My experience of falling in love with a cam model...

[Mikey_P]

That's pretty rude man, if you want to make it personal we can but it's not the type of forum to do that. DM me an we can talk about your mum issues.

Only if our private sessions lead to spanking.

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

Only if our private sessions lead to spanking.

They do...

 

[PopcornCup]

Once she called me on Facebook almost crying telling me her mom needed medicine because she was very sick but she couldn't afford it because she had to import from outside the country and those medicine were too expensive. Basically she asked me if i could help her by sending some money for her moms medicine

Do not start with the middle of this conversation and expect to understand the context of it. The context of this conversation is that the OP got suckered by a model and some claim that if he really loved her, then he would want her to have the money back and he would not have given it as a loan...

I didn't start in the middle of it. I started at the beginning of it, eventually got to the middle, and now I'm at the end of it. The context was that he was in love with this girl, she needed money for her sick mom's medicine, he gave it.

Regardless of the fact that he got taken advantage of, the base scenario of "your gf needs money for her mom's medicine" does not warrant implying the man was foolish for giving it. It is a sympathetic situation and involved the woman that he loved. He would be cold not to help his crying girlfriend's sick mother, in my opinion.

Given that in this situation he was taken advantage of (presumably, because we don't have her side), morally I feel that she should give the money back. I do not think that he should try to go GET the money back, that is insane. As far as giving your serious (since, after all, he was in love) girlfriend a loan...well, it seems you are in the minority opinion and reiterating what has been said wrapped in different words would only be beating a dead horse. I just do not appreciate the assumption that I jumped in the middle of the conversation. This is a forum, you can go back pages.

Relationships are more than money; money is just something that two people need to sustain a life, family and future together. If you question your partner's reason, financial sense and general responsibility, perhaps you two are not best suited to be in a serious relationship. There should be common ground on those things with no need for one partner to assume lordship over the other's habits, as if in some way they must teach their lowly gf/bf how to be an adult; unless, of course, you are in a D/s situation that is agreed to beforehand and mostly boils down to kink...and in that case, @Luckyfoxxy seems to have that on lockdown, ha! (re: the image posted)

Now I'm going to make an assumption and hopefully I am way off base, but it seems that @Mikey_P is a bit on the defensive side. No need for all of that! We're all adults and its just a friendly disagreement. It's hard to convey a tone to a post, so do not take this as being flippant: I hope that you have a nice day.

 

[Mikey_P]

Now I'm going to make an assumption and hopefully I am way off base, but it seems that @Mikey_P is a bit on the defensive side. No need for all of that! We're all adults and its just a friendly disagreement. It's hard to convey a tone to a post, so do not take this as being flippant: I hope that you have a nice day.

That is actually a common tactic and personal attack that is used on this forum and in general among emotional women-- logical objective women don't typically resort to the above. To disagree and to succinctly and logically form an argument, isn't defensive, it is how intellectual adults discuss things.

Holding the other party to the logic and conditions that they have set is just how you deductively show the weakness of another person's argument, hence me speaking about the universal claims presented as fact. Being in the minority doesn't weaken the truth value of an opinion.

Also, what would I have to be defensive about? I don't fall in love with models, I don't get suckered for money and i know how to handle my financial dealings with family, friends and lovers quite well. Why? I know how to adult and I grew up with a small business owner/accountant mom who forced financial responsibility on me and financial independence to my sister. The lame feminist' might argue why was my sister taught financial independence and not me-- Well, women typically get paid the least amount, they get stuck with babies, she knew that I came out the womb with more hustle bee than worker bee DNA in me. vuct

Holding people responsible isn't some sort of lordship or any other type of dominant vs unwilling victim frame that you all continue to present. It simply means that there are people out there who understand how to deal with money, who expect their partner to be responsible as well. I know! Such a horrible thing!

 

[Mikey_P]

They do...

Do I get to wear tight man panties like the guy in the picture!!!

 

[heybarkeep]

@Mikey_P is a bit on the defensive side. No need for all of that!

I'm not really seeing how he was the defensive one here. She was insulting, angry and condescending and he was mature and rational.

For the record, I want to apologize to both if they have a camsite friendship and this is some sort of role playing that I don't get.

 

[PopcornCup]

I'm not really seeing how he was the defensive one here. She was insulting, angry and condescending and he was mature and rational.

---

I fear that you just want to be right and not called out on your ish and deficiencies in a relationship or any area of life. I, instead, expect to be called out for those things and will call out others as well and hopefully we can become better ppl because of it.

Again. You show your emotional and logical limitations when you claim "there are no loans in marriage." You continue to suggest personal beliefs as absolute truth. My parents have been married for just over 40 years and they have money together and money that is separate. They borrow from each other all the time. In your world of limited possibilities that can't happen because marriage only represents one thing to you!!!

Also, holding ppl responsible is the job of anyone who decides to take on that duty. I'm not so much projecting but using the conditionals that you present to sort of extrapolate what kind of person you are when comes to being corrected and improved by others. Such an awful thing-- fur shure!!!

At least attempt to have a nuanced conversation!

---
To which I restate:

Now I'm going to make an assumption and hopefully I am way off base...
It's hard to convey a tone to a post, so do not take this as being flippant: I hope that you have a nice day.

Never did I say that only my tone could come off as different than what I intend. Nor did I say that I read only him to be possibly defensive.

That is actually a common tactic and personal attack that is used on this forum and in general among emotional women-- logical objective women don't typically resort to the above. To disagree and to succinctly and logically form an argument, isn't defensive, it is how intellectual adults discuss things.

Holding the other party to the logic and conditions that they have set is just how you deductively show the weakness of another person's argument, hence me speaking about the universal claims presented as fact. Being in the minority doesn't weaken the truth value of an opinion.

Also, what would I have to be defensive about? I don't fall in love with models, I don't get suckered for money and i know how to handle my financial dealings with family, friends and lovers quite well. Why? I know how to adult and I grew up with a small business owner/accountant mom who forced financial responsibility on me and financial independence to my sister. The lame feminist' might argue why was my sister taught financial independence and not me-- Well, women typically get paid the least amount, they get stuck with babies, she knew that I came out the womb with more hustle bee than worker bee DNA in me. vuct

Holding people responsible isn't some sort of lordship or any other type of dominant vs unwilling victim frame that you all continue to present. It simply means that there are people out there who understand how to deal with money, who expect their partner to be responsible as well. I know! Such a horrible thing!

Statement 1: Evidently my assumption of you being defensive was wrong. No problem.
I'm not sure how stating someone may be getting unwarrantably defensive and excusing my own poor mastery of English by writing a post that could be interpreted as combative makes me emotional and illogical; but that is hardly the purpose of this conversation, so I will leave myself pondering that for awhile.

Statement 2: Being in the majority doesn't weaken the truth value of an opinion either. Differing opinions are beautiful. One way of life does not work for everyone, however, it appears that the general consensus (on this forum, at least) prefers idyllic relationships of equality, trust, and personal responsibility. Nothing wrong with either - again, one way of life does not work for everyone. Truthfully, neither of you are wrong and neither of you are right. Certainly both will be wonderfully successful in a relationship. As I stated in my previous post, it is best to look for partners who have common ground.

Statement 3: I put some quotes above to illustrate what personally lead me to believe you to be defensive (see statement 1). I have no idea about your personal relationships but I am happy to hear that you enjoyed your mother's method of parenting. That's awesome! Mothers can be pretty great.

Statement 4: I understand where you are coming from; it falls right in line with my comment about finding partners with common ground in critical areas. Obviously your husband/wife will not be an exact replica of yourself, so yes - I agree, there will be differences in background that makes one partner more apt to make better financial choices in certain areas, and vice versa. The over-all content of your posts appeared to be acting on the assumption that a partner must be trained in how to be financially responsible, which is in majority opinion, a really poor attitude to take with someone who you are entering a relationship with and it is better to find someone who already sees eye-to-eye. If someone finds a partner who sees things in a similar vein to themselves, you wouldn't be training the weaker party. Exchanging tips and offering input or having conversations about things that effect either one of you negatively? Absolutely. Your choice of words made you come off as if you were looking to teach and train an imbecile. Once again, I say:

It's hard to convey a tone to a post

Anyway, it seems that we have come to a brick wall of incessant banter. I only replied to clarify my viewpoint, as to not create any misunderstandings.

Have a great day, everyone!

 

[Mikey_P]

I don't know if the majority opinion is really to push idyllic relationships but instead self-serving relationships. Ive seen more of that than anything here! I actually have come to expect that POV here!

 

[Mikey_P]

I'm not really seeing how he was the defensive one here. She was insulting, angry and condescending and he was mature and rational.

Yep. Even our friend Popcorn who is attempting to add harmony (I don't see disharmony in disagreeing!) fails to quote my sparring partner's condescending remarks and ad hominems. We know that a lot of our member models support irrationality and assumptions more so than a logical conversation. It isn't what you say or your intention, it is what they believe you mean... LOL

Even if you look at what she quoted by me-- It is assertive but it also explains how logically inconsistent my sparring partner has been.

It is all good because exposing this form of anti-logic via conversation is fun.

For me, it doesn't lead to hard feelings.

 

[heybarkeep]

Yep. Even our friend Popcorn who is attempting to add harmony (I don't see disharmony in disagreeing!) fails to quote my sparring partner's condescending remarks and ad hominems.

Got a white knight vibe at first but he seems cool. Random but knight types are the most misogynistic dudes I've ever met. Unwilling to hold women to any standards, downplaying every bad thing they do, always needing to rescue the incapable woman, just the worst.

Also, nice bowtie.

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

I'm not really seeing how he was the defensive one here. She was insulting, angry and condescending and he was mature and rational.

For the record, I want to apologize to both if they have a camsite friendship and this is some sort of role playing that I don't get.

I'm sorry - mature and rational? Is going personal, as was quoted above, mature?
If you think I said anything that seems insulting, angry or condescending feel free to quote it.
I feel like both of you have a problem with models here and I'm not sure why are you sticking around in this case.

 

[heybarkeep]

If you think I said anything that seems insulting, angry or condescending feel free to quote it.
I feel like both of you have a problem with models here and I'm not sure why are you sticking around in this case.

No need. Any rational adult with no bias will clearly see multiple examples. I also really like some of the women here.

Also, lol@how heated the girls here get when you shit on their posts. So many babies that go back to shit on your posts.

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

@heybarkeep @Mikey_P Have you considered you are not as 'rational and logical' as you seem to think? Right now my impression is that you favour your own experience and beliefs and brand the opposition with ad homs such as "irrational", "illogical", "limited" without a care to form a proper, concise argument and anything that disagrees with you is just non-thinking. Thus being irrational, illogical etc yourselves.
You in fact kicked a huge storm over me saying I think Mikey is wrong to try to teach his partner financial responsibility - and he's yet to convince me otherwise.

 

[heybarkeep]

You're totally right lady. You are super awesome and totally respectable and we just have mum issues and can't be gotten through to. Thanks for trying!


eta glad to see @SaffronBurke rushing in with the button mashing

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

You're totally right lady. You are super awesome and totally respectable and we just have mum issues and can't be gotten through to. Thanks for trying!

No worries. Good lad!
For serous though, @PopcornCup got accused of being my white knight - wouldn't you say you are Mikey's?

 

[SaffronBurke]

Maybe I'm just jaded by my awful family, but....


My experience "lending" money to loved ones has taught me not to even bother expecting it back. By the time I was 18, I had "loaned" my mother a total of $300 in the form of $20 here, $15 there, etc. Each time, she swore she'd pay me back. Each time, she failed to do so. Frequently, it was money that my grandfather had just given me for my birthday or Christmas. Any other time, it was babysitting money from watching her friend's kids while they got hammered at the bar. She would then turn around and drink all of that money at the bar, and conveniently "forget" that she had made any promises.

 

[heybarkeep]

Didn't accuse, said I got that vibe at first. I'm going to stop responding to you but feel free to follow me around the forum and neg my posts like the other lowlifes do.

 

[Dan Epstein]

Maybe I'm just jaded by my awful family, but....


My experience "lending" money to loved ones has taught me not to even bother expecting it back. By the time I was 18, I had "loaned" my mother a total of $300 in the form of $20 here, $15 there, etc. Each time, she swore she'd pay me back. Each time, she failed to do so. Frequently, it was money that my grandfather had just given me for my birthday or Christmas. Any other time, it was babysitting money from watching her friend's kids while they got hammered at the bar. She would then turn around and drink all of that money at the bar, and conveniently "forget" that she had made any promises.

Damn, and I was growing up thinking that only dads go to hell, I know the feeling.

 

[Mikey_P]

@heybarkeep @Mikey_P Have you considered you are not as 'rational and logical' as you seem to think? Right now my impression is that you favour your own experience and beliefs and brand the opposition with ad homs such as "irrational", "illogical", "limited" without a care to form a proper, concise argument and anything that disagrees with you is just non-thinking. Thus being irrational, illogical etc yourselves.
You in fact kicked a huge storm over me saying I think Mikey is wrong to try to teach his partner financial responsibility - and he's yet to convince me otherwise.

We should unpack this because i have the exact feelings about you, being that you "you favour your own experience and beliefs and brand the opposition."

You and others have asked for agreement the entire time and consider any rebuttal as being defensive. I see this as simply you and others wanting their beliefs mirrored back to them. I prefer an assertive dialectical approach with some deductive arse kicking!

An example of a legitimate ad hom is what you just did to @heybarkeep. You didn't disqualify the merit of his replies based on their actual content but because he has supported me. Perhaps I should consider the model 'like' 'agree' 'smiley face sign' gang as white knighting you? No?

When I use words such as logical or rational, i am not trying to use them like laypeople do. I'm looking for logical consistency and arguments free of obvious fallacies. If you go back to our conversation, how many times have I called out your use of false universals? Matter of fact, that has been my consistent issue with you and i have used this phrase, in some form, more than 3 times in our exchange-- "presenting personal beliefs as absolute truths and presenting beliefs as universal." An example of this is when you said what marriage is or what love is-- My point is that these things are all user defined, couple defined, culturally defined and are fluid.

Another example of the illogic that has been used by you and others is the need to create these sort of straw man arguments based on your predictive belief of who a person is and not what they have said.

Suggesting that you were limited, lacked nuance in this exchange, that many here are non-thinking were rude of me but they weren't really ad homs. Ad homs discount a person's argument based on labels, I have discounted your arguments based on how they were presented, the lack of logical consistency, the persistent use of false universals and so on.

 

[a_haze420]

I wonder how many pages this pointless argument in a dead thread is gonna go

 

[Mikey_P]

I wonder how many pages this pointless argument in a dead thread is gonna go

My goal is 10 pages.

 

[Mikey_P]

I'm sorry - mature and rational? Is going personal, as was quoted above, mature?
If you think I said anything that seems insulting, angry or condescending feel free to quote it.
I feel like both of you have a problem with models here and I'm not sure why are you sticking around in this case.

Have you not gone personal? Do you only pay attention to the parts that offend you or do you pay attention to the actual content?

 

[SaffronBurke]

My goal is 10 pages.

Well, we know what to do when someone has a page goal!

 

[a_haze420]

Dem Jesus memes thoooo

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

Alright, let's take it piece by piece.

We should unpack this because i have the exact feelings about you, being that you "you favour your own experience and beliefs and brand the opposition."

You and others have asked for agreement the entire time and consider any rebuttal as being defensive. I see this as simply you and others wanting their beliefs mirrored back to them. I prefer an assertive dialectical approach with some deductive arse kicking!

We do not consider your rebuttals defensive, just your attitude. Right now for example - you can't just let it rest, right? We have to have conversation about how the previous conversation went and who's to blame and why do you feel like you have an entire forum of models against you.
I did not left the room for different opinions, that's true but you did not convince me I should. Your arguments failed to reach me because they were made with you trying to get on the intellectual high horse.

An example of a legitimate ad hom is what you just did to @heybarkeep. You didn't disqualify the merit of his replies based on their actual content but because he has supported me. Perhaps I should consider the model 'like' 'agree' 'smiley face sign' gang as white knighting you? No?

I do not consider @heybarkeep replies to have any merit. Well, unless you consider his defense of you a merit to you or his insults towards anyone helping him to some poop rankings, which he seems to hate with an amazing passion.

When I use words such as logical or rational, i am not trying to use them like laypeople do. I'm looking for logical consistency and arguments free of obvious fallacies. If you go back to our conversation, how many times have I called out your use of false universals? Matter of fact, that has been my consistent issue with you and i have used this phrase, in some form, more than 3 times in our exchange-- "presenting personal beliefs as absolute truths and presenting beliefs as universal." An example of this is when you said what marriage is or what love is-- My point is that these things are all user defined, couple defined, culturally defined and are fluid.

Except "you don't loan money to your family and expect it back" is not a false universal. The examples of your loved ones giving you your money back are very few. There's simply no pressure to do that or the relationship breaks.

Another example of the illogic that has been used by you and others is the need to create these sort of straw man arguments based on your predictive belief of who a person is and not what they have said.

Impossible to comment on without examples.

Suggesting that you were limited, lacked nuance in this exchange, that many here are non-thinking were rude of me but they weren't really ad homs. Ad homs discount a person's argument based on labels, I have discounted your arguments based on how they were presented, the lack of logical consistency, the persistent use of false universals and so on.

Hmm?

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

No, it's attacking the person, not the argument.

 

[Mikey_P]

No, I don't think models on this forum are against me. I think that some are against POVs that are not their own.

A better word is dismissive not defensive.

You have refused to stop talking so you are as much to blame as I am!!!

My goal isn't to win you over (impossible) my goal is to present a better argument.

 

[SaffronBurke]

Let's keep the page moving, folks, we have a page goal to reach! Discussions, Jesus, cats, post whatever you want!

 

[Luckyfoxxy]

No, I don't think models on this forum are against me. I think that some are against POVs that are not their own.

A better word is dismissive not defensive.

You have refused to stop talking so you are as much to blame as I am!!!

My goal isn't to win you over (impossible) my goal is to present a better argument.

Do you think you are doing that then?

 

[AudriTwo]

 

[PopcornCup]

Got a white knight vibe at first but he seems cool. Random but knight types are the most misogynistic dudes I've ever met. Unwilling to hold women to any standards, downplaying every bad thing they do, always needing to rescue the incapable woman, just the worst.

Also, nice bowtie.

I have a vagina!

Figure I'd add to the ridiculousness.

Also this is the most awesome forum ever. I thought for sure this was going to be locked eight pages ago.