Encounters with sociopaths?

[Irtwo]

When did men start lying to women in order to get laid? I forget -- was it just before or just after the dawn of time?

 

I'm with BgMstr4u on this one. The guy seems like a regular normal guy who wanted a one-night-stand. I see guys make up complete fake identities all the time to get laid. I've done it myself. A fake tattoo is nothing, I know guys who have fake ID's and keep fake uniforms in their closet (pilot for straight girls, policeman for gay guys). The do it because it works!

 

Now, it would be different it he kept up the charade while dating or something long term, then it would be strange (although wasn't that the basic plot of those Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies?!?)

[+ Gar1eth]

I'm with BgMstr4u on this one. The guy seems like a regular normal guy who wanted a one-night-stand. I see guys make up complete fake identities all the time to get laid. I've done it myself. A fake tattoo is nothing, I know guys who have fake ID's and keep fake uniforms in their closet (pilot for straight girls, policeman for gay guys). The do it because it works!

 

Now, it would be different it he kept up the charade while dating or something long term, then it would be strange and psychopathic.

 

As a gay man that no one is ever going to cruise on, I'd like to say that the pilot uniform would work at least as well on me as the police one- very likely better.

 

Gman

[+ FreshFluff]

I'm with BgMstr4u on this one. The guy seems like a regular normal guy who wanted a one-night-stand. I see guys make up complete fake identities all the time to get laid. I've done it myself.

 

Again, if that's the norm, this is the first I've seen anything this extreme. . As for you, did you do that to get laid by gay guys or girls? Are you willing to say what you did? No judgments.

 

A fake tattoo is nothing, I know guys who have fake ID's and keep fake uniforms in their closet (pilot for straight girls, policeman for gay guys).

 

Kind of a one man performance of the Village People.

 

Now, it would be different it he kept up the charade while dating or something long term, then it would be strange (although wasn't that the basic plot of those Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies?!?)

 

Who would have guessed the truth?

[Irtwo]

Again, if that's the norm, this is the first I've seen anything this extreme. . As for you, did you do that to get laid by gay guys or girls? Are you willing to say what you did? No judgments.

 

Only for guys, I wouldn't go through that much trouble for a gal, lol! I don't do it often, but just last month I put a post on a m4m site because I was horny. I put the truth about my stats, figuring they're going to see me when we meet up, but I said that I was a semi-professional baseball player, now a coach, visiting from out of town to recruit new players for a team. Complete fake. But it got me dozens of replies and a fun sex romp for the night, which is all I wanted. It just builds a fantasy to a lot of guys even if they know it could be fake. The "from out of town" line is usually the most effective part, not sure why, but for hook-ups, guys seem to prefer if you're just visiting.

[tom1980]

This scenario reminds me of case studies from my criminal law class in law school. There's a whole line of cases about whether it constitutes rape when a man lies to a woman to get her into bed. It's been a while since law school, but I remember one particular case where a guy convinced women he was a doctor so they would trust him and have sex with him. As I recall, the courts generally find that it isn't rape when a man lies about his profession or how much money he has, in large part because men are expected to lie to get sex and women should know that (these decisions were originally authored by men decades ago, but I think the precedent still stands in most jurisdictions). I think it only crosses the line and becomes rape if the woman refuses to have sex before marriage and the guy uses his fictitious identity to get the woman to marry him or some similar situation exists. There may also be cases saying that lying about religion can qualify as rape in certain circumstances (like if the woman would refuse to have children with someone of a different religion). At any rate, I always thought it interesting that the court rulings turned on whether the lie was one a woman should expect a man to tell in order to get sex.

[+ FreshFluff]

Irtwo, you're talking about online dating. Sure, lots of people lie in their profiles, catfish and so on. Doing that in person, to someone's face, is a different story.

 

I think you'd be far less likely to to a gay bar and tell people you were a baseball coach.

[+ FreshFluff]

At any rate, I always thought it interesting that the court rulings turned on whether the lie was one a woman should expect a man to tell in order to get sex.

 

The reasonable slut test? *tongue firmly in cheek*

[BgMstr4u]

Taking my tongue out of my cheek for this one --

 

It does seem to me that part of the traditional education of girls when they are ready to become women has always been to develop bullshit detection systems. These are necessary not only for discerning the worthy from the unworthy sexually, but are essential for childrearing, for household management, for husband management, and probably for other managements as well. Traditionally those duties have fallen on the shoulders of women. Whether they should or not is another question, of course.

 

That education is traditionally part of women's lore passed down to the young from mothers, aunts, bigger sisters, grandmothers, and family friends. It is also often imparted by greathearted fathers and other male mentors who care about their daughters' success in life. In other words, it is a traditional process.

 

It is also perhaps the biological basis for women-bonded gossip, universal in human cultures, and not at all superficial. Women have always needed to compare notes, check things out, get other perspectives, find out the truth about men. Their lives depend on it.

 

How much of the world's literature, music and art plays out on this screen: women who don't "get" this part of their education, the Innocent Maiden and the Carefree Young Thing, for example, are endlessly fascinating to men, who mostly are the authors, artists and composers. Examples are too numerous to mention, beginning perhaps with the Iliad's Helen of Troy. But so are counterexamples, like the Smart Woman. One only has to encounter the Iliad's Penelope to see that this contrast in some of the world's oldest literature.

 

I guess my point is: Why be surprised at anything men to do get sex? Brush up your bullshit detectors, girls, and enjoy the world's oldest masked ball! Isn't that what we're really talking about here -- masquerade?

 

As for sociopaths -- I think the line between game playing and sociopathology is located somewhere near self-awareness. The original guy with his faux tattoo, an apt symbol for the faux life he was peddling, as much as admitted to the game. In my book that's lying with possible intent to defraud. But sociopathic? I'll bet if you really pushed him on it, he would sheepishly admit to intention to defraud for the cause. The cause being seduction. On this the great case study in Mozart's Don Giovanni. And of course the counter-study is also Mozart's -- Cosi fan tutti. Is he actually clinically sociopathic -- that is, simultaneously unconscious of himself and truly without a conscience for the acts he performs?, or just a not very good practitioner of the great male art of self promotion?

 

One of the most appealing of all female archetypes to men, after all, is the Knowing Woman, who sees through your game, sizes you up, has your number and looks it up and can pin you to the wall with it if she wants, and then proceeds to play the game in full knowledge of what is going on. Shakespeare's Cleopatra is one of these, as are the Countess in Mozart's Marriage of Figaro and the Marschallin in Strauss's Rosenkavalier. Anouilh's Eleanor of Aquitaine in Becket. Perhaps the greatest of them all is Chaucer's Wife of Bath - in both the Prologue and her Tale.

 

All of this, of course, begs the question of the damage women can suffer at the hands of unscrupulous men. That is why these skills are so very important for the life and survival of women. I have been lighthearted about this so far -- but actually, it is no joke. There is no shortage of men whose basic, indeed, only intent is to have sex. Regardless of the consequences. Traditionally the consequences of casual sex were so very, very much more serious for women than for men. I'm not altogether convinced that it isn't still true, even in this age of the pill and abortion and easier divorce and careers for women.

 

Bullshit detection isn't a game for women. It is a survival skill.

[+ WilliamM]

Taking my tongue out of my cheek for this one --

 

It does seem to me that part of the traditional education of girls when they are ready to become women has always been to develop bullshit detection systems. These are necessary not only for discerning the worthy from the unworthy sexually, but are essential for childrearing, for household management, for husband management, and probably for other managements as well. Traditionally those duties have fallen on the shoulders of women. Whether they should or not is another question, of course.

 

That education is traditionally part of women's lore passed down to the young from mothers, aunts, bigger sisters, grandmothers, and family friends. It is also often imparted by greathearted fathers and other male mentors who care about their daughters' success in life. In other words, it is a traditional process.

 

It is also perhaps the biological basis for women-bonded gossip, universal in human cultures, and not at all superficial. Women have always needed to compare notes, check things out, get other perspectives, find out the truth about men. Their lives depend on it.

 

How much of the world's literature, music and art plays out on this screen: women who don't "get" this part of their education are endlessly fascinating to men, who mostly are the authors, artists and composers. Examples are too numerous to mention, beginning perhaps with the Iliad's Helen of Troy. But so are counterexamples, the Smart Woman. One only has to encounter the Iliad's Penelope to see that this contrast in some of the world's oldest literature.

 

I guess my point is: Why be surprised at anything men to do get sex? Brush up your bullshit detectors, girls, and enjoy the world's oldest masked ball! Isn't that what we're really talking about here -- masquerade?

 

As for sociopaths -- I think the line between game playing and sociopathology is located somewhere near self-awareness. The original guy with his faux tattoo, an apt symbol for the faux life he was peddling, as much as admitted to the game. In my book that's lying with possible intent to defraud. But sociopathic? I'll bet if you really pushed him on it, he would sheepishly admit to intention to defraud for the cause. The cause being seduction. On this the great case study is Mozart's Don Giovanni. And of course the counter-study is also Mozart's -- Cosi fan tutti. Is he sociopathic, or just a not very good practitioner of the great male art of self promotion?

 

All of this, of course, begs the question of the damage women can suffer at the hands of unscrupulous men. That is why these skills are so very important for life and survival of women. I have been lighthearted about this so far -- but actually, it is no joke. There is no shortage of men whose basic, indeed, only intent is to have sex. Regardless of the consequences. Traditionally the consequences of casual sex were so very, very much more serious for women than for men. I'm not altogether convinced that it isn't still true, even in this age of the pill and abortion and easier divorce and careers for women.

 

Bullshit detection isn't a game for women. It is a survival skill.

 

I missed a lot of this discussion, but have finally caught up. I do understand the male point of view that has been expressed by several posters in the last 24 hours. But, I always go back to the fact that Fresh Fluff was there, had the experience first hand, thought about it, did research and by chance met the man again. FF explained what happened well, but it's likely one had to actually be there, before and after, and feel her emotions and anger at all the lies to completely understand. From the distance of sitting behind my computer, I would not have described him as a socipath. Going through her experience personally is an entirely matter.

[Frankly Rich]

Isn't it saying the same thing as "you can't really know someone's experience if you weren't in their shoes?" Women have been telling us for years what it is like to deal with aggressive men who don't take no for an answer, and it's taken years for it to get into our male heads. Gay men might understand a bit better since we, too, deal occasionally with aggressive men, but it sure is an educational process. It wasn't that long ago that men had many more defenses to a charge of rape that were officially sanctioned, and now are considered neanderthal. I am glad to hear of the experiences that women have had, not for the titillation of it, but so that I, too, can be educated.

[+ FreshFluff]

It does seem to me that part of the traditional education of girls when they are ready to become women has always been to develop bullshit detection systems. [..]That education is traditionally part of women's lore passed down to the young from mothers, aunts, bigger sisters, grandmothers, and family friends. It is also often imparted by greathearted fathers and other male mentors who care about their daughters' success in life. In other words, it is a traditional process.

 

[...]

 

All of this, of course, begs the question of the damage women can suffer at the hands of unscrupulous men. That is why these skills are so very important for the life and survival of women. I have been lighthearted about this so far -- but actually, it is no joke. There is no shortage of men whose basic, indeed, only intent is to have sex. Regardless of the consequences. Traditionally the consequences of casual sex were so very, very much more serious for women than for men. I'm not altogether convinced that it isn't still true, even in this age of the pill and abortion and easier divorce and careers for women. Bullshit detection isn't a game for women. It is a survival skill.

 

I remember watching Bye Bye Birdie and hearing Ann-Margret sing, "How lovely to be a woman /and have one job to do/To pick out a boy and train him..." I thought, hmm, no one told me that was my job. I was told that I was supposed to learn and get a job, and that getting married happened after that. (When my sister was in college, she used to coo at babies.) Basically, my mom is a beautiful woman and very smart, but totally naive about men; her mother was the same way. Any bullshit detector I have, I developed myself from reading books aimed at both women and men, and learning about evolutionary psychology.

 

I agree with what the sentence in bold. I'm not built for casual sex, and while QTR may disagree, I think the same is true for most hetero ciswomen. As a result, I have always lived by set of rules about what I will and will not do, and when. Maybe that makes me a priss, but it also protects me.

 

I guess you're right; he's not really a sociopath if he readily admitted everything. But I disagree that this guy is anything like the norm. I've been dating/meeting guys for some time. Other men have embellished, lied about the number of kids they had, misled (e.g. "I live in New York" and only later reveal they meant NY State), and so on. But as I said, this is the first time I've seen anyone lie about their entire identity!

[+ quoththeraven]

The consequences of casual sex are still different (and generally more adverse) for women than for men, but these days it's mostly a matter of (a) shaming women for having sex under circumstances society wouldn't question with regard to men and (b) personal safety. We still have double standards. FF and I may disagree about whether those standards are inevitable or wise, but we don't disagree about their existence. Nor do we disagree about the need to take steps to ensure one's personal safety.

 

Where we disagree is whether these things are inevitable or are the product of a culture that is bad for everyone, including the people who seemingly benefit from it most. (FF, feel free to jump in if you think I'm misrepresenting your views.) I think cultural attitudes toward casual sex have a lot to do with why it's disfavored among some women, and there is some research to suggest that's true. Daniel Bergner's book What Do Women Want? among other things covers research that suggests that monogamy is more of a suppressant to desire for women than it is for men (or to put it another way women have more of a need for novelty to feel turned on) and that commitment and emotional closeness has close to no bearing on female sexual desire. I found it a frustrating read, though, because his writing is unfocused and somewhat superficial, so he doesn't make his points as effectively as he could. I wish he'd researched the book and given it to someone else to write.

 

I believe that a lifetime of casual sex, especially with pickups or people one doesn't know well (or at all) will eventually become unfulfilling in the absence of long-term emotionally committed relationships. But those LTR don't need to involve sex. They can be friendships or romantic relationships that don't involve what we usually think of as sex. So, say, cuddling but no orgasms. Or orgasms but no penetration. But I also know that casual sex can be more enjoyable than sex in a committed relationship. After all, sexual fulfillment is the whole (or at least most) of the point of casual sex. That's not true of LTRs.

 

Here's a summary of some research among college students on the subject of casual sex that I came across in the meantime:

 

http://time.com/2917281/casual-sex-is-good-for-you-study/

 

Ignore the headline; the results actually say that people who don't have a philosophical problem with casual sex do fine with it, whereas people who do don't, and that gender doesn't particularly matter. In other words, it's all in the attitude, which seems correct to me based on my experiences and observation of others' experiences. Since I can't access the underlying study without paying $30 for it, I can't vouch for the rigor of its data and conclusions, though.

[+ FreshFluff]

Women have more of a need for novelty to be turned on? I'll take a look at that when I get a chance. That's interesting because it pretty much goes against most of the earlier research.

 

Remember that studies are rarely published in top journals (or publicized by the press) if their conclusions simply support the existing literature. A study showing that women bond with their partners more after sex would get put in a drawer, because peer reviewers would yawn and say "So what's new here?"

 

There are definitely double standards, but casual sex for women is far less shamed than it was a few decades ago. In fact, a number of TV series (like Sex and the City) have made casual sex seem chic. But IMO, even if societal standards were put aside, women would benefit far less from casual sex than men.

[+ quoththeraven]

Remember that studies are rarely published in top journals (or publicized by the press) if their conclusions simply support the existing literature. A study showing that women bond with their partners more after sex would get put in a drawer, because peer reviewers would yawn and say "So what's new here?"

 

There are definitely double standards, but casual sex for women is far less shamed than it was a few decades ago. In fact, a number of TV series (like Sex and the City) have made casual sex seem chic. But IMO, even if societal standards were put aside, women would benefit far less from casual sex than men.

 

There seems to be a gulf between social sciences, where research has to be new and novel to be noteworthy, and the so-called "hard sciences," where replication is considered important to establishing the validity of a theory. The hard sciences are right on that score. That could be part of the reason why social science research doesn't get the respect researchers in the field think it deserves.

 

I agree that women engaging in casual sex are shamed for it less than they used to be, but for those subjected to such shaming, it's as bad as it ever was. Possibly even worse due to the effect of social media. Teen suicides over being labeled a slut or boyfriend stealer (in some cases, the girl involved was a victim of rape) and hounded on social media as a result is a recent phenomenon. There's also revenge porn (exes posting nude photos or sex tapes for all to see after a breakup, for those of you who don't know what that is).

 

"Sex and the City" may have made casual sex seem chic, but it was all about the main characters' insecurities and need for a man to complete their lives. The relentless materialism turned me off, too.

[+ FreshFluff]

Today, I get the following. It took me a minute to remember who he was.

"Fluffy, I haven't stopped thinking about you since we met at [lounge] and then on the street. So I am breaking down and contacting you. I know I owe you an explanation. So can I buy you coffee? If nothing else it should give you some good material for that book..."

 

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130211050004/friends/images/d/da/Shocked.gif

[bigvalboy]

Today, I get the following. It took me a minute to remember who he was.

"Fluffy, I haven't stopped thinking about you since we met at [lounge] and then on the street. So I am breaking down and contacting you. I know I owe you an explanation. So can I buy you coffee? If nothing else it should give you some good material for that book..."

 

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130211050004/friends/images/d/da/Shocked.gif

 

Ya think? lol....That's whole lot of crazy Ms Thing. It has to be a little tough being young and beautiful in "The City"..be careful, and my opinion is not to even respond to this nonsense.

[+ FreshFluff]

No need to be beautiful to attract these types. They're equal opportunity liars.

 

I am so tempted to have some fun with him over text. But it might be possible to hack Google voice and get my name, so I can't risk it.

[bigvalboy]

No need to be beautiful to attract these types. They're equal opportunity liars.

 

I am so tempted to have some fun with him over text. But it might be possible to hack Google voice and get my name, so I can't risk it.

 

No no no...don't respond, I wouldn't want the kitten to end up on the eleven o' clock news.

[robberbaron4u]

!!!run!!!

[+ FreshFluff]

BVB and Robber, I completely agree. I assumed Google voice kept my identity pretty safe, but then I saw that--when I called from Google voice to my regular number, it actually showed my name and the icon attached to my Mac login. I solved that problem, but who knows what information is still available.

 

However, because I'm getting over a massive headache and can't go out, I will satisfy my need to snark by posting a translation of his text into English.

Fluffy, I haven't stopped thinking about you since we met at [lounge] and then on the street.

I have a whole thread on a PUA forum about how you called me out on lying and I was still able to f*** you afterwards. You can find it under my username, IWearNylonOnMyArm.

 

So I am breaking down and contacting you.

Unfortunately, the more skeptical guys had my number and are laughing at me. If you'll be kind enough to let me take some photos, I could make them eat crow and become a total hero.

 

I know I owe you an explanation.

I didn't say I was in biotech. I said I was a buyer at Marshall's. It must have been really loud in there.

 

So can I buy you coffee?

"And then she bought me coffee."

 

If nothing else it should give you some good material for that book...

Hell, one good bitch-turned-submissive-f***buddy story like this is enough to get 20 nerds to pay $3000 per head for a 2 day bootcamp.

[Mark Gordon]

The Problem with Men in New York

 

A beautiful young New York gay man was so depressed that he could not find his soul mate he decided to end his life by throwing himself into the ocean to drown. Standing on the docks at Battery park, just before he could throw himself from the pier, a handsome angelic faced young sailor stopped him.

 

"You have so much to live for," said the sailor. "Look, I'm off to Europe tomorrow and I can stow you away on my ship. We will sail around the world together. I'll take care of you, bring you food every day, and keep you happy."

 

With nothing to lose and mesmerized by his face and eyes, combined with the fact that he had always wanted to go to Europe, the suicidal young man accepted.

 

That night the sailor snuck him aboard a dark ship and hid him in a lifeboat. From then on, every night he would bring sandwiches and make love to the young man until dawn.

 

Three weeks later he was discovered by the captain during a routine inspection.

 

"What are you doing here?" asked the captain.

 

"I have an arrangement with one of the sailors," he replied.

 

"He brings me food and I get a free trip to Europe . Plus he's screwing me."

 

"He certainly is," replied the captain. "This is the Staten Island Ferry"....

[Diverdan]

Thanks, Mark... this is a great story and lots of fun to contemplate for a Friday afternoon. Have a great weekend...as you know we are celebrating "Labor Day" here in the USA... all kinds of "labors" to celebrate !!