192 réponses à ce sujet

[William Shakespeare]

honestly, all girls should expect a guy to want you for sex. it is our nature. honestly, does any girl think we put up with their crying for no reason? lol it's all about self control. my current gf, i'm willing to fight the urge because she would like to wait until marriage.

[GodWood]

Spoken like Shakespeare himself.

[jcainhaze]

Most women are overweight or insecure for some other reason. Normally these mentalist are decent enough people to attempt a relationship with. On the other hand if any single woman happens to accomplish being attractive and confident at the same time then she will inevitably become completely incapable of having a genuine relationship with a man. These hellspawn demons are disguised as angels. This is where the 'jerk' guy that yall seem puzzled by comes into play and crushes them back into reality thus making them once again available to lesser men. Be greatful to the 'jerk'.

[ItsPhilsTime]

Dude hang in there, honest from experice, dont try to push there being a relationship, i pushed trying to make relationship because i thought she was talking to someone else. And she, for reasons she also liked me for, didnt like i was going to be in the navy for another year. It really sucked because i let myself fall for her. Just take it easy, girls, women, don't like it when ur trying harder to get them then they try for you. I'm a very nice guy to ladies so dont think their hasnt been times where that bit me in the...... Butt.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hathur wrote...

It is more than evident too many people here (men and women alike) have a shoddy concept of what a "nice guy" actually is.

To most of you it seems being little more than a throw rug, quiet, shy, doing anything for a woman, etc constitutes "nice" .... being "nice" for the sake or hopes of bedding a woman does not make one "nice" ... courting does not constitute "niceness" (nothing wrong with it... but courting is just a means to an end).

You have to look a hell of a lot deeper to see real "nice guys" than whether or not they give you flowers, give you a jacket on a cold day, let you walk all over them, agree with constantly.

"Nice guys" possess traits like empathy, compassion, benevolence and they exhibit these qualities in their life around them... not just towards a woman they want.

That being said, true "nice guys" (or nice women for that matter) are rather rare.. the word is simply tossed around too liberally.

Social awkwardness, quietness, shyness or the fact you don't merely walk up to a woman and say "hey baby, nice ass", does not make you a "nice guy"... thats something you become through deeds.

I really am a nice guy...atlough my luck with the opposite sex is non-existant.

Every girl I've been interested so far is either already taken, moves away to another country or has no interest in me (or men in general)

On the plus side, I'll clean you out in a card game....

[Stardusk78]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Hathur wrote...

It is more than evident too many people here (men and women alike) have a shoddy concept of what a "nice guy" actually is.

To most of you it seems being little more than a throw rug, quiet, shy, doing anything for a woman, etc constitutes "nice" .... being "nice" for the sake or hopes of bedding a woman does not make one "nice" ... courting does not constitute "niceness" (nothing wrong with it... but courting is just a means to an end).

You have to look a hell of a lot deeper to see real "nice guys" than whether or not they give you flowers, give you a jacket on a cold day, let you walk all over them, agree with constantly.

"Nice guys" possess traits like empathy, compassion, benevolence and they exhibit these qualities in their life around them... not just towards a woman they want.

That being said, true "nice guys" (or nice women for that matter) are rather rare.. the word is simply tossed around too liberally.

Social awkwardness, quietness, shyness or the fact you don't merely walk up to a woman and say "hey baby, nice ass", does not make you a "nice guy"... thats something you become through deeds.

I really am a nice guy...atlough my luck with the opposite sex is non-existant.

Every girl I've been interested so far is either already taken, moves away to another country or has no interest in me (or men in general)

On the plus side, I'll clean you out in a card game....

I would say to you what I have said to myself and other other men, put politely, stop worshipping women. Both women and men put women on pedestals and portray them as special beings due to their anatomical endowment whereas men are only workhorse providers and a man's value is only in what he can do for a women, woman's value is intribstic. Honestly answer this question, if women could not offer sex or did not give birth to children, how much influence and power over you would they have or over most men? Think about it...

[Melra]

Kallianira wrote...

The problem why you don't understand girls is probably because you are not listening... like most guys.

Lies, listening doesn't help if you need to decypher what you hear.

[DukeOfNukes]

Basic tips to understanding women:
If you want her, she doesn't want you. Yes, you HAVE to play the game, at least a little.
Girls dont want nice guys. Plain and simple: They don't trust them. If you're being nice, you're after something.

Both these are subject to change within 30 seconds of officially being in a relationship.

[Stardusk78]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Basic tips to understanding women:
If you want her, she doesn't want you. Yes, you HAVE to play the game, at least a little.
Girls dont want nice guys. Plain and simple: They don't trust them. If you're being nice, you're after something.

Both these are subject to change within 30 seconds of officially being in a relationship.

You don't have to play the game. That is the myth. If you want to forever be a slave to women, yes, play the game, otherwise, opt out!

[android654]

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

[Gotholhorakh]

William Shakespeare wrote...

honestly, all girls should expect a guy to want you for sex. it is our nature. honestly, does any girl think we put up with their crying for no reason? lol it's all about self control. my current gf, i'm willing to fight the urge because she would like to wait until marriage.

Oh.... I couldn't help a cruel snigger when I read this.

People of both genders who are married might know why.

You keep focusing on that light at the end of the tunnel, William, and prepare yourself for the never-ending sexual joyride that is marriage

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 07 février 2012 - 12:44 .

[Stardusk78]

android654 wrote...

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

How much influence would women have over men if women could not offer men sex? Do you have the guts to answer this question?

[android654]

Stardusk78 wrote...

android654 wrote...

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

How much influence would women have over men if women could not offer men sex? Do you have the guts to answer this question?

What planet do you live on? The world is dominated by men. They are the ones that guide the world, not women. The question makes no sense, when its turned around women would have no incentive to deal with men if sex was completely out of the question. Sex is pretty vital, and without it people would have to survive solely on their merit and personality. Woe to those who poses neither.

[DukeOfNukes]

There's actually a pretty interesting book called "Are Men Necessary?" I might suggest you pick it up.

[Stardusk78]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

There's actually a pretty interesting book called "Are Men Necessary?" I might suggest you pick it up.

I know of the book and all the reviews call it a piece of misandric trash, so why would I pick it up?

[android654]

Stardusk78 wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

There's actually a pretty interesting book called "Are Men Necessary?" I might suggest you pick it up.

I know of the book and all the reviews call it a piece of misandric trash, so why would I pick it up?

Because you're a "man" with an overwhelmingly obvious inferiority complex?

[Gotholhorakh]

android654 wrote...

Stardusk78 wrote...

android654 wrote...

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

How much influence would women have over men if women could not offer men sex? Do you have the guts to answer this question?

What planet do you live on? The world is dominated by men. They are the ones that guide the world, not women.

Huh? How does this contradict what you were replying to?

The question makes no sense, when its turned around women would have no incentive to deal with men if sex was completely out of the question. Sex is pretty vital, and without it people would have to survive solely on their merit and personality. Woe to those who poses neither.

Isn't the question more related to women being able to offer or deny sex in the first place, rather than whether sex exists? I mean there wouldn't be two sexes without sex in the first place.

android654 wrote...
Because you're a "man" with an overwhelmingly obvious inferiority complex?

Hey now! How is it legitimate to criticise a person for not subscribe to such a thing? How about "Are women necessary" or "Are transgender people necessary" as books in the same respective veins, would you be so gleefully scornful of people who disliked the concepts behind them?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 07 février 2012 - 02:24 .

[android654]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

android654 wrote...

Stardusk78 wrote...

android654 wrote...

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

How much influence would women have over men if women could not offer men sex? Do you have the guts to answer this question?

What planet do you live on? The world is dominated by men. They are the ones that guide the world, not women.

Huh? How does this contradict what you were replying to?

The question makes no sense, when its turned around women would have no incentive to deal with men if sex was completely out of the question. Sex is pretty vital, and without it people would have to survive solely on their merit and personality. Woe to those who poses neither.

Isn't the question more related to women being able to offer or deny sex in the first place, rather than whether sex exists? I mean there wouldn't be two sexes without sex in the first place.

The question implies that women are above men in the social hierarchy. That isn't true in the world.

Both men and women want and need sex. Its a biological need. For those of us who are heterosexual, its needed in equal parts by both sides. If women didn't have sex to offer it wouldn't change the social dynamic, at least in the west, since men still pretty much run things.

Hey now! How is it legitimate to criticise a person for that? How about "Are women necessary" or "Are transgender people necessary" as books in the same respective veins, would you be so gleefully scornful of people who disliked the concepts behind them?

Its a legitimate criticism because he's unfamiliar with the subject matter but is quick to dismiss it. I could entertain that idea. I could entertain the idea of whether, gay, bisexual, transgendered people or women are necessary. It's rather bigoted and ignorant to dismiss a notion with no reason as to why. He has to no reason to dismiss the idea other than it "belittles" men.

Modifié par android654, 07 février 2012 - 02:29 .

[Stardusk78]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

android654 wrote...

Stardusk78 wrote...

android654 wrote...

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

How much influence would women have over men if women could not offer men sex? Do you have the guts to answer this question?

What planet do you live on? The world is dominated by men. They are the ones that guide the world, not women.

Huh? How does this contradict what you were replying to?

The question makes no sense, when its turned around women would have no incentive to deal with men if sex was completely out of the question. Sex is pretty vital, and without it people would have to survive solely on their merit and personality. Woe to those who poses neither.

Isn't the question more related to women being able to offer or deny sex in the first place, rather than whether sex exists? I mean there wouldn't be two sexes without sex in the first place.

android654 wrote...
Because you're a "man" with an overwhelmingly obvious inferiority complex?

Hey now! How is it legitimate to criticise a person for not subscribe to such a thing? How about "Are women necessary" or "Are transgender people necessary" as books in the same respective veins, would you be so gleefully scornful of people who disliked the concepts behind them?

it's ok, I have long grown to the shaming language of certain people with regards to this language whereby my (or any male's) is called into question because I think it is important to acknowledge that there is injustice in the world towards men as well.  Shaming languages seems to be the primary tool they employ.

And if a book with the title 'Are women necessary?' were published (it never would be, so it is a fantasy) the publisher and writer would be jailed or sued at the very least.

[android654]

Stardusk78 wrote...

it's ok, I have long grown to the shaming language of certain people with regards to this language whereby my (or any male's) is called into question because I think it is important to acknowledge that there is injustice in the world towards men as well.  Shaming languages seems to be the primary tool they employ.

And if a book with the title 'Are women necessary?' were published (it never would be, so it is a fantasy) the publisher and writer would be jailed or sued at the very least.

You have my sympathy...

[Gotholhorakh]

android654 wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

android654 wrote...

Stardusk78 wrote...

android654 wrote...

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

How much influence would women have over men if women could not offer men sex? Do you have the guts to answer this question?

What planet do you live on? The world is dominated by men. They are the ones that guide the world, not women.

Huh? How does this contradict what you were replying to?

The question makes no sense, when its turned around women would have no incentive to deal with men if sex was completely out of the question. Sex is pretty vital, and without it people would have to survive solely on their merit and personality. Woe to those who poses neither.

Isn't the question more related to women being able to offer or deny sex in the first place, rather than whether sex exists? I mean there wouldn't be two sexes without sex in the first place.

The question implies that women are above men in the social heirarchy. That isn't true in the world.

No it doesn't, unless you consider "women can influence on men through sex" the same as "women control the world". Two different things.

Both men and women want and need sex. Its a biological need. For those of us who are heterosexual, its needed in equal parts by both sides. If women didn't have sex to offer, it really wouldn't change the social dynamic, atleast in the west, since men still pretty much run things.

How would it not change the social dynamic? It's important everywhere from the family unit to politics, the workplace, the things that we have in our books, music, films, video games, TV etc.,  hell even Saturday night in your local town is rife with its influence.



Another two points, which are kind of relevant to the question asked above.

1) Love is not sex, and is a powerful predisposition and motivating factor of human beings - and is certainly something that allows people to have respect from and influence upon other people.

2) Patriarchal ethics (in what we shall, in historically unforgivable and reductive fashion call "the west" since the phrase has been coined already in this thread), have it that a chain of consideration exists which places men, the physically dominant component of the species, last in the chain of consideration for provision of necessities, emotional support, protection from violence and considerations of survival under many circumstances, with the rest of the chain arranged according to who is the least able to assert/protect their rights and person physically. This is not sex either, and it's certainly not proof of equality, but is certainly a motivating factor in women's influence on men's actions - indeed very many men wlll have laid down their very lives on this basis without consideration for whether sex will ensue.

Both of these would apply even if women had no control over sex and they both boil down to people having some level of love and innate decency that has prevented our species being some kind of rape riot from its beginnings.

android654 wrote...
Its a
legitimate criticism because he's unfamiliar with the subject matter but
is quick to dismiss it. I could entertain that idea. I could entertain
the idea of whether, gay, bisexual, transgendered people or women are
necessary. It's rather bigoted and ignorant to dismiss a notion with no
reason as to why. He has to no reason to dismiss the idea other than it
"belittles" men.

Meh, if something was widely reviewed and noted to be misogynistic or misandric I wouldn't feel it morally incumbent on me to sit and digest its content for hours out of my life before I could say "I've no time for books full of misogyny/misandry".

Would you?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 07 février 2012 - 03:22 .

[android654]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

android654 wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

android654 wrote...

Stardusk78 wrote...

android654 wrote...

Talk about the blind leading the blind. THe majority of you shouldn't be giving advice on this topic, since you all sound like you've never met another person in your life in the first place.

On a side note, niceness is like humility. If you have to profess either, than you probably have neither.

How much influence would women have over men if women could not offer men sex? Do you have the guts to answer this question?

What planet do you live on? The world is dominated by men. They are the ones that guide the world, not women.

Huh? How does this contradict what you were replying to?

The question makes no sense, when its turned around women would have no incentive to deal with men if sex was completely out of the question. Sex is pretty vital, and without it people would have to survive solely on their merit and personality. Woe to those who poses neither.

Isn't the question more related to women being able to offer or deny sex in the first place, rather than whether sex exists? I mean there wouldn't be two sexes without sex in the first place.

The question implies that women are above men in the social heirarchy. That isn't true in the world.

No it doesn't, unless you consider "women can influence on men through sex" the same as "women control the world". Two different things.

Both men and women want and need sex. Its a biological need. For those of us who are heterosexual, its needed in equal parts by both sides. If women didn't have sex to offer, it really wouldn't change the social dynamic, atleast in the west, since men still pretty much run things.

How would it not change the social dynamic? It's important everywhere from the family unit to politics, the workplace, the things that we have in our books, music, films, video games, TV etc.,  hell even Saturday night in your local town is rife with its influence.



Another two points, which are kind of relevant to the question asked above.

1) Love is not sex, and is a powerful predisposition and motivating factor of human beings - and is certainly something that allows people to have respect from and influence upon other people.

2) Patriarchal ethics (in what we shall, in historically unforgivable and reductive fashion call "the west" since the phrase has been coined already in this thread), have it that a chain of consideration exists which places men, the physically dominant component of the species, last in the chain of consideration for provision of necessities, emotional support, protection from violence and considerations of survival under many circumstances, with the rest of the chain arranged according to who is the least able to assert/protect their rights and person physically. This is not sex either, and it's certainly not proof of equality, but is certainly a motivating factor in women's influence on men's actions - indeed very many men wlll have laid down their very lives on this basis without consideration for whether sex will ensue.

Both of these would apply even if women had no control over sex and they both boil down to people having some level of love and innate decency that has prevented our species being some kind of rape riot from its beginnings.

Not really different. Sex is a characteristic animals use, and  so do we, to discern who is a ahead of whom. It's integral to how we define worth in society, but we use other factors as well. So if we didn't have sex the dynamic wouldn't change since we have vairables to take place of sex if it weren't around.

The notion that women have more influence than men in the area of sex is one of the biggest misconceptions ever circulated in human nature. If you think women don't want sex, don't lust after men, and don't have episodes where they can't think straight because sex is the only thing on thier minds, then you don't know women. Men have just the same amount of influence over women as you claim they have over men. The fact that many "men" don't know this or turn their frustration into misogynistic rants doesn't change that.

Also, the notion of love isn't a deciding factor in human behavior since its definition is so flexible that it can be given a million different definitions.

[Gotholhorakh]

If you think women don't want sex, don't lust after men, and don't have episodes where they can't think straight because sex is the only thing on thier minds,

Er... I don't think this!

many "men" don't know this or turn their frustration into misogynistic rants

Forgive me, I'm not sure why you keep quoting the word men like that and would like to understand - is it merely some kind of personal slur against the person you were responding to, or does it have some other meaning I'm unaware of?

Also, the notion of love isn't a deciding factor in human behavior since its definition is so flexible that it can be given a million different definitions.

I'm sorry, but that's just rubbish - that's "That which yet defies reduction by pseudo-science, does not, therefore, exist".

Ignoring for a moment the semantic constraints that some of the whackier not-a-proper-sciences have imposed on themselves, and even ignoring some quite large-scale historical events. all sorts of things which are by any other name love (long term friendships, family ties, romantic love etc.) are absolutely core to human experience, behaviour, fulfilment and survival. This is why now, as ever, our literature (in all its forms) and our daily lives are packed to the rafters with references to it.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 07 février 2012 - 03:59 .

[android654]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

If you think women don't want sex, don't lust after men, and don't have episodes where they can't think straight because sex is the only thing on thier minds,

Er... I don't think this!

many "men" don't know this or turn their frustration into misogynistic rants

Forgive me, I'm not sure why you keep quoting the word men like that and would like to understand - is it merely some kind of personal slur against the person you were responding to, or does it have some other meaning I'm unaware of?

Also, the notion of love isn't a deciding factor in human behavior since its definition is so flexible that it can be given a million different definitions.

I'm sorry, but that's just rubbish - that's "That which yet defies reduction by pseudo-science, does not, therefore, exist"

Ignoring for a moment the semantic constraints that some of the whackier not-a-proper-sciences have imposed on themselves, and even ignoring some quite large-scale historical events. all sorts of things which are by any other name love (long term friendships, family ties, romantic love etc.) are absolutely core to human experience, behaviour, fulfilment and survival. This is why now, as ever, our literature (in all its forms) and our daily lives are packed to the rafters with references to it.

Well I don't know what your sexual activity is like, but a lot of women think about sex as much and in some cases more than men.

It's quoted because men like I was describing aren't men in my opinion. A man doesn't get insulted or feel so inferior without reason.

Denying an emotional construct is unnecessary is tantamount to pseudo science? You're cute.

First let me point out that those groupings you mentioned are dying out and in time might be nothing more than a memory like other groupings have in the past.

The nuclear family is nothing more than our most primal forms of society that we have for biological purposes. Parents have children and care for them until they are able to care for themselves. Friendships are the second form of societies we share with animals, its the branching out of one unit to others. This better ensures survival for all of those together. Romantic love is the origin of the family unit which displays its own biological necessity.

The role of literature and poetry, referencing love is much like the purpose of religion in the past. It's purpose was/is to articulate things into terms which are seemingly more tangible to our intellect. Its sounds pretty and tugs at the heart, but its purpose it biological not emotional.

[Gotholhorakh]

android654 wrote...
Well I don't know what your sexual activity is like, but a lot of women think about sex as much and in some cases more than men.

So you're agreeing with me in not thinking that, then. Good.

It's quoted because men like I was describing aren't men in my opinion. A man doesn't get insulted or feel so inferior without reason.

Oh I see, men are to live up to gender stereotypes from 1850 or they're not men, then. How delightfully archaic and definitively sexist.

I wonder if you feel that women are not women if they do not fulfil archaic gender roles, too.

I wonder if you would find it amusing if somebody, having chauvinistically told a woman she should stay at home looking pretty, and not aspire to rational thought in case her tiny brain overheated, then posted a hilarious picture of somebody playing a violin in response to her ire?

I believe the rules should be the same for everyone, myself.

Denying an emotional construct is unnecessary is tantamount to pseudo science? You're cute.

No. Your point was not the... odd... sentence in your quote. It was:

"the notion of love isn't a deciding factor in human behavior
since its definition is so flexible that it can be given a million
different definitions."

It isn't a deciding factor because of it defies (reductive) definition as one. My response made six kinds of good sense as a response to that quote. Which it was.

First let me point out that those groupings you mentioned are dying out and in time might be nothing more than a memory like other groupings have in the past.

The nuclear family is nothing more than our most primal forms of society
that we have for biological purposes. Parents have children and care
for them until they are able to care for themselves.

Dying out? Oh, come off it. There is no reason to suppose that the family unit is about to be abandoned by pretty much all of humanity.

The family unit is in deep trouble in some societies and we can only hope that self-corrects in time, but those societies having internal rifts and problems, does not mean that the population of the planet is queueing up to ditch it any time soon.

Friendships are the second form of societies we share with animals, its the branching out of one unit to others. This better ensures survival for all of those together. Romantic love is the origin of the family unit which displays its own biological necessity.

The role of literature and poetry, referencing love is much like the purpose of religion in the past. It's purpose was/is to articulate things into terms which are seemingly more tangible to our intellect. Its sounds pretty and tugs at the heart, but its purpose it biological not emotional.

Literature/poetry a function of biological purpose? With the greatest of respect, I think you are the one trying to make things more tangible to your intellect, tbh

You know in a way I feel you should save your little violin picture for yourself, rather than anyone else, because frankly what a sad, bestial view you seem to have of the human condition, its virtues and its higher functions.

I mean I'm happy to assert that a human being is an animal, and that many of the things we consider love are not unique to us amongst our fellow animals, but honestly. Literature as a biological function.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 07 février 2012 - 05:09 .