reply to post by riley
Sorry to see you take this so personally. I can assure you that I would have used anyone else's name in that post had they said the same. It was not
intended to invoke such a response.
I simply find that "You used me " philosophy unpalatable and will state why here shortly.
It certainly was not nonsense as from his OWN ADMITTANCE he is still using the first girl for sex and gifts as well and seems to be bragging
I must be missing something here...as I did not see him specifically state that he is using the first girl for sex. The one I see making such a
statement is you Riley. Perhaps I did not read the posts correctly here. I simply did not see such a statement on his part. You yes..him no.
However...as stated in my previous post, I don't agree with his rationale. He should have enough gonads to cut the ties to this woman.
On the other hand ...as to giving back the watch...I recall breaking up with a woman years ago..and having bought her an entire electric ceramic kiln,
molds, ceramic slip..etc etc. Should she have been mature enough to give them back when we broke up??
Seriously though...he should give her back the watch. I believe watches are inexpensive enough that he can afford a watch if he should so desire.
Now..on the serious side..and particularly for the males on this thread.
How do you use a woman for sex unless she is raped??
The presupposition here is that her sex/sexuality has all the value in the marketplace...and his sex/sexuality has none. Therefore it is incumbent on
him to make up the difference somehow..He is guilty from the beginning if he does not yield to something she needs or desires..since it is never sex
for sex. Sleeping with a woman is not an equal trade...sex for sex...a man never gives sex..he only is capable of taking sex. There is something
implicit here and not made explicit.
When one attempts to make it explicit ..it invokes scorn or silence from the women out here. What is worse and equally pitiful is that so many of the
males out here in ignorance buy into this nonsense.
I have had numerous women over the years try this tack in order to increase their social leverage on me. "Your using me!!"
No problems or difficulties here. I agree with them and tell them they are correct. We need to stop sleeping together. No sex.
If they persist in this nonsense...I will tell them that they are not sitting on the only one in town and it is not difficult to get women to come
over and take off their clothes. IF they want to continue they must be capable of giving me something more than mere sex. Something of real intrinsic
value to me. This would require commitment/understanding from them Not "their " view of commitment with the proviso that I switch to their value
systems/thinking by default.
However ..this young man is quite inexperienced and I find him in the same pattern I have seen in many females..in that he is fishing for some
painless method of getting "her " to break up with him. I find this tack very wussy and wimpy. I have seen many women use this technique/logic and
reason. I think he has watched to many chic flicks/television and movies, also not had much exposure to male thinking in his limited lifetime. Not
much experience in RISK or the decisions which accompany.
as to this Riley..
..and talking about "only female sexuality has value in the marketplace"? We aren't whores. The reason why it's taken more seriously is
women risk getting pregnant.
I never said women were whores. I am sorry you feel this way. I said it is sex for sex...and equal exchange. What do you call it when such a thing is
leveraged for something more than what is given ..by assumption or implication?? There is something veiled..here something implicit..not explicit.
There is something wrong with my reason or logic in pointing this tack out to peoples? I have done this with numerous males I have known and most of
the women have never heard a male think this way. They mostly think from the "oil shortage mentality" and the fear or terror of being cut off the
supply network. What wusses. What weaklings. I would not blame a woman for not respecting such a male.
Women risk getting pregnant?? Your kidding about this ...correct? Is this what the statistics bear out on pregnancy?? The women's RISK?? The
woman's fear of being pregnant??
I think if this were true..fewer women out here would be the "hunter gatherers" that they are. And I know there are allot of them out here.
Somehow I dont think fear of getting pregnant is the number one worry. Female thinking...values/options are obviously thier number one concern.
Sorry Riley...you will never sell me on that point either.
Although I don't agree with the young man in this OP..I also don't agree with much of the rationale used by the women in posts like this
..especially the " You used me " philosophy.
[edit on 19-8-2008 by orangetom1999]