reamer
Posts: 57
Joined: 1/16/2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you MizSuz for that warning about the links; I did not know. I will now go back and edit my posts to remove them.
Sinergy -
Your question is a very important one, which I feel deserves a full answer, so I hope the reply is not too long for you.
Romance for many men (not all) has “types” just as sexual attraction has “types”. I think your reply would have been more fair had you asked me about my romantic background and whether I’d actually attempted the Romantic Ideal, which I have throughout my entire life until a year or so ago.
Women who fall in love with me romantically are almost never my type, the women I fall romantically in love with almost always have a type that is “not me”. Not just physically, but also in terms of career path and other factors. Whatever $ I may or may not have is irrelevant; I can tell within 5 minutes if I can can fall in love with a woman (many women state the same so such is fair), and I can tell in 5 minutes if they are looking at me in the same way as the guy I saw them looking hungry at for 5 minutes before I spoke to the woman. This is almost never equal, and romance is equal. But many women look at romance and say “equality” (which is fine) but the practical upshot is not “equal”, it is “I want such-and-such from you which is at least 60% of my needs met and in return you get 30% of your needs met, and because of the parameters of the Romance Game, I say this is equal.”
It is not.
Your reply could easily be the same as the following: a female top is in love with a male top. He makes it clear he needs a woman to sub for him to be happy. She states she does not want to sub for anyone, but offers her version of “romance”, so because she values that “romance” he should be happy with both her not subbing for him nor anyone else subbing for him. That is not fair. Particularly on a site of this nature.
This site is not a romance site such as RSVP and others. If I wanted to find romance at the expence of the sex I like best then I could go to those sites and your statement would be valid. On this site, I do not feel your statement is valid.
RE romance, unfortunately it requires time effort and money, but cannot (for the women I have been involved with) be provided by money alone, and with some men, their careers mean that the amount of time and effort they can dedicate to romance without losing their job. Some of us need to be on the clock for a month at a time without the freedom to spend an hour “relating”.
And sadly, romance for the male has become a very risky venture, thanks to sites like Don’t Date Him Girl and websites that allow a woman whm feels spurned to get away with libel, slander and worse. Just because you and women you know would never do such things to a man in a moment of emotion-over-common sense does not mean any woman I am likely to meet and be romantic with would not. Romance requires - in general - a woman having what she needs to cause great harm to a guy via these methods, no matter what sweet words and promises are given beforehand. I am not aying all women or most women represent this risk, but enough do that romance, these days, is like skydiving when a man does not have any guarantee over whom is packing his parachute.
Beyond that, do you recall a famous actor named Phil Hartman? He played Troy McClure on the Simpsons, and was a highly successful actor on SNL and in many big films for Hollywood with many connections, with a wife he romantically adored and she claimed she loved him more than life itself.
That did not stop her from MURDERING HIM nor did his success help him protect himself from that. There ARE female analogs of O.J. Simpson, whether you like this or not.
Men should undergoe this kind of risk just because women want “romance”, then after that risk, the man is not even sexually fulfilled? If you think so, I cannot agree with you. Especially if you take into account common law spouse laws, which I do not believe you have before making your reply. In my experience, by the time a woman feels a “romance” is well underway, if anything goes wrong, those laws can make life hell for a man. And those laws are weighted so that no matter the eventual outcome, he has lost far more than the woman has RE court costs, since in many areas the costs for the woman can be partially or fully defrayed or subsidized by the Gov’t.
This means that co-habition is a massive risk for many men, and (again, apart from yourself since I do not know you), all of the women I have known or been romantic with will eventually ask for or demand co-habition in the name of “romantic relating”. I simply will not do that, nor marry, nor risk a woman becoming pregnant (and I have known cases of women pricking pinholes in condoms or secretly not taking the pill after telling men “we’ve been together for 6 months, you don’t need a condom anymore”), and unlike many men I tell that to women upfront in the name of honesty (which all women, this site included, demand). For them, no matter what I could do for them ala fidelity, committment, creative romantic gestures, it’s “see ya”. Because I won’t do things that put myself at a massive disadvantage and even more massive risk.
I do not gamble on horses or lotteries, I do not drive if I have had even one beer.
And I don’t put myself at significant risk romantically when the odds are as bad as drunk driving, horse races or lotteries.
And with more women using the legal systems and the internet to make the romantic risk as high as what I’ve just mentioned, no matter what others might post in response, you will find more and more men such as myself forming a greater and bigger portion of the dating pool.
I hope this answers your question sufficiently.
Thank you to everyone whom has been understanding and helpful.
< Message edited by reamer -- 1/18/2007 6:15:46 PM >
|
RE: question about big booty sex professional women/str... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread