Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me help you:
If he is rich: a kind woman with her own financial resources who will think everything he does is great. If she is not already financially independent she needs to be smoking hot but also intelligent/educated and presentable. Unless he is an ahole, in which case smoking hot alone will suffice.
If he is poor: a nonjudgmental mother type to tell them they aren’t a loser.

I have to say I agree with the "if he is rich" list. I have a friend who dates rich old men and she meets these descriptions (always broke, but beautiful, charming, educated, well-traveled and sophisticated (thanks to all of the rich dudes she has dated).

I have observed the same thing - rich older men want beautiful, fit, educated women with some shared hobbies, like skiing and golf. They don't really care if she's broke, as long as she doesn't have kids or is done raising kids and they are fully launched. Part of why they don't care is because (1) they are already rich, and (2) if they ever remarry, they will require a prenup that will protect their exising wealth, and they aren't as worried about future wealth because they are done making money anyway, so they have very little to lose in a 2nd, 3rd of 4th marriage. I think some rich men prefer beautiful but broke women because their money gives them power and control in the relationship.

Yep, a broke nice woman will tolerate a lot of crap from him for the lifestyle. She probably will stick around till his death as prenup won’t give her anything if she divorced him. A financial prison.

But these are the outliers. What are just average professional men looking for?

Anonymous wrote:It would be nice to find the kind of girl you do not take home to mother. One that will never let your spirits down.

The kind you read about in new-wave magazines. If I could find her, I would love to taste her every time we meet.

Anonymous wrote:Skinny, white, pretty, broke, under 40 and desperate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me help you:
If he is rich: a kind woman with her own financial resources who will think everything he does is great. If she is not already financially independent she needs to be smoking hot but also intelligent/educated and presentable. Unless he is an ahole, in which case smoking hot alone will suffice.
If he is poor: a nonjudgmental mother type to tell them they aren’t a loser.

I have to say I agree with the "if he is rich" list. I have a friend who dates rich old men and she meets these descriptions (always broke, but beautiful, charming, educated, well-traveled and sophisticated (thanks to all of the rich dudes she has dated).

I have observed the same thing - rich older men want beautiful, fit, educated women with some shared hobbies, like skiing and golf. They don't really care if she's broke, as long as she doesn't have kids or is done raising kids and they are fully launched. Part of why they don't care is because (1) they are already rich, and (2) if they ever remarry, they will require a prenup that will protect their exising wealth, and they aren't as worried about future wealth because they are done making money anyway, so they have very little to lose in a 2nd, 3rd of 4th marriage. I think some rich men prefer beautiful but broke women because their money gives them power and control in the relationship.

You just flipped your own words. Just a page before you said that experience of that sort raises questions. And wished me die alone. Clearly you are the one deeply hurt by women here.

A woman can be highly educated, liberal, successful, dominant outside bedroom, and very submissive in bed. That actually goes hand by hand. Giving away control and switching to submissive role in a way to take departure from realities of day to day responsibilities and pressure for a modern woman.

You don’t understand the nature of sexual submissiveness thinking it’s a product of some trauma and need for validation.

As I said, you need to work through your mental load before you dominate and mess up women with your redpill theories on promiscuity etc.

Anonymous wrote:

I have to say I agree with the "if he is rich" list. I have a friend who dates rich old men and she meets these descriptions (always broke, but beautiful, charming, educated, well-traveled and sophisticated (thanks to all of the rich dudes she has dated).

May we be clear here? She (your friend) dates rich old men to enjoy the benefits these men provide her (such as traveling)? And these men enjoy her company because she is beautiful and charming?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me help you:
If he is rich: a kind woman with her own financial resources who will think everything he does is great. If she is not already financially independent she needs to be smoking hot but also intelligent/educated and presentable. Unless he is an ahole, in which case smoking hot alone will suffice.
If he is poor: a nonjudgmental mother type to tell them they aren’t a loser.

I have to say I agree with the "if he is rich" list. I have a friend who dates rich old men and she meets these descriptions (always broke, but beautiful, charming, educated, well-traveled and sophisticated (thanks to all of the rich dudes she has dated).

Anonymous wrote:

I’m submissive so you missed. M/W complex includes the situation when the man equates sexual women that he CAN get it up with skanks. Who you are (experience is clearly scary to you “raises questions” as you said).
And asexual women are the wives material. So he tends to develop LTR with women who are poor sexual match for him and then cheats and hates the wife. Disparages the “skinks” but f..ks them on a side as this is what tuns him on.

You are a classic example of that messed up Chad.

No, I analyzed you correctly. Look at your last post. You want to believe that you are teaching men because it helps you try to heal your fractured self-esteem (as seen by the nature of your posts). Your attempt at dominance is a product of that need. However, you see your flaws, and you slip back into submissiveness as a need for approval. This is easy to prove based on the angry tone of your reply (such as calling me "Chad" as if this name is an insult).

Do you mean that men with this complex disparage "skanks" but f*** them on the side? You need much more evidence to make this leap if you are trying to (mis)apply that here.

For me, if experience is earned via promiscuity, then I find it unattractive rather than scary. Experience gained through a long-term relationship, where the woman had the opportunity to discover what she enjoyed while remaining faithful, is highly beneficial to a subsequent partner.

I’m submissive so you missed. M/W complex includes the situation when the man equates sexual women that he CAN get it up with skanks. Who you are (experience is clearly scary to you “raises questions” as you said).
And asexual women are the wives material. So he tends to develop LTR with women who are poor sexual match for him and then cheats and hates the wife. Disparages the “skinks” but f..ks them on a side as this is what tuns him on.

You are a classic example of that messed up Chad.

I have to say I agree with the "if he is rich" list. I have a friend who dates rich old men and she meets these descriptions (always broke, but beautiful, charming, educated, well-traveled and sophisticated (thanks to all of the rich dudes she has dated).

Anonymous wrote:

Why does a woman have to have been promiscuous to enjoy non-vanilla sex? My experience has been that women who have had a limited number of partners are often the most adventurous and the most fun. What "type of woman" are you posting about?

And I am not a man who wants to be "taught how to play". As noted, some men may be into having a woman tell them what to do. However, that is not me.

It shows that you don’t like to listen to women and what they like in bed. By age 40 most women know which techniques and pressure points get them to O. You can’t change it with your techniques completely re-training the woman.

Your approach is a classic example of Madonna-Wh.. complex in men . It’s the most traumatizing male deviation, for both partners. Both will never get to fully open up in bed achieve full potential. She’s be coy about her needs imitating orgasm.

You have to work with a therapist to address it.

No, it shows that I do not like women telling me what to do in bed. There is a big difference between a woman telling me (or showing me) what she likes and her telling me what to do. I have highlighted my PP so you can see exactly what I posted. I am dominant in bed; therefore, I prefer submissive women. That difference should be clear to you.

You can access all the pressure points and use the techniques you both enjoy without her telling you what to do and when. You seem very experienced, so maybe this has not worked for you since you need to be in charge during sex. As I mentioned earlier, that is not my thing. If it is yours (which appears to be the case), rock on, sister.

Madonna/Wh0re complex you mentioned is not applicable. This complex usually manifests when a man cannot view his wife as a sexual being (e.g., he cannot have sex when she is pregnant), not when a dominant man likes submissive women. You need to understand that when both partners align their preferences (e.g., a submissive woman finds a dominant man), they can easily share what each likes in the context of their dynamic.

Your suggestion that I need therapy is likely a reflection of your inability to meet your needs (e.g., you think you want to be dominant but want to be submissive). In any event, your wires are crossed.

Anonymous wrote:Let me help you:
If he is rich: a kind woman with her own financial resources who will think everything he does is great. If she is not already financially independent she needs to be smoking hot but also intelligent/educated and presentable. Unless he is an ahole, in which case smoking hot alone will suffice.
If he is poor: a nonjudgmental mother type to tell them they aren’t a loser.