WOW I FEEL VERY INSULTED BY YOUR POSTINGS.

BTW IM A GUY. AND EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID IN THIS POST POINTS TO ONE CONCLUSION FROM YOUR SIDE.

"MAN CANNOT BE LOYAL TO THEIR SPOUSE" THEREFORE WOMAN SHOULD CHOOSE MONEY FIRST THEN LOVE.

YOUR FORMULA IS FLAWED. IF THAT WERE TRUE THEN OUR SOCIETY WOULD BE BASED ON A POLYGAMY TYPE OF MARRIAGE SOCIETY.

THIS IS NEWS FOR YOU. NOT EVERY MAN WILL JUMP ON THE OPPORTUNITY TO BANG A WOMAN.

I AGREE MONEY IS IMPORTANT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. BUT THINK ABOUT THIS! YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD BUT IF U CANT SLEEP WITH THE PERSON NEXT TO YOU EVERY NIGHT THEN HOW DIFFERENT ARE YOU TO THE PROSTITUTE DOWN THE STREET? SAME SHIT DIFFERENT PRICE ONLY.

NOW I THROW THIS BACK AT YOU WOMEN. DONT BULLSHIT US GUYS. SECURITY AND MONEY MEAN THE SAME THING. DONT MASK IT AND CALL IT SECURITY.

I BELIEVE LOVE CONQUERS ALL. IF I LOVE MY SPOUSE, I WILL DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO MAKE HER HAPPY. FIRST THERE MUST BE LOVE(NOT MONEY). WITH LOVE YOU CAN ACHIEVE ANYTHING.

AM I DREAMING? WELL IM GETTING MARRIED THIS JUNE. I AM VERY SURE MY FUTURE WIFE IS MARRYING ME BECAUSE SHE LOVES ME VERY MUCH AND NOT BECAUSE HOW THICK MY WALLET IS. AND IF MY BUSINESS COLLAPSES TOMORROW SHE WILL STILL BE AT MY SIDE SHARING MY TROUBLES.

DONT TALK ABOUT LOVE IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

PS: MY FRIENDS WANT TO ARRANGE A BACHELOR PARTY FOR ME COMPLETE WITH "SPECIAL ENTERTAINMENT" ALL FULLY PAID FOR. I HAVE GRACIOUSLY REFUSED INSTEAD OPTING FOR A NICE DINNER AND PLENTY OF BOOZE. I GUESS I DONT FIT YOUR GENETIC MAKE-UP OF A MAN DO I? FREE SEX OFFERED TO ME AND I DIDNT TAKE IT? WOW WHAT HAPPEN TO THE POOR MAN CANT AFFORD TO TWO TIME SO THEY WONT DO IT? BULLSHIT.

well I understand few of you whom are disturb by reality....so start making money or settle for less
you can be pissed...but this is sadly the fact.

Girl choosing a rich husband considered shallow
but guy avoiding fat ugly woman is what?

In the end human are selfish, we want the best for ourself... its like the pot calling the kettle black.

both are shallow.

So what's the point? Should be become the devil itself just because most of them are evil?

EDIT: Saying in the end human are selfish is AN EXCUSE.

I totally disagree, which girl do not dream of a diamond engagement ring?
which girl do not like beautiful cloths?
which girl do not like shopping?
So girls who like LV or diamond are automatically classified into materialistic?

TS wants money in a fast and easy way, so she's being materealistic. To cover it up and make herself feels
good, she is twisting and rolling the truth just to feel in and comfortable. She's trying to influence other girls
to do the same, so that she won't feel guilty or wrong when she's doing it. This type of ppl are hypocrite.

How would it be different if I had no money? Are you saying if I had no money I wont have regrets?

Same a normal except I would be able to afford anything I want.

You say lots of big things, but there are plenty of words you used that show you have not understood anything. Just because you have set your own standards, and your own life, doesn't mean you're socially dominant. It just means you're being who you are. Some people want to be the beta male instead of the alpha. Some guys want women to take care of them rather than the other way around. You do not understand this at all... and I think you don't understand what you write as well.

Look at the words you use to describe things. "settle for less", "can do better", "willing to go out with me", etc. All these phrases carry a negative connotation and still place the qualifier externally rather than coming from within. In time I hope you can understand this.

wait a sec...
"having standards" and "getting a life" could mean different things to different people.

Im not going to argue on that, I'll leave it to the readers to think about it.

I think it's important is that we do not get caught up in semantics.

Just for the record: I have never claimed to be anything. I believe that just like one cannot claim to be beautiful/handsome/attractive, I believe that a guy cannot claim to be socially dominant - for that is for others to judge.

Regarding the bolded part, please do read in context. Anyway, assuming the most negative connotations of the phrases:

What i I were to rephrase (still carrying the same meaning) the sentence. Im also going to make it gender neutral (non-sexist).

"Everybody wants the most attractive compatible partner possible. If one thinks that he/she has not reached his/her full potential for attracting a partner, then he/she has all the right to strive and do better in the game of love - for by doing so will make more attractive partners available to him/her."

This happens all around us. Guys strive to be successful and thrive in life - becoming good providers. Girls strive to thrive and look their best (cosmetics and clothes are big industries!) - proving themselves worthy to guys (subconsciously) as potential partners.

No they are not saying the same thing.

For some reason Ezra badly wants his point of view to be the only one legitimate, be all and end all position on the matter. He obviously took a lot of time to write out his posts and develop his viewpoints. Now he wants it to be a pronouncement.

He now starts conforming other concepts to his pronouncement, because now that he's invested so much time and PRIDE in it, it must indeed be the one and only, be all and end all position on the matter.

when you get money edi then mission accomplish ... like people get thomas gold cup, they happy achieve their dream.

like that also can...?

but in relationship is different unless that guys is damn loaded should be no problem geh...

Please don't think that guys provide money is a very big deal, this is just a very basic that guys need to do!

A forum without a discussion or debate is boring

On the surface it may SEEM like we're talking about the same thing, but dig a bit deeper and you'll see what we say is totally different.

When I'm serious in C.C., its to help people. I don't agree with ezra because what he writes is filled with generalisation. People who buy into things like that are easily led astray, what he writes is not exactly wrong, it just lacks the foundation necessary to fully comprehend the meaning of those words. What he preaches are "extras" merely tips/techniques, which may give you positive results, but you can only improve so much on a weak foundation, some prodding and it will all crumble down.

That is what he lacks in his writing, and if you're sharp enough all the flaws in his foundation is glaringly obvious in how he writes.

Let me say it from a guy's point of view.

I think everyone wants intimacy. Ya know, cuddling and spooning at 1am kinda intimacy. It feels good to be touched...It feels even better if it's someone you love.

Guys want sex.

There are three types of unmarried guys:
(yes it's a generalization. Up yours silver!!!)

1) Guys who are getting laid in a committed, loving relationship that would likely lead to marraige.
--> these guys are lucky.

2) Guys who are single but are getting laid regularly from casual sex partners --> these guys are likely to be quite attractive and have a certain amount of charm and charisma.

3) Guys who are single but are NOT getting laid regularly...or at all(!). --> These guys tend to either turn to prostitutes as they grow older, or remain virgins.

Type (1) guys are likely to marry. Type (2) guys will eventually marry and settle down as casual sex does not give that same intimacy and connectedness that most people crave as they grow older - it's like switching from craft brews to beer on tap... Familiar, enjoyed, plentiful. As they are quite attractive themselves, they would likely settle for a reasonably attractive woman. Type (3) guys have a very very strong incentive to get married - sex. Problem is that these guys tend to be less attractive and hence will face rejection over and over. They will try to be "nice" but still be brushed off as "nice guys"/"just friends"/etc as girls dont see them as potential partners (in bed).