# why do girls think you're always after their sex?



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

lol. You sound like me somewhat. I want to walk up to some women, and be like, "I have a plan, you are part of it. Let's do this."

But if you meet a woman, and exchange numbers, that is something. It is some kind of romantic interest usually. That rarely happens outside that context. If I exchanged numbers with her, and she texted saying she doesn't want to date, she is weird basically. She realized that, and tried to clear it up. 

Women have a reason to act that way. They do get approached by quite a few men looking for just one thing.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Women have a reason to act that way.


hmm...
i think i should be allowed to have friendships with women without being made aware of my would-be sexual rejection. it hurts when you do it and i thought by not asking, i'd forgo the pain, but...apparently not. women do this a lot...they go out of their way to dump on you for no good reason. i made a thread about that too...

it's like they get off on putting men down. it makes them feel better about themselves...but, if your happiness is so centrally tied to men and their condemnation, or even just one man and his love for you, then it's not real happiness. happiness is self derived. of course, some women know this..but i'm talking about the one's that don't.

it's like when girls go to the club specifically to turn men down. it's like, why? women are so strange. 
but then again, they're people, so what did i expect lol


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

xisnotx said:


> hmm...
> i think i should be allowed to have friendships with women without being made aware of my would-be sexual rejection. it hurts when you do it and i thought by not asking, i'd forgo the pain, but...apparently not. women do this a lot...they go out of their way to dump on you for no good reason. i made a thread about that too...
> 
> it's like they get off on putting men down. it makes them feel better about themselves...but, if your happiness is so centrally tied to men and their condemnation, or even just one man and his love for you, then it's not real happiness. *happiness is self derived*. of course, some women know this..but i'm talking about the one's that don't.
> ...


Sounds like you need to stop relying so heavily on female validation, really. Find strength from within. When a women rejects you even though you didn't have an intent to ask her out, laugh in her face and tell her you don't have any interest anyways. That's what she deserves for leading you on and being so presumptuous about your intentions.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Because men usually are. Next.




> That's what she deserves for leading you on


Get over yourself, really.


----------



## Coopsickle (Sep 12, 2014)

Sounds like you make really bad choices in friends to me. I have never said anything like that to anyone. 

I'm not going to bother writing anything else out defending womem, seems a little pointless. You have basically just said "don't treat me like I'm the same as others" and then said "all women are like this". Yeah, okay then.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Never happened to me. Also, you're totally putting this chick on a pedestal and it's kinda creepy.


----------



## Millie (Nov 22, 2014)

I like to think that my general comportment as a person who has never been and stands no chance of getting laid helps to dispel any suspicions of that sort from the get-go. Dork it up a bit man. Giggle awkwardly more. Talk about your weird obsessions nobody likes. Ya know, the good stuff


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> Never happened to me. Also, you're totally putting this chick on a pedestal and it's kinda creepy.


Put chicks on pedestrals and you're a creep.

Say anything negative about them and you're a misogynist.

A "creep" can be defined as a man who is not sexually attractive to whichever female which we take the perspective of. In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong about being a "creep" in the way we now use the word. It's just yet another way to shame male sexuality.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Short answer: Because that is mostly true.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Ziggurat said:


> Put chicks on pedestrals and you're a creep.
> 
> Say anything negative about them and you're a misogynist.
> 
> A "creep" can be defined as a man who is not sexually attractive to whichever female which we take the perspective of. In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong about being a "creep" in the way we now use the word. It's just yet another way to shame male sexuality.


Never been called either. Guess I must just be outrageously attractive or something... OK, I'll take it B)


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> Put chicks on pedestrals and you're a creep.
> 
> Say anything negative about them and you're a misogynist.
> 
> *A "creep" can be defined as a man who is not sexually attractive to whichever female which we take the perspective of. In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong about being a "creep" in the way we now use the word. It's just yet another way to shame male sexuality.*


This is so stupid. Do you call every girl you're not attracted to "clingy" or "emotionally unstable?" and if you do perhaps you should stop being so desperate for sex since it appears you're sexualising all your social relationships with women to label them either 'would bang'/'would not bang'.

There are plenty of guys I'm not sexually attracted to that I would never call creep. I wouldn't even dream of it because they're not.

A creep, believe it or not, is a disenfranchised and desperate man who perceives his sexual value to be relatively low in comparison to his crush (and by extension, other males who he perceives would be seen as attractive to his crush), so therefore proceeds to harass/stalk and generally engage in all sorts of socially disagreeable behaviours towards her, because the anxiety/fear triggered by his perception makes him lose control of himself.

In other words, a creep is someone _who acts like a creep_ towards a woman irrespective of whether or not she's interested. It's possible that she could be interested in him, but if the creep still has self-doubt plaguing him mind, he will act weird and thus, rightly earn his creep label.

Male sexuality has nothing to do with it other than men are more likely to engage in predatory stalking and sexually aggressive behaviours than women.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> A creep, believe it or not, is a disenfranchised and desperate man who perceives his sexual value to be relatively low in comparison to his crush (and by extension, other males who he perceives would be seen as attractive to his crush), so therefore proceeds to harass/stalk and generally engage in all sorts of socially disagreeable behaviours towards his crush, because the anxiety/fear triggered by his perception makes him lose control of himself.
> 
> In other words, a creep is someone _who acts like a creep_ towards a woman irrespective of whether or not she's interested. It's possible that she could be interested in him, but if the creep still has self-doubt plaguing him mind, he will act weird and thus, rightly earn his creep label.
> 
> Male sexuality has nothing to do with it other than men are more likely to engage in predatory stalking and sexually aggressive behaviours than women.


Oops, I forgot to add the caveat that the man in question is attracted to the girl.

And I wish that was the case, but the ways in which I've heard it used over the years suggests that my interpretation is more accurate. Anyways, there's not much to be gained by discussing this particular issue, I suspect.



DaphneDelRey said:


> A creep is someone who acts like a creep


Circular.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Oops, I forgot to add the caveat that the man in question is attracted to the girl.
> 
> And I wish that was the case, but the ways in which I've heard it used over the years suggests that my interpretation is more accurate. Anyways, there's not much to be gained by discussing this particular issue, I suspect.


TBH, if I'm interested in a guy and he starts acting like a creep, the interest meter goes down to about a 0.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> TBH, if I'm interested in a guy and he starts acting like a creep, the interest meter goes down to about a 0.


Well I think that's true by definition, since you're the one labeling him as a creep.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> Oops, I forgot to add the caveat that the man in question is attracted to the girl.
> 
> And I wish that was the case, but the ways *in which I've heard it used over the years suggests that my interpretation is more accurate.* Anyways, there's not much to be gained by discussing this particular issue, I suspect.


Your caveat is clearly evident in my post as a man wouldn't pursue a girl he's not attracted to in a creepy way, d'uh.

To be honest, if it was aimed at you - then you probably are a creep. And given your posts throughout the S&R board, I wouldn't be surprised that is the case.

I'm not looking to discuss anything, I'm correcting you.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Well I think that's true by definition, since you're the one labeling him as a creep.


And certain behaviors, such as those that cross people's boundaries, are creepy.

You do that, I think you're a creep.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> Well I think that's true by definition, since you're the one labeling him as a creep.


Well she labelled him a creep... BECAUSE HE ACTED LIKE A CREEP.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

They assume that because in most cases the male is simply after her rain forest.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> To be honest, if it was aimed at you - then you probably are a creep.


Yes, because we should center female perspectives over male ones. She is right and he is in the wrong by default. #gynocentrism



DaphneDelRey said:


> And given your posts throughout the S&R board, I wouldn't be surprised that is the case.


Well you're a girl so you can label me a creep at your whim, so I agree, that's probably the case. 

I also don't care about the approval of women (or people) in general and in particular on the internet, so that doesn't bother me in the slightest.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> Yes, because we should center female perspectives over male ones. She is right and he is in the wrong by default. #gynocentrism


Well if a woman labels a man a creep, then yes her perspective is automatically right, because it's up to her to decide if she wants this guy in her life or not. Lol. Therefore, her perspective is the only one that matters.



> Well you're a girl so you can label me a creep at your whim, so I agree, that's probably the case.
> I also don't care.


You seem to lack any ability to reflect on your own behaviour; according to you, people labelling you a creep is a fault of the person doing the labelling, as opposed to the one being labelled. If this was one or two isolated incidents, perhaps... but if many women are saying the same thing over many years... it is more likely there's some truth to it.

And the fact you don't care, shows some sort of blasé approach to feedback on your part - thus shutting you off from any sort of input that could help you improve your behaviour, which would in turn, help reduce the number of people who label you creep.

Basically, you're your own worst enemy here.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Well if a woman labels a man a creep, then yes her perspective is automatically right, because it's up to her to decide if she wants this guy in her life or not. Lol. Therefore, her perspective is the only one that matters.


Of course it's up to her to decide if she wants the guy in her life. But to put a terrible label on him just because she doesn't fancy him is another thing altogether.



DaphneDelRey said:


> You seem to lack any ability to reflect on your own behaviour; according to you, people labelling you a creep is a fault of the person doing the labelling, as opposed to the one being labelled. If this was one or two isolated incidents, perhaps... but if many women are saying the same over many years... it is more likely there's some truth to it.


We were speaking generally, so I'm not sure why you're being so specific here.



DaphneDelRey said:


> And the fact you don't care, shows some sort of blasé approach to feedback on your part - thus shutting you off from any sort of input that could help you improve your behaviour, which would in turn, help reduce the number of people who label you creep.
> 
> Basically, you're your own worst enemy here.


I don't care if someone puts a meaningless derogatory label on me for no reason whatsoever. It's not my problem. It's theirs. You're implying that there's something wrong with my behaviour, which you know practically nothing of. You're taking the female's perspective utterly arbitrarily. This is exactly why gynocentrism is harmful to men.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

koalaroo:13067466 said:


> Ziggurat said:
> 
> 
> > Well I think that's true by definition, since you're the one labeling him as a creep.
> ...


Flawed logic: the assumption that everyone has similar boundaries.

The contrapositive: Someone who never crosses anyone's boundaries, is qualified as passive, "a woman in a man's body".

Do you see the inherent problem in labeling boundary crossers as creepy? Logically speaking, it's all subjective, not to mention inevitable if you overvalue your subjective perception.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> Of course it's up to her to decide if she wants the guy in her life. But to put a terrible label on him *just because she doesn't fancy him is another thing altogether.*


If the label is a descriptive, then no, it should be irrelevant. If someone behaves like a creep, then that's literally what they are. And if that label was given as the reason she didn't fancy him, then it's actually justified, because if she didn't give a reason, it's likely the guy would continue to harass her.



> We were speaking generally, so I'm not sure why you're being so specific here.


Because it's kinda obvious you're talking about you. I mean, what guy would let other guys know that women have called him a creep constantly over the years? Isn't that something he's likely to hide from other men? Even on the internet.

And you said, "the ways in which I've heard it used over the years suggests that my interpretation is more accurate" well unless you've frequented the same bars with the same people for years or something, how is this possible that you would know enough about the situation to be able to say the women's use of the 'creep' label was justified or not?



> I don't care if someone puts a meaningless derogatory label on me for no reason whatsoever. It's not my problem. It's theirs. *You're implying that there's something wrong with my behaviour, which you know practically nothing of. You're taking the female's perspective utterly arbitrarily. This is exactly why gynocentrism is harmful to men.*


I'm not talking about your behaviour, moreso your attitude towards women in general which is pretty evident from your posts in this forum.... And attitudes become behaviours quite easily so....

I don't think I've taken the female's perspective? I'm just saying if many women are saying the same thing... it's probably true.

I didn't even know "gynocentrism" was an actual word.

Also, you do realise that you're contradicting yourself? You say you don't care if someone calls you a "derogatory" word but then say people shouldn't do it in the first sentence...?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Flawed logic: the assumption that everyone has similar boundaries.
> 
> The contrapositive: Someone who never crosses anyone's boundaries, is qualified as passive, "a woman in a man's body".
> 
> Do you see the inherent problem in labeling boundary crossers as creepy? Logically speaking, it's all subjective, not to mention inevitable if you overvalue your subjective perception.


Essentially you're saying that other people's boundaries don't matter because they're subjective. LOL.

I hope you realize that. I also hope you realize how absurd that is.

Yes, people have different boundaries, but no, that doesn't mean that boundary crossing is OK.

However, there are standards for what is inappropriate behavior.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Flawed logic: the assumption that everyone has similar boundaries.
> 
> The contrapositive: Someone who never crosses anyone's boundaries, is qualified as passive, "a woman in a man's body".
> 
> Do you see the inherent problem in labeling boundary crossers as creepy? Logically speaking, it's all subjective, not to mention inevitable if you overvalue your subjective perception.


A very good point, thank you.



DaphneDelRey said:


> And if that label was given as the reason she didn't fancy him, then it's actually justified, because if she didn't give a reason, it's likely the guy would continue to harass her.


You actually think that it's justified to proclaim that someone is a "creep" for the sole reason that you don't fancy them? And do you really think that you can assume that the guy would continue to harass her? This is misandry, plain and simple. Adults usually have much more mature ways of going about things than yelling "creep!" to swat the problem away.




DaphneDelRey said:


> Because it's kinda obvious you're talking about you. I mean, what guy would let other guys know that women have called him a creep constantly over the years? Isn't that something he's likely to hide from other men? Even on the internet.


Wrong, I can't recall ever being called a creep before.



DaphneDelRey said:


> And you said, "the ways in which I've heard it used over the years suggests that my interpretation is more accurate" well unless you've frequented the same bars with the same people for years or something, how is this possible that you would know enough about the situation to be able to say the women's use of the 'creep' was justified or not?


This logic can be extended to invalidate anyone's perceptions, including your own. I was just putting mine out there.



DaphneDelRey said:


> I'm not talking about your behaviour, moreso your attitude towards women in general which is pretty evident from your posts in this forum.... And attitudes become behaviours quite easily so....


I don't think that I have any particularly negative attitudes about women in general.



DaphneDelRey said:


> I didn't even know "gynocentrism" was an actual word.


We all learn something new every day.



koalaroo said:


> Essentially you're saying that other people's boundaries don't matter because they're subjective. LOL.
> 
> I hope you realize that. I also hope you realize how absurd that is.


Nonsense, he hasn't said that at all! You haven't refuted his logic in the slightest.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> *Flawed logic: the assumption that everyone has similar boundaries.*
> 
> The contrapositive: Someone who never crosses anyone's boundaries, is qualified as passive, "a woman in a man's body".
> 
> Do you see the inherent problem in labeling boundary crossers as creepy? Logically speaking, it's all subjective, not to mention inevitable if you overvalue your subjective perception.


That's not what she said at all. She just said: "behaviours, such as those that cross people's boundaries," and objectively there are certain behaviours that crosses everyone's boundaries, for example, stalking, harassing, looking through other people's phones without permission etc.

The fact that there are some behaviours that universally cross people's boundaries does not imply everyone has similar boundaries. You are misdirecting the focus of her words in order to look at the person on the receiving end as opposed to the person committing the action.

And this is evident in your contrapositive.

> Do you see the inherent problem in labeling boundary crossers as creepy? 

Except she didn't do that at all. She just said certain behaviours are creepy, and this is true. For example, stalking.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Essentially you're saying that other people's boundaries don't matter because they're subjective. LOL.
> 
> I hope you realize that. I also hope you realize how absurd that is.
> 
> ...


I think there's a misunderstanding here. 

Since boundaries are subjective, it's very likely that one will cross yours unintentionally. That should not be labelled as creepy, but acknowledged as a normal thing. What would make it creepy is the person in question constantly crossing your boundaries over time, when you've clearly made sure he/she knew of them.

Also, yes! crossing boundaries is not ok, but is not evitable either.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> Nonsense, he hasn't said that at all! You haven't refuted his logic in the slightest.


The logical conclusion of his statement, that boundaries are subjective, is that they aren't meaningful for determining what is and is inappropriate behavior. There are behaviors that cross the majority of people's boundaries. Furthermore, it is up to you to learn what another person's boundaries are should you enter into a friendship or relationship with them. If a behavior you're doing makes them uncomfortable, they have the right to ask you to stop. You have the right, of course, to continue the behavior that makes the person uncomfortable, but that's kind of antisocial.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> You actually think that it's justified to proclaim that someone is a "creep" for the sole reason that you don't fancy them? And do you really think that you can assume that the guy would continue to harass her? This is misandry, plain and simple. Adults usually have much more mature ways of going about things than yelling "creep!" to swat the problem away.


No, you've missed the point: if someone behaves like a creep, then it is likely the woman on the receiving end will not be attracted to him, therefore, she called him a creep because his creepy behaviour is the reason she is not attracted to him.

There is nothing wrong with that, because if we reverse the genders it becomes: guy is unattracted to girl because she's clingy.

And there's nothing wrong with that either.



> Wrong, I can't recall ever being called a creep before.


In which case then, you presumably have never violated a woman's personal boundaries so it should be obvious, then, that you would know what constitutes as boundary-violating behaviour and what does not. So if you know this, then how can you be so quick to pretend _you don't know _this and assume every woman who labels a man a creep doesn't have a justifiable reason to do so?

See the contradiction?



> This logic can be extended to invalidate anyone's perceptions, including your own. I was just putting mine out there.


No, you haven't really answered the question. And to be honest, it looks more like you're lying to save face at this point. If you have never been labelled a creep, then you should be able to know how to answer this question since you would be able to know the difference between bounday-violating behaviour and behaviour that doesn't violate any boundaries.



> I don't think that I have any particularly negative attitudes about women in general.


You called them "depreciating assets" in another thread...?



> We all learn something new every day.


Actually what I meant is, it's not a word.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Laf said:


> I think there's a misunderstanding here.
> 
> Since boundaries are subjective, it's very likely that one will cross yours unintentionally. That should not be labelled as creepy, but acknowledged as a normal thing. What would make it creepy is the person in question crossing your boundaries over time, when you've clearly made sure he/she knew of them.
> 
> Also, yes! crossing boundaries is not ok, but is not evitable either.


This is the point I'm trying to make. Repeated boundary crossing, or ignoring social norms (these are boundaries, too), is creepy and not OK.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> [...] you *should* stop being so desperate for sex* since* it appears you're sexualising all your social relationships with women to label them either 'would bang'/'would not bang'. [...]


I'm curious.

What's the issue with that?

Is it any different than,

"would go out with/ would not go out with"?
"would marry/ would not marry"?
"would be emotionally involved/ would not be emotionally involved with"?
"would talk to/ would not talk to"?

Yet again, social taboos seem to influence this reasoning.

Emotional involvement/pursuit is deemed worthy of respect.
Sexual involvement/pursuit is not deemed worthy of respect.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

I agree that they shouldn't turn you down before you've even acted in a romantic/sexual manner towards them. I would probably feel pretty shitty if I guy did that to me, but then, I'm also really self-conscious about any romantic feelings I happen to develop towards someone, and if someone thinks I like him, I feel incredibly embarrassed.
However, I can kind of understand why someone would do that. Maybe they get hit on a lot. Maybe they've been accused of leading someone on when they thought they were just being polite or friendly. I don't think they're doing it because they get off on turning people down or because they're sadistic, they're just trying to protect themselves because they've had bad experiences and they don't know your intentions. It's nothing personal. I definitely agree that they could go about it in a better way, though.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> What's the issue with that?
> 
> ...


Yes, they're different. There's a pretty demonstrable difference that people shouldn't have to point out.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Yes, they're different. There's a pretty demonstrable difference that people shouldn't have to point out.


How so?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Eska said:


> I'm curious.
> 
> *What's the issue with that?*
> 
> ...


Well obviously it suggests the person is only interested in friendships that might lead to sex, and is that really a friendship?


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> The logical conclusion of his statement, that boundaries are subjective, is that they aren't meaningful for determining what is and is inappropriate behavior. There are behaviors that cross the majority of people's boundaries.


That's not the logical conclusion of his statement.



DaphneDelRey said:


> No, you've missed the point: if someone behaves like a creep, then it is likely the woman on the receiving end will not be attracted to him, therefore, she called him a creep because his creepy behaviour is the reason she is not attracted to him.


Our disagreement here is purely semantic.



DaphneDelRey said:


> In which case then, you presumably have never violated a woman's personal boundaries so it should be obvious, then, that you would know what constitutes as boundary-violating behaviour and what does not. So if you know this, then how can you be so quick to pretend _you don't know _this and assume every woman who labels a man a creep doesn't have a justifiable reason to do so?


No, that doesn't logically follow. I very likely violated a woman's personal boundaries at some point in the past, but was never called a 'creep' for it. Everyones boundaries are different. We navigate complex social landscapes. I haven't assumed that *every* woman who has labelled a man a 'creep' hasn't had a justifiable reason to do so. That's a strawman. I said that it's a label which they can dish out without a justifiable reason. And therein lies the problem.



DaphneDelRey said:


> You called them "depreciating assets" in another thread...?


I stand by that statement. In the context of sexual attractiveness, this is self-evidently the case. If I was speaking generally, this would be objectionable.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Well obviously it suggests the person is only interested in friendships that might lead to sex, and is that really a friendship?


Yes, it is.
Friendship does not disappear from the equation, rather, sex is added to it.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> How so?


Because one is dehumanizing, and the other examples are not?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggurat said:


> That's not the logical conclusion of his statement.


Actually, it is a logical conclusion when he was essentially belittling people's subjective experiences.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

SigmaEffectual said:


> Yes, exactly. That was my point of mentioning scenarios for different standpoints, not everyone is able to see that, and takes an egocentrism view. Some people put sex > friendships; some people put friendships > sex, people of the former sometimes don't understand the latter, and vice versa. Some people don't find importance in either, some people do.
> 
> Bottom line is, everyone is different, and not everyone understands other people.
> 
> Of course, this is all my specific way of looking at it, and I'm sure that everyone reading this thinks either that I'm a genius, or I'm absolutely insane, depending on their specific beliefs on ethics.


No, I disagree. There are very little instances of friends with benefits that did not start with both parties being _friends first_. In which case, sex was added later.

So even if someone is sex>friendships that means relatively little in almost every area of life. If they want a FWB situation, they should be friends first, therefore there's no need to misunderstand anything. If you're friends first and want to add a sexual part, both parties must be consenting. If not, well never mind.

No misunderstanding there then.

edit: It's even implicit in the title "friends with benefits," 'with' implying sex is an additional component that is mutually agreed upon after stabilising a friendship, as opposed to "friends and benefits," the 'and' implying friendship and sex somehow go together equally.


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

While I can understand 'well it's _usually _true to that makes it okay' mindset it also kinda bothers me. It's... lazy somehow. Cognitively lazy. If you subscribe to it you don't have to consider people individually, you just go with the preconceived notions. Now sometimes this works because it's very loosely applied, you're totally willing to remove a guy from the category if he shows that he's not after sex (or not JUST after sex) but how often does it become a self-fulfilling prophecy? It seems like the kinda mindset that would be easy to fall into. And that really does bother me man. People deserve to be considered and judged wholly as themselves not as who they are expected to be/represent.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Do you have any clue the number of sexual pursuits to friend pursuits ratio is for women?

Of course not everyone wants to fuck everyone. 

The problem is when the ratio in pursuits is 8/10 want sex, a chick has no idea how the hell to tell who is what or their motives half the time.

Another way to look at this is that if we did assume its just friendship that too is seen as naive and then chicks get scoffed for friend zoning. Its kinda lose lose. 

I would rather be the chick that assumes the intent is screwing based on the ratio and being wrong 2/10 times then be an idiot like say my sister 8/10 times who always plays this dumb innocent card after she leads a guy on she is not interested in and says "what I thought we were just friends".


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Because men want the most P, And women want the best D.

so, because biology.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@xisnotx 

Because that's mostly what we do.


----------



## Killbain (Jan 5, 2012)

Read all of this with interest.

Something struck me.... the title of the thread is: -"Why do girls think you're always after their sex" and a complaint about the early "I'm not interested in dating"....."I have a boyfriend remark" from the woman in the conversation.

I think the vast majority of men have had this happen at some point. As one of the older posters on the baord, it hasn't happened to me for some time!! But when it did, I would simply state (assuming it was true - no point in being coy about these things!) "Ah! I wasn't actually about to ask you out.....did I give that impression? If so, my apologies"

In cases where I was interested in pursuing a romantic / sexual / relationship outcome and got this response I was naturally disappointed but also grateful to the woman for not wasting my time, leading me on and for setting the issue down gently......no loss of face on either side.

It is a social paradox in our culture that men 'do the chasing' - when it would clearly make much more sense for women to do the choosing......it would save ahell of a lot of time and embarrassment!!


----------



## Nyanpichu (Jun 5, 2014)

Cinnamon83 said:


> Do you have any clue the number of sexual pursuits to friend pursuits ratio is for women?
> 
> Of course not everyone wants to fuck everyone.
> 
> The problem is when the ratio in pursuits is 8/10 want sex, a chick has no idea how the hell to tell who is what or their motives half the time.


I love random statistics


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Killbain said:


> As one of the older posters on the baord, it hasn't happened to me for some time!! But when it did, I would simply state (assuming it was true - no point in being coy about these things!) "Ah! I wasn't actually about to ask you out.....did I give that impression? If so, my apologies"


Why do you feel the need to apologize for something the other person just assumed about you? Even if it is true, its nothing to feel ashamed of.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Gore Motel said:


> Why do you feel the need to apologize for something the other person just assumed about you?


He's assuming he gave a wrong impression in that situation.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

Cinnamon83 said:


> Do you have any clue the number of sexual pursuits to friend pursuits ratio is for women?
> 
> Of course not everyone wants to fuck everyone.
> 
> ...


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> He's assuming he gave a wrong impression in that situation.


But unless he was intentionally trying to deceive or coerce her, what is the wrongdoing? I'm more interested in figuring out why being apologetic felt necessary no matter who assumed what


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Gore Motel said:


> But unless he was intentionally trying to deceive or coerce her, what is the wrongdoing? I'm more interested in figuring out why being apologetic felt necessary no matter who assumed what


It's a pretty standard social practice to apologize even if you upset or offended someone by accident. You essentially instigated that response by your mannerisms and behaviors even if that was not your intention.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

A lot of men say that they don't bother to approach females just to be friends with them, I mean look at this thread http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/407266-can-men-women-just-friends.html


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> It's a pretty standard social practice to apologize even if you upset or offended someone by accident. You essentially instigated that response by your mannerisms and behaviors even if that was not your intention.


He never said offense was taken, just a benign misunderstanding. 

Also, social practices are not exactly the best things to adhere to when being honest about your own thoughts and feelings. There are a lot of senseless social practices out there. 

To reverse the situation: If I feel offended that a person rejects my romantic pursuit of them, should that person apologize for my hurt feelings? It's not their fault I feel bad.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Gore Motel said:


> He never said offense was taken, just a benign misunderstanding.
> 
> Also, social practices are not exactly the best things to adhere to when being honest about your own thoughts and feelings. There are a lot of senseless social practices out there.
> 
> To reverse the situation: If I feel offended that a person rejects my romantic pursuit of them, should that person apologize for my hurt feelings? It's not their fault I feel bad.


The difference is in hurt feelings versus making someone uncomfortable. They're not comparable situations.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> The difference is in hurt feelings versus making someone uncomfortable. They're not comparable situations.


They're both feelings, and they're both validated by the person feeling those feelings. Let's be honest here and acknowledge that in Killbain's case, he didn't say he did anything that warranted discomfort, except maybe hint that he's interested in her through regular interaction. Not that he followed her home from work, sent her creepy messages, or tried to get physical with her when she didn't want to.

Also, I'd like to point out that feeling out romantic interest is often a subliminal activity. Rarely do we approach people we're interested in and flat out say what we want from them. There's nearly always room for misinterpretation, why take preemptive offense?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Gore Motel said:


> Also, I'd like to point out that feeling out romantic interest is often a subliminal activity. Rarely do we approach people we're interested in and flat out say what we want from them. There's nearly always room for misinterpretation, why take preemptive offense?


Interesting. I just let people know that I'm interested in them.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sourpuss said:


> Plus women are boring since they never have to put nearly as much effort into being "interesting" as a guy does. *All their effort goes into appearance.*


If that's your opinion of women ... then that really says more about you than it does about women.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Well if a woman labels a man a creep, then yes her perspective is automatically right, because it's up to her to decide if she wants this guy in her life or not. Lol. Therefore, her perspective is the only one that matters.
> 
> 
> You seem to lack any ability to reflect on your own behaviour; according to you, people labelling you a creep is a fault of the person doing the labelling, as opposed to the one being labelled. If this was one or two isolated incidents, perhaps... but if many women are saying the same thing over many years... it is more likely there's some truth to it.
> ...


I don't think just because you've been labeled by one woman as a creep, that you should believe her. One or two women may just be a clash of personalities. Now, when a lot of women have called you a creep, it is time to reflect on your behaviour. If there's no pattern, I don't think there's anything to worry about.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

@xisnotx 

You're an exception. The majority of men have zero genuine interest in female companionship unless there is an sexual or romantic ulterior motives.

I have been verbally harassed and stalked by certain men for "leading them on" (being friendly). And I've been told again and again by men that they're "just looking for friendship" when, in reality, they're not. These so-called friends wouldn't bother even looking at me if they knew there was no chance of poon. They believe there is, and think if they weasel close enough through "friendship", I'll sex them. We all know how that ends...

I do not allow them to do favours for me, I do not allowing them to buy me anything, only doing friend stuff like getting a beer, conversation, basically just hanging out. Even explicitly saying I am only interested in friendship with them (to which pretend to reciprocate). I am STILL the villain in the end and must, in their mind, be punished somehow.

Don't blame women for not assuming you're exceptional. It's in their best interest, physically and emotionally, to assume you're not.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Cinnamon83 said:


> Do you have any clue the number of sexual pursuits to friend pursuits ratio is for women?
> 
> Of course not everyone wants to fuck everyone.
> 
> ...


I'm curious, isn't it easy to tell the difference? Or are guys really that good at hiding their intentions. I feel like observing it from the outside its ridiculously easy to see which guys are just pretending to want to be 'friends' when they actually just want to fuck.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Fredward said:


> While I can understand 'well it's _usually _true to that makes it okay' mindset it also kinda bothers me. It's... lazy somehow. Cognitively lazy. If you subscribe to it you don't have to consider people individually, you just go with the preconceived notions. Now sometimes this works because it's very loosely applied, you're totally willing to remove a guy from the category if he shows that he's not after sex (or not JUST after sex) but how often does it become a self-fulfilling prophecy? It seems like the kinda mindset that would be easy to fall into. And that really does bother me man. People deserve to be considered and judged wholly as themselves not as who they are expected to be/represent.


Good point. I also find it a little hypocritical that certain people here are so willing to embrace this more pragmatic mindset when they're often vehemently opposed to making assumptions about individuals based on the aggregate. I'm not saying women making these assumptions is necessarily wrong, but as usual, there are consequences of adopting the attitude.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Yomiel said:


> Good point. I also find it a little hypocritical that certain people here are so willing to embrace this more pragmatic mindset when they're often vehemently opposed to making assumptions about individuals based on the aggregate. I'm not saying women making these assumptions is necessarily wrong, but as usual, there are consequences of adopting the attitude.


Plus I think their base assumption is wrong. Lots of guys actually do want just a friendship. Seriously. 

I don't really see where this idea that 'no men wants to be friends with a girl' is coming from. Its not something I've seen expressed much IRL. Maybe they just interact with a very different group of guys than I do.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Plus I think their base assumption is wrong. *Lots of guys actually do want just a friendship. *Seriously.
> 
> I don't really see where this idea that 'no men wants to be friends with a girl' is coming from. Its not something I've seen expressed much IRL. Maybe they just interact with a very different group of guys than I do.


Without a considerable amount of sexual tension? I highly doubt it. 

It is possible (low testosterone/low sex drive/asexuals/homosexuals/etc.), although, I doubt that it is representative of the majority men.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Eska said:


> Without a considerable amount of sexual tension? I highly doubt it.
> 
> It is possible (low testosterone/low sex drive/asexuals/etc.), although, I doubt that it is representative of the majority.


What if the guy doesn't find the girl sexually attractive? Sexual tension doesn't always come into play.


----------



## SigmaEffectual (Dec 5, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> What if the guy doesn't find the girl sexually attractive?


Pff... What if grass wasn't green.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> If that's your opinion of women ... then that really says more about you than it does about women.


...care to explain your reasoning? I'm going to guess that you can't since your statement is purely defensive. You don't have to blame women for this, in fact it isn't their fault at all, but the fact is guys care way less how funny or exciting or developed a girl's social life is than the reverse. A man's attraction to a woman is based much much less on her place in the social hierarchy.



monemi said:


> I don't think just because you've been labeled by one woman as a creep, that you should believe her. One or two women may just be a clash of personalities. Now, when a lot of women have called you a creep, it is time to reflect on your behaviour. If there's no pattern, I don't think there's anything to worry about.



Just remember it's not okay to call a woman a slut.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> What if the guy doesn't find the girl sexually attractive? Sexual tension doesn't always come into play.


I think that, generally, a lack of sexual attraction won't allow the man to be genuinely engaged.

I think that, more often than not, sexual tension is the primary mover/motive to engage in that relationship.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Eska said:


> I think that, generally, a lack of sexual attraction won't allow the man to be genuinely engaged.
> 
> I think that, more often than not, sexual tension is the primary mover/motive to engage in that relationship.


So if a guy found a girl interesting, fun to be around and easy to talk to but DIDN'T find her sexually attractive he wouldn't care about her? I completely disagree with this, honestly.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> Just remember it's not okay to call a woman a slut.


And yet women get called sluts all the time... 

What word would you prefer women use when someone causes her to fear for her welfare? 

I see no purpose to calling a woman a slut. The purpose of calling someone a creep, should be about your own security. If you're calling someone a creep as a putdown, you're just an asshole.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> And yet women get called sluts all the time...
> 
> What word would you prefer women use when someone causes her to fear for her welfare?


Women call men creeps for all sorts of reasons. Often because they just don't like them. It's a very general, vague term, applied liberally by an extremely fickle and temperamental organism. 

I'll make a deal with you thought: women can call guys creeps if men can call women sluts.

Fair is fair, yes?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sourpuss said:


> Women call men creeps for all sorts of reasons. Often because they just don't like them. It's a very general, vague term, applied liberally by an extremely fickle and temperamental organism.
> 
> I'll make a deal with you thought: women can call guys creeps if men can call women sluts.
> 
> Fair is fair, yes?


These are nonsensical comparisons.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> So if a guy founds a girl interesting, fun to be around and easy to talk to but DIDN'T find her sexually attractive he wouldn't care about her? I completely disagree with this, honestly.


As I've said, I'm not dismissing the possibility, although, I don't think it is usual.

From my observations, I've rarely seen men and women sharing common interests to a point where the friendship would be as genuinely non-sexually influenced as a friendship between two heterosexual* men is.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> Women call men creeps for all sorts of reasons. Often because they just don't like them. It's a very general, vague term, applied liberally by an extremely fickle and temperamental organism.
> 
> I'll make a deal with you thought: women can call guys creeps if men can call women sluts.
> 
> Fair is fair, yes?


Nope. There is no purpose to calling a woman a slut other than to put her down.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sourpuss said:


> ...care to explain your reasoning? I'm going to guess that you can't since your statement is purely defensive. You don't have to blame women for this, in fact it isn't their fault at all, but the fact is guys care way less how funny or exciting or developed a girl's social life is than the reverse. A man's attraction to a woman is based much much less on her place in the social hierarchy.


Being interesting has nothing to do with social hierarchy. Holy moly.

It's not purely defensive, either. It's obvious that you only view women as valuable for one purpose, which is frankly sexist and gross. Dare I even say, creepy?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> As I've said, I'm not dismissing the possibility, although, I don't think it is usual.
> 
> From my observations, I've rarely seen men and women sharing common interests to a point where the friendship would be as genuinely non-sexually influenced as two homosexuals men is.


Two homosexual men can be friends. That's actually pretty normal.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> Two homosexual men can be friends. That's actually pretty normal.


Indeed, I did not say otherwise.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> Nope. There is no purpose to calling a woman a slut other than to put her down.


There is good reason to call a woman a slut if she is unfaithful, spreading STD's, risking pregnancies, ect...

It's okay to call a man a creep if he is invading a woman's personal space, ignoring clear signals that he should back off, or doing something inappropriate, ect...

However I'm sure you'll agree that either of these terms can be applied wrongly.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> Indeed, I did not say otherwise.


It appeared you were implying otherwise.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I'm from the U.S., actually. I was equal parts shy...


...and a girl, so nobody cared, least of all boys.


----------



## SigmaEffectual (Dec 5, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> ...and a girl, so nobody cared, least of all boys.


im dead why @Sourpuss


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

> I get it now. Now you make sense.
> 
> You think you are the only woman who has ever lived, that you are the universe.
> 
> ...


So, you've made a full scientific study of women and their conversations? Doesn't look like it. Never mind I'm not one of the guys and mostly been friends with women most of my life. Most of my friends are women, but hey... what do I know about the social norms between women.  What you're referring to is the minority. Most women aren't actually that bitchy. 



SigmaEffectual said:


> I'm not sure she's to this extreme, but definitely follows the "social norms" and acts on things instinctively.
> 
> 
> This is more of the point I thought of. *having flashbacks of my high school days*


I'm right here. You want to talk 'about' me, you could private message him. You're having flashbacks, maybe this discussion is too distressing for you. 



Eska said:


> From my experience, "slut" was used to describe a female that is 'dirty' and not worthy of being involved with. (Perceived as higher chances of being unfaithful/ carrying STDs, etc.)
> 
> When a friend would show interest in a specific woman, some would say "Don't go for her, she's a slut.", meaning that she sleeps around with a lot of guys(associated with 'dirty' behavior), etc.
> 
> Arguably, that would be an "emergency" within the context of a friendship, I suppose?


Where's the fire? If you call this an emergency, I have to wonder if you've been fined for calling emergency services for tying up lines on non-emergencies.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> Ahh... and there we are. Now mind you, this isn't a mark against you of any kind. However it does say you are not typical of most women and so your relationships are not going to be typical of most male/female relationships. At least in the cultures we are talking about (whatever those are).


So not adhering to typical standards of femininity makes her opinion invalid? LolK.

You keep trying to find a way out to justify your position and that ain't working. "Men and women cannot be friends unless she's butch/ugly/fat/gay/not my type/a feminist/a three legged alien from Uranus" ...dude that's not how it works! Objectively men and women can be friends and if it doesn't work, it's because of personal factors, not the other way around.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sourpuss said:


> ...and a girl, so nobody cared, least of all boys.


I actually find males easier to befriend than other females because my bullies in elementary school and middle school were girls.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Kebachi said:


> Are you having flashbacks?





Kebachi said:


> You're right. I'm sorry if his attempts to get laid failed so utterly. I'll send him a fruit basket.





Kebachi said:


> Honestly I've always found it to be a good idea to discriminate against an entire group of people over one or two shallow individuals. I can also see how being called creepy is analogous to suffering through rape.


Why are you so bitter?


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> Most women aren't actually that bitchy.


We'll just have to let the audience decide.

If you and your friends are better than most people, then that's good. Nice to know there are decent people out there, somewhere.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why are you so bitter?


How is what she said indicative of bitterness ...? LOL.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Sourpuss said:


> Ahh... and there we are. Now mind you, this isn't a mark against you of any kind. However it does say you are not typical of most women and so your relationships are not going to be typical of most male/female relationships. At least in the cultures we are talking about (whatever those are).


Well I can't really speak for anybody other than myself, so I won't even try. I am just speculating why I think I might have more male friends than women, which is just that I find it easier to have common interests and ground with males than females. I don't know if that holds true for everybody. If a woman tells me she has male friend, I am not going to says she's wrong. Their relationship could work for any number of reasons.


----------



## SigmaEffectual (Dec 5, 2014)

monemi said:


> I'm right here. You want to talk 'about' me, you could private message him. You're having flashbacks, maybe this discussion is too distressing for you.


I'm pretty sure I was defending you, nor talking directly to you, why would I reply to him, and refer to him as 'you'? 

I'm also pretty sure you've got no sense of humor.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> Where's the fire? If you call this an emergency, I have to wonder if you've been fined for calling emergency services for tying up lines on non-emergencies.


I put "emergency" in quotations, I didn't literally mean it was a life threatening situation.

"Slut" is faster way to warn a friend.

Instead of saying; "This man's behavior seems threatening [...]", you simply say that he's a "creep".
Instead of saying; "This woman's behavior is not what you want [...]", you simply say that she's a "slut".


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why are you so bitter?


BB, I'm a sharp shooter. I don't miss.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I actually find males easier to befriend than other females because my bullies in elementary school and middle school were girls.


I doubt they bulled you because you were shy. Guys will bully a kid because he is weak, either physically or he just isn't assertive and dominant. 

For girls, it seems anyway to, well. I don't actually know. 

Why did they bully you?

In any case, my point was that boys didn't care. Maybe girls did, I'd be surprised, but maybe they did. Being shy is going to work much more severely against a guy in terms of relationships and intimacy than it will a girl. Including making it easier for him to be labeled a creep. Such as in my own experience. Now I've never hit on or flirted with a girl in my life, but I did overhear them talking many a time when I was in school, and heard from friends, that I was generally regarded as creepy and weird because of the character traits I described. I'm sure it would have been much worse, overtly hostile, if I'd also been ugly. Fortunately, I wasn't.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

koalaroo said:


> How is what she said indicative of bitterness ...? LOL.


Well all her comments in this thread are just snide remarks.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Well all her comments in this thread are just snide remarks.


My husband and I thought they were hilarious. We're both having a pretty good time honestly.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Kebachi said:


> My husband and I thought they were hilarious. We're both having a pretty good time honestly.


Glad to hear it, but taking a low personal stab at someone isn't exactly productive to the conversation.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Well all her comments in this thread are just snide remarks.


Someone can be snarky without being bitter.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Glad to hear it, but taking a low personal stab at someone isn't exactly productive to the conversation.


I think you and Sporadic Aura are missing the point. But I do love how your avatar matches up with your post.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> I doubt they bulled you because you were shy. Guys will bully a kid because he is weak, either physically or he just isn't assertive and dominant.
> 
> For girls, it seems anyway to, well. I don't actually know.


From what I've observed, girls are usually bullied if they're assertive and/or unattractive.

If they're assertive and attractive, they're usually referred to as "uptight bitches".
If they're assertive and unattractive, they're usually referred to as "ugly cunts" or anything else that targets their unattractiveness.
If they're unattractive, they're usually mocked for it.

It revolves around gender stereotypes.
Women have to be feminine, men have to be masculine.

Being shy is often irrelevant if they're attractive. (More often than not, that calls for whiteknights.)

*Note: I'm using the word "attractive" relatively speaking to a person's perception.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Well, from my experience most guys that have initially talked to me have been interested in me sexually/romantically. Not saying every guy, but I mean like 95 % and I'm being generous with this percentage. Honestly, if a guy texts you in that situation, its a safe bet that he's interested in you sexually/romantically. I know every guy is an individual, but I can't read people's minds. So near the beginning of our interaction if I'm not interested in him and I see him veering towards sexytime, you show me yours and I'll show you mine territory, I will say: " I will not have sex with you." or "I'm not looking for a relationship right now." or "I'm not interested in you in that manner." Boom. Just out in the open. This doesn't mean that I don't want to be friends, or that I don't want to talk to them any longer. But I don't want to give them the wrong idea either. _Because_ then I have to deal with a bitchfest of epic proportions down the road, including him yodeling to the world on top of a mountain about how I was leading him on and how I'm just a tease and bla bla bla bla bla.

Its just clearing up any misunderstandings and being straightforward with people. Its called _communication. _Its a good thing.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Eska said:


> Your sentence seemed to imply that men should be more upfront with their intentions, and I gave you a reason as to why it is often the case that they hide their intentions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I was not implying that. I was implying that only communicating with women as a means for satisfying you sexually is a very barren and sad thing. If you can only see women as "sex" and nothing more, than that says a lot about you as a person.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> No, I was not implying that. I was implying that only communicating with women as a means for satisfying you sexually is a very barren and sad thing. If you can only see women as "sex" and nothing more, than that says a lot about you as a person.


It says as much about the man as it does about the women.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

SigmaEffectual said:


> @_TheProphetLaLa_ I'm scared of debates with you. You're too organized.


Very funny. I'll show you organization like you've never dreamed. Just wait.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> It says as much about the man as it does about the women.


If women are only see men as sex and nothing more? Absolutely.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> No, I was not implying that. I was implying that only communicating with women as a means for satisfying you sexually is a very barren and sad thing. If you can only see women as "sex" and nothing more, than that says a lot about you as a person.


Well, if you'd like it not to be sad, wouldn't you want them to be more upfront about it or do you want men not to seek sex?

What does it say about the person?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> Let me try and explain to you in less complex language.
> 
> Is it bad, taken alone as just a principle, to approach a woman just because you want to have sex with her?
> 
> ...


As long as you know that the only thing she wants is sex as well, then no there is nothing wrong with it. If you're coercing her into believing something different, then yes there is.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Very funny. I'll show you organization like you've never dreamed. Just wait.


Naked :happy:


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Eska said:


> Well, if you'd like it not to be sad, wouldn't you want them to be more upfront about it or do you want men not to seek sex?
> 
> What does it say about the person?


You're talking about the way men approach women for sex. I'm talking about the mindset of a specific person. Two different things.


----------



## SigmaEffectual (Dec 5, 2014)

Eska said:


> I'm not saying that it's considered "odd" because he got rejected, but because of the reactions themselves.


I did enjoy the male reactions here.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> If women are only see men as sex and nothing more? Absolutely.


Untwist your panties.

All it says is that the man doesn't enjoy the company of women beyond the physical. There's nothing wrong with that in principle as long as he doesn't abuse them. There may be any number of reasons why he doesn't enjoy women as company. Some of them his fault, some not.

What it says about women is, wait for it....... 











That they just aren't compatible with that man as partners outside of sex. It might be because of any number of things. Maybe he enjoys hobbies and passions that no women seem to share. Maybe the way most women act just annoys him, or he them. It doesn't really matter is.


The point is, not enjoying somebody's company or even a whole population's, doesn't necessarily imply anything negative about anybody. 

I don't enjoy most people's company in general, man or woman, and it DOES say a lot about me. It says lots about everyone else too. However to summarize it says simply this: we aren't very compatible. Nothing wrong with us staying apart as much as possible.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> Naked :happy:


You first. :happy: Show me what you got Geoffrey Fell in a hole. Impress me.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I guess this is one of the downsides to expecting men to do the initiating, along with being more large, aggressive, and entitled due to their place in society. If things went the other way, I could see people complaining that men are too passive, asexual, scared, etc. 

Not every man approaches women with sex in mind, first, but a lot do. Perhaps if they started seeing them as fellow human beings, who have more to offer, relationships would smooth over? The whole in-group, out-group thing, where ignorance and misunderstandings become more common.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

WamphyriThrall said:


> IPerhaps if they started seeing them as fellow human beings, who have more to offer, relationships would smooth over?


What DO women have to offer?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> Untwist your panties.
> 
> All it says is that the man doesn't enjoy the company of women beyond the physical. There's nothing wrong with that in principle as long as he doesn't abuse them. There may be any number of reasons why he doesn't enjoy women as company. Some of them his fault, some not.
> 
> ...


No, I like them twisted. It keeps me on my toes.

And also no to everything you said. I don't agree. I don't think you're kind of thinking is very healthy.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> You're talking about the way men approach women for sex. I'm talking about the mindset of a specific person. Two different things.


That is what you were talking about, I think.



TheProphetLala said:


> I have no idea what this has to do with what I said. I was saying that only approaching women with sexual intentions is not a good thing.


Thus, are you saying that it is sad that men approach women while being sexually attracted them, or having thoughts of having sex with them?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> Perhaps you've been fortunate, or perhaps times have changed. How old are you? Language changes.


Gen Y, like you. Exactly how drastically do you think language changes and in what time span? 

I think out of the posters on here, you would be someone that I would be extremely uncomfortable around in real life based on your posts over the months. It's not entirely surprising some people called you creepy. You make a lousy impression on me and I suspect a lot of women. Sure, you can hide your opinions on online when you want to, but the vibe is much harder to hide in person. And yet, I get the impression it's your choice to be this way. You've given up trying to see women's perspectives and so you struggle to identify with them on any level. It's not that you actually are creepy, it's that you refuse to see women as anything but the enemy.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> And also no to everything you said. I don't agree. I don't think you're kind of thinking is very healthy.


Well you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how far up that dark, stinking tunnel it might be.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Eska said:


> That is what you were talking about, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, are you saying that it is sad that men approach women while being sexually attracted them, or having thoughts of having sex with them?


Only. Key word only. If that is the only thing they approach them for. If they are incapable of having a healthy relationship with a female outside of sex, this is a bad thing.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Perhaps if they started seeing them as fellow human beings, who have more to offer, relationships would smooth over?


If a vending machine offers me 5 flavor of chips, am I "wrong" to limit myself to one?

It seems to be a mentality of "buy everything or buy nothing, you can't pick.".

Oddly enough, asexuals are not condemned for dismissing sexuality in a relationship.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Sourpuss said:


> What DO women have to offer?


Are you kidding me? They're (usually) more emotionally and socially aware than men, great for discussing relationships in-depth with, don't take every opportunity to one-up you to secure their silly egos, can help you understand one highly misunderstood half of the population... I could go on with specifics.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

WamphyriThrall said:


> No, but they have to deal with a society and a culture that completely ignores their preferences. If you think bisexuals have it bad, for instance, you should see most people's reactions when they hear of that word and its definition.


I'm not saying that they should not deal with it, I'm saying that it is odd.



> *shrugs* No one is forcing you to. I'm somewhat emotional and naturally gel with a lot of women, regarding thinking and communication styles. No offense, but a lot of guys are somewhat clueless when it comes to feelings. They can talk about them, if prodded, but it's like pulling teeth, and it's obvious when they're out of their element. It's like a fish out of water.
> 
> Extreme left brain thinkers come off as autistic in certain situations. I don't think men are biologically wired that way, but from an early age they're taught to repress and deny that side of themselves. Perhaps that's I was picked on from an early age - for being "too" open with my emotions.
> 
> *But yeah - I can't see anything wrong with being a more well-rounded and knowledgeable individual.*


Was this an implication that being uninterested in discussing relationships in depth makes me a less well-rounded and knowledgeable individual?

Of course, it technically does, although, do you condemn people who choose to ignore that?


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> Why?


Because that's sketchy as hell? 

Every individual is different, disregarding their own thoughts and will is dehumanizing.
One thing is wanting no strings attached sex, another is being unable to see every woman as anything but walking sex.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> And this is the core point, you don't see the ethical implications of objectification that isn't mutual.


How do you know? All I did was ask the question. I have my own thoughts about it, my own musings on the possible problems it causes or is a symptom of. However I'd like others to share their opinions/thoughts and explain it in detail. The best way to do that is to ask "why".

I suggest you take a step back and don't rush to conclusions next time.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Absolutely, we are "superior" to animals and our emotional complexity is a sign of our superiority. Yes.


I disagree.

Although, this is getting off topic, we could discuss this in another thread.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> And this is the core point, you don't see the ethical implications of objectification that isn't mutual.
> I suggest you take trip down what dehumanization means and how often it leads to a total disregard and abuse of people because when you view someone as nothing but an object that one doesn't need to consider the subjective wants and feeligns of people turn into right royal pricks.
> 
> Dehumanization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


Everything you've said is up to subjective interpretation, it's based on your personal values/morals.

Regarding your last point,
Everyone is concerned with themselves and their own wants.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> idk
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Sourpuss said:


> Understanding does not mean acceptance. It just means understanding. I understand women's perspective and their struggles, but in large part I just find them unsympathetic. In large part because I do not at all think that many women, especially not feminists, have actually attempted to understand men or men's struggles. Mind you, I don't exactly identify with most men very much either. So it's taken almost an equal amount of work and exposure for me to identify with other men too.
> 
> I can understand the motivations and feelings of Mike Brown's parents, however even in doing so I can still clearly see how deluded and wrong they are.
> 
> In any case, I appreciate the genuine character analysis of my person. It's rare but welcome to see people speak frankly about what they think of you.


I don't think many men try to understand women's perspectives or many women try to understand men's perspectives. This hardly means that neither is worthy of my empathy. You are holding people to unrealistic standards and then hold the in contempt them when they fall short. You view other people with scorn but fail to see anything wrong with your own shortcomings. They have strengths where you have weaknesses and vice versa but you show no ability to respect other peoples strengths. You are judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree and think it pathetic. But you deride other people for doing the same thing to you. 

All you're doing is ostracizing yourself.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Karma said:


> One thing is wanting no strings attached sex, another is being unable to see every woman as anything but walking sex.


So why is it wrong? As long as the guy is not rude to women it does women no harm if he lives alone, works at his job, hangs out with his buddies on the weekends, and every now and then he meets a girl for casual sex. Or pays her. As long as he is polite and honest about what he wants out of their relationship, or lack there of, I see nothing wrong with it. Not in principal anyway.

Certainly I can see how maybe this man's personality is a symptom of some form of mental illness. However the emphasis is on the "maybe".

I also assume that his ruling out of women as companions is due to their personalities and interests and not just their physical gender.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> I'm not saying that they should not deal with it, I'm saying that it is odd.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eh, I don't condemn them; I just don't get their reasoning for being so against trying to understand someone different from themselves. Maybe they had a bad experience, or don't find it worth their time? I get that, but it would still seem a great pity to go your entire life and not know anything about those around you! 

Then again, maybe I'm assuming everyone is (or should be) more like me...


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> Do you form an emotional connection with the cashier at the grocery store? No? Then you're just using them to bag your food.
> 
> Monster.


Nice comparison. So relevant. The problem is that most likely you're going to be having a family some time in the future. Now if you're incapable of forming an emotional connection to a woman, that probably isn't going to be a very healthy relationship. > So then you're probably not going to have very healthy kids and the cycle continues. Women make up half of the worlds population. They have feelings, aspirations. They laugh, cry. They're very similar to you. And you're incapable of seeing them as anything other than sex?


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> You are holding people to unrealistic standards and then hold the in contempt them when they fall short.


I think my standards are pretty low. People are just garbage. Society is built on layers upon layers of polite lies and delusions. It's pathetic and demoralizing.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Eh, I don't condemn them; I just don't get their reasoning for being so against trying to understand someone different from themselves. Maybe they had a bad experience, or don't find it worth their time? I get that, but it would still seem a great pity to go your entire life and not know anything about those around you!
> 
> Then again, maybe I'm assuming everyone is (or should be) more like me...


Being uninterested is not trying to go against understanding someone different from themselves.

It is a lack of interest, not resistance.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Nice comparison. So relevant.


I thought it was an excellent way of pointing out how absurd your statement was.




TheProphetLaLa said:


> The problem is that most likely you're going to be having a family some time in the future.


This is probably NOT the case if you don't enjoy women's company outside of having sex with them. Or if you do it will be because one or both of you made a serious mistake and then had just enough of a conscience to keep the baby and try to raise it.

I pity the kid.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Sourpuss said:


> How do you know? All I did was ask the question. I have my own thoughts about it, my own musings on the possible problems it causes or is a symptom of. However I'd like others to share their opinions/thoughts and explain it in detail. The best way to do that is to ask "why".
> 
> I suggest you take a step back and don't rush to conclusions next time.


Perhaps you do, but I think that's a nice way to perhaps avoid owning up that you may hold such a mentality. I don't thin it's a difficult concept to comprehend, but you do make a tedious job out of it and I don't think it's for a lack of capacity to understand.

You asked why to ProhpetLala's point about it being wrong that a man is incapable of acknowledging a woman other than for sex, I tried to satisfy the why for you, could be presumptions but i'm yet to see anything to suggest otherwise as well. You don't have to but i'm sure it'd be entertaining to prove me wrong and share your endearing mentality of how you view women.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> Being uninterested is not trying to go against understanding someone different from themselves.
> 
> It is a lack of interest, not resistance.


No, but the way some guys have reacted to the idea makes me think otherwise... 

Almost like, "Whaaat?! Reduce ourselves to socializing with women?! Have you lost your damn mind??"


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> I think my standards are pretty low. People are just garbage. Society is built on layers upon layers of polite lies and delusions. It's pathetic and demoralizing.


Are you actually capable of empathy? I mean, how can you take offense to people calling you creepy when you don't give a shit about other people?


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> Perhaps you do, but I think that's a nice way to perhaps avoid owning up that you may hold such a mentality.


It certainly could be, but in my defense I point to my sense of honor and integrity which you have no reason to question.

I agree this is not a difficult concept to comprehend, however sometimes with simple or "obvious" questions we wind up with a poor understanding of them precisely because they seem so intuitive. Since we assume they are simple questions with simple answers we never bother to ask or explain. We do ourselves a disservice when we do this.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> I thought it was an excellent way of pointing out how absurd your statement was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even then. Your inability to form an emotional connection with a women, probably means you have some kind of problem with them, and so you probably don't treat them very well. We can't just ignore each other and pretend the other doesn't exist. Women and men co-exist. Our attitudes towards each other will affect each other. Its inevitable. You for example, have a lot of animosity towards women.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> So why is it wrong? As long as the guy is not rude to women it does women no harm if he lives alone, works at his job, hangs out with his buddies on the weekends, and every now and then he meets a girl for casual sex. Or pays her. As long as he is polite and honest about what he wants out of their relationship, or lack there of, I see nothing wrong with it. Not in principal anyway.


If he's upfront about just wanting sex and doesn't string anyone along, it's all cool.
Problems arise when he sees every woman as a source of potential sex and manipulates them into having sex by promising a relationship, appealing to their pity/guilt tripping them or just expecting sex in return of being 'a nice guy' which is just not being a shitty person, nothing special.

Asking a woman he met in a club if she wants to have sex with him (and dealing with a no by not insisting) is cool, seeing his friends and coworkers only in terms of their sexual potential is not. Honesty is the key.



> Certainly I can see how maybe this man's personality is a symptom of some form of mental illness. However the emphasis is on the "maybe".


Not a fan of armchair psychology or demonizing mental issues.
If someone stereotypes, judges and hates on an entire gender and treats it as an amorphous hivemind, instead of going case by case, they might have some shit they need to solve tho. 



> I also assume that his ruling out of women as companions is due to their personalities and interests and not just their physical gender.


Some people aren't interested in romantic relationships or friendships, no big deal.
However if he rules out women just because of their gender rather than who they are as a person or his specific preferences (ie: he'll seek male buddies but refuse friendship with a woman just because she's female and not a sexual prospect) then yeah, that's unhealthy as hell.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> Are you actually capable of empathy? I mean, how can you take offense to people calling you creepy when you don't give a shit about other people?


Where did I say I took offense? I just related an observation I made from my childhood. Oh sure, I was a little hurt at the time, but even then I understood why they thought that way.

I empathize with people enough to see how if I had a weaker moral character with less self-awareness and introspection, that I'd be just as crappy as most other people.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Even then. Your inability to form an emotional connection with a women, probably means you have some kind of problem with them, and so you probably don't treat them very well.


It very well might but it is no guarantee. It may just mean I keep to myself and screw a prostitute once a week.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

WamphyriThrall said:


> No, but the way some guys have reacted to the idea makes me think otherwise...
> 
> Almost like, "Whaaat?! Reduce ourselves to socializing with women?! Have you lost your damn mind??"


From what I've observed, women usually do not share common interests with men (at least, not significantly), thus, it'll most likely revolve around small talk, which can be tedious.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> It very well might but it is no guarantee. It may just mean I keep to myself and screw a prostitute once a week.


Impossible. Your attitude leaks into your behavior. It is what it is. *cue inspirational quote about thoughts leading to actions and actions leading to character*


----------



## the_natrix (Aug 10, 2011)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Nice comparison. So relevant. The problem is that most likely you're going to be having a family some time in the future. Now if you're incapable of forming an emotional connection to a woman, that probably isn't going to be a very healthy relationship. > So then you're probably not going to have very healthy kids and the cycle continues. Women make up half of the worlds population. They have feelings, aspirations. They laugh, cry. They're very similar to you. And you're incapable of seeing them as anything other than sex?


I love it when a girl talks sense and thinks in the long term.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> You for example, have a lot of animosity towards women.


The only reason I don't' rant about men is that they have enough enemies as it is and very few advocates.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

the_natrix said:


> I love it when a girl talks sense and thinks in the long term.


I'm getting lots of love in this thread…..

Thx boo. I'll take your love and use it for something worthwhile. I promise.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> The only reason I don't' rant about men is that they have enough enemies as it is and very few advocates.


:') So noble.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> :') So noble.


Just for you, in the near future I will make a thread where I will lay out everything I hate about the male gender and how many of their problems are self-caused.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

the_natrix said:


> I love it when a girl talks sense and thinks in the long term.


Is it because you consider it rare?


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Eska said:


> From what I've observed, women usually do not share common interests with men (at least, not significantly), thus, it'll most likely revolve around small talk, which can be tedious.


Since when have men and women been monolithic entities? There are men with majority female friends, and women with majority male friends. I agree that there tends to be areas where the two are drawn to, but also think you'd be hard pressed to find one person who shares literally zero interests with another person of the opposite sex.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> Where did I say I took offense? I just related an observation I made from my childhood. Oh sure, I was a little hurt at the time, but even then I understood why they thought that way.
> 
> I empathize with people enough to see how if I had a weaker moral character with less self-awareness and introspection, that I'd be just as crappy as most other people.


Judging by this post, you don't actually understand what empathy means.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

WamphyriThrall said:


> Since when have men and women been monolithic entities? There are men with majority female friends, and women with majority male friends. I agree that there tends to be areas where the two are drawn to, but also think you'd be hard pressed to find one person who shares literally zero interests with another person of the opposite sex.


I've put "(at least, not significantly)" next to that sentence.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> Judging by this post, you don't actually understand what empathy means.


noun
noun: empathy

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.


Seems I understand it perfectly.


----------



## the_natrix (Aug 10, 2011)

Eska said:


> Is it because you consider it rare?


Way to be backhanded.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

the_natrix said:


> Way to be backhanded.


I was genuinely asking.

Do you consider it rare?

I suppose there's a pressure on you for not answering the question, in fear of sounding sexist.

You don't have to answer, of course.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> Just for you, in the near future I will make a thread where I will lay out everything I hate about the male gender and how many of their problems are self-caused.


Unnecessary and unwanted. Hating people is going to get you no where. Try to understand them instead.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Unnecessary and unwanted. Hating people is going to get you no where. Try to understand them instead.


Replace "hate" with "criticisms". I don't hate men, I don't hate women. However I find lots about them to loathe. The same with the blacks, the same with whites, the same with democrats, the same with republicans, the same with Americans, the same with Europeans, and so and so on.

If you prefer I could criticize my mother instead, or my aunt. I love them, but I still take objection to choices they've made and/or continue to make.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

I once asked a fellow student studying theatre if she'd like to be my partner for extracurricular dance classes. She responded that she "was very flattered, and sorry, but she didn't feel the same way" about me.

Since when was dancing the equivalent to dating? The assumption was quite insulting. It takes me upwards of 6 months to even consider a woman as dating material. She was a good actress, so I respected her professional skills, and I thought we could mutually benefit. I just want a dance partner damn it! ^_^


----------



## the_natrix (Aug 10, 2011)

Eska said:


> I was genuinely asking.
> 
> Do you consider it rare?


I don't usually hear of those traits I guess, but I really don't have much for reference points, so I have no real knowledge of prevalence.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

I go away for a while and come back and see the same cast of PerC characters having the same conversation. Sure you guys aren't all SJs? This is like a tradition here.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> Replace "hate" with "criticisms". I don't hate men, I don't hate women. However I find lots about them to loathe. The same with the blacks, the same with whites, the same with democrats, the same with republicans, the same with Americans, the same with Europeans, and so and so on.
> 
> If you prefer I could criticize my mother instead, or my aunt. I love them, but I still take objection to choices they've made and/or continue to make.


The question my friend is can you find anything to like? Its easy to dislike things. Nobody is perfect. Everybody has things they can be criticized for, including you. 

If all you ever see in people are things to loathe, then most likely you're going to loathe them. Its simple.


----------



## jada_artist (Nov 21, 2014)

Cetanu said:


> OP, you are addicted to female praise. You don't actually want friendships with random women. Stop kidding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I do more than a few of these and I get positive responses. Oh well.


Well to me, it just shows that the guy just isn't really trying. Sometimes I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and talk to a few and they can't even have an interesting conversation. I'll ask them a bunch of question and the only question I get in return is "how big are your tits?" >< These guys are wasting my time. I mean, it's cool if you are looking for sex and you say that openly. Just know that, I'm not looking for that. I make it very clear what I'm looking for in my profile but these guys don't even bother reading before messaging!


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> I didn't say you have to agree with them.
> 
> "Empathy is about finding echoes of another person in yourself."
> Mohsin Hamid
> ...


What precisely have I said that makes you think I have no compassion?

Do I have compassion for everyone under all circumstances? No, only when it is warranted. A lot of the feminists of the world, mainly the West, don't deserve much if any compassion. Most of them are busy complaining about minor inconveniences and invented problems, whilst actively ignoring and dismissing the problems of others.

Though I'm really not sure what I could have said anywhere on this forum that would imply I have no compassion for anybody. Be it rioters in Furgson or some lonely girl heart-broken that a guy used her for sex. I have compassion, but in the former case I'm still going to insist that the outrage over Mike Brown is dishonest (as a social movement) and based on lies and a refusal to take personal responsibility. In the latter case, it will depend on what kind of relationship she had with this guy before sleeping with him. In which case probably the worst I'd say is "You should have known better'.

Yes, I get it, he felt genuine, she wanted to feel loved, she let herself be vulnerable because all indications were he was a good person. Then he ran out on her and now she's alone, her feelings tossed out with the trash, and worries she'll look like a slut because she was too trusting. 

I get it. It's sad. I've had my feelings hurt too.

I have to wonder, do YOU have compassion, or just a need to pat yourself on the back?


----------



## jada_artist (Nov 21, 2014)

Cetanu said:


> OP, you are addicted to female praise. You don't actually want friendships with random women. Stop kidding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I do more than a few of these and I get positive responses. Oh well.


I meant to quote this! idk where the hell the other one came from lol


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> Close friends aren't there to share my interests. They're there for support and to tell me when I'm being a bitch and when I'm making a huge mistake. Not just to sit complacently and agree with everything I say.


So... how did they become your friends? How did you meet if you share nothing in common? Oh wait, you said at least one was a relative. I suppose I get that one. What about others?


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> No way!!! YOU ADMITTED IT??!!! HOLY SHOEGJHSEOIHTWSOIEGHSOIEJ
> 
> This is a day I'm going to mark on my calendar. I'm not even kidding. I just drew a snowman (I can't draw a fucking eskimo.) on December 7, 2014. This moment has been immortalized.











I have a MS Paint problem.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> Close friends aren't there to share my interests. They're there for support and to tell me when I'm being a bitch and when I'm making a huge mistake. Not just to sit complacently and agree with everything I say.


Is that what you consider "small talk"? Sitting complacently and agree with everything you say?

I thought "small talk" was, "I love him [...] I did this this weekend [...] I like your [...]".

Interesting, "they're there for support [...]". 
Does it really happen? Do you really need their support, are you really waiting for them to "correct" your behavior and guide you?

You allocate "friends" to a purpose? Not a coincidental and continuous state of trust and interaction between two individuals?



Karma said:


> View attachment 238338
> 
> 
> I have a MS Paint problem.


For the sake of accuracy, the presence of a beard would be important.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

jada_artist said:


> Well to me, it just shows that the guy just isn't really trying. Sometimes I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and talk to a few and they can't even have an interesting conversation. I'll ask them a bunch of question and the only question I get in return is "how big are your tits?" >< These guys are wasting my time. I mean, it's cool if you are looking for sex and you say that openly. Just know that, I'm not looking for that. I make it very clear what I'm looking for in my profile but these guys don't even bother reading before messaging!


That's weird, because it pretty much is my version of trying.
The problem you might not be aware of, is that by "trying" in the traditional sense, you come across as desperate to most of the female population. You might be an exception, and I accept that.

I get a more positive response from "Sup cutie.", than from "Hey, I noticed XYZ about your profile... Do you [interesting query here]?"
In fact, some don't even respond to what you would think is an interesting question/me trying. They ignore it completely.

Obviously I don't go around asking a girl what her breast size is... That's... just stupid.

In summary:

- Lots of men are forward to the point of being inappropriate
- Lots of women are snobby to the point of being insipid and rude
- There are exceptions to every rule

Case dismissed


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> What precisely have I said that makes you think I have no compassion?
> 
> Do I have compassion for everyone under all circumstances? No, only when it is warranted. A lot of the feminists of the world, mainly the West, don't deserve much if any compassion. Most of them are busy complaining about minor inconveniences and invented problems, whilst actively ignoring and dismissing the problems of others.
> 
> ...


Oh wow, you're so clueless... I don't even know where to start. You think this is about feminism? You think this is about Mike Brown? 

Yes. I have compassion. That's why I still reply to you. 



Sourpuss said:


> So... how did they become your friends? How did you meet if you share nothing in common? Oh wait, you said at least one was a relative. I suppose I get that one. What about others?


I met two of them at a film festival not long after I moved to this city. They're funny, blunt and I have lots to learn from them. The other I met through a friend from back home. I'm not really into the music industry (I'm deaf, even with hearing aids, I know I'm missing some frequencies) but she's fun and interesting.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

monemi said:


> Oh wow, you're so clueless... I don't even know where to start. You think this is about feminism? You think this is about Mike Brown?


Of-course not, but those are the topics I've talked the most about on this forum in the last few weeks. So...

Like I said, I don't think you have compassion, just a need to pat yourself on the back and get pats on the back from others.


----------



## Killbain (Jan 5, 2012)

Gore Motel said:


> Why do you feel the need to apologize for something the other person just assumed about you? Even if it is true, its nothing to feel ashamed of.


Ah! That would be good manners. 

It also gently rebukes the other protagonist (in this scenario a woman presupposing that you were hitting on her) for making an unwarranted assumption.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Eska said:


> Is that what you consider "small talk"? Sitting complacently and agree with everything you say?
> 
> I thought "small talk" was, "I love him [...] I did this this weekend [...] I like your [...]".
> 
> ...


I would say both are small talk. 

Yes, I do need their support. I don't have any examples that wouldn't get extremely personal. And I'm glad they're there to point out when I'm being a jerk. I'm not very sensitive to other peoples feelings. I'm a better person with them in my life. Friends are there for many things.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Eska said:


> For the sake of accuracy, the presence of a beard would be important.


I thought about it but meh, to much effort to make the mouth visible (and the :| face is vital)









*sheds tear*


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

monemi said:


> I would say both are small talk.
> 
> Yes, I do need their support. I don't have any examples that wouldn't get extremely personal. And I'm glad they're there to point out when I'm being a jerk. I'm not very sensitive to other peoples feelings. I'm a better person with them in my life. Friends are there for many things.


I see.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Karma said:


> I thought about it but meh, to much effort to make the mouth visible (and the :| face is vital)
> 
> View attachment 238346
> 
> ...


What a chef-d'oeuvre.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Sourpuss said:


> Of-course not, but those are the topics I've talked the most about on this forum in the last few weeks. So...
> 
> Like I said, I don't think you have compassion, just a need to pat yourself on the back and get pats on the back from others.


When do your discussions ever not devolve into you making disparaging remarks about women, about black people, about people who are not a part of your demographic? You make side comments that imply that you yearn for closer relationships in your life but when you actually have someone telling you the truth, you attack. As much as you hate other people for not seeing the truth right in front of them, you can't see the truth right in front of you.


----------



## jada_artist (Nov 21, 2014)

Cetanu said:


> That's weird, because it pretty much is my version of trying.
> The problem you might not be aware of, is that by "trying" in the traditional sense, you come across as desperate to most of the female population. You might be an exception, and I accept that.
> 
> I get a more positive response from "Sup cutie.", than from "Hey, I noticed XYZ about your profile... Do you [interesting query here]?"
> ...


Unfortunately, you are 100% correct. I've heard from many guys that girls just don't reply. All of these guys made a good impression on me by the first message. It's like people don't even know how to communicate anymore. I don't see how that would come across as desperate, I mean the whole point of online dating is to meet someone right? There are a few individuals that did come across as desperate but that was because they were CONSTANTLY complimenting me. This happened on a date I had friday. We had been chatting and texting for about 2 weeks and he just had high expectations before we even met. On the date he barely said anything and when he did, it was just another compliment. I didn't understand, why he was so desperate. He was very handsome guy. If he just didn't rush things, women would be all over him.

and I know you said case closed but I'm bored and it's fun to ramble about stuff like this


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Back in high school there were times when my friends were almost exclusively women. These were not short periods of time, each lasting well over six months. This was also well before I identified as a feminist and probably before I even knew what a feminist was. I was sexually attracted to some of them, never dated any of them, and the friendships were still wonderfully fulfilling. At other times my friends have been almost exclusively male. Not surprising but I mention it in case someone thinks I hate men or something. I don't. My friendships with these men were similarly wonderful and one in particular has proven to be almost impossibly resilient. Right now I have roughly the same amount of male and female friends but my closest friends are mostly women. So the idea that it's impossible for men and women to be friends is ridiculous, as is the notion that they can only be friends in the absence of sexual attraction. Not only are these things empirically false, I also fail to see any reasonable theoretical perspective that would predict them. 

---

As for making assumptions about people, what matters is whether or not those assumptions are "reasonable" with regard to the context. It's a highly subjective thing and in some cases there might not be a clear right or wrong answer, but to say that it's always wrong is very misinformed. Making assumptions is both necessary and unavoidable. The people who talk about women assuming that men are always after sex often imply that this is some kind of widespread social issue - that the assumption is usually unfounded and results in pernicious consequences for men - but I've never actually seen any supporting evidence for this claim, nor any kind of theory that would predict such a thing. It also doesn't match my own experience. At the moment I think it's just men's rights groups complaining about nothing. 

---

Words take on different meanings in different contexts and it's definitely possible to call someone a creep and for that to be far more hurtful than calling someone a slut, but in my experience, "slut" is easily the more offensive word (it tends to imply a far greater level of disrespect). I really don't mind people using either word if they can do it without offending anyone but calling someone a slut without offending them requires far more tact than most people have access to. Similar thing with "creep," though not as extreme. It's all subjective, again.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

monemi said:


> I met two of them at a film festival not long after I moved to this city. They're funny, blunt and I have lots to learn from them. The other I met through a friend from back home. I'm not really into the music industry (I'm deaf, even with hearing aids, I know I'm missing some frequencies) but she's fun and interesting.


Ignorant question time: A while ago I was watching the Alphabet Band Name thread (not sure of exact title), wondering how someone who claims to be deaf was consistently posting such killer tunes. What's going on here? You're messing with my mind, @monemi.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Am I? I took it to mean that you were laughing at most of the posters, which isn't really of much concern to me, but it doesn't justify rude replies that don't actually add anything to the conversation. And yes, it's one of many reasons I like this avatar.


I don't think I was anymore rude or offensive than the people I was responding to. Did you read what some of them said? I suppose pointing out BS can come off as rude, but I wouldn't say I didn't add anything to the conversation.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Kebachi said:


> I don't think I was anymore rude or offensive than the people I was responding to. Did you read what some of them said? I suppose pointing out BS can come off as rude, but I wouldn't say I didn't add anything to the conversation.


Yeah, I guess it did degenerate pretty quickly.


----------

