Posted: 2017-11-15 07:52
my daughter joined and she met someone and after only 8 months he started mental and verbal abuse and lately has told her he was going to hit her. I would have discouraged her from joining however i did not know she had. At first we thought he was a wonderful man and now it is like he is a monster. His name is Matt Costner and you should watch out for him in the future before he does something to really hurt a girl (and i hope it does not start with my daughter). I think your sight is a farce and all the other companies like yours. Anyone can lie about themselves and that is what most of them are doing.
Last year, an imam tried to make it illegal for bully burka-clad women to even show their eyes because he claimed that he and another man had gotten into a fight over a woman in a burka who had eyes that were too alluring. You see how this works? If women are the gatekeepers, then men *are not responsible for what they do.* The responsibility falls on the *woman* for everything, which leads you straight back to classic culture.
I 8767 ve tried it for a year now and I 8767 m not a fan, your criteria for a match are not used very often, a lot of the people your matched with do not have photos, and for me it 8767 s very important for me to put a face with a name, especially when I 8767 m talking to someone online, even though it could just be a random picture the person got somewhere on the internet. I 8767 ve found that to be the case with several people women on christian mingle, and one of them wasn 8767 t even a women, so you have to be careful because you can run into some of the same dangers that you would with any matching website.
As for the control that you supposedly get, it doesn 8767 t really matter, because you 8767 ll get matched with people that don 8767 t match your criteria which doesn 8767 t give you much control over your matches. I really would rate the CM as a 6 star site because most of the features don 8767 t help you all that much. I also take issue with some of the adds on christian mingle, especially the one that says, 8775 What a man really wants, 8776 coupled witht the photo of a man looking away from the woman he 8767 s supposedly with.
When this gets translated onto human mating patterns (humans, after all, are just hairless apes), the idea is that women are naturally attracted to alpha males dominant, powerful, high-status men while disdaining the weaker, less dominant betas. When women do decide to hook up with a beta so the theory goes it 8767 s a matter of convenience and materialism she 8767 s trading sex for material support when secretly in her heart of hearts, she learns for a big hairy-chested manly man to come and bang the ever-loving shit out of her bonus if he 8767 s also high-status so she can upgrade and ditch the beta.
Ha ha!! Lets work together cuz by my intuition, so far everyone that I see dating long term or marrying actually does now, I 8767 m not cupid but I knew enough about these people or I just saw how they looked at each other as 8775 just friends 8776 , well plus a number of calculations 7 years ago, I knew by looking at a guy that he 8767 d be marrying my friend. First time meeting him and she thought he was ugly a year later, they married and 6 years later still act like it happened yesterday. Offline success stories! I got you beat Eharmony!
There s a big difference between a woman saying no to continuing to make out/whatever on one date and her saying, I never want to get physical with you or I don t want to date you full stop. In the former case, it s generally understood that there s a right now in that sentence and she will quite possibly be up for making out/whatever again if you get together another time, or even later on that occasion. And when that next time comes, you judge whether she s into it by both her body language and what she s saying then. In the latter case, it doesn t matter what her body language says, you *listen* and you don t try again unless she says with her *words* that she s changed her mind.
Wow, makes me lol to hear women complain about OKC. Oh no, you had to sift through a bunch of messages from really gross people? Oh poor baby, the internet really just isn't for you, is it? That certainly is somehow equivocal to the disappointment a lot of men receive on these sites of getting no attention at all.. oh wait, those two aren't even remotely comparable. If you can't deal with ugly, sleazy, mediocre people, get the fuck off the internet!
Probably because she isn t a person and doesn t follow normal human rules of behavior. Alternatively because they don t want her to like them enough to hang around and find out whether or not they have any substance under all the show/game they re displaying, they just want her to tolerate them enough that they can achieve their conquest and get out of there? Either way it sounds shitty and sad to me.
On-line dating is a waste of time for 99% of men. It seem to mainly be used as an attention seeking tool for females (why don't they use such functions as block and change first message length to 755+ characters minimum?? etc.)
As the article confirms - women get message after message (yet hardly seem to respond to most of them) men get hardly any messages (and they don't get a response to the majority of the messages they do send). It all seems futile.
The problem is that the entire argument fails if any part of it does. For every Ghengis Kahn, there s a Cassanova. The idea of the y chromosome losing material is pretty much immaterial in a world that still has enough genetic variation to produce regional phenotypes ( race if you prefer). The idea that 75% of men have 85% of children in our culture is patently false. In keeping with the alpha argument, though, its worth noting that the extremely high status tend to have fewer children than the extremely low status. So that kind of shoots down either the definition of alpha or the hypothesis that alphas breed more. Which is it? Are unemployed Irish Catholic guys innately more alpha than Tom Cruise or is the definition something other than spreading genetic material?
There s also the basic issue that you implicitly brought up. Animal kingdom and (maybe) pre-agricultural alpha males mated with lots of females by using physical force. If you re holding that up as the example of how to behave to be successful, you re basically defining serial rapists as being the most successful men. The second most successful would be men who will sleep with any woman who makes herself available. That s generally not the PUA definition of success either.
You can 8767 t know how someone treats another, who has worked on themselves, etc. until you spend time with them. You can 8767 t tell this from their profiles because many people say things that are not true. The problem for women is our age. It is our biggest obstacle because soooooooo many men want women. They simply won 8767 t respond if you contact them, and we don 8767 t come up in their searches.
What do you mean by closed-off site ? That would seem to imply some sort of restriction on who can contribute to the discussions here. Obviously that isn t the case. As for the hate on those who disagree, while I personally have little patience for people who can t string together a coherent argument, support it in a credible fashion, and refuse to actually engage in any sort meaningful discussion (which I would define as engage in discussion while being open to the possibility they might be wrong, or their mind might need to be changed ) I think most folks here, Mel and Eselle in particular, are incredibly welcoming and willing to engage in open and fair conversation with anyone who s wandered over.
Thank you so much! I really needed a laugh a eHarmony and you 8767 ve just turned me from a rage machine into a far more giggly, placid person. You see I 8767 ve just spent the last 95mins doing the stupid compatibility questions, got right to the end eventually, after loosing the will to live on more than one occasion and guess what I 8767 m not eligible for an account. It seems that if you choose the 8766 separated 8767 option they won 8767 t let you have one. Why on earth they couldn 8767 t tell me this before wasting my time! I 8767 ve been separated for over 6 months now, my wife left me after deciding we weren 8767 t compatible, well her and all men, and I can 8767 t afford a divorce. But it 8767 s ok because eHarmony has now judged me unsuitable to date, cheers for that. But having read your blog Steve I feel like it was a near miss, my thanks.
You are right, eHarmony sucks. I was 8775 compatible on 79 different levels 8776 . Thought he was great. We were together 6 years, had a daughter, got engaged, made 7 cross-country moves for his job, and he dumped me 6555 miles away from my family. Come to find out he cheated on me constantly and was on several adult hook up sites. So much for compatibility. I realize he likely lied on his profile, but I am still quite bitter with eHarmony.
But I *really* don t see a difference in MRA wording and argument tactics and feminist wording and argument tactics they look exactly the same to me. Personally, it seems to me that they just copied the feminist tactics (which to be fair are probably much older than feminism you seem the same language and arguing tactics used in politics as well), and one notices a lot more when the same tactics are used on things one disagrees with.
New also and none of this real sounds like it is even worth the effort. However, I thought I would respond enough to say that although it is a good idea to be up front, I don 8767 t think I like to say, Hello, my name is Beca and I sleep with everyone. Thank you very much. I think it more says, well I want to know what I will get for my dollar coffee and of course my one hour of invested time. I hear the women and the men and my view for what its worth sounds like both are a little defensive, with good cause. Maybe both could say something like, 8775 gee I will take a dollar, hour, manners, afford respect/compassion a human right and go meet this person. You may find a treasure or merely a friend. You will have gotten to know another person. Enough said, no lecture intended. Just a perspective. Ū
I think it mainly comes back to the societal message that women control sexuality that whether any given person has sex is up to the woma/en in the equation. So when a guy can t get sex, it s easy for him to see that as the fault of women denying him. Whereas you ll notice that if a woman isn t able to attract men, she s encouraged to blame herself and assume she s just not appealing enough, since theoretically it s oh so easy for a woman to find interested men as long as she s not completely abhorrent.
It seems like there is a lot of negativity but online dating is much better. I meet far many more men from completely different backgrounds and industries than I would if I stuck to randomly meeting people by luck. A lot of it has to do with your ability to handle rejection. Performers may audition for 68 jobs before they get a job. It's not personal especially in the first "online" message round. You just have to believe in yourself and stick with it. It's not easy for men or women but it is possible.
Oh joy. If I want to find a random guy who ll be happy to pound away at me until he comes, probably providing me no physical enjoyment whatsoever and possibly causing me discomfort, I can post an open call for one. I m just not sure why any woman would want that. There s no much appeal in being able to get laid when getting laid doesn t usually result in pleasure for the woman unless the guy she s with actually *cares* about taking the time to listen to what works for her body and experiment, not just getting off. And, shocking fact, in order for a woman to make sure a guy is going to be considerate and caring during sex, she has to get to know him, not just pick any random guy off the street!