192 réponses à ce sujet

[William Shakespeare]

for one to be a poet, they must be in love or miserable.

[rapscallioness]

PB&J: Relationships are tricky. No matter your age. You inevitably end up dealing with mommy and daddy issues. Theirs, and your own.

However, I'm proud of you for taking the chance and letting her know how you feel. That takes courage precisely because you might get rejected. Or tricked. But if you're interested in someone, definitely always take the chance to let them know how you feel. In a respectful way, and if they don't return the feeling....step back. What else are you gonna do?

You're gonna get hurt a few times. No doubt. But what if they do feel the same?

Whereas nobody likes a needy personality, if you're a nice guy, keep being a nice guy. Nice guys finish last because you save the best for last. If a drama queen finds it too boring, then it's her loss. The bad boy gets stale real fast. Just like the damsel in distress routine.

It's the nice guys that make the good fathers and the good husbands. A guy that has his head on straight; a good heart and good soul is an awesome thing. Don't let anybody tell you any different.

Guys want sexytimes, but they also fall deeply in love. And they also get hurt. Girls and guys both take the same chance. ....but the priiiize.

[android654]

[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...
So you're agreeing with me in not thinking that, then. Good.[/quote]


I agree that you don't think that for yourself, yes. But there are more than enough women who range from sexually inept to lecherous.


[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...
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.[/quote]

How did you infer anything I wrote to be directed to gender stereotypes?

I said that men shouldn't be easily insulted or feel inferior to anyone else without good reason. That's a stereotype of masculinity? Its something that should apply to men and women in equal parts, since its a test of maturity to not bend to anyone's whim or bow your head to your equal. As an adult everyone should at the very least be your equal, and if you feel an imbalance is directed towards you, then you're to blame not the opposite gender as other people here have suggested.


[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...Denying an emotional construct is unnecessary is tantamount to pseudo science? You're cute.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

You can not take something that is entirely dependent upon a person's emotion and their interpretation of that emotion as a deciding factor for why an entire species does what it does. That is incomprehensible.

[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...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.[/quote]

Ready to abandon it tomorrow? No, I wasn't even suggesting that.

Abandoning it in time in favor of something preferable? Definitely. Just take a look at how the world refers to sex now and how society dealt with it fifty years ago. Childbirth, child rearing, sexual relationships, sexual exploration. As time goes on each of these things grow and the concept of the traditional nuclear family --Mother, father, children-- becomes more and more archaic.

[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Way to not comprehend what I said at all. Literature serves as a function of understanding. If you are to argue that emotions are organic and serve a purpose, then it is logical to assume that those purposes have to be tied to a biological reason since we are animals. Literature is nothing more than a different medium which attempts to answer questions. The same way that meteorology has replaced the gods as the reasons for weather, neurology will soon replace literature as the sole means for understanding emotion. Or would you like to argue that Neptune causes it to rain?

[William Shakespeare]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

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

haha, i have a few years.  I'm perfectly fine to wait, i like her company.  life is full of obstacles.  i look at our relationship like this.

[Eternal Phoenix]

That's nothing. I was talking to a girl once and it was all getting serious and everything. I thought she was the love of my life, the Eve to my Adam, my true soul-mate but it seems I was wrong.

It all happened on November the 1st as well back two years ago. Me and the girl were getting involved deep in conversation and she confessed her feelings to me. She loved me and instantly, I told her about my feelings which were that I loved her back.

We began to kiss and I closed my eyes and she slid her tongue down my throat and then I opened my eyes and LO AND BEHOLD! IT WAS SATAN! The Devil played with my heart. It wasn't enough that she had tricked Adam and Eve, dared to rebel against God, tried to tempt Jesus and take my money all those years back, she had now played with my heart!

After I pushed her away, she started to dance like this guy:

 

Anyway, I raged and thus I summoned my friend - the Archangel Uriel - to help me do battle against Satan and WE WON! We kicked Satan's ass like Archangel Michael did all those years back and we then proceeded to kill Satan but she escaped! Uriel went up back to Heaven to report his failings to God and I went across the world on a drinking spree.

I'll never trust another woman again.



As for Satan...I'll get her. ****ing Hell. I'll get her if it's the last thing I do!!!

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 07 février 2012 - 09:47 .

[jesuno]

OK, I guess this topic is still going on so I will weight in.

Step 1 - Back the hell off
I do not know how many times you are calling her or trying to contact her, but if it is more that 3 to 4 times a week than you are doing nothing but aggravating her and reducing yourself to nothing but a laughing stock in her circle of friends

Step 2 - Wait for her reply
If she wants to contact you, she will. If she does not, than the answer should be clear.

Step 3 - Move on
I know this sounds like a cliche jock answer, but there are many fish in the sea. If you keep whining about one that will never happen, you will lose out on ones that are truly great.

P.S. If you find a good one and she chooses to contact you later down the line, ignore her. She is probably calling you for a rebound.

[Volus Warlord]

chunkyman wrote...

Kallianira wrote...

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

The problem with women is that they never have anything interesting to say. 

(I kid, or do I? )

Well, hmm..

Yes, listening to a woman can be a test of a man's attention span at times.

However, the "interesting" conversations often scare the living hell out of me. They go, "wanna hear about the time when..." and then there are times where I simply nod and try to conceal my horror. 

[Thiefy]

Lol at the majority of these posts. Let's be honest here folks, starting with the OP.

You put yourself in your own position as "a nice guy that always finishes last" and then play the victim card when things don't work out. As a "nice guy" you start off as her friend then expect something more, getting upset when nothing happens or when she goes off with another guy. As a REAL "nice guy" why does a woman need to "reward" your "friendship" with a "relationship"?

They don't, and when they don't all of a sudden guys become bitter and jaded. Real men would just pick up and move on with their lives. Secondly a real man would just be upfront about what he was looking for instead of trying to manipulate a lady when she was in a vulnerable position. Anything less is someone acting like a man child.

A real nice guy might get dissappointed, maybe need some alone time and do some self reflection, but he wouldn't think a woman OWES him her attention just for acts of kindness - because they are exactly that, acts of kindness, and he would acted kindly towards a person who he wasn't attracted to. If you are acting kind towards someone only because you are attracted to them, it's not real kindess - it's a front. It's you trying to impress a girl. That's fine; most guys do that but don't mislabel it "kindness" and then expect it to be paid back with true love (or sex), because what is going to happen time and again (as many of you guys may already know) is that you will be sorely dissappointed. all of these bitter "nice guys" (great example of an oxymoron btw) are really just fakers who can't/won't come to terms for their true characters.

OP: you sound like a really young guy. what you need to learn to do is establish boundaries, and learn how to enforce them on other people and yourself. especially yourself. yes, there are plenty of girls out there who play games but what you need to do is figure out who you are and where you stand in regards to other people. fact of the matter is there are more than three types of people in the world that these "nice guys" would have you believe in (there catagories usually look like this : nice guys/douche bags/women). see how ridiculous that looks? there's going to be people who try to take advantage of you, male or female. you need to establish how to say "no" when you do not want to do something - whether it's a favor like helping someone move or just listening to someone else vent. If you let a person's gender affect the way you think you are going to be fighting a losing battle.

think about it. if it was a male buddy asking you for a favor would you be sore and complain on an online forum if he decided to hang out with another guy? do you expect him to always want to hang out with you? if he doesn't return a favor, do you swear off all male kind as confusing and selfish?

I'm not saying you do this in particular, OP, but there are guys here that do that. Don't be like them, and don't be like guys who try to pull off this "alpha male" crap. It's not attractive; it's behavior for dogs, and dogs always have their noses up another one's ass. The rest of us in civil society have evolved a bit further than that.

One last thing, this:

android654 wrote...
If you're being nice in hopes that it's
gonna pay off in sex, then you failed right there. It's a sucker's move
to think that s**t even makes sense.

and this:

DominusVita wrote...

This girl was always talking about guys being douchebags to her, yet guys that were nice to her, she treated like dirt?

It
doesn't sound like she's treating you terribly - sounds more like she's
getting cold feet. But from the way you write it, it sounds like both
sides are lacking interest. "We suddenly stopped talking and when we do
talk it is very short. one lined messages, and just no interest in the
conversation." That implies both sides stopped, and yet you're asking if
she's ignoring you. Could she have asked the same thing?

In my
personal opinion, you may want to give her some space. If she's still
interested in you, she will make an attempt to speak to you eventually.
If you end up trying to bug her about that sort of thing persistently,
it will come off as clingy; clingy can be bad. I can say from personal
experience that a relationship with lop-sided interest in each other can
have major issues.

Give her some air to breathe. If she doesn't come back, perhaps it wasn't meant to be.

-DV

I agree with. But then again, just becuase she "lost interest" in you i dont see that as treating you like dirt. maybe you are just being too sensitive with the issue?

tl;dr Milana_Saroshas an excellent post on page 5 that i agree with. Anyway PB&J, you are young, so no worries. Plenty of other tail out there in the sea, and no doubt like pokemon, you'll want to catch them all. just take a deep breathe and put one foot in front of the other.

anyone who wants some good reading should read these articles, but it's not for the faint of heart. if you get offended easily, by all means, don't click. Why women don't like "nice guys"

*waits for all the angry responses despite the disclaimer*

[Mercannis]

Peanut Butter Jelly Time wrote...

I'll never forget November 1st.  The day I told the girl of my dreams how I felt.  She called me modest compared to other guys (in a good way.  she was not a open person) and said when the time comes for her to move back to where i lived, she'd consider it. (i met her at school before she moved away for a year)  We suddenly stopped talking and when we do talk it is very short.  one lined messages, and just no interest in the conversation.  i asked her is she was ignoring me and she denied it.

But this is what I dont get.  This girl was always talking about guys being douchebags to her, yet guys that were nice to her, she treated like dirt?

i wish for the day, when man will understand women lol

Read between the lines laddie she blew you off but doesnt want to lose you as a friend. Plenty more fish in the sea so go dangle your hook elsewhere.

[Gotholhorakh]

[quote]William Shakespeare wrote...

[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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 {smilie}

[/quote]

haha, i have a few years.  I'm perfectly fine to wait, i like her company.  life is full of obstacles.  i look at our relationship like this.

[/quote]

Well, love conquers all, and I applaud your patience. Forgive the cynical laughter of one who is old and jaded, I can at least say that looking at your relationship as full of obstacles will quite possibly yield a happy and realistic attitude to marriage {smilie}


[quote]
How did you infer anything I wrote to be directed to gender stereotypes? I said that men shouldn't be easily insulted[/quote]

Oh look, question and answer all rolled into one. Expanded upon in previous response, needless to repeat it, I think.

[quote]
You can not take something that is entirely dependent upon a person's emotion and their interpretation of that emotion as a deciding factor for why an entire species does what it does. That is incomprehensible.
[/quote]

1. It's easier to separate out your response if you quote properly.

2. No, you cannot, and it is incomprehensible to you because (you have said) you believe that if love has not yet been defined reductively, it cannot be considered a factor in how individuals behave.

I have pointed out why that is ridiculous, twice now - the corollary would be that nothing real which is complex enough to defy simple definition or prediction, can be considered a factor in anything, or perhaps even to exist even when it is in plain sight.

If, as I suspect, you are thinking of some particular model that doesn't accommodate such a thing, or even doesn't need to for a particular purpose (say defining simplified rules for predicting/analysing behaviour), that does not mean it is not a factor, or doesn't exist.

This is one of the many issues you get with pseudoscience, people learn some particular analytical model by rote, usually in one of the humanities, and mistake squeezing everything into that model for scientific rigour. Every topic becomes a subcategory within that person's pseudoscientific field and we get people making bold statements about everything in the world based on the terminology of, say, astrology, phrenology or social psychology.

Love is not irrelevant to the topic at hand, it is central to how people treat each other. We can all experience the thing we call "love" changing and guiding people's behaviour on a day-to-day basis, and this thread is about the experience we all have in that regard. It is pivotal to how individuals treat others, and relevant to relationships between men and women. I am sorry you cannot define it reductively enough to believe it exists - but nonetheless has not just vanished from the world in a puff of logic, or become irrelevant to the topic.


[quote]
[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...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.[/quote]

Ready to abandon it tomorrow? No, I wasn't even suggesting that.

Abandoning it in time in favor of something preferable? Definitely.
[/quote]

Pure fantasy. Straight off the wall. When you say stuff like:

[quote]
Just take a look at how the world refers to sex now and how society dealt with it fifty years ago. Childbirth, child rearing, sexual relationships, sexual exploration. As time goes on each of these things grow and the concept of the traditional nuclear family --Mother, father, children-- becomes more and more archaic.
[/quote]

it probably sounds convincing to you, but set against the context of reality and the real cultures and lifestyles of the human race alive today it's hokum.

Even allowing for the comparative edge cases - societies where the family unit appears to have serious cohesion issues, as far as I'm aware there is nothing factual that suggests a willing shift to some other model in place of the family unit is going to happen. I would welcome some sort of credible reasoning behind these predictions.


[quote]Way to not comprehend what I said at all.[/quote]

Oh, I comprehended what you said, it was just, imo, nonsense.

[quote] Literature serves as a function of understanding. If you are to argue that emotions are organic and serve a purpose, then it is logical to assume that those purposes have to be tied to a biological reason since we are animals.Literature is nothing more than a different medium which attempts to answer questions.
[/quote]

Ignoring the tautology for a moment, and the fact that you are confusing logic with excessive, inappropriate reductionism, your whole point rests on assumptions about the nature of mind and the nature of literature. It begs several questions, not least in the bold statement that literature is nothing more than...

Is it nothing more than a different medium which attempts to answer questions? Are you now trying to define literature reductively? Perhaps even all art is next?

Please be careful, it would be most sad if either ceased to be.


[quote]
Literature is nothing more than a different medium which attempts to answer questions. The same way that meteorology has replaced the gods as the reasons for weather, neurology will soon replace literature as the sole means for understanding emotion. Or would you like to argue that Neptune causes it to rain?[/quote]

Pfshaw. Neurology will never replace literature as "the sole means for understanding emotion" for several highly obvious, nay self-evident reasons, even if literature were currently "the sole means for understanding emotions".

Which it isn't. Obviously.

[Melra]

This is still going on? Oi boi... Hopefully someone learned something useful.

[android654]

[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...

[quote]William Shakespeare wrote...

[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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 {smilie}

[/quote]

haha, i have a few years.  I'm perfectly fine to wait, i like her company.  life is full of obstacles.  i look at our relationship like this.

[/quote]

Well, love conquers all, and I applaud your patience. Forgive the cynical laughter of one who is old and jaded, I can at least say that looking at your relationship as full of obstacles will quite possibly yield a happy and realistic attitude to marriage {smilie}


[quote]
How did you infer anything I wrote to be directed to gender stereotypes? I said that men shouldn't be easily insulted[/quote]

Oh look, question and answer all rolled into one. Expanded upon in previous response, needless to repeat it, I think.

[quote]
You can not take something that is entirely dependent upon a person's emotion and their interpretation of that emotion as a deciding factor for why an entire species does what it does. That is incomprehensible.
[/quote]

1. It's easier to separate out your response if you quote properly.

2. No, you cannot, and it is incomprehensible to you because (you have said) you believe that if love has not yet been defined reductively, it cannot be considered a factor in how individuals behave.

I have pointed out why that is ridiculous, twice now - the corollary would be that nothing real which is complex enough to defy simple definition or prediction, can be considered a factor in anything, or perhaps even to exist even when it is in plain sight.

If, as I suspect, you are thinking of some particular model that doesn't accommodate such a thing, or even doesn't need to for a particular purpose (say defining simplified rules for predicting/analysing behaviour), that does not mean it is not a factor, or doesn't exist.

This is one of the many issues you get with pseudoscience, people learn some particular analytical model by rote, usually in one of the humanities, and mistake squeezing everything into that model for scientific rigour. Every topic becomes a subcategory within that person's pseudoscientific field and we get people making bold statements about everything in the world based on the terminology of, say, astrology, phrenology or social psychology.

Love is not irrelevant to the topic at hand, it is central to how people treat each other. We can all experience the thing we call "love" changing and guiding people's behaviour on a day-to-day basis, and this thread is about the experience we all have in that regard. It is pivotal to how individuals treat others, and relevant to relationships between men and women. I am sorry you cannot define it reductively enough to believe it exists - but nonetheless has not just vanished from the world in a puff of logic, or become irrelevant to the topic.


[quote]
[quote]Gotholhorakh wrote...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.[/quote]

Ready to abandon it tomorrow? No, I wasn't even suggesting that.

Abandoning it in time in favor of something preferable? Definitely.
[/quote]

Pure fantasy. Straight off the wall. When you say stuff like:

[quote]
Just take a look at how the world refers to sex now and how society dealt with it fifty years ago. Childbirth, child rearing, sexual relationships, sexual exploration. As time goes on each of these things grow and the concept of the traditional nuclear family --Mother, father, children-- becomes more and more archaic.
[/quote]

it probably sounds convincing to you, but set against the context of reality and the real cultures and lifestyles of the human race alive today it's hokum.

Even allowing for the comparative edge cases - societies where the family unit appears to have serious cohesion issues, as far as I'm aware there is nothing factual that suggests a willing shift to some other model in place of the family unit is going to happen. I would welcome some sort of credible reasoning behind these predictions.


[quote]Way to not comprehend what I said at all.[/quote]

Oh, I comprehended what you said, it was just, imo, nonsense.

[quote] Literature serves as a function of understanding. If you are to argue that emotions are organic and serve a purpose, then it is logical to assume that those purposes have to be tied to a biological reason since we are animals.Literature is nothing more than a different medium which attempts to answer questions.
[/quote]

Ignoring the tautology for a moment, and the fact that you are confusing logic with excessive, inappropriate reductionism, your whole point rests on assumptions about the nature of mind and the nature of literature. It begs several questions, not least in the bold statement that literature is nothing more than...

Is it nothing more than a different medium which attempts to answer questions? Are you now trying to define literature reductively? Perhaps even all art is next?

Please be careful, it would be most sad if either ceased to be.


[quote]
Literature is nothing more than a different medium which attempts to answer questions. The same way that meteorology has replaced the gods as the reasons for weather, neurology will soon replace literature as the sole means for understanding emotion. Or would you like to argue that Neptune causes it to rain?[/quote]

Pfshaw. Neurology will never replace literature as "the sole means for understanding emotion" for several highly obvious, nay self-evident reasons, even if literature were currently "the sole means for understanding emotions".

Which it isn't. Obviously.


[/quote]


You wrote a dissertation?

Despite the amount of fun I might have reading all of this and countering it, I must admit, you seem to take the topic far too seriously. Unfortunately your constitution is better built to argue a simple point to death and I'm about done.

[Laamaa]

Meh, I don't understand them myself.. And I am a woman

[Eternal Phoenix]

Me and mu bayby oh. Pack and her bag oh. Hit the road.

That's just how we roll. Just gho w we roll. Just how we role. Kust we roll. Just how we roll.

They say love can be deadly. I know this. Don't scare me.

If you knew. The things we've been threw.

Then maybe you'd leave us both alone.

Time after time. They try to split us but they don't know she says:

"We have a real top shotta.
Bad boy hotta.
You know?"

It's just me and my baby, me and my bay.

Just the way we roll. Just the way we roll.

And I swear, wherever we go from here, we'll be one till the sky falls down.

AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Just me and my baby.

Pack our bags and hit the road.

Me and my baby.

Just how we role. Just hoiw we woll. JKust how we roll.

Just how we roll. HEY! Just how we rolle.

Me and my baby IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!

 

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 13 février 2012 - 09:38 .

[Volus Warlord]

Laamaa wrote...

Meh, I don't understand them myself.. And I am a woman

BSN is here to help you understand yourself.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I'd give you advice, but I'm not a person to give advice.

If nice guys finish last, then I'm the nicest of the lot.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'd give you advice, but I'm not a person to give advice.

If nice guys finish last, then I'm the nicest of the lot.

Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. - J.S.Mill