Hey all,

Of course Women are the joys of our lives, (and downfalls).

My particular situation is that I've been divorced a couple of years and of course get the Manly urge. I've only went on a couple of dates and yes the companionship was great but it never got to sex.

I'm at a point in life where money and savings are VERY important. I try to keep that focus, but invariably I get a couple of shots of Bourbon in me and I start looking for some Womanly charms.

It is a curse. Without fail, a few romantic compliments and a dinner (on me of course. I am a Gentleman) the simple few dates that I look for, are interpreted by the Woman as an intro into a full blown relationship. 

I'm trying to SAVE money, not invest it into a RELATIONSHIP, as the females call it.

Hell, I'm beginning to think I just need to go south of the border a couple of times a month.

Anybody else in this boat?

Views: 1129

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not in your boat but maybe you are not attracting the type of women you want by not being honest with them. You say you are being a gentleman, but you are not. By the sounds of it, you are pretending to be what you think women want (a gentleman who's looking for companionship, caring for a women, buying dinner, complimenting them, etc) and taking the girl on a few dates and then are getting pissed when they don't return your "acts" of gentlemanly kindness with sex. Then, despite the fact that you've been dating them and thereby leading them on to think you have intentions other than sex, you are getting mad they assume you want a relationship.

I think if sex is your goal you have to be more upfront with your desires and expectations. I'm sure there are women out there who desire the same as there are plenty (especially as they get past their 20s and mother nature is reminding them that feminism cannot overcome biology) who have zero interest in such an arrangement.

I don't know your age but since you are old enough to be divorced yet young enough to be more obsessed with money than legacy, I'm putting you in the 30-40s range. Unless you happen to look like Brad Pitt, I think your choices of women who just want sex is probably not going to overlap with the type of women you are going to find desirable. Or then again, maybe I'm wrong. As I said, I'm not in your boat so I don't know.

What I do know though is that unless you figure out A) what you want from women, and B) can present that desire in an open and honest way without feeling like you have to hide it behind whatever you think a gentleman is suppose to be, you are in for a long time of disappointment.

Good luck.

I was going to write a lengthy reply but all I can now say is that I echo the words of Nick H.  He summed it up perfectly when he stated you should be "more upfront with your desires and expectations.", otherwise you will no-doubt continue to be "cursed" as you put it. Evidenced by your own words, it seems that you are guilty of at least some form of duplicity when you purport to be a gentleman yet your astucious intentions and conduct are contrary to that of a gentleman.


Being up front with my desires and expectations has been a massive benefit on that front.  Do fun stuff with the ladies you want to do fun stuff with.  Talk about what interests you.  If sex is what interests you, steer the conversation in that direction.

If you're having fun, drinking, dancing, bowling, playing darts, watching movies, arguing, whatever .. that is better (IMO) than enduring an expensive dinner with someone who isn't interested in having fun :)

Unfortunately, I've discovered that women aren't always honest with you or themselves regarding what they want.  C'est la vie.

Stop doing dinner, go for drinks and/or dancing. Beef up the physical contact and not worry about the beef. Show yourself to be physical rather than romantic. You can still be a complete gentleman doing this. Remember, you have to create a type of sexually charged atmosphere and desire to move to sex.

Name's Bond.

James Bond.

This reminds me of something I was reading in Graeber's "Debt" this morning. In the 19th century, European explorers would provide free medical aid to sick Africans, then the Africans would demand presents. The Europeans would get indignant. But in the African societies, Graeber imagines, chiefs gave their right-hand-men presents. Asking for presents was volunteering to be a right-hand-man in return for having your life saved.

Your problem is you're a European explorer and you're dating African villagers (or vice versa). You think a few dates means you get no-strings-attached sex; your dates think it means you get more dates. You need to find women who share your worldview. Unfortunately, dating cultures aren't as clearly divided as 19th century nationalities. You can signal your worldview by just going for drinks and only paying some of the time.

I'd point out that your current system seems to be a reversion to barter, but apparently that's an Enlightenment myth. Anthropologists only see barter where there has been or is a cash money supply. Still, to be very clear about your worldview, cash is more convenient that perishable goods.

Best advice I heard yet. 

Dates ain't doing it. I just want a woman. No need for them yet.

Be clear about your intentions and identity.  I'm sure you're creative enough to say it in ways that don't make you seem a complete asshole.  Don't call more than once a week until they understand.  Absolutely do not call the day after, wait a day.

Magnus. I think your post is saying the same as the OP. Like him, you are acknowledging that you think that a man who desires sex without the relationship is an asshole yet rather than act in a way that fits with your idea of a non-asshole you think he should be "creative" (ie lie) in order to be an asshole secretively. Also, not calling until time X is just silly.

If a man is comfortable with the idea of no-strings attached sex then why can't he just be upfront with that desire. Doing that, although will limit the field a bit, will at least remove the need to be "creative".

Let's say he learned from Mr. Bill Clinton.

Bill even sounded like he was being "creative" in his autobiography. I listened to his followed by Bush's. Before hand I would have considered myself as a fan of Bill and not one of George (I would have been one of those to laugh at the jokes about him). But after their book's (and read by them personally), I felt that Bush had a real sincerity and a true sense of character and morality that shows how unfair the media were at bashing him while in office (whether one agrees with his policies or not) that was clearly lacking in Clinton.


Put it this way. If they both made a mistake like if they rearended your car, I think Bush would come out and admit it without being forced while Clinton would dodge responsibility even if you had the evidence in front of him.


Hmmm...this is treading on polsci talk and best left for TGD. Apologies for anyone I've offended.

Yeah, we don't need to get into politics--but I appreciate what you say; it is very decent.

Now, back to my jokes: If he didn't learn from Mr. Clinton, then surely from JFK!


Latest Activity

Shane replied to Shane's discussion Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse... in the group The Great Debate
"Get back to me when you actually understand the merits of the case."
27 minutes ago
Shane replied to Shane's discussion Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse... in the group The Great Debate
"You keep acting like the NSA is the Stasi. Quantum data farm in Bluffdale notwithstanding, I don't think you understand there are real world physical limitations to the abilities you ascribe to the NSA."
29 minutes ago
Jay D replied to Shane's discussion Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse... in the group The Great Debate
"Yes, but what does that have to do with what i said?"
45 minutes ago
David E. E., Ed.D. replied to Pope Paul's discussion 10 Rules to Being a Gentleman in 2015
"Point taken."
55 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Pope Paul's discussion 10 Rules to Being a Gentleman in 2015
"Would you consider name calling the work of the man or that of the child? Hulk Childishness belligerent neanderthal"
1 hour ago
David E. E., Ed.D. replied to Pope Paul's discussion 10 Rules to Being a Gentleman in 2015
"I have been deliberating on that idea for some time.  It is why there are very few posts from me.  I am trying to engage in the conversation again."
1 hour ago
Steve Dallas replied to Shane's discussion Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse... in the group The Great Debate
"You keep saying the word illegally, but I don't think you even know what you are saying anymore."
1 hour ago
David E. E., Ed.D. replied to Pope Paul's discussion 10 Rules to Being a Gentleman in 2015
"There is a vast chasm between standing up for oneself and being belligerent.  The comments of several men on this site too quickly edge toward childishness rather than manliness. "
1 hour ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service