The ten solitudes of Toronto dating

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
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)
This was why when I went looking for a wife I would only consider women that were much younger than me, and athletic. Non-athletic women may be very pretty, but they lose their body in pregnancy. Athletic women tend to get it back.

That said it's not hard to marry a woman who is hot and 20 years younger. What's hard is to stay committed to only one woman, even if she is hot and 20 years younger. No matter how hot she is, no matter how good she is in bed, it's natural as a man to look around after awhile and start showing an interest in other women too.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Well I said I was going to leave you to your delusions but that you actually believe this speaks volumes.
It's a fact. It sounds like you don't like the fact. It sounds like you pine for the era before "no fault" divorce.

In the modern world the law does not attempt to assign blame. It simply looks for evidence that the relationship is over. It views a long separation as evidence that the relationship has ended, and it views adultery as evidence the relationship is over. But the "no fault" divorce is determined not to pass any judgement on whether the relationship being over is a good thing, or a bad thing, whether there is even any blame to share, let alone who shares in it.

I think the law is quite reasonable here in Canada. It leaves people to sort out among themselves in private questions of blame and such, and simply tries to ensure that the public transactions are fair, without judging. That shows deep respect and recognition for the fact that human sexual relationships are simply too complex to try and unravel in a courtroom. It's good law.

Only in more primitive, unenlightened jurisdictions do you find judges trying to pass judgement on who is right or wrong in a divorce.
 

afterhours

New member
Jul 14, 2009
6,319
4
0
That said it's not hard to marry a woman who is hot and 20 years younger. What's hard is to stay committed to only one woman, even if she is hot and 20 years younger. No matter how hot she is, no matter how good she is in bed, it's natural as a man to look around after awhile and start showing an interest in other women too.
it's not hard if she is dumb (but then she's boring and do you really want the mother of your kids to be dumb?)
if she is not dumb she can likely do better than getting an 20 years older guy who is making less than $200K/y
 

FatOne

Banned
Nov 20, 2006
3,474
1
0
I have to admit, I did lie once to get sex off a chick. It felt very uncomfortable, I never lied to my mother before. In my defense, my father put me up to it.


[and yes, the above is a joke]
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Just curious how long the mods are going to let the rules against personal attacks by sw1tch continue?

Never quite seen something to vitriolic expressed so eloquently. Talk about hidden personality disorders...
Ask capitalguy..

I do think most can see that ol switchy has a few issues.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Well Fuji doesn't have any insight into open relationships, so he just writes off the men as submissives.
You have no idea what I have experience with, what I do, what I know. But, you have never let that stop you from making up a bunch of bullshit. So please continue--make up a bunch more bullshit. Knock yourself out.

You look foolish doing it, but I guess you don't care.

Who is psychologically weak here, the humans who choose to divorce sex and love, for instance, or Fuji
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Divorce sex and love? What? I have no idea what sort of imaginary person you have in your mind now. You're increasingly talking about some imaginary person who has no relationship whatsoever to me. Maybe YOU think you are "winning" the debate by failing to comprehend, making stuff up, and attacking a person who doesn't exist. Others, though, have eyes to see.

...bunch of childish insults...
Yawn. It was fun before, move along. It's boring now. You're not interesting.

You conveniently omit that, while you find it unfathomable that the woman would fuck around, of course you grant yourself that luxury.
Actually I don't find it unfathomable. I've been the "other guy" a few times.

So when you talk of sexual dominance, you actually mean the subjugation of women, because as the male you see yourself as entitled and even biologically driven to have privileges denied the woman.
You ALMOST have that right. I don't deny that to women, just my women. I'm gender neutral in my perspective on this. I believe that we all--male and female--are striving for the same thing here. Those of us who are strong enough manage to have multiple sex partners and limit our partners ability to do the same. Some of the strong are women. Some of the weak are men. I'm sure there are women out there doing exactly the same thing, and I applaud that.

You simply have misunderstood me. In fact, I think you INTENTIONALLY misunderstand me, because you really can't deal with what I'm telling you.

Those of us who are successful enough, male or female, have multiple sex partners, live fulfilling lives, and manage to limit our partner's ability to do the same. Those who are less successful fail to do that, or wind up dominated, and so on. This is not a male vs. female concept. This is a strong vs weak concept. Winner versus loser. Successful versus unsuccessful. Selected versus unselected. There are men out there who are absolutely "pussy whipped", and their wives/girlfriends are my female equivalents.

In fact I learned this approach to life from a woman. I was the "other guy", she was cheating on her boyfriend. Back then I was a little more naive. I asked her one day how she could do that to him, since she obviously loved him.. She just shrugged, and said sometimes you think you can't do something like that, but then when you do it, life just goes on. I gradually realized she was living a very fulfilling life. I realized I could do the same. She's a strong woman, a great person. Better than you.

But you just contradicted yourself. Rather than you living sexual relationships in which all rules have gone out the window, you clearly operate with rules.
1. Men dominate women: that this rule guides you explains why you think you're entitled to something your wife is not, why you dismiss as almost unnatural male submissives, and why you evaluate sexual relationships according to the degree in which the male lords over women.
False. That's not my belief. You have failed in comprehending.

2. One rule for Fuji, another for others, as a rule.
Absolutely, and I've made it work. I've repeatedly said that sexual hypocrisy is a virtue. Those of us who are successful are able to pull it off. Less sexually successful people, like you, apparently live in jealousy. That's just the natural order of the world: Sexual selection isn't fair. Not everybody gets the high quality mates. It's true of humans, fish, monkeys, wolves and dogs, pretty much every sexual creature on earth. The more successful individuals get more and better mates. It's the way of the world.

This strikes me as a wolf and sheep conversation. The sheep always complain about how bad the wolf is, no doubt throwing out phrases like "psychotic". Meanwhile the wolf doesn't give much thought at all to the sheep, other than at dinner time.

I guess it's always been that way.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
In my view, after all the logical debates, after all the rational explanations, after all the attempts to deal with this at a high brain level, after all the attempts to make it cognitive, to fit it into human language, and limited human understanding, the winning argument is this--the argument that has ALWAYS been the winning argument, for all people, and all species, across all time:

I'm heading off now to go to bed with my wife. She's hot.

On Saturday I'm going to hang out with this girl. She's going to cook me dinner, and then I'm going to fuck her senseless, and she is very much looking forward to this.

I'm contemplating calling up my girlfriend between now and then, and fucking her senseless too, if I can find time for her.

In the meantime, if I have a few extra hours free, I will probably bang a couple of SP's.

You can rationalize that however you like and you can criticize me. At the end of the day I am going to point out the obvious:

Selected versus unselected.

Winner versus loser.
 

FatOne

Banned
Nov 20, 2006
3,474
1
0
I'm heading off now to go to bed in my parent's basement. It's hot, there is no A/C

On Saturday I'm going to play dungeons and dragons with my 5 other losers who put up with me because they can't find anyone else to DM.

I'm contemplating buying stuff for my WoW character but I don't think I can get the cash from my mother.

In the meantime, if I have a few extra hours free, from posting on terb, I will probably masturbate to internet porn.

You can rationalize that however you like and you can criticize me. At the end of the day I am going to point out the obvious:

Selected versus unselected.

Winner versus loser.
I do agree to your last point, it is utterly murder getting into a dungeons and dragons game, haven't played in almost 15 years. Colour me green with envy.

For those who have not been reading the other thread. Consider how much time Fuji spends on terb, is that consistent with the lifestyle he posted above.
Think about it, can you really take any of his claims seriously.

He isn't a narcissist, he isn't a sexual predator, he is a pathological liar. Terbs own Tommy Flanagan, who spends 4 to 5 hours a day reading and posting on terb yet has constant sex with his hot wife, escorts and girlfriends, when he isn't working half hours on his 200K a year job.

Seriously, how can anyone buy into this. You would have to be dumb enough to believe Jack Layton didn't know he was in a rub and tug parlour.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Hey look, a genuine attempt at humour. Not bad FatOne. I'm not going to go after you the way I'm going after Sw1tch, as you do seem a bit more genuine, and I'm sure as hell not going to start posting my identity on terb, so we'll just have to leave it at you don't believe me, and that's fine.

Ideally we can now get back to talking about where to meet immigrant women!

For the record I work long hours at my job, they just aren't very full hours. I'm usually at work a good 10 hours a day, though. It's the sort of job where if things aren't going wrong I'm not very busy, and when things are going wrong, I'm crushed with work. I manage a bunch of guys most of whom earn in the ~100k range and they're pretty responsible, self-managing guys. When things are running smoothly I can pretty much just get out of their way and let them get on with it. Put another way, I'm doing my job well when I don't have much work to do, and I'm doing it poorly if I'm busy.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Sw1tch, being an out patient does not make you an expert on clinical psychology. Your posts are also boring now.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Sorry Rubmeister, based on the posts of yours I have seen, you seem like an OK guy who certainly has a good sense of humor (typically a sign of decent intelligence). So I have nothing bad to say about you. Though if I may offer a humble piece of advice, you might want to revisit your Fuji affection, as I doubt out there in the real world a guy like you would give him much time.
Pretty much bang on wrt to Rubbie and FUJI. Sw1tch (what is it a London postal mark) has just joined a looooong line of members who sees FUJI for what he is, and SW1 is having his turn at calling out FUJI for what he REALLY is. Will it make a difference, doubt it? Yet it will feel good, add to the stone wall and give another viewpoint, so that some can't successfully claim it's personal.


As this is FUJIs thread, full of his posts, and his being on ignore, it's full of big empty posts, unless other quotes him, but from what I read is he asked opinions/help/posissibly validation and got little, if any, then it becomes a mud slinging contest, more fun than his usual pillow fights with Gryf' and Groggy/FD. I don't have to get his responses in full as they'll be the same as always; I'm better than you, blah blah blah, I 'm more intelligent than you, blah blah blah, I make more money than you blah blah, blah, and so on.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Sorry Rubmeister, based on the posts of yours I have seen, you seem like an OK guy who certainly has a good sense of humor (typically a sign of decent intelligence). So I have nothing bad to say about you. Though if I may offer a humble piece of advice, you might want to revisit your Fuji affection, as I doubt out there in the real world a guy like you would give him much time.
Putting somebody on default "Ignore"...

Hmmmmm.... doesn't that make one deliberately ignorant?

I like to think I;m smart enough to look past what I may think of the person so that I can understand a conversation better and maybe even learn something that person I might not like.

To do otherwise, by definition is being ignorant!
Well considering those members who have him on ignore, I doubt it.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Oh, because other "members" are also deliberately ignorant , it changes the definition of ignorant?

They may be justified in their choice by emotional/intellectual weakness but they are still IGNORING somethign so they are deliberately ignorant

And since I don't care what you have to say about this I'm going to close my eyes and sing LA LA LA la la la la , I can't HEAR yo.... la la la la.

So THERE!
It changes YOUR definition of ignorant.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Nah, to be ignorant is to genuinely not know. Default ignore is a kind of selection process, in which a person must be saying they have total confidence they have nothing to learn from someone or find them so repugnant they don't care to learn what that person knows. I suspect Blackrock and others are in the latter camp, and it's understandable!



I agree. One can learn from those one dislikes.
For instance, reading Fuji tells people the danger of falling for too-easy self-justifications. Once you go down that road, you can easily end up a character study in dissociative disorder, because reinventing your own human frailties as enlightened strengths is a good recipe for failing to truly care about anyone. Like the hole in the ass of your pants analogy I used pages ago, sometimes it is alot healthier just to accept that frailties happen and do your best to keep them in perspective.

Fuji is also right to note that alot of silly social conventions surround sex, to the point where being a hypocrit about sex is almost the only sensible option. But there are alot of ways to go, based on that observation, and certainly more ways to go than Fuji's psychopathic power and control direction.

Agree with most, but after 18 months of his diatribe, I simply had enough, often asked by few members where I got my patience for this shite. since ther move my BP has been very much better.
 

avxl1003

New member
Aug 31, 2009
1,346
0
0
She may have been sober but perhaps still in a slumber. (Just kidding).

As for what Blue-Spheroid said, I tend to agree with him. It's too exploitive, but then again, those immigrants may feign love just to get married.

Everybody can still be judged on an escort review board, just not openly.
I haven't read the rest of the posts.. So forgive me.

I think what Fuji is proposing is exploitative.. However, who gives a rip. She's trying to exploit some dumb Canadian for a visa.. So she gets bitten back a little bit. It's not like he had her wash his feet or anything. They had consensual sex with her thinking it was going one place when it wasn't. That's all. Heck, I lost my virginity in the same way.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
You claim everyone else is Victorian and that you are some enlightened sexual revolution type.
No. I claim you are. See the difference?

But I doubt they believe you, because you have been unable to directly respond to the counter-claim that it is YOU that are the Victorian and that is YOU who have indeed missed the sexual revolution boat
As of yet you haven't been smart enough to comprehend my reply. I will try again:

Your Victorian era conception is that there are nice pat rules that box in sexual relationships. For example, you take the concept of an open relationship as superior to sexual hypocrisy through the application of the logical rule that what's good for one person ought to be good for all. A sort of Kantian categorical imperative. It's this attempt to make sexual relationships fit into nice tidy boxes that I am calling Victorian.

The breakthrough in stepping away from such thinking came from many people, but one shining example would be the works of D H Lawrence in the early 1900's. His books were repeatedly banned as obscene not because they had much in the way of descriptions of sexual intercourse, but because they proposed that human sexual relationships simply aren't neat and tidy. In Lawrence's conception our language isn't even good enough to describe what goes on--the true nuances of sexual relationships are something that can only be felt and experienced, not described.

In a world in which we can't even describe the nuances of sexual relationships we sure as hell aren't going to be able to formulate moral codes to regulate them. Moral codes, like laws, are ultimately based on language and logic. These things do not fit sexual relationships.

Fundamentally the point is an empirical one: Sexual relationship just aren't fair, and everybody really accepts that. Outside of debating clubs like terb everybody knows that some people get more and better mates, some people get away with cheating, some people are able to dominate in their relationships. Meanwhile other people don't get great mating opportunities, aren't selected, or when they do find relationships wind up being wholly dominated.

In short in the real world everybody recognizes that sexual relationships come with a power dynamic that depends very much on the relative desirability of each partner. This depends not just on looks, but social status, social ability, capability, intelligence, and, yes, ability to deceive.

That's not a moral prescription, that's a description of objective reality.

evidence for these claims is your misogyny
You continue to fail to comprehend the point. There is no misogyny here because what I am describing can be practiced equally well by women OR men. I happen to be a man. The person who I best emulate, who I learned all this from through personal experience of her, was a woman.

Some women are able to dominate over their men, cheat wantonly, and get away with it. Some men are too. There's a sexual equality to this sexual inequality. It's not a factor of gender, it's a factor of your relative worth.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
I haven't read the rest of the posts.. So forgive me.

I think what Fuji is proposing is exploitative.. However, who gives a rip. She's trying to exploit some dumb Canadian for a visa.
You should "give a rip" if you want to live in a society that it better than "Lord of the Flies."

There is nothing at all to indicate that this woman is "attempting to exploit some dumb Canadian for a visa." Certainly there is nothing wrong with hoping that you meet the right person and can short cut the perment status and citizenship lines so long as the priorities are that way.


They had consensual sex with her thinking it was going one place when it wasn't.
There have been lawsuits on that sort of breach of promise/deception/palimony continuum. Even if she doesn't win do you want to have to defend?
 

avxl1003

New member
Aug 31, 2009
1,346
0
0
You should "give a rip" if you want to live in a society that it better than "Lord of the Flies."

There is nothing at all to indicate that this woman is "attempting to exploit some dumb Canadian for a visa." Certainly there is nothing wrong with hoping that you meet the right person and can short cut the perment status and citizenship lines so long as the priorities are that way.


There have been lawsuits on that sort of breach of promise/deception/palimony continuum. Even if she doesn't win do you want to have to defend?
That's right buddy.. Misleading a girl into having sex with you is obviously the first in a short series of steps to killing some asthmatic dweeb on an island run entirely be children. Did you even read that book?

It would be different if you're saying to her "If you have sex with me, then I'll marry you." But I don't think he's saying that to these girls. I think he's playing it smart and allowing them to think whatever they want to think (or better yet, allowing them to think he believes they actually care for him).
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
That's right buddy. . . Misleading a girl into having sex with you is obviously
most of the time Lying and Lying by Omission.

One can get onto a slippery moral and even legal slope here - if misleading a women is ok, is it ok to mislead an SP about something as well?

The op was not writing of a misunderstanding but rather deliberate deceit.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts