A REALLY hot girl knocked on my door...

Post Reply New Topic

Who wouldn't be impressed I have over 100 Megadrive games. It could be me and three hot females playing Micro machines. They got the looks I got the control pads. lol

If only you could get the girls to play the megadrive games...

so it's a shame if some girl see that we own games or legos or whatever?Or are they just boring 'mature' creatures without any child side in themselves? I am just wondering .....

It's all about how you present it.

If you are sort of embarresed to do this stuff, well then she's not going to like it.

If you just say this is the way I am... I enjoy it... you should enjoy it with me... then it's no problem.

Well she still will probably reject you for it, if she has no fun side whatsoever. But the other way she'll probably reject you even if she doesn't care...

Of course if she is really a kid at heart, Legos are easy enough to turn into doll houses...girly toys.

^If the girl doesn't like the way you are then she's just a pain in the ass , it's ok if you change some bad habits for her but if she wants you to change your whole inner self then she's not worth it .

Wait... There are women who DON'T want me to change my whole inner self? Are they in THIS country? I don't think so. Friday, I re-gave-up on all women. Genesis 3:16 is why. The original Hebrew of the curse God put upon all women connotes a strong desire within them to overcome, fight against, or rule over their men. The curse is that MEN will instead rule over WOMEN, despite women's inner desire to control men.

And I've found this trait in all women I've known, and many whom I've simply observed being Jezebels, sooner or later. That's why the man NEEDS to be the leader of the family unit -- because women cannot help themselves from yielding to their inner controlling/meddling/gossiping desires. They can't keep them in check, so men have to do it for them through strong, assertive leadership.

And I'm neither a leader nor a follower, so women will always run over me in relationships. Therefore, I should avoid relationships. (God's curse on men wasn't a character flaw -- it was just that he'd have to work very hard for his food.)

With THIS kind of thinking, one would hope
not - but sadly, there probably are.

Some interesting ideas, Ragtime.

I wonder where my casual indifference will get me.

I'm not dominating, but I don't put up with emotional manipulation. Something I've seen in many women, my uncle's young daughter, my sister, friends wives.

Women tend empower men to improve and change themselves in worthwhile ways though... but that just seem to come naturally. Not out of their pushing them too...

I've been focusing so much on trying to find a girl... I've haven't considered what'll happen once I'm in a relationship.

Actually that's why it's so difficult to find someone, I'm trying to avoid those who are exactly as you describe.

And they don't exist you say... uh oh...

QFT

HEY.

I am female and my favourite game happens to be Sonic 3 and Knuckles for MEGADRIVE.

LOL Kevin and I spent the whole weekend veging out........if we weren't on his super-computer playing X2 we were on my playstation 2 playing S3K or Dragonball Z:Bukokai 3.

THAT is a date!

wow this is such crap.

i don't even know where to begin.

jezebels.... pft.

it's so lame to refer to all women like this so loosely (pun intended)... women who are like this give the rest of us slu*ty crap reputations... (which would be ok, if "slut" didn't have such a bad connotation for relationships....)

but when men do it... guys like rag would respond... well, keep my balls drained and my mouth fed and it wouldnt happen...


im not saying that i cheat or say (rag) cheats or anything of the sort... but i detest this kind of mentality that rag is putting forth.



i would be sad too if he found a woman who WANTED to live that role

Long, long ago, in a land far, far away -- there were submissive women. Seriously, there were, cal! (I'm just remarking on your interesting use of the word "probably".) You act like "submissive women" is a concept which stretches the bounds of your imagination. (Frankly, I kind of find them hard to picture, myself -- but that's because I've rarely encountered any, being born and raised in modern America in 1979.)



It would be sad that she would be happy? That's interesting. Sad for whom? Liberals who would rather such a relationship not work well? If both people are happy serving God together as the couple He created them to be, what business is it of yours to harp and sow discord between them, and otherwise denounce their relationship?

And anyway, you missed that I have given up on all women. That doesn't mean I'm still watching -- that means I'm completely done with them, relationship-wise. I can be polite and truly respectful, and I can work professionally with them, but I will never trust them profoundly or intimately.

Toward that conclusion, I also wrote that I'm not a leader. I just don't have the desire to command or lead. And therefore, I inherently lack the impluse necessary for a man to be in a healthy relationship. Some people are meant to stay single -- and I'm one of them.

Now, make no mistake -- even those guys who are leaders have their work cut out for them as far as relationships go, for they will continue to find their women both aggressively challenging and seeking to usurp their rightful authority. Therefore, the only difference between a leading man and a non-leading man is that the leader can more likely keep his woman on track, and hence, their relationship running smoothly and productively. (I say "more likely", because the woman is still capable of upsetting a smooth-running relationship to the point where it becomes nearly impossible. *I speak from personal marital experience.)

Whereas, someone like me would have too much apathy to hold the reins fulltime. I can lead well, but it's short-term -- not something I could do for even a straight month. It's simply not my natural state. And that's okay -- it just means I should be single. So really, my burden is light: It means I don't have to produce children, raise them, feed them, break my back working for them, and then possibly have them reject me after all that I've done for them. I don't have to do any of that! I just have to serve God in the ministries He's set up for me.

Not all that long ago, and right here in the
US. I know EXACTLY what you're talking about.
'Twas a time when the law allowed men to physically
beat their wives, and rape them - with no recourse
for the women. And made the penalties for trying to
run away from such abuse harsh enough that it
was simpler to endure, and hope that he found
you unattractive enough that he'd leave you alone,
and seek out a whore.

Maybe MOST men didn't demand such submission,
but those that did - you damn well know that they
were the ones who were the extreme cases of
abuse.

... rightful authority?

....

And, as we all know, there's nothing most men like better than to come home and beat the crap out of their wives and rape them . Yes, immature idiots have done this, and some still do, but talk about making the exception the rule! Most men are peace-seeking creatures. Indeed, "Most men live lives of quiet desperation" -Ralph Waldo Emerson. All they want is to provide, love, and be loved. Yet, a lot of these guys can't find any women who want to put up with them. I mean, if most men were truly as you imply -- just wanting to come home and beat their wives -- then, what are all these peaceful guys I see doing single, and saying that girls constantly reject them? Wouldn't they be in demand, because of all the big bad violent men out there which women would naturally be avoiding? Seriously, your feminism makes all men appear to be ruthless bastards. Get a clue, please -- some of us just aren't bad-boy enough to attract most women. There's a whole thread here about women always seeming to pick out the jerks and date them -- leaving, as I said, tons of decent, caring guys single and lonely. You know it's true.



What's your point? I'm not in that minority, and neither are most guys. I personally don't know even one male who wishes violence in any form whatsoever upon anyone -- and I'd be quite taken aback if I ever met such a person, even though I know they do exist.

My point is, I'm not a violent guy, and neither are millions of other single men in this country. The problem is, these peaceful, kind-hearted guys are deemed "not good enough" by competitive women hoping to find the perfect mate, and thus these perfectly-suitable guys are passed up. Therefore, peace-loving guys are clearly not considered rare, or even valuable, by the majority of females.

And then, of course, there are men are who are physically abused by their girlfriends and wives, such cases going under-reported for obvious reasons of male embarrassment. Women hit men when they are angry because they know they'll probably get away with it -- because they're the girl, and he's the guy. Therefore, if there is an official incident of domestic volence in which a wife attacks her husband, HE'S the one who will go to jail. Why? Because he is a man. (And, as others here might not already know, I've been there, done that.)