Older women pay to get screwed all the time.

The last comment about 'be a nice guy' is interesting.

I was listening to Joe Rogan Experience, and they mentioned something about how the genesis of the 'woman hater' is actually the forever-friend-zoned-nice-guy who gets so fed up with being 'taken for granted'/'shot down' that his niceness turns into hatred

It made sense to me. Essentially, the woman hater is what becomes of a boring nice guy who lacked the patience/endurance to wait for women his age to make their way through all the exciting unreliable men before being satiated (or just getting too old to fetch the interesting men's attention) and finally settling for the nice guy that was boringly always available.



And I get it. It plays into the human natural value system, where things that are scarce are more valuable.

The ahole is fleeting. You can't always have him, and if you do you can't hold him, so he has an element of scarcity, which creates value.

The nice guy will reliably stick around if you go with him, so he is less scarce, so he is less valuable. The lower value in turn makes him more likely to be single and always available, further reducing his scarcity, and further devaluing him, and further increasing his chances of being single. A feedback loop.

I suppose that there is also a 3rd path - the element of nice guys that just stop giving a crap before turning into haters, which makes them more scarce, which actually finally gets them attention, and they stop being single.

(And a 4th path - nice guy finds 'a girl who wants a nice guy from the start'. In my observation this isn't the typical case.)



Cases like this (forever alone nice guy, not specifically Mr Van Driver) are when I think 'arrangement' web sites create a good solution. The guys get to not be lonely anymore, and the women gets taken care of. Kind of plays into the nice guy natural instinct, too.

Amusingly, 'arrangement' may be a better fit for the forever-alone nice guys than 'waiting it out'.
In both cases (waiting vs arrangement) the women are mainly after stability/support.
The older women 'nice guy' matches with by 'waiting it out' would not have picked 'nice guy' if they still had the looks to keep pulling exciting men.
So, if you're gonna be with someone because they want you for support, why not just go with a younger woman and be up front about the situation. If it doesn't work out, either party can walk away. No messy divorce. Seems like a safer and more practical option.

(Not picking on older women, just observing that : as people get older, the single scene becomes more and more 'leftovers' that are 'left over for a good reason'. The odds of finding anyone worth while diminish with time, because the highest quality individuals get retained first. Wait long enough, and you're left with over the hill jaded pragmatists who once may have had looks but now have nothing left to offer. At which point, both 'arrangement' and 'being single' are legitimately better options.)



Regarding Mr. Van Guy specifically, I'm not sure if he had a chance. He had some social anxiety that made him unable to talk to people. So he was likely not gonna get a partner naturally, and was unlikely to succeed among professional peers well enough to get the financial security necessary to be some sugar daddy.

So, yeah, dude was likely a romantic dead end. Possibly even the same mental (brain developmental?) issues that made him unable to talk to people also made him susceptible to getting the sort of crazy tilted that allowed him to run people over. The dude could have actually been fated (circumstantially) to end up in tragedy. Just speculating, wouldn't shock me.

-scheherazade

Well, dads do get demeaned by sexual jokes, but in the opposite way.
While it's assumed to be demeaning if a woman is called some version of highly sexual (especially older women), conversely it's assumed to be demeaning if you say a man isn't, or if you imply his sexual preference is in some way odd.

>> ^hpqp:

I would not be in the least surprised if he turned out to be gay, and yes, this is very camp. That being said, I know several people whose personalities are contrary to the heterosexual "norm" and yet are attracted to the opposite sex. A boy in my class in highschool was incredibly camp, exuberant, living his life like a constant performance (he's an actor/musician/artist to boot). Needless to say, he had no problem attracting the girls (in fact, some older women in the art world were fawning over him as well, borderline creepy-like).
In any case, I am of the opinion that our discussion and perception of gender and sexual identity need to move beyond the binary stage:
http://videosift.com/video/Re-Teaching-Gender-and-Sexuality


No you are a fag or not its quite simple , if things were shades of Gray it would be hard to know who to shout at or who should get the death penalty or a good stoning.

and don't try and bring facts into the conversation only dirty liberals use facts to win an argument.

I would not be in the least surprised if he turned out to be gay, and yes, this is very camp. That being said, I know several people whose personalities are contrary to the heterosexual "norm" and yet are attracted to the opposite sex. A boy in my class in highschool was incredibly camp, exuberant, living his life like a constant performance (he's an actor/musician/artist to boot). Needless to say, he had no problem attracting the girls (in fact, some older women in the art world were fawning over him as well, borderline creepy-like).

In any case, I am of the opinion that our discussion and perception of gender and sexual identity need to move beyond the binary stage:

http://videosift.com/video/Re-Teaching-Gender-and-Sexuality

This is what Matt Damon is referring to by MBA thinking. Some people are defined by their jobs, some people aren't. I always thought it was rather insulting when people want to find out "Who are you?" in the sense of more than just your name, they ask "What do you do?" in the sense that your job/daily activity is the end all be all of what you contribute.

You are essentially saying that if you find a spot in a career path that you enjoy, excel at and are love to do and are still there 5 years later, you are doing nothing with your life. Even if you raise a family, volunteer, involve yourself in other people's lives........instead of spending your time looking for career advancement because that's what we should value. It's not specifically a bad thing, but it's something a lot of people would be utterly miserable doing. Live to work versus work to live type mentality.

Besides there are jobs that have to be done in society for it to run that are seen as menial "do nothing" jobs. With one hand you are accepting the services they make possible and with the other you are slapping them in the face and telling them their contribution is nothing. Waste management (Garbage truck operators (lots), landfill operations (few)), Waste Water Treatment facilities, road crews, farmers, etc. All of these jobs their progress and contribution to society can be measured daily if so desired, and the majority of those jobs are looked down upon and seen as unskilled labor. Yet they are necessary for the "noble"/desirable/rich professions of doctors and lawyers to even function. They would do away with those jobs if they could, but instead they work to cut the costs associated with them.....no matter how necessary they are. Earnings and cost are something to be considered, but they are not the end all be all of what keeps a society functioning. There are a lot more grunt jobs than there are management/white collar jobs.

>> ^chilaxe:

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.
What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.

Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.
Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner "Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.

What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.



Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.

Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner "Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

I dont know, all the dudes from 1985 were total dicks in my school. Their chicks were total babes though, older women you know.

I didn't gloss over anything you said, or state for you or anyone else what they are thinking for them. I simply find it interesting where our cultural norms towards the human body are
>>> ^Shepppard:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/geo321" title="member since December 3rd, 2008" class="profilelink">geo321
No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.
However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.
It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.
The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

I didn't gloss over anything you said, or state for you or anyone else what they are thinking for them. I simply find it interesting where our cultural norms towards the human body are.>> ^Shepppard:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/geo321" title="member since December 3rd, 2008" class="profilelink">geo321
No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.
However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.
It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.
The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

@geo321

No, you didn't mention anything about strippers, I was using them as a comparison.

However, you seemed to gloss over the part where I said "You seem to think that those of us opposed to it are against nudity, which, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not." It's not the fact there's tits. I went on to link two videos about naked art, one inlcuding 5000 naked people.

It's the fact that it's a behind the scenes video of a pornography set, with a piece of music slapped over it. The music starts, she smokes, and then proceeds to strip and fondle herself. It's not her posing for someone to paint a picture, or take a single still life shot. She's sitting there getting a series of pictures taken, for the sole reason of people to look at and masturbate to.

The last big "Controversy" about the bunch of older women sitting in a big circle had a few arguments to it, one in particular being "It can't be porn without intent".. this only HAS one intention.

I'm a trend-setter.

In fairness to the video I posted, I'm very well aware that that one is skating the edges of porn-land, that's part of the reason I posted it. Before that I posted http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-give-a-woman-a-squirting-orgasm-explicit (very nfsw) which eventually got discarded as porn. I think arguably both could have passed, but the latter is clearly "worse", ie. more pornographic. I think the above video is a little bit more pornographic as well. The reason the "ins and outs" video is not porn, is that it's clearly not about getting anyone off, even though it might (you pervs..).

Like snuff, the porn definition of videosift is not wholly identical with the dictionary version, and that's fine, just a bit confusing at times.

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^berticus:
i'm incredibly disappointed, and torn.
on the one hand i think it's so unbelievably cool to see a video of "older" women learning to enjoy sexual experience so uninhibitedly.
on the other, the fact that it's an EIT video just shows that most people think this is something shocking or revolting and therefore relegated to humour.
i was cheering for those old girls right up until the spirity wafty nonsense at the end.
but worst of all is reading the comments here, save for pb's.
there is already a fuckton of 'porn' on this site. most of the guys here (and some ladies) vote up videos that serve no purpose other than sexual stimulation. so what is the line that separates those kept from those discarded? because it doesn't seem to be anything well defined. it just seems like the boys club gets together and grunts appreciation or not.
well fuck that.

I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.
Nothing educational, or nothing that you can see on a basic cable channel. Again, i did my own search. The worst I could find was from Gwiz, something to the tune of "Explaining the vagina" with a live subject. Everything else was either clothed, or educational (I.e. you could see the same pictures in a medical textbook.)
The content isn't there. Friday nights on cable t.v. you can see soft core porn movies, played out more artfully then porn, and the most you'll see is maybe a boob, and a couple thrusting motions.
So, go on. Find me a video of this quality. Something showing explicit sexual stimulation, leaving absolutely nothing up to the imagination.

>> ^berticus:
i'm incredibly disappointed, and torn.
on the one hand i think it's so unbelievably cool to see a video of "older" women learning to enjoy sexual experience so uninhibitedly.
on the other, the fact that it's an EIT video just shows that most people think this is something shocking or revolting and therefore relegated to humour.
i was cheering for those old girls right up until the spirity wafty nonsense at the end.
but worst of all is reading the comments here, save for pb's.
there is already a fuckton of 'porn' on this site. most of the guys here (and some ladies) vote up videos that serve no purpose other than sexual stimulation. so what is the line that separates those kept from those discarded? because it doesn't seem to be anything well defined. it just seems like the boys club gets together and grunts appreciation or not.
well fuck that.


I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.

Nothing educational, or nothing that you can see on a basic cable channel. Again, i did my own search. The worst I could find was from Gwiz, something to the tune of "Explaining the vagina" with a live subject. Everything else was either clothed, or educational (I.e. you could see the same pictures in a medical textbook.)

The content isn't there. Friday nights on cable t.v. you can see soft core porn movies, played out more artfully then porn, and the most you'll see is maybe a boob, and a couple thrusting motions.

So, go on. Find me a video of this quality. Something showing explicit sexual stimulation, leaving absolutely nothing up to the imagination.

i'm incredibly disappointed, and torn.

on the one hand i think it's so unbelievably cool to see a video of "older" women learning to enjoy sexual experience so uninhibitedly.

on the other, the fact that it's an EIT video just shows that most people think this is something shocking or revolting and therefore relegated to humour.

i was cheering for those old girls right up until the spirity wafty nonsense at the end.

but worst of all is reading the comments here, save for pb's.

there is already a fuckton of 'porn' on this site. most of the guys here (and some ladies) vote up videos that serve no purpose other than sexual stimulation. so what is the line that separates those kept from those discarded? because it doesn't seem to be anything well defined. it just seems like the boys club gets together and grunts appreciation or not.

well fuck that.

That's what's so great about older women. They aren't afraid to say what they're really thinking.