Excuse me while I vomit.- Trigger Warning for Rape and Rape Culture.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?

To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.

In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.

I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things.  Whether or not he knows it.

Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things.  And, in this case, people.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?

To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.

In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.

Yeah, he's evasive as fuck and keeps changing the goalposts. I'm seeing 100% purebred crapweasel.

[Pope Lecherous]

So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?

What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.

So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.

Why do you think that a woman would have to be inebriated to have sex with me?  That's not nice or true.  Are you a mean person?  Are you only mean to people you find contemptible?

As for dialogue, why don't you imagine what you would say?  What could a guy tell you that would make you feel okay with splitting up with your friends before you brought it up in conversation?  How well do you have to know people before you have sex with them? Does it depend on your mood?  Do you have a threshold or a rule or do you play it by ear?

Don't answer.  Just ponder these ideas and scenarios.  Can you overcome any of the objections i listed here or previously without compromising your values?  Some? None? All? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?

To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.

In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.

I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things.  Whether or not he knows it.

Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things.  And, in this case, people.

Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

EVERY time I've encountered some douche who thinks he can talk me out of whatever polite excuse I've given him instead of "FUCK OFF", he's turned out to be the kind of insufferable chodebag who follows me around pathetically trying to kiss me or grab my ass until I tell him to fuck off.

Society now views "polite" as "ambiguity".  That's why people are such arses about politics, for example.  I can't speak for Blackfoot, but it's entirely possible that he's still laboring under the misconceptions The Spider brings along.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?

What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.

So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.

Why do you think that a woman would have to be inebriated to have sex with me?  That's not nice or true.  Are you a mean person?  Are you only mean to people you find contemptible?

As for dialogue, why don't you imagine what you would say?  What could a guy tell you that would make you feel okay with splitting up with your friends before you brought it up in conversation?  How well do you have to know people before you have sex with them? Does it depend on your mood?  Do you have a threshold or a rule or do you play it by ear?

Don't answer.  Just ponder these ideas and scenarios.  Can you overcome any of the objections i listed here or previously without compromising your values?  Some? None? All?

You were the one who talked about "hangups" you might encounter in a club, which pretty much means inebriated club girls. Too close to home? You're pretty evasive, and I have no reason to think any better of you. Answer the fucking questions I ask you, directly and honestly, and stop weaseling.

I'm not 19. I have no use for any of your juvenile games. I have no desire to overcome anyone's objections, and I expect from them the basic courtesy of not trying to overcome mine, nor to try to predict and circumvent them. Your contempt for women's ability to think for themselves is palpable, and yes, contemptible.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?

To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.

In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.

I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things.  Whether or not he knows it.

Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things.  And, in this case, people.

Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.

I don't expect that from too many people, Nigel.  I'd LIKE to see it, but the fact is, people like you and ECH and LMNO aren't very common, because it takes YEARS OF WORK to get to the point where you can say "Oh, I was wrong."  Hell, I have to get all wrapped around the axle half the time I realize I'm wrong about something.  Consider:  When a "fact" I know is disproven, I say "oh, okay".  When one of my BELIEFS is proven wrong, I spazz the fuck out for a solid day before I get to the same point.

What we have here is a guy who just picked up a shiny new label, and - just as he was about to paste it onto his forehead - it was demonstrated to be a big pile of shit.  That's kind of embarrassing.

And while I expect certain people to deal with embarrassment with poise, I figure that most people will react with baboonery, and either show their enflamed red ass, or continually move the goalposts so they don't "lose" the debate...Because society tells you that there is nothing more ignominous than losing at anything.

So the original subject gets buried in poo, and everyone puts their foot into it to see if it's really shit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.

Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome.  I do not however, find the above statement to be always true.  A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow).  This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions.  Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed.  At this point i think your statement becomes true. 

As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink.  Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.

Note that I originally used the word "boundaries" and you argued with that. Now you're claiming that you weren't talking about "boundaries", you were talking about "objections" or "resistance".

Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.

I am coming to the conclusion that you are a piece of crap, and also pretty stupid.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On a tangent, it occurs to me that I still have a few labels of my own.

For example:

"Human, 1 each, slightly soiled."

"Walking PTSD bag."

"Angry Preacherman"

"DUMBASS"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?

To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.

In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.

I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things.  Whether or not he knows it.

Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things.  And, in this case, people.

Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.

I don't expect that from too many people, Nigel.  I'd LIKE to see it, but the fact is, people like you and ECH and LMNO aren't very common, because it takes YEARS OF WORK to get to the point where you can say "Oh, I was wrong."  Hell, I have to get all wrapped around the axle half the time I realize I'm wrong about something.  Consider:  When a "fact" I know is disproven, I say "oh, okay".  When one of my BELIEFS is proven wrong, I spazz the fuck out for a solid day before I get to the same point.

What we have here is a guy who just picked up a shiny new label, and - just as he was about to paste it onto his forehead - it was demonstrated to be a big pile of shit.  That's kind of embarrassing.

And while I expect certain people to deal with embarrassment with poise, I figure that most people will react with baboonery, and either show their enflamed red ass, or continually move the goalposts so they don't "lose" the debate...Because society tells you that there is nothing more ignominous than losing at anything.

So the original subject gets buried in poo, and everyone puts their foot into it to see if it's really shit.

This one's a lost cause. It does nothing but weasel and make excuses for itself, and it's too stupid to learn.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

So, you DON'T feel like it's OK to push a woman's boundaries when she says no to sex? Then what are you arguing about? Do you even know?

What was being pointed out is that there is a distinction between boundaries, objections, and resistance.

When you push a boundary and the person isn't a basket case, you'll get objections and resistance. Ignore at your own peril.
Please explain how you implement this "distinction".

So, Blackfoot, when you're picking up these inebriated club girls and you anticipate their "hangups":
...how do you "handle" them? Examples of the dialogue, please.

Why do you think that a woman would have to be inebriated to have sex with me?  That's not nice or true.  Are you a mean person?  Are you only mean to people you find contemptible?

As for dialogue, why don't you imagine what you would say?  What could a guy tell you that would make you feel okay with splitting up with your friends before you brought it up in conversation?  How well do you have to know people before you have sex with them? Does it depend on your mood?  Do you have a threshold or a rule or do you play it by ear?

Don't answer.  Just ponder these ideas and scenarios.  Can you overcome any of the objections i listed here or previously without compromising your values?  Some? None? All?

There is NOTHING "a guy could tell us", NO rule "how long we have to know people", NO mood that has to pass for you to try again, NO threshold or rule period and NO "playing it by ear". It's ATTRACTION AND CHEMISTRY. It's THERE, or it's NOT.

Holy fuck. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

IOW, Blackfoot, you're saying women with jobs, friends and/or boyfriends are "damaged"?
Because they don't want to fuck you?

To be fair, I don't think that's what he's trying to say.

In an earlier post he was talking about hangups that require counseling, and then in anther post he listed these things as examples of potential hangups. But you're correct, there's no continuity in the things he says and as soon as he posts anything, it's NOT WHAT HE SAID and he's on to some other shit.

I think he's sort of, you know, changing his mind about some things.  Whether or not he knows it.

Sometimes you have to sandblast labels off of things.  And, in this case, people.

Yeah, well. Maybe he could get upright and just say he's changed his mind, instead of pretending it's not what he said in the first place.

I don't expect that from too many people, Nigel.  I'd LIKE to see it, but the fact is, people like you and ECH and LMNO aren't very common, because it takes YEARS OF WORK to get to the point where you can say "Oh, I was wrong."  Hell, I have to get all wrapped around the axle half the time I realize I'm wrong about something.  Consider:  When a "fact" I know is disproven, I say "oh, okay".  When one of my BELIEFS is proven wrong, I spazz the fuck out for a solid day before I get to the same point.

What we have here is a guy who just picked up a shiny new label, and - just as he was about to paste it onto his forehead - it was demonstrated to be a big pile of shit.  That's kind of embarrassing.

And while I expect certain people to deal with embarrassment with poise, I figure that most people will react with baboonery, and either show their enflamed red ass, or continually move the goalposts so they don't "lose" the debate...Because society tells you that there is nothing more ignominous than losing at anything.

So the original subject gets buried in poo, and everyone puts their foot into it to see if it's really shit.

This one's a lost cause. It does nothing but weasel and make excuses for itself, and it's too stupid to learn.

I'm not sure.  It took me 25 years to learn how to think, and I'm still not really there yet.

I don't expect the guy to fly the day he hatches.

That being said...

BLACKFOOT:  Ask yourself at this point if you are arguing to "not lose" instead of arguing to advance an idea.

[Salty]

On a tangent, it occurs to me that I still have a few labels of my own.

For example:

"Human, 1 each, slightly soiled."

"Walking PTSD bag."

"Angry Preacherman"

"DUMBASS"

I like to think of myself as

"Compact Rage Vessel"

or

"Gristly Bone Meat of Hate"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On a tangent, it occurs to me that I still have a few labels of my own.

For example:

"Human, 1 each, slightly soiled."

"Walking PTSD bag."

"Angry Preacherman"

"DUMBASS"

I like to think of myself as

"Compact Rage Vessel"

or

"Gristly Bone Meat of Hate"

Yeah, you ARE one angry little bastard.  You do EVERYTHING in an angry way.

Which is, of course, why you have a perpetual open invitation to return.

[Salty]

I do my best. 

As for Blackfoot, I gathered from the thread in OKM that he doesn't have a point and is just fucking around, but I could be wrong.