Why should I settle? Now it's all about "inner-beauty".
Question:
> > You should never settle – for two reasons: > > The first is that it isn’t fair to whomever you have "settled for" as > > he will think that he is what you always wanted, and you’ll be > > thinking "this is the best I could get". > That’s no problem as long as he can keep thinking what he thinks. > Most people are poor communicators, so maybe he can maintain his > comforting delusion for the duration.
It also requires a person who doesn’t mind putting on a facade. > Besides, what are his alternatives? Maybe he can’t find, with > a reasonable search effort, a woman he enjoys more than this > woman who settled for him. > People are only young and sexually desirable for a few years. > They cannot spend decades holding out for a marginally more > suitable partner. If they do, they miss their fleeting window > of opportunity.
Of course, *some* people never go through this period of being sexually desirable. A fair number are forever foul–so ugly they cannot attract either anybody at all or someone that they can’t even pretend is attractive. Loserguys–if I can use the Danimalism–don’t even have that fleeting window. If they can even manage to settle, they may have settle for someone with such a low SMV (sexual market value) that they can’t even *pretend* they like them. > > As for "inner beauty" – that’s just another name for "ugly as > > sin" – no thanks. I’ll take a woman that’s shallow and beautiful any > > day of the week… 
> Will she take you?
To the cleaners, if you’re not careful. My first summer of law school I clerked for a firm that did a lot of domestic stuff. I can think of three instances where a loserguy, who had finally managed to succeed in whatever difficult path his solitude in college relegated him to (such as grad school in science/med/law/engineering/etc), got their wallets hoovered after brief whirlwind affairs (not even marriage in two cases) with women savvy of divorce law and–the killer–child-support. The plaintiff women in all three cases seemed the gadfly type. Although I can’t say for certain, of course, the scenario involved in all three cases seemed to follow this loose pattern: 1) Attractive woman has extensive social life in high school/undergrad. Gets mrs degree. 2) Loserguy has lonely, hard time in high school/undergrad/grad school. 3) Loserguy busts his ass, works hard, gets good job. House. All that. 4) Attractive woman snares naive, former-loserguy. 5) Kid/Marriage occurs. 6) Divorce. Former-loserguy cleaned out. "Best interests of the child" trumps any argument related to unbelieveable spending/cheating with attractive men/abuse/theft. 7) Woman has kid she (at least at one point) wanted and support. Former-loserguy may retain loserguy status. (I know. Men can be jerks too. But the sexes are jerks in different ways, speaking broadly, and this seems to be the more "womanly" man.) But, hey, all that work did yield him a little womanly attention and at least one roll in the hay. So maybe it’s worth it to some. I don’t know. I *do* know that if the guy came to me near the end of step 3, I’d advise him to be *very* careful. Frankly, I think true "loserguys"-who I admit are rare–who fine themselves alone after a certain point should completely hang it up w/r/t to romance/marriage and focus on their strong points. (I’ve heard this called the "Largo Option"–wo hoo! I’m famous!) Largo Coats
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -coats2…@yahoo.com (Largo) wrote in message <news:c6e1334a.0409021832.1b933972@posting.google.com>… > To the cleaners, if you’re not careful. My first summer of law school > I clerked for a firm that did a lot of domestic stuff. I can think of > three instances where a loserguy, who had finally managed to succeed > in whatever difficult path his solitude in college relegated him to > (such as grad school in science/med/law/engineering/etc), got their > wallets hoovered after brief whirlwind affairs (not even marriage in > two cases) with women savvy of divorce law and–the > killer–child-support. > The plaintiff women in all three cases seemed the gadfly type. > Although I can’t say for certain, of course, the scenario involved in > all three cases seemed to follow this loose pattern: > 1) Attractive woman has extensive social life in high > school/undergrad. Gets mrs degree. > 2) Loserguy has lonely, hard time in high school/undergrad/grad > school. > 3) Loserguy busts his ass, works hard, gets good job. House. All that. > 4) Attractive woman snares naive, former-loserguy. > 5) Kid/Marriage occurs. > 6) Divorce. Former-loserguy cleaned out. "Best interests of the child" > trumps any argument related to unbelieveable spending/cheating with > attractive men/abuse/theft.
At this stage in the game, were the marks completely astounded at how the court system works? As in they had no idea what they were surrendering when they got their willies wet? > 7) Woman has kid she (at least at one point) wanted and support. > Former-loserguy may retain loserguy status. > (I know. Men can be jerks too. But the sexes are jerks in different > ways, speaking broadly, and this seems to be the more "womanly" man.)
Given that the courts generally punish men in proportion to their wealth (but not too progressively), the best way for a man to be a jerk is to be either very rich or very poor. Guys in the middle get squeezed the hardest, because they have enough money to keep the women who exploit them off welfare, but not enough money to not notice the loss. Contrast that to the ghetto Don Juan who impregnates any number of semi-literate women in between jail stints. They don’t even bother to go after him for support; they head straight to the welfare office and stick it to taxpayers. The Donald Trumps at the other end of the scale have lawyers to advise them, and if they have to support a few children it’s just a rounding error in terms of their wealth. I do admit I have to chuckle at the pro athletes who father a dozen children by a dozen different women and learn how fast those seemingly fat contracts can get thin. And then they go down with a career-ending injury and get to feed all those hungry mouths without a further supply of mega-millions. > But, hey, all that work did yield him a little womanly attention and > at least one roll in the hay. So maybe it’s worth it to some.
Would you say in the final analysis they would have been better off hiring hookers, and paying for the sex up front? Assuming they don’t get arrested or get AIDS or some other nasty incurable disease. > I don’t > know. I *do* know that if the guy came to me near the end of step 3, > I’d advise him to be *very* careful.
Before a loserguy gambles hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, on a woman, he would do well to spend a few thousand dollars to get some legal advice first. At least so he understands how the various possible scenarios can play out. > Frankly, I think true "loserguys"-who I admit are rare–who fine > themselves alone after a certain point should completely hang it up > w/r/t to romance/marriage and focus on their strong points. (I’ve > heard this called the "Largo Option"–wo hoo! I’m famous!)
That’s like saying fat people should eat less. Of course they should eat less, but they happen to have relentless urges to eat more. Their problem is not figuring out what to do, which is easy, but figuring out how to make themselves want to do it, which for some appears to be impossible. To make the Largo Option viable, you must articulate some specific, workable strategy to eliminate those bothersome cravings. At the moment there is no "nicotine patch" for libido. The fact that you keep repeating the Largo Option over and over suggests you still haven’t been able to forget about women. That’s a bit difficult to do considering the constant parade of bootylicious young women visible every day in every city. It’s like being a starving glutton working in a doughnut factory who isn’t allowed to eat anything. Hookers might be a viable option if you lived in a society that did not stigmatize hookers and their clients. But I think there are compelling sociobiological reasons that make such a Losertopia unrealizable, currently at least. — the Danimal
Response:
dmoc…@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in message > > 2) Pride. As expressed here, many men find hiring a woman of the night > > to violate their pride. > In this case, "pride" means they are overestimating their > value to women.
How so? The values of women construct a man’s sense of pride? Such as that instilled by his mother? I’m not following. > It’s like a person with no marketable skills who is too proud > to take a menial job. A person like that should face facts > and learn his place. Maybe he can improve his skills, but that > might take a lot of work if he has little natural ability. > > 3) Fear of the unknown. Many men are simply afraid of the process of > > hiring a prostitute. > As well they should be, given that it’s illegal in many areas and > carries great stigma.
Unlike overeating. > So why aren’t these men similarly afraid of getting married? As > you point out, that’s also a dangerous option. But it’s the > socially approved option.
Many men aren’t interested in marriage. Loserguys might not be able to get married. > I don’t think the relevant fear here has anything to do with > the real risks for the various options, but rather it’s about > fear of social disapproval.
I think pride and fear of disease or getting robbed play into the use of prostitutes. > So why don’t lawyers advertise this service? "Before you say > ‘I do’, talk to us."
They do. When firms doing family law place ads, they always include "divorce" in the list. I guess you mean, "Why isn’t on billboards like personal injury lawyers?" Follow the money. More money in personal injury. > I’ve seen advertisements from lawyers, but never for marital > risk prevention.
I’ve never seen "marital risk prevention" either. Must not be boatloads of money in it. Although lawyers do regularly draft prenups. > Could it be lawyers would rather not warn the marks, so they > can charge them more money after they have gotten in too deep?
I doubt there is a conspiracy. > Or do lawyers know it would be a waste of time even to try > warning the headstrong ignorant marks?
not money money in it. > > The two are very different for one obvious reason: food is always > > obtainable whereas women are not ever obtainable to the true loserguy. > What are you talking about? Hookers are almost always > obtainable if the loserguy has money. What’s not obtainable, > to either the glutton or the loserguy, is complete satisfaction > *AND* social approval at the same time.
Hookers are a stopgap measure. When I say obtainable, I mean "real" relationships, not just masturbating with someone. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> When a handsome desirable man marries a beautiful desirable > woman, most people approve the attractive couple. They don’t > have to break any laws or apologize to anyone. They get to > indulge their desires with each other and enjoy social approval. > In fact their social approval *INCREASES* when they get with > each other. Check out how the tabloids go ga-ga over celebrity > couples: a celebrity couple attracts more attention than the > sum of its parts. > In contrast, if a glutton gives in to his urge to stuff his face > every day, soon he becomes slovenly obese and people begin to > abhor him. > Similarly, if an undesirable loserguy tries to get sexual > satisfaction like the handsome guy gets, most people find > the thought of the loserguy hiring hookers to be distasteful, > so they tend to stigmatize him for trying to act on his desires.
But the difference lies in the type of disapproval. One is illegal and dangerous. The other isn’t, except for long term health risks. One is arduous for most to obtain. The other is not. > It’s also easier to conceal than a hooker habit. But if > masturbation were enough I seriously doubt you would need > to write 500 articles about what loserguys should do. > Given that every loserguy already knows about this option > and hardly needs reminding.
Masturbation is but one measure to help the loserguy. In younger years, it certainly helped me a great deal. Is it the One True Key to Happiness for loserguys? Of course not. > > I have theory that the key is setting up a healthy rhythem in one’s > > life. A hard day’s work. Exercise. A hobby or two. Friends and travel. > I have a theory that when a human is genetically programmed to > crave a certain type of sensory stimulation, he’s not going to > be too happy unless he experiences it.
I’m not saying everything will ever be hunky-dory for the loserguy. I’m talking about getting him through the day, the year, and onto bigger things in other areas of life so that in later years, he’s done something with his life instead of pining away his precious days yelping anti-women screeds on Usenet and misbegotten pursuits of that stripe. They’ll come a day in most people’s lives when their sexual adventures and romantic conquests (or lack thereof) in years long gone pale in significance to what they’ve accomplished throughout life. I can’t whisper magic words to a loserguy to make the pain of his low SMV go away forever. But I would like to see a blueprint to get his eye on the prize–his success in his choosen life’s work. > > > The fact that you keep repeating the Largo Option over and > > > over suggests you still haven’t been able to forget about > > > women. > > Absolutely. This topic fascinates me. If somebody with more talent and > > time then me could actually write a book that charts a course for > > self-improvement for loserguys by getting them to focus on obtainable > > goals. I’ve done it, but I wish I had started sooner. > > Should I write the book? > Knock yourself out. I wouldn’t read it.
Of course not. It would be for "loserguys" and I presume you don’t number in their ranks, hmm? > > > That’s a bit difficult to do considering the constant parade > > > of bootylicious young women visible every day in every city. > > > It’s like being a starving glutton working in a doughnut factory > > > who isn’t allowed to eat anything. > > But in the real world, the starving glutton can eat his fill. > So can the loserguy, if he has enough money to hire hookers. > But only with severe social sanction!
Which is the difference. Largo Coats
Response:
>Should I write the book? Since I have a mild version of Kallman’s >Syndrome and was diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder at 20,
A true Schizoid wouldn’t need women..You obviously need women but you play this little head game with yourself in which you focus 100% of your energy on your career which doesn’t mean a damn thing to your genes entering future generations…you have no future generations……. A virgin male Doctor at age 70 is still on his way toward DEATH and is literally more of a failure in the animal kingdom than the 17 year old High School dropout working at McDonalds. You speak of these social status things as if they last forever..they do not!!!!!! Get it through your head, you either have sex with a woman and produce offspring or else you are a genetic LOSER.
Response:
coats2…@yahoo.com (Largo) wrote in message <news:c6e1334a.0409031743.73752cd5@posting.google.com>… > > > 6) Divorce. Former-loserguy cleaned out. "Best interests of the child" > > > trumps any argument related to unbelieveable spending/cheating with > > > attractive men/abuse/theft. > > At this stage in the game, were the marks completely astounded > > at how the court system works? As in they had no idea what they > > were surrendering when they got their willies wet? > Yes. The ignorance is astounding.
Almost anybody with specialized knowledge about anything that matters finds the general level of ignorance about that subject astounding. For example, the other day I was riding my bike and I saw some other bike riders I know standing by the side of the road working on one of their bikes. One of the guys had a flat tire, so he had put in his spare tube, pumped it up, and it exploded too. Turns out the sidewall had ripped away from the bead. So when I happened by, there he was with no more tubes, a tire with a 1" rip in it, and a dozen miles from home. Mistake #1: not identifying the cause of the flat. When you get a flat tire on a bike, first you must identify the cause of the flat, and if necessary correct it. Otherwise, you could flat the next tube you put in. For example, when the tire has a sharp object stuck through it, a hole in the casing big enough to see through, or the rim strip has collapsed into a spoke hole. Mistake #2: not carrying a "tire boot." If a tire has a visible hole in it, the replacement tube will bulge through the hole and burst. So you have to put something between the tube and the hole, which we call a "boot." In a pinch, U.S. currency supposedly works (a few dollar bills), but I always carry a few strips of old tire for this purpose. Take an old tire, cut off the bead wires with heavy shears or tinsnips, cut the old tire into 6" long strips, and put a couple in your seat bag with your spare tube and tools. So I got out one of my tire boots, put it in the tire for him, showed him how to properly use the patch kit to patch the tube he had flatted, and then he was able to ride home with no problem. Bicyclists who go on extended tours might carry at least one foldable spare tire in addition to several spare tubes and a patch kit. > > Would you say in the final analysis they would have been better > > off hiring hookers, and paying for the sex up front? Assuming they > > don’t get arrested or get AIDS or some other nasty incurable > > disease. > I suppose, but there are a couple of things: > 1) Feminine love and presence. Hookers do not provide these,
Depends on how much the john is willing to pay, I suppose. > while a > girlfriend/fiance/wife do. Some men absolutely and uncontrollable > crave this, to their extreme detriment.
They could try hookers for sex and dogs for companionship. But probably they don’t want "feminine love and presence" so much as they want to believe the women they have sex with do not have sex with other men. > 2) Pride. As expressed here, many men find hiring a woman of the night > to violate their pride.
In this case, "pride" means they are overestimating their value to women. It’s like a person with no marketable skills who is too proud to take a menial job. A person like that should face facts and learn his place. Maybe he can improve his skills, but that might take a lot of work if he has little natural ability. > 3) Fear of the unknown. Many men are simply afraid of the process of > hiring a prostitute.
As well they should be, given that it’s illegal in many areas and carries great stigma. So why aren’t these men similarly afraid of getting married? As you point out, that’s also a dangerous option. But it’s the socially approved option. I don’t think the relevant fear here has anything to do with the real risks for the various options, but rather it’s about fear of social disapproval. You know, like guys who (historically) enlisted in the army because they were afraid of being called cowards. They were actually more afraid of social disapproval than they were afraid of charging into enemy machine gun fire. (This is probably not so true any more, given the much lower enlistment rates in the U.S. these days, and post-Vietnam disillusionment.) > > > I don’t > > > know. I *do* know that if the guy came to me near the end of step 3, > > > I’d advise him to be *very* careful. > > Before a loserguy gambles hundreds of thousands of dollars, > > or even millions, on a woman, he would do well to spend a > > few thousand dollars to get some legal advice first. At least > > so he understands how the various possible scenarios can > > play out. > I could not agree more.
So why don’t lawyers advertise this service? "Before you say ‘I do’, talk to us." I’ve seen advertisements from lawyers, but never for marital risk prevention. Could it be lawyers would rather not warn the marks, so they can charge them more money after they have gotten in too deep? Or do lawyers know it would be a waste of time even to try warning the headstrong ignorant marks? > > > Frankly, I think true "loserguys"-who I admit are rare–who fine > > > themselves alone after a certain point should completely hang it up > > > w/r/t to romance/marriage and focus on their strong points. (I’ve > > > heard this called the "Largo Option"–wo hoo! I’m famous!) > > That’s like saying fat people should eat less. Of course > > they should eat less, but they happen to have relentless > > urges to eat more. Their problem is not figuring out what > > to do, which is easy, but figuring out how to make themselves > > want to do it, which for some appears to be impossible. > The two are very different for one obvious reason: food is always > obtainable whereas women are not ever obtainable to the true loserguy.
What are you talking about? Hookers are almost always obtainable if the loserguy has money. What’s not obtainable, to either the glutton or the loserguy, is complete satisfaction *AND* social approval at the same time. When a handsome desirable man marries a beautiful desirable woman, most people approve the attractive couple. They don’t have to break any laws or apologize to anyone. They get to indulge their desires with each other and enjoy social approval. In fact their social approval *INCREASES* when they get with each other. Check out how the tabloids go ga-ga over celebrity couples: a celebrity couple attracts more attention than the sum of its parts. In contrast, if a glutton gives in to his urge to stuff his face every day, soon he becomes slovenly obese and people begin to abhor him. Similarly, if an undesirable loserguy tries to get sexual satisfaction like the handsome guy gets, most people find the thought of the loserguy hiring hookers to be distasteful, so they tend to stigmatize him for trying to act on his desires. Check out the language people use. Feminists say prostitutes are "victimized," which is their way of saying some men are so freaking unattractive that they "victimize" women just by having sex with them. > > To make the Largo Option viable, you must articulate some > > specific, workable strategy to eliminate those bothersome > > cravings. At the moment there is no "nicotine patch" for > > libido. > Masturbation works wonders for many people.
It’s also easier to conceal than a hooker habit. But if masturbation were enough I seriously doubt you would need to write 500 articles about what loserguys should do. Given that every loserguy already knows about this option and hardly needs reminding. > Prostitutes are another > option, I suppose. Some people wrap themselves in religion or work or > solitude. And, of course, age helps a great deal.
Age helps, but not when you need it. > I have theory that the key is setting up a healthy rhythem in one’s > life. A hard day’s work. Exercise. A hobby or two. Friends and travel.
I have a theory that when a human is genetically programmed to crave a certain type of sensory stimulation, he’s not going to be too happy unless he experiences it. The good news, in theory, is that the sensory signal is all that matters, not its actual source. The bad news is that the human brain is exceptionally discerning when it comes to spotting fakes, because our genetic survival depends on it. But the human brain is not infinitely discerning, and technology might someday fool it. > > The fact that you keep repeating the Largo Option over and > > over suggests you still haven’t been able to forget about > > women. > Absolutely. This topic fascinates me. If somebody with more talent and > time then me could actually write a book that charts a course for > self-improvement for loserguys by getting them to focus on obtainable > goals. I’ve done it, but I wish I had started sooner. > Should I write the book?
Knock yourself out. I wouldn’t read it. > > That’s a bit difficult to do considering the constant parade > > of bootylicious young women visible every day in every city. > > It’s like being a starving glutton working in a doughnut factory > > who isn’t allowed to eat anything. > But in the real world, the starving glutton can eat his fill.
So can the loserguy, if he has enough money to hire hookers. But only with severe social sanction! The world disapproves of fat gluttons about like it disapproves of johns. Well, actually the world is somewhat nicer to fat gluttons—the world lets them eat all the food they can buy, and then punishes them for getting fat. > The loserguy, on the other hand, can’t get no lovin.
Sure he can. He just can’t get lovin’ *AND* social approval at the same time. That’s highly analogous to the fat glutton who can’t (a) satisfy his urge to binge on food *AND* (b) get social approval at the same time. — the Danimal
Response:
>The fact that you keep repeating the Largo Option over and >over suggests you still haven’t been able to forget about >women.
Exactly, the moron thinks he’s some real winner because he’s climbing the corporate world and will be a virgin at age 50. Who gave this guy the idea that the only goal in life was social status??? He’s a genetic failure if he can’t find a woman. Looking back no one gives a damn who had wealth in the year 1420 but apparently this Largo Coats person is OBSESSED with his social position probably because he’s a complete and utter FAILURE at attracting women…….
Response:
> > 6) Divorce. Former-loserguy cleaned out. "Best interests of the child" > > trumps any argument related to unbelieveable spending/cheating with > > attractive men/abuse/theft. > At this stage in the game, were the marks completely astounded > at how the court system works? As in they had no idea what they > were surrendering when they got their willies wet?
Yes. The ignorance is astounding. > > 7) Woman has kid she (at least at one point) wanted and support. > > Former-loserguy may retain loserguy status. > > (I know. Men can be jerks too. But the sexes are jerks in different > > ways, speaking broadly, and this seems to be the more "womanly" man.) > Contrast that to the ghetto Don Juan who impregnates any number > of semi-literate women in between jail stints. They don’t even > bother to go after him for support; they head straight to the > welfare office and stick it to taxpayers. > The Donald Trumps at the other end of the scale have lawyers to > advise them, and if they have to support a few children it’s > just a rounding error in terms of their wealth.
To reach "rounding error" status, you have to have a lot of wealth. > I do admit I have to chuckle at the pro athletes who father > a dozen children by a dozen different women and learn how > fast those seemingly fat contracts can get thin. And then they > go down with a career-ending injury and get to feed all those > hungry mouths without a further supply of mega-millions. > > But, hey, all that work did yield him a little womanly attention and > > at least one roll in the hay. So maybe it’s worth it to some. > Would you say in the final analysis they would have been better > off hiring hookers, and paying for the sex up front? Assuming they > don’t get arrested or get AIDS or some other nasty incurable > disease.
I suppose, but there are a couple of things: 1) Feminine love and presence. Hookers do not provide these, while a girlfriend/fiance/wife do. Some men absolutely and uncontrollable crave this, to their extreme detriment. 2) Pride. As expressed here, many men find hiring a woman of the night to violate their pride. 3) Fear of the unknown. Many men are simply afraid of the process of hiring a prostitute. > > I don’t > > know. I *do* know that if the guy came to me near the end of step 3, > > I’d advise him to be *very* careful. > Before a loserguy gambles hundreds of thousands of dollars, > or even millions, on a woman, he would do well to spend a > few thousand dollars to get some legal advice first. At least > so he understands how the various possible scenarios can > play out.
I could not agree more. > > Frankly, I think true "loserguys"-who I admit are rare–who fine > > themselves alone after a certain point should completely hang it up > > w/r/t to romance/marriage and focus on their strong points. (I’ve > > heard this called the "Largo Option"–wo hoo! I’m famous!) > That’s like saying fat people should eat less. Of course > they should eat less, but they happen to have relentless > urges to eat more. Their problem is not figuring out what > to do, which is easy, but figuring out how to make themselves > want to do it, which for some appears to be impossible.
The two are very different for one obvious reason: food is always obtainable whereas women are not ever obtainable to the true loserguy. > To make the Largo Option viable, you must articulate some > specific, workable strategy to eliminate those bothersome > cravings. At the moment there is no "nicotine patch" for > libido.
Masturbation works wonders for many people. Prostitutes are another option, I suppose. Some people wrap themselves in religion or work or solitude. And, of course, age helps a great deal. I have theory that the key is setting up a healthy rhythem in one’s life. A hard day’s work. Exercise. A hobby or two. Friends and travel. > The fact that you keep repeating the Largo Option over and > over suggests you still haven’t been able to forget about > women.
Absolutely. This topic fascinates me. If somebody with more talent and time then me could actually write a book that charts a course for self-improvement for loserguys by getting them to focus on obtainable goals. I’ve done it, but I wish I had started sooner. Should I write the book? Since I have a mild version of Kallman’s Syndrome and was diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder at 20, my libido is, I admit, not what is should be. (Also I’m 38 and on the downward slide!) I don’t think I am "mainstream" enough to identify with some of the problems the loserguy faces. I admit this. That’s perhaps why I wrestle with this and invite comment here! > That’s a bit difficult to do considering the constant parade > of bootylicious young women visible every day in every city. > It’s like being a starving glutton working in a doughnut factory > who isn’t allowed to eat anything.
But in the real world, the starving glutton can eat his fill. The loserguy, on the other hand, can’t get no lovin. Largo Coats
*grin* 
