• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

whitevanman

Deluded Old Scrapper Birds On Dating Sites

Recommended Posts

The eternal thread of misogyny? Arrgh not again. Once a lady friend turned up at my flat unannouced, with a crate of lager, and then I then I found her naked in my bed, but there was only one bed, so what a to do? Luckily I am a left handed autistic mathematician, and after some calculations, I got my c0ck out, and what a nice night it was.O.o That was a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for long post.

Got divorced last May. I'm 36. Spent whole last summer having no interest at all in wimmin. Mainly drinking imported lager, sunbathing, doing cocaine and gambling on horses. Eventually went away to Gran Canaria in late October to get my head together - it fucking pissed down at least half the time.

Came back feeling better. Decided to do some Tinder, thinking it would be easy. It wasn't.

After much wasted time, finally got with a Head Mistress (!) from a local school. Was pleasant enough and a nice age for me (30) , but a bit bigger than I would prefer. She got a bit serious on me after 4 nights together, and we (I) decided to part ways.

After that I just decided to 'carpet bomb' everything on the website. My only filters are no single mums, no-one older than me, and no-one obese.

I now only start a Tinder message with two lines - one joke and one question. If they like the joke, they will answer the question. I then only exchange 3 - 4 messages before asking for a number. This works 50% of the time. Then ask for a date by Whatsapp. Again about 50% success rate.

Since then I have been on dates with around 15 women, and slept with 4 of them. 3 of them are happy to see me again at mutually convienient times. None of them are English! One is Northern Irish, one is Italian, one is Malaysian. Ages are 31, 28 and 24.

I have dated all ages between 22 and 36. Dates with those under 32 are in general MUCH more pleasant than dates with those over 32. The older ones seemingly have no awareness of their attractiveness and just shit test the whole time.

Flakiness is real: I have been flaked on about 20% of the time often for ridiculous reasons. One girl told me she couldn't make it (1 hour before) because her sister had just gone into labour! When I enquired the following weekend how her sister was she replied 'what sister'.

I have also been on dates with 'friends of friends' but it never seems to work out, as both of us end up being over conscious over what will be reported back to said friends. Oh and one of these meetings ended up with the girl having a nosebleed over the pub table. At least she didn't shit herself I suppose.

As things stand I have no interest in having a 'girlfriend' as such, as 'fuckbuddys' is working OK for me. However I feel that this lifestyle is not sustainable long-term as it is expensive and tiring. I am also still drinking more booze than I am comfortable with.

So in summary online dating CAN work, but be prepared to wade through a LOT of dross and timewasters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the already unfair to men divorced laws potentially being extended to cohabitation this will IMHO extend the existing complaint of men not being prepared to "commit" - i.e. marry, very wise because of the divorce laws - to not being prepared to have a sustained relationship.

This means that the only person an increasing number of men will need to support is themselves so this means early retirement and far less tax take for the government to use to support all the people who the men aren't supporting.

If it carries on the way it's going this will be catastrophic for GDP, so do we think any government will recognise this and start reforming divorce / cohabitation laws to make relationships and marriage attractive to men again, or will they just let it slide further every year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MrPin said:

Marriage is not attractive to me without the correct woman Frank.It's not a financial thing, although I realise we are all tight here!

I'm not suggesting proposing to Susan Boyle. Though if you're skint then there are probably worse things to do to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

I'm not suggesting proposing to Susan Boyle. Though if you're skint then there are probably worse things to do to make money.

You have given me an idea! Does she have spare cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrPin said:

You have given me an idea! Does she have spare cash?

She'll be one a really exploitative contract no doubt, some of those big pop groups in the 90's were barely making minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, This Time said:

She'll be one a really exploitative contract no doubt, some of those big pop groups in the 90's were barely making minimum wage.

Maybe I could be her manager?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, This Time said:

Actually, The Sun reckon she's worth 26 million, and she's lost weight.

Why do you think DTMark is moving to Scotland? He only pretends to be gay so that women don't regard him as a threat before he gets his leg over. The dirty get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Thombleached said:

I once shagged a really fat bird, just to see what it was like. Was pretty comfy but a tad sweaty. 

Me too mate.

Her minge looked like a coconut propped-up between two tractor tyres...

 

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The XYY Man said:

Me too mate.

Her minge looked like a coconut propped-up between two tractor tyres...

 

XYY

Oh really...?

And just who was this fat tramp then needle-dick...?

 

Mrs XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrs XYY said:

Oh really...?

And just who was this fat tramp then needle-dick...?

 

Mrs XYY

 

I didn't really pet - just having a bit of banter with the lads.

I'd never do nowt like that sweetheart - honest.

 

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

With the already unfair to men divorced laws potentially being extended to cohabitation this will IMHO extend the existing complaint of men not being prepared to "commit" - i.e. marry, very wise because of the divorce laws - to not being prepared to have a sustained relationship.

This means that the only person an increasing number of men will need to support is themselves so this means early retirement and far less tax take for the government to use to support all the people who the men aren't supporting.

If it carries on the way it's going this will be catastrophic for GDP, so do we think any government will recognise this and start reforming divorce / cohabitation laws to make relationships and marriage attractive to men again, or will they just let it slide further every year?

Yes it's a bad move to bring cohabitation into divorce laws.

Im sure Desmond Morris the late zoologist, ethologist and sociobiologist said that humanity would regret moving away from the pair bond.

Destruction of the family is deliberate IMO as strong families and communities aren't as easy to control as single people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The XYY Man said:

I didn't really pet - just having a bit of banter with the lads.

I'd never do nowt like that sweetheart - honest.

 

XYY

Aye, well I'm off to phone me mother.

And just you behave yourself while I'm away - or we'll be buffing your helmet with a Brillo-pad tonight young man...!

 

Mrs XYY

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Economic Exile said:

Yes it's a bad move to bring cohabitation into divorce laws.

Im sure Desmond Morris the late zoologist, ethologist and sociobiologist said that humanity would regret moving away from the pair bond.

Destruction of the family is deliberate IMO as strong families and communities aren't as easy to control as single people.

 

 

I can understand destruction of communities - the Rev Ian Paisley's "Ulster Says No" rejection of Westminster could never have happened in a multicutural society which could not speak with a single voice - but why the family?  I would have thought that the increased productivity alone would be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cunning Plan said:

A friend did that. Married a bloke second time around. He is much happier now.

That can happen, and I have seen it. People are strange eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I can understand destruction of communities - the Rev Ian Paisley's "Ulster Says No" rejection of Westminster could never have happened in a multicutural society which could not speak with a single voice - but why the family?  I would have thought that the increased productivity alone would be worth it.

As has been posted many times.... I think the state has taken over from the father/provider to a large extent.

I thought life was better when more people formed a nuclear family and of course one wage kept the household. Not perfect of course unless a couple were suited but better than the sh*gfest in the modern world. Just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Economic Exile said:

As has been posted many times.... I think the state has taken over from the father/provider to a large extent.

I thought life was better when more people formed a nuclear family and of course one wage kept the household. Not perfect of course unless a couple were suited but better than the sh*gfest in the modern world. Just my opinion

My question is though: is that deliberate on behalf of the state?

Or have they just seen a few votes in bending the knee to the Harriet Harman lobbyists of the world and it has inched down this slope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Melchett
      Another thread crosser. I honestly couldn’t decide which of the obvious threads to stick it in - maybe people with more time on their hands can cross post? 
      Anyway, if you care about your health and make sure you aren’t a bloated sack of lard you are apparently benefiting from thin privilege.
      The self delusion levels here are enormous. Let’s flip it. So, do people going into most places to eat (where you are never really sure if you are getting healthy food even if it looks like it might be) benefitting from fat privilege? 
      The gulf between reality and what these morons want to be reality is getting so great you’d need a vessel capable of faster than light travel to cross it.
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/d5f083b6-d043-471a-94d0-9c3c5af97689
    • By Carl Fimble
      Write a piece attacking something (dosbods maybe even) in the style of a scummy unscrupulous journalist.
      Try to make it something you like, rather than something you actually want to attack.
      Might be interesting and/or amusing.
    • By Dave Bloke
      The EU has passed a mandatory regulation which gives them the power to take down any website they fancy with no judicial oversight
      https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/new-eu-consumer-protection-law-contains-a-vague-website-blocking-clause/
      the law was part of a supposed "consumer protection" law - although it actually waters down consumer protection.
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.