractive enough and was willing to date them, they got dudded again. I found my fat friends who struggled but married fat women, have good loving/supportive marriages. Where a guy struggled and ended up with a woman who used to date totally different type of guys or had plenty of guys in the past, or had a different lifestyle (party/spend/sense of entitlement when the guy is conservative) then there is risk they feel they are settling for the guy and dissatisfaction creeps in but will stay while things go their way or no better suitor. (I'm not describing all marriages here)

 

As much as some guys on here get angsty over being an older virgin as big a deal is the lack of relationship history -> lack of pre-selection and lower market value in many woman's eyes. The woman could feel she is being settled for but they will also feel they are settling and it will be reflected in their passion for the guy. Dude you got to not be desperate or at least hide it, and for the woman to know you can walk away if she pulls any BS. As for your 20s. If you can throw in some ONS/fwbs into your lack of LTR history, it might pay to do it. If the woman you meet are enthusiastic for you, that's a really good start, and it may pay to sacrifice some things on your ideal gf tick off list to get that.

[Woggle]

I know this thread is 1 one sided but I just to say like a few of the guys have posted here, like a few of my friends, things went down hill when the dotted line got signed (house or marriage or baby asap). They didn't see it coming though, but a few of us looking on from the sidelines we could see she wasn't the most passionate for him, but things tanked when it became harder for the guy to just say 'I'm out of here' and walk. There was a baby now or they had a lot more to loose asset wise + because they had struggled in their 20s with girls, they were a bit desperate not to be single anymore (no doubt the women knew it and had the upper hand). As for the 'stop making an effort' I'm for that as well, 'like for like' and 'give as good and you get', but really it just leads to a resentful sucky relationship unless you get some consolation by getting some pleasure on the side (I know you are against cheating)

 

I would just leave. If marriage is a legal contract then surely bait and switch should be grounds to void that contract. It is any other area.

[Mangina]

My advice would be to not let it show. Without doubt the guys I know who struggled also tended to have lacklustre marriages/long term defacto relationships. I felt sorry for those guys who kind of got dudded in the 20s when it came to fun & romance and then when they got the LT/settle down relatiosnhip they were desperate for with a woman they found attractive enough and was willing to date them, they got dudded again. I found my fat friends who struggled but married fat women, have good loving/supportive marriages. Where a guy struggled and ended up with a woman who used to date totally different type of guys or had plenty of guys in the past, or had a different lifestyle (party/spend/sense of entitlement when the guy is conservative) then there is risk they feel they are settling for the guy and dissatisfaction creeps in but will stay while things go their way or no better suitor. (I'm not describing all marriages here)

 

As much as some guys on here get angsty over being an older virgin as big a deal is the lack of relationship history -> lack of pre-selection and lower market value in many woman's eyes. The woman could feel she is being settled for but they will also feel they are settling and it will be reflected in their passion for the guy. Dude you got to not be desperate or at least hide it, and for the woman to know you can walk away if she pulls any BS. As for your 20s. If you can throw in some ONS/fwbs into your lack of LTR history, it might pay to do it. If the woman you meet are enthusiastic for you, that's a really good start, and it may pay to sacrifice some things on your ideal gf tick off list to get that.

 

I understand but I do have a whole lot of girls who like me and I do not have any ideal gf tick off list. I am not a very handsome guy I have had 2 girl friends usually girls do not look at me and some of them avoid me when I pass them on the street. I still do not understand how FWB works because I did not get it when Gloria25 explained it a couple of weeks ago.

[smg15]

Let me break it down for you

 

Online women are flooded with messages from THIRSTY Men which means they can afford to raise their standards because it's so many to choose from.

 

Recently I was on a facebook group and all this women did was say HELLO and like 38 guys responded with..........Hey goregous, hey beautiful, Hello cutie.

 

 

 

So that's why they can expect more for less because it's always some desperate dude out there giving them attention

[MissBee]

Let me break it down for you

 

Online women are flooded with messages from THIRSTY Men which means they can afford to raise their standards because it's so many to choose from.

 

Recently I was on a facebook group and all this women did was say HELLO and like 38 guys responded with..........Hey goregous, hey beautiful, Hello cutie.

 

 

 

So that's why they can expect more for less because it's always some desperate dude out there giving them attention

 

Actually, I think one comes before the other.

 

I don't think some women's standards are high because tons of desperate dudes message them. I think if you already have high standards, if 40 desperate dudes message you it doesn't mean you're gonna respond if they aren't what you're looking for...and chances are if a man is desperate he has a lot of issues that you're not looking for.

 

Speaking for myself, when I online date I am not there for attention from men I have zero interest in. I'm explicit about who I am, what I offer and what I appreciate in a man and the goal for me is to just fine ONE man that I like and can get to know where we are on the same wavelength and can add positively to each other's lives and form a relationship. I ignore most of the messages I get because 3/4 of them clearly didn't read my profile or as you said are thirsty and desperate and when I check their profile they have NOTHING on it or stuff that is clear they would never be a good match for me. When I get messages from these men it does NOTHING for me. All it does is annoy me or is frustrating when I get an alert about a new message and when I check it's some dude totally opposite of anything I'd ever want or some ridiculous message like "U are so hot" or "Let me get you pregnant." Your posts, and others like yours, always imply that women get some special thrill out of all these messages and while some of course probably do, some of us who are serious and have standards don't. It's not that we got online and realized we will get 40 messages so as a reaction raised our standards...NO...it's that most of us already go in with knowledge of who we are and what we want so can easily weed out those who don't fit, which in dating is gonna be a lot of people if you aren't the type to just like anyone.

 

I first online dated when I was around 18/19 and my standards were a lot lower then and I just simply was trying out dating and so went out on a TON of dates and answered many of the messages even when I figured I didn't like the guy all that much. It's the opposite of what you described for me. With lower standards more men made the cut and the more messages I got I felt great as a young adult really dating for the first time. The OP seems to find making mistakes or trying things out in your youth to be a problem, but that's part of how you learn and grow and especially with dating figure out what you want. And before he suggests it, I wasn't "giving my body away like candy" either. To this day i still have fingers left to count the men I've slept with. BUT even if I had been having a ton of sex, it wouldn't matter, as one's vagina isn't some finite "resource" that can be saved up.

 

I got fed up of OLD and didn't do it for years but when I started again I was a whole different person, had grown (which the OP seems to hate), had relationships already and knew a lot more about who I was and what I needed and wanted so my experience was totally different! For example, when I was 18, I'd maybe go on like 4 dates a week from OLD...most didn't work out of course but I had more time to waste then and it was just fun or to get out of the house. Now, in my twenties, when I've grown a lot and am more serious my approach is different. I get lots of messages...but I ALREADY went in with higher standards and blinders to what I don't want. It's like going to the grocery story with a list and just going to the specific aisles which have the products versus 18 where I just was randomly browsing and picking anything up which seemed alright. So now, for example,when I first went back on OLD in February, I dunno I got lots of messages I'd wager at minimum 50 in the first few weeks but of all the messages, let's say I engaged 15 of them in conversation, spoke on the phone to like 6, went on dates with 2 and one became my bf. After he and I broke up I went back online and got tons of messages again but went on 2 dates. It wasn't the messages which raised my standards...it was my standards which changed my response to the messages.

Edited December 14, 2014 by MissBee

[smg15]

Actually, I think one comes before the other.

 

I don't think some women's standards are high because tons of desperate dudes message them. I think if you already have high standards, if 40 desperate dudes message you it doesn't mean you're gonna respond if they aren't what you're looking for...and chances are if a man is desperate he has a lot of issues that you're not looking for.

 

Speaking for myself, when I online date I am not there for attention from men I have zero interest in. I'm explicit about who I am, what I offer and what I appreciate in a man and the goal for me is to just fine ONE man that I like and can get to know where we are on the same wavelength and can add positively to each other's lives and form a relationship. I ignore most of the messages I get because 3/4 of them clearly didn't read my profile or as you said are thirsty and desperate and when I check their profile they have NOTHING on it or stuff that is clear they would never be a good match for me. When I get messages from these men it does NOTHING for me. All it does is annoy me or is frustrating when I get an alert about a new message and when I check it's some dude totally opposite of anything I'd ever want or some ridiculous message like "U are so hot" or "Let me get you pregnant." Your posts, and others like yours, always imply that women get some special thrill out of all these messages and while some of course probably do, some of us who are serious and have standards don't. It's not that we got online and realized we will get 40 messages so as a reaction raised our standards...NO...it's that most of us already go in with knowledge of who we are and what we want so can easily weed out those who don't fit, which in dating is gonna be a lot of people if you aren't the type to just like anyone.

 

I first online dated when I was around 18/19 and my standards were a lot lower then and I just simply was trying out dating and so went out on a TON of dates and answered many of the messages even when I figured I didn't like the guy all that much. It's the opposite of what you described for me. With lower standards more men made the cut and the more messages I got I felt better. I got fed up of OLD and didn't do it for years but when I started again I was a whole different person, had grown (which the OP seems to hate), had relationships already and knew a lot more about who I was and what I needed and wanted so my experience was totally different! For example, when I was 18, I'd maybe go on like 4 dates a week from OLD...most didn't work out of course but I had more time to waste then and it was just fun or to get out of the house. Now, in my twenties, when I've grown a lot and am more serious my approach is different. I get lots of messages...but I ALREADY went in with higher standards and blinders to what I don't want. It's like going to the grocery story with a list and just going to the specific aisles which have the products versus 18 where I just was randomly browsing and picking anything up which seemed alright. So now, for example,when I first went back on OLD in February, I dunno I got lots of messages I'd wager at minimum 50 in the first few weeks but of all the messages, let's say I engaged 15 of them in conversation, spoke on the phone to like 6, went on dates with 2 and one became my bf. After he and I broke up I went back online and got tons of messages again but went on 2 dates. It wasn't the messages which raised my standards...it was my standards which changed my response to the messages.

 

 

But these women still have the option to see if those messages are from a man they like. Some men don't get any messages and don;t have the option to browse through a inbox full of messages. Options is what makes people more picky.

 

For example I was chatting with a girl who lived about an hour away and once I started getting messages from women who were 15 mins away I stopped calling the girl who was further. And that's because since 3 girls were 15 mins away I didn't have to meet up with someone an hour away.

[MissBee]

But these women still have the option to see if those messages are from a man they like. Some men don't get any messages and don;t have the option to browse through a inbox full of messages. Options is what makes people more picky.

 

For example I was chatting with a girl who lived about an hour away and once I started getting messages from women who were 15 mins away I stopped calling the girl who was further. And that's because since 3 girls were 15 mins away I didn't have to meet up with someone an hour away.

 

 

Yes, on one hand. But on the other, it's not solely about messages.

 

People live in the real world not just the internet online dating world. Your standards in real life outside of OLD should already exist.

 

But it seems no thought is given to the idea that people can already have a standard BEFORE they ever log on to a website and create a profile and that it is that standard which dictates who they respond to. That is my point. That many of us have these standards BEFOREHAND, not because we got online and have options.

 

Also the idea of an option is kind of off. MOST of the messages I receive are NOT viable options. Quantity in dating doesn't mean these are real options. But I find that many men and women, esp on LS, see this differently. Where men simply just want MORE women, regardless of more important criteria, while women are saying yes we may get more messages than men but the increased quantity isn't quality and if you're looking for something serious and perhaps not just random sex, then 50 messages where 45 of them are not what you're looking for isn't really an "option" at all.

 

Trust me...it's not like the men messaging me are mostly great men with the things I want and I'm just being super picky. THE MAJORITY are men outside of all my criteria...and this is the part which is ignored and it's presented as though we women are at the Louis Vuitton of OLD with so many great men and we're just walking over them being picky when it's more like being at a garage sale and you have to sift through a bunch of stuff to find one or two items which are to your liking.

[Mangina]

Compare your story to what Mangina posted here. He admits to struggling in dating, and as a result, he would be willing to ignore some red flags to be with someone.

 

People have higher standards either because they can get them, or they think they can. You say that 45 out of 50 of your messages weren't options. Well, if you no longer got those 5 messages you do consider options, your standards might change.

 

I have seen how OLD works from many different perspectives. I know good looking guys who message average looking women just trying to get laid. Those women then start to alter their standards because they think they can get guys like that. When that doesn't work out, it's ok, because there are 4 other good looking options messaging you, right?

Yes I read that and I am shocked that only 5 guys out of 50 are quality. That is 10 percent 90 percent of guys are not quality?