Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive 01	50		2001/07/31, 07:42 pm

By Joker on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 02:06 pm:

Toehead,

I am paying for my mistake with my blood. I just hoped I
could find another sucker besides me.

By Joker on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 02:10 pm:

BTW, my question wasn't wives vs. chicas.

By Joker on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 02:18 pm:

Or one more thing, Bookguy, I would like you to hook up
with my wife. She will hold you and won't let go 24/7. She
gotta hot temper and the testicle fascination, but you may
find her tolerable.

By San_Puto on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 06:34 pm:

"the best ones are most concerned about if the man they are
meeting has a GOOD HEART"

Thats so un-American!

By book_guy on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 08:35 pm:

Wow, what a wonderful diaspora of replies. I don't know
where to start ... how about this? THANKS!

Point one: I'm glad to know I'm not alone, in the confusion
and frustration. Somebody else at least UNDERSTANDS the
concept.

Point two: what do I want? Innocent asks. I'm sorry I wasn't
clearer. Hell, I know what I want. I want to be attractive,
in a useful and effective way, to the women whom I am
interested in meeting and dating (and eventually, of course,
"hooking up with"). I don't need a single long-term partner;
I also don't need complete abandonment in a sexual
playground. I need a sense that I am CAPABLE of landing a
good catch; and that a woman who is a good catch thinks of
ME as a good catch. That means, really nothing particularly
out-of-the-ordinary. Someone in my social group, maybe
someone who can appreciate some specifics about me while I
appreciate some specifics about her, probably different
specifics as each gender is wont, probably a great deal in
common (maybe not?), like culture and politics or at least
education; and so forth. I don't need a movie star. I don't
need lots and lots of partners, but I seem to run on the
one-month pattern ... of needing to meet new people about
that often. Maybe if I had a chance to experiment, I'd learn
how to make that one-month grow and swell; but, denied the
opportunity to try on a variety of relationship styles, from
one-night-stand to long-term, I simply have to guess what my
greater preferences are. I don't know, because I haven't
been allowed to find out. (And I never said I was interested
in figuring out how to get married -- don't worry, I'll
certainly approach THAT one with my eyes open. If I approach
it at all. I'm a little concerned that I came off as wanting
to find a marriage partner, reading some of the replies. But
this thread isn't about me anyway, so, I don't mean to
co-opt and usurp it. Just a little re-arrangement of the
situ., thanks.)

Point three: gee, nobody knows the answer. How DO you hook
up? Power and fame? no. Money? no. Just meet lots of people?
no, I'm living proof of the futility of those plans. Have a
good heart? no, not if you're not ALSO able to BREAK THE
RESISTANCE. Great guys who are shy, as mentioned, get
nowhere, despite their "good hearts". To the contrary, I
think it's got something to do with SKILLS. More on that ...
later ...

I think women LIKE it that way, that they keep themselves
secret. That, in itself, pisses me off -- that "their" (if
we can generalize; which we can't, but I'm going to anyway)
version of cooperation, is to keep the other side in
suspense. Yeah, real helpful. Then they hook up with whoever
happens to know how to break-the-ice in the most effective
manner (read: aggressive pushy assholes with dark hair,
height, great looks) and then spend their lives complaining
about the men they date. It all adds up to power-ploys and
manipulation. That's what I hate the most ... that if I
really really figure this "game" out, spend lots of time at
it (as someone suggested), my reward is to learn that I too
can cause an otherwise manipulatively aggressive and
controlling bitch to cease her manipulation JUUUUST long
enough that she'll agree to spend time with me ... heh, and
THEN what have I got? A manipulatively aggressive and
controlling bitch for a partner! Grrreeeeaaaattt ...

I understand the nihilist point of view, or is it simply
Epicurean, Kendricks? I get your idea, of chilling out. It's
repeated by El Gato and, in simliar vein, by Innocent. It's
a wise idea, to put LESS stake in the game of
meeting-and-hooking-upping; and someone said that
"detatchment" was prime. I like that idea ... very Buddhist.
Anyone want to talk more about "detatchment"? Wait, here's
the quote:

Innocent said: "nothing else drives [chicks] crazy like
being detached from the results of your encounter."

Meaning ... the less you seem to want it, the more you get
it? The more aloof and I-could-care-less, the more you
score? Well, I kind of see that, but I kind of differ. I
think it requires a special kind of performance of
detatchment. You can be totally disinterested -- like myself
for the last five years, since for most of that time I
suspected I wasn't going to be scoring and so, well, why
bother?. Total detatchment, but I ended up with nothing or
no-one, because I approached nobody and tried nothing. Just
sat there looking unhappy and bored -- didn't attract many
flies. I had to at least TRY something, right? But to try to
hook up, means (instantaneously!) appearing interested
rather than detatched. Damned if you do, damned if you
don't. It's a double-bind.

Anyway, to have the whole James-Dean-I'm-too-cool thing
going on, is a fascinating idea. Playing hard-to-get. But I
think it works better for women than for men ... because MEN
have to do the INITIATING. How does one initiate without
also indicating the desire to initiate? Technically, one
cannot. I dunno, I have no solutions to this Catch-22. You
have to want her, and not look like you want her, and make
her want you, without looking like you are trying to make
her want you, and by the way you have to plan everything
too.

See, this is my theory: what I just outlined above, is what
THE WOMEN WANT US TO THINK. That's part of that whole "I
like some things but not the things I said I like" game.
It's another level of manipulation. Maybe it isn't conscious
on their part, but all that "play hard to get" stuff, to me
... is just more PLAYING. It's yet another level of getting
co-opted into the female manipulo-sweepstakes. Get it? See
why I don't think that's the solution?

At least, not right now. I'm sure my opinion will change in
a week or so, maybe if I eat more fish or do fewer bicep
curls or something. But skills. Hmm. It DOES have something
to do with skills. What to talk about. Hmm. 76er's vaunted
famous "talk some shit" (which, cryptically, he says he can
do but then he refuses to tell us how to do ... heh ...
c'mon, a LEEETTTLE hint?). Did you know that in traditional
urban French households, the young boys are taught, from
about ages 8 to 12, how to lead a conversation and the girls
are taught how to follow it? And that both are trained in
"skills" of what they call "dialectique," which means,
roughly, argument and philosophy and conversation and social
niceties, all wrapped up in one. No wonder French men are
considered (even if they stink) superior lovers.

That's what I want to be. I want a second shot at that
"dialectique," although evidently it doesn't translate to
other locations well. I want to know what the expected (and,
more important, EFFECTIVE!) dialectic of the women I'm
meeting would be. There she is, across a crowded smoky bar,
I stride confidently up to her, she giggles as I mention
certain several somethings (somethings vaguely known as
"talking some shit", heh), and eventually we have a
soul-wrenching encounter of love and lust and passion, just
like we've all fantasized.

After that, I can choose -- CHOOSE -- to either attempt to
hook up with a different woman, because the current woman
doesn't quite match with me as well as is necessary; or
stick with the current woman because the match is so good.
Choosing to risk a break-up, of course, also risks leaving
myself single until the next time a hook-up is successful;
and no, I'm not saying I want guaranteed success, just a
high enough strike rate that I start to believe in myself,
in my own desirability, and in the fact that if I get a BAD
one, or a bad deal (such as I currently have, what with no
sex at all) that my OWN ACTIONS have SOMETHING to do with my
eventual personal wellbeing.

What do I want? Choice. The opportunity to master my own
destiny. Not to be controlled and manipulated by women
merely because "that's what they do" ever again.

What was it Eleanor Roosevelt said, about self-esteem or was
it courage or maybe pride? "Nobody can destroy you unless
you let them"? Was that the quote? Harrumph. She obviously
wasn't rejected by the women she wanted to date, too often
...

By book_guy on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 08:38 pm:

PS - Balam / gitze@hotmail.com: I'll write you soon. I hate
my Yahoo account (spam bait!) but my Hushmail account is
undergoing growing pains. Remind me in about a week or so if
you're keen, K? thanks for the offer!

By Innocent on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 08:41 pm:

San Puto,

As incredible as it sounds, the "best ones" are really most
concerned about having a GOOD HEART.

Un- American indeed.

By Kendricks on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 09:21 pm:

Book guy:

I am impressed - you really are a book guy, to have pegged
me as a nihilist so quickly. However, I do consider myself
much more of a libertine than an epicurean . . .

I think you have missed the point of detatchment, though -
this does not mean "approaching nobody and trying nothing",
it means trying as if not trying. Either half of this
equation alone will not produce the same effect.

How to hook up? Here is my formula: Go to places you like
being at, and do things you like doing. When you see a
woman you find attractive, make eye contact and smile. If
she smiles back, go say hello, and start a conversation
about anything. (Admittedly, this procedure has a higher
probability of success in Adelitas than in the real world,
but it still does have some applicability to real life).

While you are doing this, be unconcerned as to whether or
not you hook up with her. If things go well, ask for her
number, and tell her you would like to get to know her
better, or see her sometime in the future.

When I was young and single, my friends and I made a game of
it. Every time we went out, each of us had an obligation to
either get laid or get a phone number, or get rejected a
*minimum* of three times. Once any of these goals were
reached, we could then chill out, and further attempts were
simply optional. What this accomplishes is, it gets you
over the fear of rejection, and boosts your odds in the
numbers game, since you win with each girl, no matter what:
even if you get rejected, this brings you closer to the
nightly rejection total.

I hope this helps, amigo.

Kendricks

By Innocent on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 09:42 pm:

Kendricks,

Great practical clarification on the particulars
of detachment.

By Balam on Friday, July 27, 2001 - 11:08 pm:

Hey book guy,

I'll remind you. Btw, my email is QITZE@YAHOO.COM with a
"Q" not a "G". Shoulda given it in capitals.

And damn, there you go again, articulating EXACTLY what I'm
thinking:

"Point two: what do I want? Innocent asks. I'm sorry I
wasn't clearer. Hell, I know what I want. I want to be
attractive, in a useful and effective way, to the women whom
I am interested in meeting and dating (and eventually, of
course, "hooking up with"). I don't need a single long-term
partner; I also don't need complete abandonment in a sexual
playground. I need a sense that I am CAPABLE of landing a
good catch; and that a woman who is a good catch thinks of
ME as a good catch. That means, really nothing particularly
out-of-the-ordinary."

I stayed in a marriage that started out wonderful but ended
up awful for WAY too long. She was gorgeous, well educated,
sensible, committed. And I SIMPLY COULDN'T IMAGINE, given
my past history, that I would ever hook up again with
someone of that caliber. Then after my marriage--way too
easily for me to believe--I hooked up with a truly wonderful
woman via the free-newspaper personal ads; neither of us,
unfortunately, was truly ready, and so it fell apart after a
year, not for want of love--we still love each other. But
then after that the personals stopped working for me and
it's been a desert ever since--a year and a half. So
what's the point of all this? Well, like you, I vowed to
myself, I've gotta get so that I can feel EFFECTIVE when it
comes to hooking up with women. This--and prostituion--
makes me feel safe that I'll never again trap myself in a
relationship like my marriage that is no longer working.

By lerkher on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 03:58 am:

book_guy, i think you speak for a whole bunch of us.

some loosely connected thoughts:

there's a "men's relationship advice" columnist in the local
paper who makes some very simple & sensible points.
basically, if a woman is interested in you, she will make
the process easy, and if she's not you are SOL. all you can
do is try to make yourself "interesting".

when i was much younger a guy told me "if you want to get
laid (hooked-up in this context), all you have to do is roll
your self-respect into a little ball and flush it down the
toilet." this is the mechanism by which you make yourself
interesting. it took me a lot of years to find out what that
really meant.

the fact is, women control the sexual agenda in our species.
nowhere is the deck stacked more in their favor than in the
US. between our puritan heritage & the neo-victorianism of
feminism i don't think there is any place on earth where it
is harder for a man to get laid than here (cary grant & gary
condit excepted).

you sound to me like a guy who is still unwilling to
surrender his self-respect in response to sexual blackmail.
and, you've discovered the antidote - ZN.

the other bad news is that i think your goals may be a
little unrealistic. the princesses of the US are becoming
increasingly strident and demanding, not less. i don't think
they are going to give up their advantages any time soon, so
you (we) are always going to be dealing with attitude. it
might be possible to get lucky here and there, but probably
not on any dependable basis. personally, i don't see where
it's worth the effort.

so, unless kids and a family are your goal, get what you can
where you can, and don't sweat the bs.

By Joker on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 01:34 pm:

Book guy;

I was a high school loser. I thought I was good looking.
Women showed interest in me first, and then they'd lose it
quickly. When I got to college, I was still stuck up. When
I had a part-time job, I changed. I learned to be
political. I learned to be friendly towards people in
general, always smile, say hi to everyone with smile and
never show your true emotion. And crack a few jokes that
everyone can smile. One lady said everytime I showed up at
the office, the office was a lot happier place to be. Well,
my true intension was to have fun and be happy with the
work. They experienced a lot less conflict in the office,
since I started working there. And detachment to me is to
detach your emotion from how you look. Smile is a great
disguise.

I spend more time talking to people in general. Never ever
lose your smile. A little loud is OK. Be an optimist. I
smile at the ladies, and they may or may not smile back. If
they do, that's a good sign to me. After I read your posts,
I can't help but feel that you are a pessimist or you are
simply trying too hard. (I can't pinpoint what you are
trying so hard about.) Stop looking and start joking around
and smile. If you can maintain your smile no matter how
lousy you feel, you will be in for a surprise.
(One thing, if people already feel negative about you, it
probably won't work.)

If it works, you can get many women to date. A problem
would be to turn them down. I go out to lunch with ladies.
I enjoy the meal together and basically talk something funny
about my wife. Some woman gets upset that I talk about my
wife, but hey, they know I am married. And my wife
basically makes certain that my world revolves around her.
So detachment is not detachment from the desire to fu**
women, but from your emotion to me.

Well, can we get back to my question of what about Chicas
that is so exciting? I want to know how many chicas you
guys do in one night.

By Joker on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 01:39 pm:

Lerker;

Sorry I didn't read your post before I started writing mine.
Right on, dude!

By Redongdo on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 01:46 pm:

Gee Joker,

While reading your post I kept hearing "Walking On Sunshine"
by Katrina and the Waves. What a joyous place this site is!

By Ootie on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 08:46 pm:

Part of Lerkher's post hit the nail on the head:

"there's a "men's relationship advice" columnist in the
local paper who makes some very simple & sensible points.
basically, if a woman is interested in you, she will make
the process easy, and if she's not you are SOL. all you can
do is try to make yourself "interesting".

Bingo! This is as close to perfect advice as I've ever heard
concerning male / female relationships.

So how do you make yourself interesting? By becoming
genuinely interested in other people. If you REALLY care
about other people and what happens in their lives, other
people will REALLY care about you and your life. And to do
this, a person must be enthusiastic, optimistic, and less
self-centered, while pursuing the meaning of life that their
experiences have defined that meaning to be. Create positive
karma in your surroundings, whether in the real world or in
cyberspace. Should you cause negative karma, whether by an
unkind word or action, I guarantee it will come back to you
if it hasn't already. Only losers dish out negativity.

Become the best person that you can possibly be with the
cards that you have been dealt; never lament that you were
dealt a lousy hand because there will always be a million
more people who were dealt a worse hand than you (and yet
some of them have still played that "inferior" hand into a
masterpiece of life). Whenever I get depressed, I think
about the thousands of children who have cancer or other
catastrophic illnesses who never got the chance to live the
kind of life that I have experienced. How dare I complain?
What audacity I would have to do so.

Complaining about the bad hand that you've been dealt will
not only waste precious time that you could be using to
maximize your life, but it will also turn off almost
everyone you meet. Who wants to be in the company of a
complainer? Nobody. Who wants to be in the company of
someone who is genuinely interested in your well-being, is
optimistic, and is enthusiastic about all that life has to
offer? Everybody.

Should a female then still not be interested in you, who
cares about her! It means she is not worth your time. Go on
to the next one. Who wants to waste time pursuing a woman
who is not as interested in you as you are in her? Who wants
to waste feelings on such a female? Love is an equal two-way
street; one-way love is a horrible waste of time, emotion,
and energy. So don't take part in it.

And finally, if you still do not find that special someone
after becoming a person who has maximized his talents and
appreciation for life, then you were not meant to find that
special someone. And there's nothing wrong with that. More
than anything, I would love to find MY special someone and
share all that life has to offer with her. I'm still hopeful
of finding her, but if I don't, it wasn't meant to be. So in
the meantime, I will continue enjoying life to the fullest
and trying to be a positive influence on everybody I meet in
real life and in cyberspace.

It is better not to meet anyone special than to meet the
wrong person. Would you rather be like the 50% of married
couples who have ended up divorcing, and the high percentage
of the remaining couples who are unhappy? Enjoy your life in
whatever capacity it is. Be happy. Share that happiness in
whatever form with other people. And start doing it now.

A Hope this helps someone kind of guy,

Out-of-Towner

By 76ers on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 01:54 am:

Out-of-Towner,

Excellent post dude. You put it a lot more eloquently
than I did. I was a little disturbed by how rude some of
the posts have been on this thread towards a whole group of
people. I try to look for something to like in everybody,
be it a man or a woman (I may look at every decent looking
woman in a sexual way at first, but I don't act on it unless
it will be reciprocated). I give everyone a chance; I may
have a few pre-conceived notions, but everyone has them
(even though many won't admit to it). I have trouble
blaming other people for what happens / has happened to me.
If someone fucks me over, they're gone and I don't spend
time agonizing about it (well maybe a little time). But I
don't strike out an entire section of the population when
some of the blame for past experiences would lie at my own
feet. I was ready to pass out hankies for all the crying
that was going on earlier. No offense of course guys!


[maybe I'm in a bad mood because I didn't get any tonight
hehehehehe

By Senor Pauncho on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 07:46 am:

Ootie,
When you say "So how do you make yourself interesting? By
becoming genuinely interested in other people.", sounds like
you've been reading Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends ans
Influence People". My copy is so old it cost 35 cents new.
IMHO, the principles espoused within apply even more so in
Mexico. The everyday mexican (on the street, not
necessarily in the zone) is very interested in people - and
is a very interesting person. We all have something
interesting to share.

By Lovesthezona on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 04:04 pm:

Ootie,
Kudos to a got-his-head-on-straight-kind-of-guy!
It sounds like my "respect everyone and TRY not to make
generalizations" way of thinking, not only when in Mexico
but in everyday life. Its absolutely amazing how far a smile
and a few pleasant words will go. Actually the amazing part
is how long it takes to figure that out.
Drop me an email next time youre heading to the zona
lovesthezona@hotmail.com.
First round is on me!
LTZ

By book_guy on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 06:02 pm:

Hey guys, great discussion of some issues I've raised. I'm
glad to see other people are thinking about them. I'm
certainly not going to disagree with some of the intelligent
advice given here -- especially the one about positive
attitude and outlook (your appearance towards others)
SMILE!!; and the one about the idea that "being distanced"
didn't mean that you had to be SOOOO distanced that you
didn't approach anyone; and the one of the fact that you
can't base your own sense of self-esteem on whether or not
the other person approves of you; instead, you just know
that they're not worth worrying over, if they're so silly as
to not want to be with you. In fact, I often think of myself
as someone who is so comfortable with his understanding of
these ideas, that it's almost ironic that I had to come to
this board to get a reminder of them. Maybe I've let them
(and others) slip a bit in the last few years; or maybe they
actually don't go very far at all to helping a guy pick up
chicks. I dunno. Oh, also, thanks for the reminder about not
generalizing. It's always a good idea ... ;)

I think it's time to put the "how to pick up chicks" thread
down for a while and talk about the original point of this
sub-topic, which is ... why are chicas so appealing? Well, I
don't have any experience in Tijuana specifically, but I do
know that there are some totally natural reasons that
liaisons with "workers" are often more compelling (as in,
you feel compelled to engage in them) than those with
"civilians".

One. They take the lead. Or at least, they don't PUNISH a
man for being overt and forward and needy. Here's what I
mean. Culturally (and perhaps biologically?) males are
expected to initiate the act of mating and dating, by doing
the first asking, making the first move, pushing the
envelope and backing off from it many many times. But many
males are not endowed with the skills necessary to start
something that would work. They know how to start other
stuff -- cars, or bullfights. I mean, sure, we all know ya
gotta ask, but often the very METHOD of asking, or even the
very fact that you're doing it AT ALL, is EXACTLY the thing
that prevents you from hooking up with the civilian chick.
Guys are painfully aware of this double-bind with civilian
girls -- that we must start things up, but the very idea
that we have started things up, is exactly what stops
things. With providers, the ratio runs in the inverse -- the
harder you try to start stuff up, the MORE likely something
will start up. That's one reason we like 'em ... the
initiative is in our favor. Sometimes the female actually
TAKES the initiative; sometimes she just approves of it when
WE take the initiative; but always, initiative is not a
double-edged sword.

Two. We like 'em cuz it's OK to dump 'em. With most of the
civilian women I've ever tried to be intimate with, I had
some kind of social connection that led me to her. Sure,
there were the people I tried to meet at a bar, who were
total strangers to me before (and after!) my sleazy pick-up
line, but mostly we average guys connect with civilian women
through our normal social network: friends, relations, work,
church (I don't sanction superstition, but I guess some of
you do ...), etc.. Rejecting a woman who comes recommended
by a friend, or who is the sister of a buddy's wife, has
implications beyond merely your interaction with that one
woman. Rejecting a provider, or not returning to her, is the
normal pattern. That's another reason.

Three. Looks. 99% of the civilian women I meet are by far
uglier than 99% of the provider women I meet. Hands down,
the civilians (I do live in North America after all) "let
themselves go" or "couldn't handle the challenge of looking
good enough." I'm not even talking about the many crappy
political implications of the fact that we males are
"supposed" to not look at looks and are "supposed" to be
deeper than that (riiiiight). I'm just saying, civilians are
ugly. They think it's important to be ugly. They are PROUD
of telling themselves that going to the gym is somehow
"selling out" to men's desire to manipulate and limit their
body size. The few who know, that people are all judged by
appearance and that getting ahead by ANY means necessary is
a profoundly self-affirming and life-affirming principle,
are already so elite that most of us will never MEET those
good-looking female civilians, much less BED them.

Four. Bedding takes place before emotioning. If I can coin a
term. I genuinely believe that NO productive relationship
(never generalize, heehee) can come of two people sitting
around talk talk talking to each other over expensive
lobster dinners, unless they have FIRST done the nasty. I
think most civilian women know this viscerally as well,
although many of them (cowed as they are by the North
American dating stereotypes) feel very "used" if they allow
the sexuality to precede the emotions. They will complain,
or resist, the idea of sexuality being the doorway through
which intense and emotionally supportive, meaningful human
interactions take place; but they are inherently incapable
(as are all humans) of going about it in any other manner.
Consequently, getting with them is a big backwards process.
With providers, it goes the other way. Those of you who
"fall" for a provider, whether she's your favorita or
actually becomes your life-mate, know that the emotions were
NOT going to arise BEFORE you had sex. The raw animal
limbicness has to be there first. And for men, who are
allowed to feel that way, spending a lifetime surrounded by
women who deny that they feel that way is a frustration.
Walking into a haven of providers, is walking into
affirmation that LIFE AND SEX go together, and are not
strangely disjunct or supposed to be separated. That's
another reason we like providers ... it "feels" like the
right way to go about meeting a human. See 'em, size 'em up,
sniff 'em, do something physical with 'em (if she's ugly,
slap her on the back and give her a beer; if it's a guy,
play sports; if she's hot, fuck her), and THEN through that
process find out more about them. That's the way all
primates do it.

So those are my theories. Is that what you were asking, way
back at the top of this thread? Gee, this has been
interesting.

By Senor Pauncho on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 07:53 pm:

I would say somethig like "My heart seems to follow my
pelvis", and i have before noted that "for a man, having sex
is a good way to MAYBE fall in love", and for a woman,
"falling in love is a good way to MAYBE have sex" or
something like that. A good way to describe the difference
between men and women.

By book_guy on Sunday, July 29, 2001 - 08:28 pm:

Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't agree with ya. In North
America, the women (and most of the men) are TAUGHT that
women have to have emotional responses before they can have
sexual responses. But it's simply not true -- in my
experience, if you let the woman walk the road in that
order, the sexual response is either "contrived" or never
forth-coming at all. Further, I believe, the REASON we're
taught here that women work in that order (emotions before
sex) is SO THAT WOMEN CAN CONTROL MEN. It's just another
part of the whole myth of sex-is-bad, boy-pays girl-picks,
etc. etc.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe it isn't
ACTUALLY the truth inside the women's heads. I just have a
visceral grasp of the way people work, not just from my own
insides but from watching them respond. Women who have a
gut-level LUST (although they may call it, "I felt all warm
and fuzzy inside" hahaha) for a guy, can move on to being
"comfortable" (their term for turned-on) around him, and
they'll rationalize that "it was meant to be" or "we're soul
mates" when actually, they're just horny. So, basically,
they TALK themselves into believing that the emotions came
first, but upon closer inspection, they are also primates.
Just like guys.

By Innocent on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 07:07 am:

Book guy,

You are talking the words out of my mouth

By San_Puto on Monday, July 30, 2001 - 10:47 pm:

Anyone know where I can get a deal on a case of Dramamene?

SanPuto,

Now that was cold. HEEHEEHEE

How about a case of Canitas instead.

I just hooked up with a hot little girlfriend locally and let me tell you my mongering is on hold. Was mongering in the first place because wifey can only stand it once a month despite a lot of effort on my part. A few years ago I gave up that shit and started trips to TJ. Was also on various online personal services owning up to being married looking for fun on the side. Just sent a photo (of my FACE!) and a short bio - 50ish with a beer belly kind of a fat Sean Connery I like to think - to most any girls who didn't explicitly state "no married men." After three months I just rang this lady's bell I guess coz she can't keep her hands off me and now I do her regularly at her place which is only 15 mins away. She's 40ish probably a 4 or 5 in looks but the chemistry is right and I'll take a friendly GFE with a 4 than paying for it with a 10 any day. It's a real ego trip to just look at a woman funny and maybe kiss her neck to have her wet her panties! That never happened to me before. She loves to suck cock but hasn't learnt the right technique quite, so maybe I should do one more TJ trip to get a couple of BJs from Rosa Maria so I can pass on the wealth! Got to work on that Connery voice too - Poosy! Here Poosy Poosy!

Tell her its a popsicle and she cant let it leak out.

On the topic American girls v. chicas.

Here are a few characteristics of American women, that made me decide to give them up a long time ago.

The attitude of being easily offended. No matter what you say they are going to take it the wrong way and act offended. This is really a power play and an indication of the lop-sided balance of power in American in favor of women. As they say, "The powerful can afford to be offended by trivial things".

When I was with American women, I always felt like I was being treated like a beggar in the presence of a princess. Her attitude is show me what you got and are you any different than the 500 other guys after me.

There are the immature women. Fifety year old women who are no more mature than a 20 year old. Then there are the flakey women. The last American woman I ever went out with, I met on AOL. We corresponded for about a month and talked on the phone. Everything seemed great and we were like buddies going to meet for the first time. When we met I took her out to dinner and was perfectly polite to her. When I got back to her house, she starts flaking out on my and says something like "I don't have a good feeling about you and think you should leave. It's an intuition and I may be wrong, but I trust my intuition". Well, I trust my intuition too. I have an intuition that American women are flakey bitches I and I want nothing to do with them.

As for the TJ chicas. I get girlfriend sex every week I go to TJ. One of the reasons why, is because I bothered to learn Spanish and can speak with them. I took every Spanish class in my community college and can carry on a conversation (although I am still not fluent). I have no trouble meeting a new chica every week and getting GF sex an hour later. And over half the times, she gives me a bare back blow job without being asked.

After discovering TJ, it was impossible to go back to AW. If I can go to TJ every week, relax, drink bear, eat peanuts, hang out in a place I am now truly comfortable in, watch the strippers, grope and fondle the strippers, and then pick up a hot new chica and take her up to the room, what possible motivation do I have to trade that in for a club in Newport Beach where I will receive rejection from cold, hostile, uppity bitches, most of whom are not as nearly attractive as what I am getting in TJ. So, ended my relationships with American women.

Have to agree with you.

Listen, I live in Boston and there are definately sub-groups within America. In general, if you talk to a girl in a bar in Florida or South Carolina, she likes you a little bit, buy her a drink, you're gonna get something. In the Northeast, New York or Boston, you have a lot of 4's (who look 6-7 with expensive makeup and clothes, but everybody goes up points for good dress). All they want to do is find a really hot, rich guy so they can rub it in their friend's faces. They are "Pinto" girls (high maintenance, low performance, rust very quickly with age). I've taken girls out who liked me, did the 'right' things, and got a lousy kiss afterwards. Then they got mad that I didn't call them after the date. My attitude is, if I take a girl out, she says she likes me, she isn't religious, but then only gives me a smooch, I'm not chasing it. The hunted fox has to give the hound a good smell that says she's still involved.

Ocassionally they give in (very rarely) and will have a hook-up (even more rarely all the way)... I live in a city with the highest pop of college girls where girls outnumber men 1.5 to 1 and still girls are bitchy. IMHO, This is because of the JAP-complex. Men's wives treat them like shit, so they dump loads of affection (gifts, attention) on their daughters. Their daughters see this and think men are supposed to lavish them with affection, and women can just treat men like shit. You don't have to be Jewish to be a JAP... there are plenty of Italian, Irish, and WASP JAPs in this country.

The secret to picking up American women:
1. Surround yourself with girlfriends (they see you with other women and think all women want you. Women can't think for themselves, they're herd-animals).
2. Be flirtatious, then aloof (nothing makes them hotter than if they think you like them then they're not really sure later on)
3. Good wingman to block the cockblocker. Nothing pisses a chick off than when her friends are getting the attention but not her. She'll do anything to sabotage it.
4. Find the most outrageous girl at the club. The one that's having 'fun'. That's the one most likely to fuck you, and the most fun to be with. The ones that stick close together are very concerned about 'not looking like a slut' etc etc
5. Lots of luck, and sometimes lots of money.
Also, the all the girls are attracted to the same 1 or 2 guys in the club, whereas men can find all kinds of women attractive. They all fight over those 1 or 2 guys ("I'm the woman, I got the hot one, nah nah n-nah nah") to one-up their friends.

I much prefer Southerners, New Hampshire snowbunnies, and foreign chicks. I've had the best luck there, and they appreciate guys that aren't jerks - not to mention far superior in the sack.

One last complaint. It's hard to find a lady. American women always bitch about where gentlemen are. The gentlemen have found real girls who look after them, or bang women across the globe. American girls can't use silverware properly, slam doors, walk like they're wearing diapers, are uninformed about even local events, and have no understanding of economics or philosophy, but consider themselves 'educated' and 'cultured' (hint: Watching Lifetime and seeing a couple of showings of Cats or Rent does not make one cultured). My lesbian friend and I went out, she brought this girl (obviously lesbian, even my gaydar showed incoming bogies) a drink. The girl didn't even thank her or acknowledge her - no class. American girls love to reject guys or those that are hitting on them, it reinforces their feeling of power.

Why should a guy who's got character, brains, and money put up with a trifling, whiny, lithium-popping, kinda flabby, overly made-up, self-concious, arrogant hag?

I have to agree with Book_Guy... a guy will say "I want to sow my oats"; a woman will say "I want to see other people".

Final Point: American women are VERY shallow. I have been both skinny and chunky (20-30 lb overweight, still allright lookin' though). When I was skinny I got laid all the time. When I was chunky, I rarely got laid. Now I'm skinny again, I get laid again. I have no problem talking to chicks and most people consider me a charmer. I am in my mid-twenties btw.

The best time in my life was in Bulgaria. I slept with 3 girls in four days, all fun girls I met at the beach, and communnicated only in my bad German, their bad English, and the international language of Roman Hands and Russian Fingers.

Shit, I've written a novel.

I used to believe all the PC offical society stuff about women and men, then I learned, and listened to people with experience. Now I know better.

Peace Gents

Yep, I stay lean. If you're getting laid pretty good in your mid 20s, wait til you're in your 30s.

I have spent the last hour reading this whole thread and have to concur with the antagonist... women are exactly what they have decided they need to be in western culture... feminist, gold-digging whores with no interest in men except for what can be done for them, now and later.

Find them, fuck them and then fuck them off. Oh yeah, like the majority of men in America... I'm divorced.

I'm consistently amazed at a human female's capacity to create circumstances in which self-directed behavior (of all the sorts which psychologists mean by that term) can be justified / rationalized / allowed to continue. The entire notion of Western historical philosophy's concept of "altruism" needs to be reconsidered in the post-feminist universe ... perhaps redefined entirely. To be fair, women stun me with remarkable discoveries about the depths of the human heart, and about their capacity for emotional empathy and understanding, at the oddest and most welcome moments. Nevertheless, in spite of such rare serendipitous moments, women are broken, to put not too short a point on it.


(Message edited by book_guy on June 17, 2003)

"I'm consistently amazed at a human female's capacity to create circumstances in which self-directed behavior (of all the sorts which psychologists mean by that term) can be justified / rationalized / allowed to continue."

Along the lines of how men and women are different I once read a book by this woman who tried her best, and failed, to rationalize the types of behavior that men and women do. Her point about women was that they like to talk about their problems and want men to participate in the discussion. However, and these are more of my words than hers, these women have absolutely no interest whatsoever in actually doing something about the problems. The author claimed that this is where men fail to understand women because men are geared towards action. I had no problem with this except that the author seemed to find nothing really wrong with simply talking about a problem, forever and ever (my words again), and never going beyond the words.

So much of what women do seems to fall into the fantasy world of soap operas where happiness and harmony are things to be tilted or jolted when they do occure. I know women would find that offensive but that's too bad. I truly think the typical woman is only happy when she is unhappy. Or better yet, making someone around her unhappy. We are getting close to almost 30 years of women in our society being "equal" in the workplace and elsewhere. It has been a great experiment to observe to see if they are any different from men in how they react to their envionment and what they take from it to enhance their lives and those around them. So far I haven't been the least bit impressed.

Different philosophies of life sometimes talk about the importance of balance or harmony. Few of us on this board probably qualify for "harmony of the month". Maybe the search for the perfect pussy or the perfect GFE can qualify for entries. At least we are doing something and many of us seem to actually be happier than we once were. I don't know what kind of message boards for women would equate to our boards dealing with paid sex but I bet that their posters aren't having half the fun that we do.

I certainly don't know what kind of message-boards women could concoct to be a parallel to the paid sex experience, either. Make-up? Party favors?

Your discussion of the female tendency to dramatize, and to wish to talk about their problems, is a familiar generalization. I do agree, that when women get in that talking mode, all they want is validation ("I hear you saying you feel like what you say you are feeling like.") than solutions ("Why don't you go get a job and shut the fuck up?"). It's been said on these boards before.

But when I mentioned "self-directed" behavior, though, I was talking less about the whiny bitchy moany side of womankind, as the INCREDIBLY conniving and selfish. You know, the way an American wife can be bloated and hideous and wildly money-spending and still complain that her husband isn't good enough, and BELIEVE her own complaints. You know, the way a bar girl can keep seventeen different mislead inexperienced mongers on a string to send money for her sick water buffalo, and NOT MIND her own machinations. They don't give men what men want, and instead of doing as men do (fight like hell to try to figure out what the other side wants) they do ... nothing. "Well, he doesn't get what he wants. He's male. Males aren't to be catered to."

It's not that they do these things. It's that they seem to think that doing these things is OK. At least when guys fuck up, we sorta think, "Hey, I guess I'm flawed and I hope to do better next time." Women don't seem to have that concept, of there being STANDARDS by which their behavior might be judged. It all seems to come down to, "What's wrong with doing what I'm doing? I do it because I'm doing it, and I'm doing it right now, and what's wrong with that?" and anyone (male?) can easily see there's no justification in that circular argument, just rationalization.

The thing is, that we men like to "sit around and talk about" our situations, too ... it's just that we don't tend to focus on the problems. Look at this website. It's full of Trip Reports. Absolutely ALL of that huge load of typing, is about sitting around and "talking" (in an internet form) about things in a supportive community. It's our equivalent of asking for, "Please tell me that you hear me when I say that I am feeling what I am feeling." But it's GOOD feelings that we want OTHER MEN to share.

Sure, there's some ego-gratification. "I got three blowjobs for the price of one!" And there's the fun of typing up helpful advice. "Take a left at Nana Plaza and flash the high sign and Federico will lead you to four sisters who are all toothless sucking machines."

And there's always a degree of unfairness in any generalization. I've met plenty of women who don't fit into the crappy description I've given above. But those decent people aren't the norm, and aren't members of a community who wish for them to be the norm.

Let me generalize differently. In our society -- or perhaps it's entirely biological, even -- we teach men to be altruistic. Men sign up for, and get killed at, war. Men get jobs we don't like "in order to support the kids." Men allow other people's perception of the "proper" relationship to color our own expectations about life, to the extent that most of us even give up on multiple partnerships (what we biologically require) simply in order to have one at all. Men sign up for the whole "you tell me what to do and I'll make sure I do the right thing" mode of life.

Women, on the other hand, are taught to be selfish. That might change a bit, but I don't see feminism leading to equal responsibilities. So, deep down, at the core of her behavior, whether she's a garota in a Rio terma or your pigstye of a wife in Peoria, her modus operandi is strictly, "what's in it for me." Luckily, she's so BAD at solving problems, that she seldom gets to go about GETTING what's in it for her. Maybe we men should stop suggesting solutions, for fear that if we give them enough of them, they actually WILL be able to take over.

An interesting side-note, to this whole affair, is that my travels in mongerhood have been eye-opening precisely because of the same reason. I've learned to live with people who have their eye firmly on the prize -- "What's in it for me." Adelita's Bar girls who HAVE TO remember their financial bottom line at the end of the night, Bangkok spinners whose whole thought about being your three-week girlfriend is, "then I don't have to be anyone's girlfriend for a week." NEVER do they ALLOW themselves to develop an altruistic streak -- they can't.

And with that, I've learned to kick out a bit of my own dysfunctional altruisms. I've discovered that there are appropriate times to be selfish. The men who "get places" in this life, are the ones who can reconcile their need to be "real men" in one altruistic form, with their desire to be "selfish men" in the other form. To go for what they want and know how to get it.

Which is, come to think of it, the one thing a woman really wants in a man after all.


(Message edited by book_guy on June 23, 2003)

Book Guy, as always your posts make me stop and think. Maybe I don't agree sometimes but at least we are going somewhere. That kind of dovetails with your comments about men sharing the good, and bad, stuff. When women do share it seems to be either the bad stuff or else it is done in the manner of lording it over another person.

I've got something here for you. I just picked this up off of another site which deals with US escorts in a particular US region. A section of the board is for the women to post things for each other. Why they let the men read this area is beyond me since most of the comments are pretty derogatory. Par for the course with women I guess.

Anyway, a question was posed by one of the women who is having problems with some of her clients. This matches perfectly with an ongoing thread elsewhere on this board. While I tend to understand much of what the following woman wrote I found her overall attitude to be typical of American women in general. And a perfect illustration of why so many guys really don't want to have much to deal with them unless they have to.

Question: How do you deal with clients who are looking for a girlfriend?

"This is the problem I hated most about being an escort. Delusional guys thinking I could be their girlfriend because they liked my looks and thought I was a really "sweet girl." But they knew nothing, NOTHING about me, nor would they really care if they did. What they like is how YOU relate to THEM. They'll make up some perfect-girlfriend image of you in their mind and disregard the fact that you're being paid to act like a little sweetie and tell them anything they wanted to hear. Paid to pretend being sexually and mentally attracted them.

This is the kind of client that made me feel truly dirty, because they constantly pushed me for emotions I simply wasn't feeling...not to mention trying to sneak in some DFK, trying hang around longer than the scheduled time, asking me on a real date, asking personal questions about my real name and where I live, asking for discounts or if they could pay me next time...

It always bummed me out because they'd usually start off as good, steady, fun clients, but once you see them so many times they start thinking there's some kind of relationship, and they start pushing, trying to get you exclusively for themselves. So I'd just stop returning their calls. Usually they took the hint."

Yeah, I get you on that quote. She seems pissed off that the men would like her because she makes herself likeable -- as though giving a male what a male wants, somehow makes her dirty. Funny view of human interaction, there.

I've just thought of another interesting generalization, that is actually a lot more positive about womankind, and I'd like to include it in this thread simply because I'm feeling that I've been rather negative for a while.

Here's a concept: when you go to foreign countries, you often meet more of the lower-class members of that country than you do when you stay at home. In America, I know computer programmers and journalists and all my college-graduate buddies. But in Germany, I met train conductors and museum attendants and bartenders and street hustlers. If I hadn't taken this skewed population into account, I might have mistakenly misunderstood that the "typical" German was as bloated, bigoted, and uneducated as I had experienced.

But then I remembered that I wasn't meeting German computer programmers, precisely because I was only a tourist in their country. If I'd moved there, or done business there, maybe I would have met more "sane" people, whether they were largely lower-class or not. And probably, some of the mongers on this board have had similar experiences, in which the level of acquaintances in a country change radically from a tourist trip to a move-in. Go to Columbia as a weekender, get treated as a dirty gringo with a big wallet. Move in, realize just how friendly and genuine the average Latin American can be.

So, with that distinction in mind, I offer you a parallel distinction. Perhaps those of us who are tourists in womankind-land end up with negative impressions of women, whereas those who can land there and move in for a stay actually start to find women who are more genuine and friendly.

It isn't that I want to say, that our own skewed perspective "changes" the women that we're meeting -- no, no, that would give too many shitty females the license to remain shitty. Rather, I'd like to suggest that there can be a few diamonds out there, but that our notion of tourism kind of makes it impossible to find them.

Maybe that's the case, maybe not, I don't know. I do know of plenty of men who thought they were genuinely moving in to a long-term stay with a woman and still found out she was strikingly selfish, so in the long run my previous generalization is probably going to have to hold sway over this new one. But I thought I'd offer the new one just for the sake of some thought, anyway.

Too many episodes of "Sex and the City" and you can really start to wonder if they don't all just deserve a slap upside da head ...

(Message edited by book_guy on June 24, 2003)

Class envy?

You have a very interesting observation here. The odds that the foreign sex worker you meet is from a lower class is probably true. Now I have to ask, are these women comparatively friendlier than American women as a whole because of their economic and social background or is it because of their overall society? Does that mean we should be hanging out with Amber Lee down at the Happy Spot Trailer Park? Since very few of us ever have to opportunity to mingle socially with the middle and upper classes of the countries we visit we may never know the answer to my question.

What we do know is that the failure rate of cross cultural marriages, especially when they move to the US, is probably a sign that once we finally learn to speak a common language we swiftly find little in common. When you don't know what the other person is saying it is far too easy to imbue the person with any number of atttributes.

My own personal experience from living and interacting in a Spanish speaking country was that once I learned the language I tended to associate more with people from a background of higher education. There were major differences within the society in how they viewed the world and their own position. One thing that did remain constant was the degree of warmth and friendliness overall. I am willing to bet that is the same most anywhere.

In the preceding discussion, I hadn't so much meant to indicate that there might be distinctions in socio-economic class background (although that is probably a fair generalization) as in "attitudinal" background. There are cool people, and assholes, in all social classes. But people who experience the limited life of being a museum ticket taker are not only lower-class (and probably from a lower-class background of assumptions, as well) but also aren't very on-the-ball. Their lack of cooperativeness, or lack of job skills, or lack of positive attitude, has relegated them (at least in Germany) to a dolt's job, and it shows when you interact with them. My only point was, not to judge ALL Germans on the basis of those dolts that you meet more of when you're a tourist. It's related to socio-economic class distinctions, but only tangentially. It's more, about who has "got the concept" of how to be a nice person.

As far as chicas versus American women goes (the subject of this thread, after all) I think there are a large large number of American women who genuinely don't have the concept. As was stated earlier, by Thunar ...

"It's hard to find a lady. American women always bitch about where gentlemen are. The gentlemen have found real girls who look after them, or bang women across the globe. American girls can't use silverware properly, slam doors, walk like they're wearing diapers, are uninformed about even local events, and have no understanding of economics or philosophy, but consider themselves 'educated' and 'cultured' (hint: Watching Lifetime and seeing a couple of showings of Cats or Rent does not make one cultured). My lesbian friend and I went out, she brought this girl (obviously lesbian, even my gaydar showed incoming bogies) a drink. The girl didn't even thank her or acknowledge her - no class. American girls love to reject guys or those that are hitting on them, it reinforces their feeling of power.

Why should a guy who's got character, brains, and money put up with a trifling, whiny, lithium-popping, kinda flabby, overly made-up, self-concious, arrogant hag?"

So, his comment isn't so much about the battle of the sexes -- in which (the old saw) she resists sex to get him to put up commitment and economic support, etc. etc. -- as the LACK OF QUALITY that he bemoans in American women. To extend Thunar's comments, they read USA Today and think they're informed; watch CNN and think they know the news; compare Gore and Bush and think they understand the entire potential range of political choices; believe the only sports with world champions are either baseball or Olympic ...

In short, they're too American for my tastes. What's missing is worldly awareness. But that's just part of the equation. And it doesn't solve any problems, it just identifies them.

For me, I can't even land an ugly American chick as a girlfriend. Sometimes I "get lucky" (and this goes more to the subject of the game played between the genders, as enforced by females; rather than the lack of quality in the females) but usually even the mediocre ones for some reason (many reasons?) attend to other guys. To up the quality of the women -- to find a really classy French or Colombian woman, for example, who could actually be enticing to me -- even FURTHER skews the balance away from my favor.

It's a loser's game, I'm tellin' ya. Somehow I'll get to the bottom of this, I'm sure. So far this has been an interesting conversation.


(Message edited by book_guy on June 26, 2003)

So far, ain't noone round here had nuthin good to say bout the womenfolk of our own country. As fars I can tell my ladys have been purty damn good to me. Now I never been to any of these cuntries where yall say the girls is so eksotic an all so maybe I needs to get there afore I ken say so I jes bought my first trip on account of I figger its time for me to larn whats all the fuss about.
Now accordin to yall Brazil is the best place for women. So im headin ther in September to see for my own self. Yall been real quiet bout speekin up for our American girls so i guess ill find out for my own if its real and all. I still just hope I dont end up like some of yall to where I cant say nothing good about my own kinfolk

Don't worry Bammer . I'm sure yall still be likely to get hitched up with your own kinfolk after your trip. Ain't nothin beats bangin your sister or cousin , right ??

Bammer: You've been hopping around from thread to thread like an out of control Mexican jumping bean. That is probably why you haven't seen any of my posts in other threads touting the virtues of womenfolk from your parts. But as I said before:

There once was a moonshiner named Bammer
Who spent most of his life in the slammer
While there he fantasized about his dog Rover
At the same time he was in the shower bent over.

I hope that clarifies the matter.