sex on the first date

[WinterBorn]

If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.

He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front. He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.

yes, as equals for equality purposes. only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.

Absolute nonsense.

As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man. One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?". They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.

The second woman is certainly not inferior. She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, trade involves a social transaction. it really is that simple, except to the right.

And the cognitive dissonance?

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

And when did we start discussing socialism?

I see that you have no reason for the use of the term "cognitive dissonance". I understand.

dear, society is social in nature.

 

[danielpalos]

Goodness!!! How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon? You must speak crazy.

dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.

 

[danielpalos]

If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.

He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front. He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.

yes, as equals for equality purposes. only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.

Absolute nonsense.

As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man. One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?". They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.

The second woman is certainly not inferior. She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.

why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.

only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile. this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.

 

[WinterBorn]

No. It was a sharing of your nonsense. So others will be aware.

nope; just a fallacy. only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.

Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting? lol

gossip much for pussy, dear?

"...for pussy"? Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?

You are very inventive in your accusations. lol

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.

And what have I deflected? I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.

 

[danielpalos]

commercial transactions are interpersonal. i keep mentioning cognitive dissonance because it seems to be true, for those of the opposing view.

How so?

dear, trade involves a social transaction. it really is that simple, except to the right.

And the cognitive dissonance?

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

nope; just a fallacy. only the clueless and the Causeless don't get it.

Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting? lol

gossip much for pussy, dear?

"...for pussy"? Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?

You are very inventive in your accusations. lol

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.

And what have I deflected? I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.

what? only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?

 

[WinterBorn]

If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.

He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front. He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.

yes, as equals for equality purposes. only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.

Absolute nonsense.

As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man. One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?". They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.

The second woman is certainly not inferior. She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.

why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.

only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile. this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.

No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine. Guile is used very often by superior forces.

And yes, it is an extreme example. But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality. The second is a solid example of reality.

 

[WinterBorn]

How so?

dear, trade involves a social transaction. it really is that simple, except to the right.

And the cognitive dissonance?

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

Oh, so now you are claiming to know my motivations for posting? lol

gossip much for pussy, dear?

"...for pussy"? Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?

You are very inventive in your accusations. lol

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.

And what have I deflected? I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.

what? only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?

Two answers. Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.

Lets try again, shall we?

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

 

[danielpalos]

If that is true, then both people must have something the other one wants. We know what the women have. But what are you offering? Besides petty cash.

He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front. He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.

yes, as equals for equality purposes. only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.

Absolute nonsense.

As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man. One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?". They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.

The second woman is certainly not inferior. She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.

why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.

only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile. this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.

No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine. Guile is used very often by superior forces.

And yes, it is an extreme example. But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality. The second is a solid example of reality.

only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, trade involves a social transaction. it really is that simple, except to the right.

And the cognitive dissonance?

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

gossip much for pussy, dear?

"...for pussy"? Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?

You are very inventive in your accusations. lol

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.

And what have I deflected? I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.

what? only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?

Two answers. Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.

Lets try again, shall we?

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.

 

[ChrisL]

Goodness!!! How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon? You must speak crazy.

dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.

You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.

 

[WinterBorn]

If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure. I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out? Depends if he likes a challenge.

Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"

Men don't always get laid
Women don't always get prince charming and so on........

it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.

I was sitting here thinking. I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life. I don't recall lying to any of them. So you can have plenty of sex and be honest. But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.

i understand that. i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.

If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without. It really is that simple. You don't get to decide whether there are games played. Only whether you play.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the cognitive dissonance?

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

"...for pussy"? Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?

You are very inventive in your accusations. lol

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.

And what have I deflected? I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.

what? only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?

Two answers. Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.

Lets try again, shall we?

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

Why not answer these two questions?

 

[WinterBorn]

And the cognitive dissonance?

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

And when did we start discussing socialism?

I see that you have no reason for the use of the term "cognitive dissonance". I understand.

dear, society is social in nature.

But not all social interaction is socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Goodness!!! How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon? You must speak crazy.

dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.

You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.

i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.

 

[danielpalos]

If a girl walks up to a guy and says, I might be interested but not sure. I want to have about 20 dates, maybe we'll have sex maybe not..... will the guy ask her out? Depends if he likes a challenge.

Like all interpersonal relationships, it's "risk reward"

Men don't always get laid
Women don't always get prince charming and so on........

it is about honesty and not having to lie for sex, dear.

I was sitting here thinking. I am 55 years old and have had sex with quite a few ladies in my life. I don't recall lying to any of them. So you can have plenty of sex and be honest. But you have to have something to offer or have to develop the relationship, even if it is not a long term one.

i understand that. i merely don't want to play silly chic games if they aren't doing me everyday, and twice on Sundays.

If the women want to play a game before deciding if you are worthy of their charms, you can either play or do without. It really is that simple. You don't get to decide whether there are games played. Only whether you play.

i am not claiming i did; have i mentioned i also have low numbers and little practice, and especially, floozies like you should respect that.

 

[ChrisL]

Goodness!!! How can anyone make any sense out of this nonsensical loon? You must speak crazy.

dear, not having a clue and a Cause is why you believe what you do.

You should commit yourself to the nearest mental institution.

i don't care what you think simply because you are not doing me.

The thought makes me gag.

 

[WinterBorn]

He's saying that hookers want money for sex, are up front about it, clean transaction.
Whereas, dating women, the transaction should also be clean and up front. He is saying he will give them a massage etc. but he expects to be reciprocated in kind.

yes, as equals for equality purposes. only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile.

Absolute nonsense.

As an example, let's suppose there are two attractive women vying for the attentions of an attractive man. One walks up, opens her shirt, and says "You look hot, why don't we go have sex?". They other flirts, makes eye contact, and teases a bit.

The second woman is certainly not inferior. She knows that many men prefer a woman who knows how to play.

why chose those extremes but for straw man purposes.

only inferiors who know they are not equal have to resort to guile. this is accepted military doctrine that applies to real life situations in non-warfare scenarios.

No, it is NOT accepted military doctrine. Guile is used very often by superior forces.

And yes, it is an extreme example. But then, the first woman is not so far off from what you have claimed is the only way a woman will prove she is truly interested in equality. The second is a solid example of reality.

only as a stratagem, not a necessity, there is a difference.

Whether it is a necessity or not is not relevant. Guile has been used by superior forces for centuries, if for no other reason than to reduce casualties.

But your claim that only inferors resort to guile, and that this is accepted military doctrine is simply bullshit. Unless you would care to show any military expert who made such a claim.

 

[danielpalos]

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.

And what have I deflected? I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.

what? only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?

Two answers. Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.

Lets try again, shall we?

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

Why not answer these two questions?

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the cognitive dissonance?

trade is not "impersonal" with any "emotional investment".

Correct. But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? I don't. I understand that there is a personal element to every social interaction, and even more with sexual interaction.

that honesty is not the problem, dear. socialism requires social morals for free, unlike capitalism.

"...for pussy"? Now you are supposing I am doing so in an attempt to get pussy?

You are very inventive in your accusations. lol

no more "inventive" than yours, mr.deflector.

And what have I deflected? I have tried to stay on topic, despite your attempts to derail and hide behind nonsensical uses of less common wording.

what? only Your inventions are inventive, mr.deflector?

Two answers. Yet, two answers that were not answers to the questions I asked.

Lets try again, shall we?

" But cognitive dissonance is about conflicting beliefs within a person. Who has such a conflict? "

"And what have I deflected?"

that it is not about honesty as a form of equality.

It is not about equality. You are wanting to determine the boundaries of the social interaction, and giving the woman no say in the matter. That is not equality.