Why are so many American women mean?

[hypermak]

American women may be awful but you would be delusional to believe most reasonably well-off, reasonably well-educated women in first world countries across the globe are all that much better. The focus on the awfulness of American women on this forum is caused by the obsessive desire of the forum's primarily American userbase to mate with American women, and their inability from an early age to do so.

If 70% of this forum was German instead of American, this post would be titled: "Why are so many German women mean?"

These threads sound like a broken record at this point. A tiresome collection of the same old shit, the same old tropes, the same old cliches, and all coming from men who are still pissy, decades after high school, because your classroom's resident Chad got the cheerleader and you only got a handjob from some chubby girl with glasses who was into Dungeons and Dragons or whatever sad shit went down in your teenage years.

I would agree with the above. It's not that Italian or German women are much better, especially the younger generations. I don't know how much of each member's personal life story and resentment goes into this conviction, but meeting girls from other backgrounds, e.g. Filipino, is quite refreshing.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Given that you don't want to raise a family, as indeed you shouldn't, such an outlook makes perfect sense for you. However, if men do want a family then they should realise that females never cease being grown children and can only meaningful make a positive contribution to society with such guidance and discipline.

What part of being philosophically opposed to marriage means I would not raise or want to a family? They are two different things altogether.

I often see how you mis-process the simplest of information that gives larger clues about you in general. You would be a nightmare in a job with high complexity.

Are you thinking of raising a family? Would you have access to the kids in whatever country you have in mind to do this in if you are not married to the wife?

I have never been against raising a family, just against marriage. Now that does not mean I necessarily WANT to live out my life in that role, but I would do so willingly ONLY if I came across a unicorn of a woman so impressive that I would trust her to manage my children and my wealth appropriately after I passed on. I have never met such a girl and I doubt I will because girls who I find attractive typically do not have the depth of intellect and personal values needed for me to see investing through them as prudent. A few have come close, but close is not good enough when it comes to children and generational wealth to oversee.

If it cannot be done incredibly well, don’t do it at all.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

American women may be awful but you would be delusional to believe most reasonably well-off, reasonably well-educated women in first world countries across the globe are all that much better. The focus on the awfulness of American women on this forum is caused by the obsessive desire of the forum's primarily American userbase to mate with American women, and their inability from an early age to do so.

If 70% of this forum was German instead of American, this post would be titled: "Why are so many German women mean?"

These threads sound like a broken record at this point. A tiresome collection of the same old shit, the same old tropes, the same old cliches, and all coming from men who are still pissy, decades after high school, because your classroom's resident Chad got the cheerleader and you only got a handjob from some chubby girl with glasses who was into Dungeons and Dragons or whatever sad shit went down in your teenage years.

No American women are indeed a different breed nowadays and I am speaking as someone who traveled the globe.

What you are missing is the impact the legal environment has on relationships with American women. In addition, phlegminism is it most toxic in the United States, although Spain comes close.

But oddly enough, the 21 and 24 year old American women in my life are Generation Z which seems to be turning a corner towards more femininity. Both are super kind and sweet and I am thinking about staying in the USA to see if either of these two turns out to be the quality I would want around me long term.

Last year, I would have never even considered the possibility of being serious with an American. But circumstances in the economy are pushing girls to become more old fashioned in their approach to men. Two quality girls is a very good problem to have. Who would have thought it possible in America?

[MrMan]

The Bible offers marriage or not marrying as options. Either is allowed. But not marrying requires __celibacy__ no sex. Do you like that option? If my daughter marries, it has to be to a man who shares the same values.

Fornication in the biblical context has nothing to do with marriage per se. It means sex outside of a committed relationship because marriage back then were only formalized with rich people of the noble classes, not simple people. So you can indeed have sex outside of marriage so long as it is in the context of an actual relationship. The marriage requirement is just a "johnny come lately" addition to control people even further. It is a shame you took that definition of fornication to heart. A smarter discussion of what fornication REALLY means is in the link.

https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/ ... rnication/

I am not sure why you are quoting that as evidence that porneia was redefined to control people. The author does not seem to agree with your assessment. It is obvious from context that the word can be used metaphorically to refer to idolatry in some contexts also.

I don't expect you to agree because you are too fully invested in thinking people cannot have sex before marriage, but natural human behavior and human history dispute that notion.

Of course people can have sex before marriage. The issue is whether or not they should. If you want to argue against that idea, it makes no sense to refer me to the article you did.

Why would you be in favor of a girl marrying after her brain is fully developed? Isn't one of the advantages of a man marrying a woman young and flexible that he gets to have some impact on her development, kind of like 'imprinting' on a baby bird? Fathers should be involved in the daughter's decision to marry, so she doesn't marry a dud or someone who is abusive.

I probably have more experience with younger women than most. I can tell you that most women under the age of 22 are train wrecks who I would not trust to make ANY important life decisions on their own. They have a very difficult time thinking about harmful consequences because their cerebral cortex is not yet solidified. These women are technically adults, but they are children in many ways.

Again, that is why parents, fathers especially if available, need to be involved in marriage decisions for these young women. If they have been trained well to obey their parents and that transfers to the husband, that's a good thing. Some girls are aware on some level when they behave like brats, and a man handling that well may solidify his role as leader after she grows out of the immature stage.

You are also dating the kind of girls who would date you, the type of man who is interested in a short-term thing (unless you deceive them). Were these sugar babies? They may not be the wisest, most discerning women in that age group out there.

[Cornfed]

You are also dating the kind of girls who would date you, the type of man who is interested in a short-term thing (unless you deceive them). Were these sugar babies? They may not be the wisest, most discerning women in that age group out there.

Especially if they're mudsharks.

[Cornfed]

I have never been against raising a family, just against marriage.

What alternative arrangement for raising a family would you propose?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

If you want to argue against that idea, it makes no sense to refer me to the article you did.

The point of the article was to show you that your understanding of fornication is in error. Fornication does not mean what many people think it means, that is, the prohibition of sex outside of marriage.

That is the key point that seemed to go right over your head.

You are also dating the kind of girls who would date you, the type of man who is interested in a short-term thing (unless you deceive them). Were these sugar babies? They may not be the wisest, most discerning women in that age group out there.

Every woman in the world, especially married women, are sugar babies at the core. This is another truth that you are loathe to admit, and understandably so.

I recall asking you to cut off your wife and daughters from all financial support from you. You conveniently ignored that because you are very well aware of how that would go for you, catastrophically. It would destroy your family and it would break up your marriage. Don't think so? TRY IT.

That being the case, it is clear women are programmed to admire and love men who provide for them. In times of uncertainty or deprivation, even younger women respond to this base drive. Things are changing in the USA and girls are struggling like everyone else. Guess what, guys who have financial wherewithal are at a premium here as they have been in poorer countries in the past.

This is a fundamental truth that you are free to disregard and deny; however, none of that makes it any less true.

Finally, about female discernment, it is more complex and sophisticated than you think. Women know in the first minute of meeting a man whether he is someone with whom they would have sex or not. Women of the caliber I go for (gorgeous, high IQ, thin, extroverted, intellectually-engaged, well-read, well-traveled) need men who they can look up to and admire as particularly accomplished, not the university quarterback type who moistens the loins of most girls of that age. And just so you know, when normal people are dating, they don't necessarily know if things will be short term or long term. The fact that you suggest that people should be making such choices early on indicates social awkwardness and lack of dating experience on your part. Consequently, you are not the best person who should be giving dating advice because you never developed the skills to know any better. You were a virgin at marriage and you remain wholly inexperienced in this realm to the point where I question whether you should be weighing in on your daughter's dating life at all.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

You are also dating the kind of girls who would date you, the type of man who is interested in a short-term thing (unless you deceive them). Were these sugar babies? They may not be the wisest, most discerning women in that age group out there.

Especially if they're mudsharks.

Bogan vomitsharks could never come close to them in quality.

[hypermak]

@MrMan,

There's no point debating with Contrarian Expatriate. He enters the conversation convinced that he's the wiser, holier and wealthier one and, as such, his opinions must be taken as the ultimate truth. Whoever disagrees must automatically be a stupid, a "simp", a "cuck" or similar labels.

Anything that is not self-serving and self-referential like, you know, a man's sense or responsibility or (God forbid!) "love" towards a woman, a family, he cannot even begin to elaborate. From that point of view he is a complete sociopath.

In fact, not even that. At least real sociopaths come across as relatable and helpful, whatever their beef with the human race is well hidden behind their charming, manipulative ways. CE's ambition is stuck at pre-teen "my d*ck is longer than yours" phase. Real sociopaths take real positions of powers, lead and manipulate millions. CE's happy to bang the drum so that, hopefully, 15 anonymous members of an online forum get the memo that he is "the shit" at whatever he put his mind to.

He is so obsessed with coming across as the ultimate prototype of masculinity that he even constantly forgets to keep his story straight. After admitting, for months, that he targets gullible young college students half his age who don't have the funds to buy themselves a new pair of glasses, or go to the dentist, he now proclaims that the women he goes for "gorgeous, high IQ, thin, extroverted, intellectually-engaged, well-read, well-traveled". After busting our balls for months, that he will never commit his precious resources to his own family, he now says that he wouldn't rule out having a family with his "unicorn".

Whatever dude, spin, spin the carousel Un altro giro, un'altra fantasia!



@MrMan you are basically sharing your real life experience as an adult, an expat and a (happily) married man with someone whose life experience is just a bunch of fantasies and stories, backed at most by the occasional whoremonging trip to Kyiv. Or a YouTube video where he learns new (and risky) ways to invest his meager pension money.

You have been living your life to the full, you're an accomplished man and, I am sure, a wonderful husband and a loving father. He comes with his solitude, his self-serving and self-referential life and his humongous baggage of hate.

Only in his mind, a virtuous married man is not qualified to give advice to his daughters. But someone like him who has never married, has never loved anyone but himself and keeps bragging about buying sexual favours from girls not much older than your daughter...he's perfect!

The only way he can survive is keep telling stories. That's all he is doing, that's all he can ever do.

[MrMan]

If you want to argue against that idea, it makes no sense to refer me to the article you did.

The point of the article was to show you that your understanding of fornication is in error. Fornication does not mean what many people think it means, that is, the prohibition of sex outside of marriage.

That is the key point that seemed to go right over your head.

Maybe you linked the wrong article, because the one you referred me to included that as a component. Since I already had a similar view the the authors-- the fornication can have a broader sense also-- it didn't seem controversial to me, so I didn't see your point in mentioning it. The author's understanding of fornication includes sex outside of marriage.

You are also dating the kind of girls who would date you, the type of man who is interested in a short-term thing (unless you deceive them). Were these sugar babies? They may not be the wisest, most discerning women in that age group out there.

Every woman in the world, especially married women, are sugar babies at the core. This is another truth that you are loathe to admit, and understandably so.[/quote]

Women want men to provide for them. That's ingrained in them. I don't think that is a bad thing in the right context, and a decent woman reciprocates with taking good care of her man in various ways. My wife cooks gourmet food and keeps up the house. We differ in that I consider marriage to be good an honorable and you disagree. But even with that disagreement, from the perspective of the woman caring for her own self interest and biological urges to reproduce with a partner who will care for the offspring, doesn't a woman being willing to be a short-term sugar baby as opposed to a life-long wife say something about her judgment?

I recall asking you to cut off your wife and daughters from all financial support from you. You conveniently ignored that because you are very well aware of how that would go for you, catastrophically. It would destroy your family and it would break up your marriage. Don't think so? TRY IT.[/quote]

I could tell you to punch an on duty policeman in some predominantly white town and how catastrophic that would be for you. That doesn't mean you would do it. I suppose you would have some other reason for not doing it. My oldest daughter is in high school. Cutting my family off financially is something I find immoral and is not something I want to do. Why would I even pay any attention to your suggestion? I've lived overseas, too, where if I were a bad husband and father, I could have cut them off financially, probably without any legal repercussions. I'm not going to do this just because some fellow with extreme views on the internet suggests it.

That being the case, it is clear women are programmed to admire and love men who provide for them. In times of uncertainty or deprivation, even younger women respond to this base drive. Things are changing in the USA and girls are struggling like everyone else. Guess what, guys who have financial wherewithal are at a premium here as they have been in poorer countries in the past.

This is a fundamental truth that you are free to disregard and deny; however, none of that makes it any less true.

I am not sure we disagree on this. Clearly women want providers. There is a reasonable desire that most women have. But for some, it crosses over into avarice and materialism. We differ in regard to what choices are considered to be immoral.

Finally, about female discernment, it is more complex and sophisticated than you think. Women know in the first minute of meeting a man whether he is someone with whom they would have sex or not. Women of the caliber I go for (gorgeous, high IQ, thin, extroverted, intellectually-engaged, well-read, well-traveled) need men who they can look up to and admire as particularly accomplished, not the university quarterback type who moistens the loins of most girls of that age. And just so you know, when normal people are dating, they don't necessarily know if things will be short term or long term. The fact that you suggest that people should be making such choices early on indicates social awkwardness and lack of dating experience on your part. Consequently, you are not the best person who should be giving dating advice because you never developed the skills to know any better. You were a virgin at marriage and you remain wholly inexperienced in this realm to the point where I question whether you should be weighing in on your daughter's dating life at all.

A young man or woman looking for a sexually moral partner who has marriage in mind should be looking for that early in a dating relationship. With the girls I dated, I didn't just go pick up random strangers in bars. I had some criteria for the women I dated and, at least later in my 20's, I had marriage in mind. Your view of the purpose of dating is different from mine, and the type of person you date is probably different from the type I dated.

[statnerd]

Clearly women want providers. There is a reasonable desire that most women have. But for some, it crosses over into avarice and materialism.

Yes, a decent woman will want a man who can provide a stable lifestyle for herself and the children, if she has children. The key is that both the man and woman contribute in different ways. While the man will support the family financially, the woman will contribute by taking care of the house and children and cooking good meals for the family. That's normal and healthy. When the kids reach school age, if she just lays around the house watching soap operas and takes the occasional trip to Starbucks in an SUV that her husband paid for, hires a maid, and insists that they go out to eat every night because she's too lazy to cook, then she's a user.

A gold digger is obviously a user, but on top of being lazy and not contributing much of anything beyond sex to the relationship, she'll demand expensive gifts such as plastic surgery, endless cruises overseas and vacations to expensive resorts, and expensive jewelry and cars. Gold diggers are entirely selfish and many will divorce after a few years of marriage because they know that they'll get half of the assets accumulated during the marriage. In some states, there's alimony, and if they have children, she can screw the guy with child support also. The poor bastard basically becomes a financial slave to his ex-wife. Then the gold digger will move on to the next sucker. That kind of woman is basically a sociopath.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

You are a great example of why most decent people no longer like or respect so-called "devout Christians." You people are miserable and it comes out in your super judgmental attitudes about everything you are not permitted to enjoy for yourselves. Therein lies the kicker. Since you have never been free to enjoy life to the fullest, you resort to casting aspersions on lifestyles and people that you deeply envy. It's really a sad existence, but since you constrained your life that way voluntarily, you're just going to have to suck it up without expecting many people to fall for the religious duping you obviously fell for.

Women want men to provide for them. That's ingrained in them. I don't think that is a bad thing in the right context, and a decent woman reciprocates with taking good care of her man in various ways.

You do realize that the world does not revolve around what YOU consider to be the right context, right? In fact, what you consider to be the "right context" is culturally withering away because people are now more educated, worldly-wise, and discerning than ever before.

Cutting my family off financially is something I find immoral and is not something I want to do. Why would I even pay any attention to your suggestion? I've lived overseas, too, where if I were a bad husband and father, I could have cut them off financially, probably without any legal repercussions. I'm not going to do this just because some fellow with extreme views on the internet suggests it.

So great to see you passively admitted that your wife and family would dump you like a barrel of hot steaming crap if you chose to not provide for them financially. You know it and you always have, but your Christian brainwashing is simply trying to dissuade other men from financially providing for their women. You're therefore a hypocrite. Ff you think you are not, I ask you again, to turn off the financial support for your family and see what happens and what they do to you. Any wife is essentially a sugar baby by law. You just have to provide significantly more financial support than I provide and for a much longer amount of time (decades versus several months to a few years).

The fact that you were foolish enough to legally lock yourself into that legal sugar baby contract called marriage, while mine is 100% voluntary, just shows the lengths people will go to screw up their lives under dogmatic, unhealthy, Christian pressure.

I am not sure we disagree on this. Clearly women want providers. There is a reasonable desire that most women have. But for some, it crosses over into avarice and materialism. We differ in regard to what choices are considered to be immoral.

If we agree on this, then why harp on it like a butthurt, married, bore who resents the freedom of unmarried men to enjoy their dating lives using financial support as a one of several means to secure the loyalty and devotion of his partners? Smacks of poisonous resentment and nothing more. Do you hate your life THAT much?

As far as avarice and materialism, you have spent far more money on your wife over the years than I will ever spend on all women COMBINED. So where is the avarice and materialism then when your most of what your wife owns and enjoys is paid for by YOU? So your immorality argument seems to suggest that your marriage is immoral. But you know this already. You're just not ready to come to terms with it.

A young man or woman looking for a sexually moral partner who has marriage in mind should be looking for that early in a dating relationship. With the girls I dated, I didn't just go pick up random strangers in bars. I had some criteria for the women I dated and, at least later in my 20's, I had marriage in mind. Your view of the purpose of dating is different from mine, and the type of person you date is probably different from the type I dated.

Your obsession with trying to deem things moral or not is emblematic of the deep brainwashing that has occurred in your life. That too is sad to see. But I have to tell you that if you are teaching your kids to view each new dates as potential marriage partners, I'd say you are a horrible father, especially for your girls.

Why not just prohibit your kids from dating altogether and arrange personally who they are to marry then be done with it? Healthy, normal people date for a variety of reasons and your narrow, dictatorial, and abusive view that your children are to date only for the reasons you approve and only with an eye towards marriage is downright sick. Why don't you run that parenting approach by a mental health professional and learn just how horribly abusive a parent you are?

Lot's to unravel in a religious zealot whose life was deprived of basic, human needs so he, in turn, wants others to suffer those deprivations using insincere appeals to "morality" as rationalizations. They say, "Misery loves company." I can say forthrightly that I, and clear-thinking men everywhere, will not be joining you. Sorry....

Your constant whining and complaining about "immorality" reminds me of the late, great H.L. Mencken:

[MrMan]

You do realize that the world does not revolve around what YOU consider to be the right context, right?

Ask yourself that question. Your views are pretty 'contrarian' too against historical, traditional, and even contemporary morality when it comes to marriage.

In fact, what you consider to be the "right context" is culturally withering away because people are now more educated, worldly-wise, and discerning than ever before.

More technologically and economically advanced, but in a lot of ways a world gone crazy.

Cutting my family off financially is something I find immoral and is not something I want to do. Why would I even pay any attention to your suggestion? I've lived overseas, too, where if I were a bad husband and father, I could have cut them off financially, probably without any legal repercussions. I'm not going to do this just because some fellow with extreme views on the internet suggests it.

So great to see you passively admitted that your wife and family would dump you like a barrel of hot steaming crap if you chose to not provide for them financially. [/quote]

If the investments dry up, you could try a career in network news the way you spin 'facts' that aren't there. You asked something ridiculous, for me to stop supporting my family, and I pointed out how ridiculous that was.

As for your question, I don't know how my wife would react, and she probably doesn't know. She's got relatives who are like that, where the husband, from what she heard, just spent money he made on himself. His wife's microbusiness supported the family, including step children. They stayed together. Her people group tends to be very anti-divorce, at least the Christian culture within the people group. A minority are Muslim and I don't know much about their marriage customs. When I was in grad school and my grad assistant income, research funding, etc. was not enough to live off of, she started a small business which I helped with, but since I was busy, she put in a lot more time. I was working toward a goal which would help my family, not just skipping out and being a deadbeat dad. But she stuck with me through the poor times, quite a number of years.

You could also ask if my wife would stick with me if I killed one of her family members or became a drug addict and started robbing liquor stores. We might like to say 'yes' but she's a human being and has to be concerned with her own survival. But I wouldn't kill someone, become a drug addict, or liquor stores at your suggestion any more than I would become a deadbeat dad to prove some idea of yours wrong.

You know it and you always have, but your Christian brainwashing is simply trying to dissuade other men from financially providing for their women. You're therefore a hypocrite.

You seem very confused. Your argument makes no sense. If the topic comes up, I would encourage Christian men and other men to provide for their families, wives included. I am consistent on that point. If some of those women would bail if the men did not or the men didn't even try, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. Non sequitur.

Any wife is essentially a sugar baby by law.

Sugar babies are typically in it short term, just while the money is there. A good wife sticks with you if you are poor, like mine did when I was poor. We have a life-long commitment, not a commitment to spend 6 weeks in Vegas.

You just have to provide significantly more financial support than I provide and for a much longer amount of time (decades versus several months to a few years).

I have no idea. I spent a number of years with my wife in Indonesia when the prices, in US dollars were cheap. If you added up all the sugar baby money spent on all the girls, not just one, how much did you pay for? If we both live long enough, I'll have someone with me when I'm old and feeble, too. We've got kids, too.

The fact that you were foolish enough to legally lock yourself into that legal sugar baby contract called marriage, while mine is 100% voluntary, just shows the lengths people will go to screw up their lives under dogmatic, unhealthy, Christian pressure.

What arrangement are you looking for with your potential sugar baby unicorn, and LTR? What if she wants a ring and she's gone without it, and you lose the unicorn if you don't do it? You may not want to compromise on your immoral principles which are based on nothing solid, but if she's smart, shouldn't she want some kind of commitment out of you instead of wasting her reproductive years on the carnal carousel with an old man whose just got money she can't really have? How much do you respect a woman who does that?

I am not sure we disagree on this. Clearly women want providers. There is a reasonable desire that most women have. But for some, it crosses over into avarice and materialism. We differ in regard to what choices are considered to be immoral.

If we agree on this, then why harp on it like a butthurt, married, bore who resents the freedom of unmarried men to enjoy their dating lives using financial support as a one of several means to secure the loyalty and devotion of his partners? Smacks of poisonous resentment and nothing more. Do you hate your life THAT much?

I don't see the sense in your comment. You were the one doing the 'harping', making a point that I responded to.

As far as avarice and materialism, you have spent far more money on your wife over the years than I will ever spend on all women COMBINED. So where is the avarice and materialism then when your most of what your wife owns and enjoys is paid for by YOU? So your immorality argument seems to suggest that your marriage is immoral. But you know this already. You're just not ready to come to terms with it.

I don't follow your argument. There is a normal level of consumption, etc. that is not avaricious if accompanied by the right attitude. I have no idea if I have spent more on my wife than you have an all the girls you dated and that you paid to date you. Do you count your T-shots and gym memberships in the calculation in the calculation?

But I have to tell you that if you are teaching your kids to view each new dates as potential marriage partners, I'd say you are a horrible father, especially for your girls.

You seem to think your opinion on this matter is deemed to have value. It isn't. My girls aren't dating. But I want my children to vet potential partners, not automatically see dates as prime marriage material.

Why not just prohibit your kids from dating altogether and arrange personally who they are to marry then be done with it?

There have to be the other families and marriage partners on the other end to do such a thing. I am not opposed to cultures that do it. Koreans said the matched couples had lower divorce rates than the ones who paired off themselves, when I lived there. I haven't looked up the stats.

Healthy, normal people date for a variety of reasons and your narrow, dictatorial, and abusive view that your children are to date only for the reasons you approve and only with an eye towards marriage is downright sick. Why don't you run that parenting approach by a mental health professional and learn just how horribly abusive a parent you are?

If a mental health professional had that opinion, I wouldn't care for is opinion either. A masters or doctorate doesn't prove an individual is not ethnocentric and closed minded.

Lot's to unravel in a religious zealot whose life was deprived of basic, human needs so he, in turn, wants others to suffer those deprivations using insincere appeals to "morality" as rationalizations. They say, "Misery loves company." I can say forthrightly that I, and clear-thinking men everywhere, will not be joining you. Sorry....

I see the damage to people and needless suffering they go through for sinning against God.

Your constant whining and complaining about "immorality" reminds me of the late, great H.L. Mencken:

If you have a whiny voice in your head when you read my posts, the problem is with the voice in your head.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

If the investments dry up, you could try a career in network news the way you spin 'facts' that aren't there.

So that's what this is really about, my wealth? I should have known. I can tell you I am significantly well diversified around the world and my cash cows have been doing wonderfully even during this pandemic period. If one or two of them were to "dry up" as you are hoping for, I would still be quite comfortable and well-compensated without even considering my pension. Try better to not let your envy leak thru.

The same goes for my love life. You're clearly resentful because I am living a very comfortable, leisurely life and this bothers you because you can't do the same. I can tell you that when a religious nutjob complains about me enjoying young, beautiful women, it only makes me value my lifestyle that much more.

I planned for and live a wonderful life. If that bothers you so much that you have to try to criticize it because you can't enjoy the same, try not to use that horrible, disingenuous morality argument. I would respect you more if you would just come out and say that you hate that I am living among the economic elite and enjoy young women while you are boxed into an unsatisfying and monotonous marriage. I distinctly recall your saying that your wife gets on your nerves but you rationalize that such is normal in a marriage.

The few girls that get on my nerves get an Uber ride straight back home and I never have to see them again.

What's the highlight of your week, church service or doing the chores that your wife assigns for you? There is no wonder you are so beside yourself with anger.

To your defense, I too would be extremely angry too if I tortured myself with virginity before marriage, married some woman in Indonesia, and lived a threadbare, boring life thereafter. But you're going to have to do better than flinging bitter "immorality" arguments that make you look quite a bit unsatisfied with your life.

[Cornfed]

I planned for and live a wonderful life. If that bothers you so much that you have to try to criticize it because you can't enjoy the same

I'm sure Ted Bundy et al would say the same. Maybe there are other reasons for not liking people living an allegedly wonderful life, such as their life coming at other people's expense.