So are you attempting to tell me that the original topic was not your attempting to hook up with a woman who was interested in meeting a potential husband?
The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
I am telling you what she told me, that she feels that she is on track to get her PR card in a year or two. She's running down the clock on having been in Canada long enough to apply for it, and her Canadian work experience would appear to be enough that she will get it. She probably is interested in finding a potential husband, just because all women are. In that respect her age (30) and her desire to start a family is likely a bigger factor than her immigration status.So are you attempting to tell me that the original topic was not your attempting to hook up with a woman who was interested in meeting a potential husband?
I would indeed describe her as desperate to meet a local boyfriend, but for the reasons I have repeatedly given, not for immigration status reasons. Certainly reasons related to being an immigrant, but not legal status. Or at least, legal status is not the major factor. Not in my opinion, not for her, and not for the other women I've met similar to her.
If you want to continue calling this "exploitative" you're going to have to generalize the concept beyond immigrant women and water it down to an Andrea Dworkin style "all sex is rape" claim.
Geeze these inadvertent admissions/confessions are going to be the end of you.I don't think you will find any immigrant women looking to build relationships with local guys would be on A.M.
I'm not sure what you find objectionable here. That someone who embraces cheating would have an AM account? That immigrant women aren't there?Geeze these inadvertent admissions/confessions are going to be the end of you.
Sorry, I am having trouble relating to your Victorian era worldview. As in the other thread, I highly recommend to you D H Lawrence's Women in Love, reading it might help you adapt to the modern era.
Absolutely.That's because they're not looking for guys already married.
Nope. I limit my sexual hypocrisy to concealing the existence of other partners. That is exactly what "cheating" means, and why people use sites like AM. Plainly anyone using AM is concealing their cheating from at least one person. In my case, I am concealing my cheating from multiple people, with respect to each other. Hello, obvious?And the fact you are well aware of this means your claims about limited lying (to sex) are clearly specious bluster
I absolutely do misrepresent the fact that I have other sexual partners. In the case of my wife that means I conceal my cheating from her. In the case of these other women it means I usually conceal the existence of my wife from them, as well as conceal from them the fact that I have a variety of other sexual partners. I also conceal from all of them that I use the services of SP's. That is not ALWAYS true, I do have one girlfriend that I see on a regular basis that is fully aware of my wife's existence, and another FWB type that I have sometimes taken along with me to see SP's.
What I do not do is manipulate in any other way.
Your Victorian era mindset simply is having trouble coming to grips with this. As with Aardvark I recommend you read Women in Love, it was instrumental in moving the Victorian world into the modern era and sparking the sexual revolution. I think it would do you some considerable good to read it.
That pretty well sums him up.You're a narcissistic psychopath.
Heh, you asked.
That's because they're not looking for guys already married. And the fact you are well aware of this means your claims about limited lying (to sex) are clearly specious bluster, as you are misrepresenting the scope of the potential 'connection'. This is not to claim your targeted immigrant women are pushing for marriage, just that they want 'available' and that available to them means AM guys are not available. Lying about availability is part of a web of lies, contradicting your ridiculous so-called argument about not being a serial liar.
There are a lot of us who see a huge difference between a consensual upfront relationship with an SP and a relationship based upon deception, and one party's vulnerablity. If you choose to describe that as Victorian I really can't help you. As the expression goes "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."Your Victorian era mindset.
In FUJIs case, if you back him up and let him try and suck it up through a rubber hose planted up his sphincter, it might work. It seems to be that fewer and fewer members are bamboozled by his mastery of the didgeridoo serenades he posts.There are a lot of us who see a huge difference between a consensual upfront relationship with an SP and a relationship based upon deception, and one party's vulnerablity. If you choose to describe that as Victorian I really can't help you. As the expression goes "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
I'm pretty objective about myself. That definition doesn't fit. The only thing there that would be in any way accurate is that I'm a bit arrogant. I'm not manipulative, I'm quite sincere, fairly generous and not really very egocentric, I certainly feel guilt--just not over cheating. I'm not very cynical and I'm not an exhibitionist, I don't exploit others, and while I deem you unworthy I have a lot of respect for most people.The accepted psychiatric personality profile of a psychopath states very clearly the following personality characteristics:
- manipulative, insincere, egocentric, feels little need for guilt, arrogant, cynical, exhibitionist, willing to exploit others, deems themselves worthy and important but many others unworthy and insignificant, typically entertaining conversationalists, often sensationalists, definitely good story tellers, to the point of being shameless braggarts, even though they often create a persona conducive to manipulating and exploiting others.
Just sayin'
So no, doesn't fit.
I'm sure you will turn around and insist that cheating is inherently manipulative, or make your idiotic generalization that if i'm deceptive about having multiple sexual partners, I must be deceptive about everything--but that's false. That's just you spewing nonsense, as you usually do.
Many of whom are married...There are a lot of us who see a huge difference between a consensual upfront relationship with an SP and a relationship based upon deception, and one party's vulnerablity.
If you are not married, do you plan to tell your future wives and girlfriends about your past history of having upfront consensual relationships with prostitutes?
The hypocrisy is dripping from your forehead, Aardy, you might as well embrace it, as I have.
Stick to posting idiotic things like this. You aren't smart enough to enter into a conversation with me. So stick to the potty humour, it fits you. By the way, who taught you words like "sphincter" anyway? That's a little advanced for you, isn't it? Or have you spent your afternoon looking up dirty words in the dictionary again?In FUJIs case, if you back him up and let him try and suck it up through a rubber hose planted up his sphincter, it might work. It seems to be that fewer and fewer members are bamboozled by his mastery of the didgeridoo serenades he posts.
Surprisingly, yes it does. And trust me, the Victorians had prostitutes as well, using a prostitute does not make you a modern man my friend. The population here is surprisingly old-fashioned and conservative, many here have not really signed on to the sexual revolution. You'll find a variety of people who are bigoted against women, bigoted against homosexuals, and so on. I don't know where you fit into that, but I know that you have a Victorian mindset when it comes to the question of sexual infidelity.You really think that makes a good argument against guys actively participating in an escort review board?!
What gives you a Victorian era mindset is fundamentally your attempt to assert that there is some sort of perfect, clean, neat, tidy, logically explainable moral system governing sexual relationships that can be neatly described in simple rules. In reality there is not. Sexual relationships exceed our ability to even describe them in language, let alone codify rules governing behavior. The modern world has recognized "no fault" divorce for this reason, but you still want to apply your Platonic little theories of morality to a world which has long since passed you by.
The modern world has passed you by to such an extent that you now think that anyone who doesn't buy into your pat little moral theories is a "psychopath", really, you're that absurd. To listen to you, and the way you argue it, that actually applies to every single man and woman who ever signed up on Ashley Madison. By your logic they're all manipulative, all psychopaths.
You are a cliche from a bygone era.
Fuji, you just refuse to "get it" the issue isn't hypocrisy, and it isn't really adultery - although I'm sure your wife would beg to differ.
What troubles me and obviously others is your deliberate deception, the fact that you don't see it as being a problem, and your stubborn refusal to accept the fact that any immigrant unless they have been head-hunted as a executive for a major corporation is in a position where your sort of behaviour is exploitive.
I will merely observe that you may be highly successful, but if this sort of behaviour is typical you will eventually be caught up by it.
There really isn't anything else I can say.
What troubles me and obviously others is your deliberate deception, the fact that you don't see it as being a problem, and your stubborn refusal to accept the fact that any immigrant unless they have been head-hunted as a executive for a major corporation is in a position where your sort of behaviour is exploitive.
I will merely observe that you may be highly successful, but if this sort of behaviour is typical you will eventually be caught up by it.
There really isn't anything else I can say.
So give me your Victorian era theory then, why is it acceptable for me to cheat on my wife, but unacceptable for me to cheat on other women? Because she has needs? My wife has needs too--that's why she married me. Because she's vulnerable? I'm vulnerable too. That's why I married my wife. Because she's alone and needs companionship? Because she's isolated and wants support? I give her companionship and support, I hardly see it as an argument against anything here.What troubles me and obviously others is your deliberate deception, the fact that you don't see it as being a problem, and your stubborn refusal to accept the fact that any immigrant unless they have been head-hunted as a executive for a major corporation is in a position where your sort of behaviour is exploitive.
It's wrong why, because it doesn't fit into the neat little Victorian era box you think relationships should fit into???
I tell you I care about them all.
I've some sad news for you: I have been caught up by it before. I lost a previous four year live-in relationship after I was caught cheating. No matter, though, I simply married the woman I had been cheating with, and carried on. I've enjoyed my life, much more, I think, than most people have. I just can't see how this is going to turn out badly, even if I do get caught. I think I have enough class not to get caught, but I might. Might I get divorced over it? Sure. So I guess then I'll have a second marriage, and carry on.I will merely observe that you may be highly successful, but if this sort of behaviour is typical you will eventually be caught up by it.
I'll tell you something else--as angry as she may have been at that time, that woman I cheated on will tell you I was one of the best things that ever happened to her. I educated her. I trained her into a career. I encouraged her, got her a job, and now she's successful, and she will say she owes a lot of it to me. As much as I hurt her, she'd never deny that I was good for her, if you ask her. I know, because I've asked her, and that's what she told me.
Get it yet?
I notice all you were able to do in what you must think was a clever post was repeat, over and over, "fuji is a cheater", as if that answered every point. Get over it.
Without referring to my sexual infidelity you've got nothing, and in reference to my sexual infidelity your ONLY point is that you don't like that I'm a cheater.
That's so Victorian.
Without referring to my sexual infidelity you've got nothing, and in reference to my sexual infidelity your ONLY point is that you don't like that I'm a cheater.
That's so Victorian.
Sw1tch there was no actual content in your most recent post. Let me know when you have a rational response to this:
You have a Victorian mindset when it comes to questions of sexual infidelity because you insist that there be well defined, neat little Platonic rules governing sexual relationships. You can't get your head around cheating, so you conclude that anyone who cheats must be a psychopath.
Maybe you were trying vaguely to make a point about open relationships. Apparently one of your pat little rules is that a relationship is not valid to you unless it includes open and honest communication on every topic. Well I have successful relationships that are not like that. I'm open and honest on many topics. Not on all. Seems to work!
You have a Victorian mindset when it comes to questions of sexual infidelity because you insist that there be well defined, neat little Platonic rules governing sexual relationships. You can't get your head around cheating, so you conclude that anyone who cheats must be a psychopath.
Maybe you were trying vaguely to make a point about open relationships. Apparently one of your pat little rules is that a relationship is not valid to you unless it includes open and honest communication on every topic. Well I have successful relationships that are not like that. I'm open and honest on many topics. Not on all. Seems to work!
The specific concept I was trying to relate to you, Sw1tch, is that sexual behavior is complex enough that no rules govern it. In fact, complex enough that human language falls short of being able to express it well enough. It is in this respect that I defend sexual hypocrisy from charges of immorality. Those ultimately require breaking some rule. You've listed various rules you think I might be breaking--I'm telling you when it comes to sex the rules go out the window.
The law knows that now. That's why we have "no fault" divorce. Adultery, etc., are grounds for ending a marriage, but not grounds for assigning blame, in this modern world.
The law knows that now. That's why we have "no fault" divorce. Adultery, etc., are grounds for ending a marriage, but not grounds for assigning blame, in this modern world.
wtf? it's next to impossible to be in any relationship if you want your woman to be young and beautiful and a mother of your children (which is I think a reasonable request)Just get yourself into an open relationship, one where each partner consents to input into the relationship a host of positives arrived at by discussing each person's needs, and then discusses under what conditions and in what manner and with boundaries they will see others
who the hell can get this in Toronto AND an open relationship on top of that?
Open relationships are for psychologically weak, pussy whipped men. I agree they're a step up from the sexually frustrated truly monogamous man, who lives in complete self denial. An open relationship, though, just swaps in another sort of self denial. They're kind of like men who get off on being submissives, beaten with whips and chains and so on, men who enjoy being pissed on, men who enjoy being humiliated by watch another man fuck his wife. It's that sort of self denial, open relationship. While I'm all for a society that tolerates, perhaps even celebrates all kinds of people, that's not for me.
I recognize and act on the desire that we all have as men to be sexually dominant in a relationship, which means not letting our women fuck around. Men in open relationships sublimate that desire and perhaps get some sort of fetish like pleasure out of doing so, and for that I applaud them as superior to the man in a monogamous relationship. But they're still not fully actualizing their complete range of sexual desire.
The open relationship is just the latest form of Victorian thinking. It attempts to apply logic to the problem of sexual infidelity. The idea is that since it's obvious that we all cheat, we should embrace that cheating by allowing it for everyone, equally. That's nice. The Victorians were sometimes enlightened--that's why we called it "the enlightenment", and applied logic and reason to many things.
But it is at direct odds with human nature, and it is another form of self denial. Logic and reason can't be used to box in sexual relationships. It doesn't work. Not if you want to be a fully actualized human being.
I recognize and act on the desire that we all have as men to be sexually dominant in a relationship, which means not letting our women fuck around. Men in open relationships sublimate that desire and perhaps get some sort of fetish like pleasure out of doing so, and for that I applaud them as superior to the man in a monogamous relationship. But they're still not fully actualizing their complete range of sexual desire.
The open relationship is just the latest form of Victorian thinking. It attempts to apply logic to the problem of sexual infidelity. The idea is that since it's obvious that we all cheat, we should embrace that cheating by allowing it for everyone, equally. That's nice. The Victorians were sometimes enlightened--that's why we called it "the enlightenment", and applied logic and reason to many things.
But it is at direct odds with human nature, and it is another form of self denial. Logic and reason can't be used to box in sexual relationships. It doesn't work. Not if you want to be a fully actualized human being.
Well I said I was going to leave you to your delusions but that you actually believe this speaks volumes.Adultery . . . not grounds for assigning blame, in this modern world.
* decriminalized doesn't mean that people don't know who was the guilty party and assign "blame".
