# Putting Pussy On A Pedestal



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Dolorous Haze said:


> lol, I wasn't suggesting it was a mental health issue so much as an unhealthy perspective towards the opposite gender, which it is. That's the root of all almost all of your threads on personality cafe. I don't see the problem with saying it's a problem. I'm certainly not shaming mental illness, but you are shaming my entire gender.


Please.

Again if you were sincere you would have advised it via PM, please stop trying to play this game.

*This was a thread aimed at men*. Please stop bringing your dislike of my other threads into this one.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> And although I often disagree with you, you make good points above.


Thank you.



> You're telling men not to objectify women, but your entire lexicon is demeaning to women.


It's slang.

And it also highlights the phenomenon of men not recognizing that the reason why they are attracted to a women, ie. it's for sexual attraction, hence the term 'pussy on a pedestal'.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

And it begins.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I just sit back and laugh at other men who truly believe sex is currency. I say false. Very false. :laughing:


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Dolorous Haze said:


> I think most women would also appreciate it if you stopped limiting us to our genitalia.
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this post but I'm really not bothered getting into it. I'm just going to suggest that you visit your counselor friend for a professional visit, as it seems you have many issues with women that you need to get over.


No ones bothered to get into it. There was a lot of truth in what I read, and as I read it I asked "What is the justification for such behavior?" Flippant dismissals such as this only prove the point OP is making. This is tragic, because I suspect that there is more to it than this.

That being said, I do find the "pussy" language to be crass and hostile. It's more of a criticism towards Patrice, and not @strangestdude because the OP is adopting language from the context which O'Neal supplies.

I understand that Patrice is using strong language to break down psychological barriers that many men have raised up (it is a legitimate and sometimes useful technique) but I find that it has the opposite affect on PerC members. They get hung up on it, and use that as an excuse to ignore the valid points made (as you have just now demonstrated).

Prudence is choosing the best course within a context, and when it comes to communication, we should put prudence on a pedestal. lol


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

marked174 said:


> I understand that Patrice is using strong language to break down psychological barriers that many men have raised up (it is a legitimate and sometimes useful technique)


I wasn't sure if anyone else got that.

Thanks for posting. But I accept responsibility along with Patrice (RIP) for my use of language.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

My problem with this phenomenon (which is described accurately by the OP in my experience) is that both the proposed problem and proposed solution fail to address my aims.

I want to have a loving relationship; one where each partner actively desires to encourage, foster growth, and raise up each other. The problem presented is that women in hetero-dating have no desire to do this. Rather, they are solely interested in taking advantage of men and have often grown restless by having done it so much. This problem is very much real, and I am sorely dissapointed to find that hardly anyone has the courage to address this problem in our society.

The solution, however, isn't a whole lot better. The solution can be reduced to "Women don't care about you, so you shouldn't care about them either." Well, this is a problem for the man who wants a loving nurturing relationship where two partners help build and journey with each other. 

I understand that I can become a narcissistic asshole, and get laid for it, but that's just not what I want. Also, I don't think our society should encourage the narcissistic lifestyle, and adopting it causes a tacit approval of it which will harm us as a whole.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> It's slang.
> ...



Yes, I do understand it's slang. But the fact that you use this language sort of diminishes what you have to say IMHO.



marked174 said:


> My problem with this phenomenon (which is described accurately by the OP in my experience) is that both the proposed problem and proposed solution fail to address my aims.
> 
> *I want to have a loving relationship; one where each partner actively desires to encourage, foster growth, and raise up each other.* The problem presented is that women in hetero-dating have no desire to do this. Rather, they are solely interested in taking advantage of men and have often grown restless by having done it so much. This problem is very much real, and I am sorely dissapointed to find that hardly anyone has the courage to address this problem in our society.
> 
> ...


Okay, now I think I'm starting to see where my issue lies. That the assumption by these guys is that women do not want healthy mutual loving relationships. 

Perhaps the problem is NOT that women do not want this while these guys do, but rather they are simply chasing after the wrong women. When guys are only looking for *hot* women, you get what you ask for. The same goes for women who chase after only gorgeous men.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

marked174 said:


> No ones bothered to get into it. There was a lot of truth in what I read, and as I read it I asked "What is the justification for such behavior?" Flippant dismissals such as this only prove the point OP is making. This is tragic, because I suspect that there is more to it than this.
> 
> That being said, I do find the "pussy" language to be crass and hostile. It's more of a criticism towards Patrice, and not @_strangestdude_ because the OP is adopting language from the context which O'Neal supplies.
> 
> ...


lol, Don't try to cover up blatant sexism with accusations of prudishness. I'm _certainly _not offended by the word 'pussy' but I dislike it being used in this sense. It's the equivalent of making a post dedicated to "*******" or "n*ggers." It's the same sort of derogatory language and it taints the whole post. (But, even if he didn't use the word, the whole post would still be complete nonsense.)

"As a result women spend more time looking pretty than developing personality traits that are enjoyable and engaging." 

^It's comments like that that really show your ignorance, strangestdude. From my experience, only a minority of women are that shallow and absorbed with their looks. Since I went to an all girls school, the majority of people I know are women, and almost all of them have a "well developed personality", no matter how "pretty" they are. From my experience, conversations with women are more enjoyable and engaging with women than with men who share similar opinions to the OP.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

marked174 said:


> . The problem presented is that women in hetero-dating have no desire to do this. Rather, they are solely interested in taking advantage of men and have often grown restless by having done it so much. This problem is very much real, and I am sorely dissapointed to find that hardly anyone has the courage to address this problem in our society.


Have you ever considered that _*you*_ might be the problem, not *shocker* women? Maybe you're chasing after the wrong type of woman or women who are "out of your league". Maybe you're not as good of a guy as you think you are. Maybe you have some issues you need to deal with. Maybe you don't put yourself out there enough? Maybe you're looking for women in the wrong places.

I have difficulty dating too, but I would never blame and resent a woman for not being attracted to me. I'm aware that it's usually either because of me, or because I'm simply not their type. Of course, some people can't handle this knock to their ego so they create arguments such as those in the OP.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

marked174 said:


> The solution, however, isn't a whole lot better. The solution can be reduced to "Women don't care about you, so you shouldn't care about them either."


I think I can see where you got that perspective from, but the solution is really seeing women as human beings, but they have 'games' and 'transaction' desire that are predominantly found in their demographic. And so we have to be mindful and navigate them (that's what I got from Patrice and others).

My next thread is going to be about realism vs idealism in dating ie. Patrice is very much in the realist camp, whereas a lot of angry responders to my threads are in the idealist camp.

I find the subject of hetero-dating fascinating.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

marked174 said:


> The problem presented is that women in hetero-dating have no desire to do this. Rather, they are solely interested in taking advantage of men and have often grown restless by having done it so much. This problem is very much real, and I am sorely dissapointed to find that hardly anyone has the courage to address this problem in our society.


Glad you're brave enough to stand up for all the lose...er, honorable single men who have suffered at the hands of these malicious women, it's about time someone said something.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Dolorous Haze said:


> ^It's comments like that that really show your ignorance, strangestdude. From my experience, only a minority of women are that shallow and absorbed with their looks. Since I went to an all girls school, the majority of people I know are women, and almost all of them have a "well developed personality", no matter how "pretty" they are. .


They may be interesting to you as a platonic female friend, but I'm talking about how interesting they are in relation to men romantically. It's not necessarily genetic, but culturally there are differences in the values and communication patterns of men and women. What is enjoyable and interesting platonically amongst women, isn't what is enjoyable and interesting when courting men (eg.. I don't fucking care about the intricacies of your new hair cut)

Again Patrice says that's a problem with women, they assume that men will find their personality enjoyable and interesting. But they don't get the direct feedback that men get, because they aren't expected to initiate courtship. Believe me, we as men get direct feedback if our communication skills are attractive or not via online or offline courtship where we are expected to take the initiative. (This cultural expectation can still be seen on dating site statistics)

And men (believe me) on forums, or professionally (The PUA industry) spend a lot of time analyzing their communication skills to become more attractive to women. Women spend more time analyzing their physical appearance in order to attract men IMO.

But again Patrice said, it's not their fault, it's our fault.

Men contribute to 'pretty woman syndrome' by putting pussy on pedestal.



> lol, Don't try to cover up blatant sexism with accusations of prudishness. I'm _certainly not offended by the word 'pussy' but I dislike it being used in this sense. It's the equivalent of making a post dedicated to "*******" or "n*ggers."_


Sigh.


----------



## HouseOfFlux (May 18, 2013)




----------



## lethal lava land (Aug 2, 2011)

I'm sorry if this is a bit irrelevant, but did anybody else picture this literally, and get an amusing mental image? or is that just me?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Dolorous Haze said:


> I have difficulty dating too, but I would never blame and resent a woman for not being attracted to me. I'm aware that it's usually either because of me, or because I'm simply not their type. Of course, some people can't handle this knock to their ego so they create arguments such as those in the OP.


OK now I know you didn't read the OP.

I'll quote some parts of it that proves that...



> n the 12 episodes of the Black Phillip show the Patrice O Neal takes pussy off it's pedestal (ie. advises men to stop treating women with reverence for being sexually attractive).


*



But before I begin I want to share something that I got from a dude on youtube called Richard Grannon from one of his videos. He said that what often happens in courtship and dating is that we interact with someone who evokes feelings of insecurity, and a part of us resents feeling insecure so we engage in passive aggressive behavior fueled unconscious by this resentment. Rather than deal with our own sense of insecurities, we try to diminish the status of others to make us feel better.


I'm mentioning that so any men can be mindful of any resentment that comes from them realizing that they've been putting pussy on a pedestal, so that it's less likely to manifest in passive aggressive behavior.

Click to expand...

*


> *Like Patrice says; It's not their fault, it's our fault.*


Please read my OP before criticizing it.


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

I'd put pussy on a pedestal. 
(If it made it easier to eat it out! XD)


----------



## lethal lava land (Aug 2, 2011)

RetroVortex said:


> I'd put pussy on a pedestal.
> (If it made it easier to eat it out! XD)



I suppose it depends on what position you're in, and how high a pedestal we're talking about


Logistics are important!


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

lethal lava land said:


> I suppose it depends on what position you're in, and how high a pedestal we're talking about
> 
> 
> Logistics are important!


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

How many offspring can a man produce in a year? How many offspring can a woman produce in a year? Big difference? 

Dating is how it is because women have to invest more in child rearing, therefore need to be more selective with males they encounter. Selectivity produces competition, men really should stop whining about having to compete, it won't change unless our biology changes. If you don't like having to work for pussy, then make a stand, refuse to chase any and go without it. Simple.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> men really should stop whining about having to compete, it won't change unless our biology changes. If you don't like having to work for pussy, then make a stand, refuse to chase any and go without it. Simple.


Yeah, you didn't bother reading the OP either.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

I think the biggest problem that the women are having with this thread is that you put "Pussy on a pedestal" as the thread title. I keep imagining this giant scale on which women have just lost some apples and men have just gained said apples. thus tipping things towards men which makes sense because this thread is aimed at men, but it takes away value from women. 

Now as for your argument I can't say much about my "putting women on the throne". I'm pretty sure at some point of my life I did (because I did), but I just don't do it anymore because I came to learn from life that just like men ,women can be sexist, disgusting, racist, bullys, aggressive, competitive, assholes, etc. So there is really no reason to treat women in general like they are special over men. 

Now should you treat them worse? No. You shouldn't, but people still do. That's just reality. It is easier to conform to a standard of living that has already been established than to break new terrain and do something different. That and the fact that some people are afraid to think or feel different. 

I used to think stereotypes existed for a reason. I realize now that stereotypes exist because people like having a simple knowledge of things they don't understand.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)




----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> They may be interesting to you as a platonic female friend, but I'm talking about how interesting they are in relation to men romantically. It's not necessarily genetic, but culturally there are differences in the values and communication patterns of men and women. What is enjoyable and interesting platonically amongst women, isn't what is enjoyable and interesting when courting men (*eg.. I don't fucking care about the intricacies of your new hair cut)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't "fucking care" either. We have deeper conversations than nail polish and pretty dresses. (And, I am also interested in romantic/sexual relationships with women, for the record.) You clearly don't have very much experience with women, or maybe you just chase after the really shallow type. Men's conversations can also be very dull. (I don't care about sports or fart jokes.)

"Pick-Up Artists" are usually idiots who think that a few cheap lines will get them into bed with a "really hot woman."


You are clearly chasing after the wrong type of woman and then blaming the entire gender and other men for your failures.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Yeah, you didn't bother reading the OP either.


Yeah, you are obviously too defensive to see my post any other way.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Dolorous Haze said:


> I don't "fucking care" either. We have deeper conversations than nail polish and pretty dresses.


It was a single example.



> (And, I am also interested in romantic/sexual relationships with women, for the record.)




In now way does that challenge my previous point where I wrote;

*It's not necessarily genetic, but culturally there are differences in the values and communication patterns of men and women. What is enjoyable and interesting platonically amongst women, isn't what is enjoyable and interesting when courting men*

You're not a man.



> You clearly don't have very much experience with women, or maybe you just chase after the really shallow type.


No, I don't.

In response to both statements.



> "Pick-Up Artists" are usually idiots who think that a few cheap lines will get them into bed with a "really hot woman."


You are unfamiliar with the PUA industry. Most of them teach self help stuff (ie. meditation, lifting weights, positive thinking). The stereotype of using 'lines' is false.



> You are clearly chasing after the wrong type of woman and then blaming the entire gender and other men for your failures.


I've no idea how you derived that conclusion from the OP.

Please present your line of reasoning for analysis.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

The assumption seems to be that sex and entitlement for companionship influences most men (gentle women in subservient people pleasing implied as well, to be unbiased to both genders that can be 'nice' ) the same way and that 'men' encompasses a narrow range of generalisation in your tone...


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

I just want to point some things out for good measure.



strangestdude said:


> *It's not necessarily genetic, but culturally there are differences in the values and communication patterns of men and women. What is enjoyable and interesting platonically amongst women, isn't what is enjoyable and interesting when courting men*




He's talking about generalities , he doesn't mean ALL men and women value the SAME thing. He just means culturally like in the media they do.




strangestdude said:


> You are unfamiliar with the PUA industry. Most of them teach self help stuff (ie. meditation, lifting weights, positive thinking). The stereotype of using 'lines' is false.


True but most pickup artists also teach Misogyny all though they won't say it, it can be heavily implied. "I can teach you how to sleep with a beautiful women everyday, but first you need to start out by having sex with girls you don't find attractive so you earn sexual experience so then it becomes easier to have sex with the beautiful women".


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Too much emphasis on idealized masculinity, sex, and conquest. 

Ironically, it's always been other guys who have had a problem with me not prioritizing the same; like, they'd react with outright anger and frustration that I didn't care who got laid, or that I wasn't. The assumption was "you just can't", when really, anyone who wants it bad enough can, and I never did. 

So which is "gayer": not living up to the societal expectations of a "real man", or caring so much what another man does or does not do sexually? 

That said, there was a time when I did start focusing too much on sex, landing me with the wrong type of women and two very unsatisfying "relationships". Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are, goes the saying, and if my exes are anything to go by, that's a sign of serious lack of growth and maturity.

I don't think anything should be put on a pedestal.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Dolorous Haze said:


> lol, Don't try to cover up blatant sexism with accusations of prudishness. I'm _certainly _not offended by the word 'pussy' but I dislike it being used in this sense. It's the equivalent of making a post dedicated to "*******" or "n*ggers." It's the same sort of derogatory language and it taints the whole post. (But, even if he didn't use the word, the whole post would still be complete nonsense.)
> 
> "As a result women spend more time looking pretty than developing personality traits that are enjoyable and engaging."
> 
> ^It's comments like that that really show your ignorance, strangestdude. From my experience, only a minority of women are that shallow and absorbed with their looks. Since I went to an all girls school, the majority of people I know are women, and almost all of them have a "well developed personality", no matter how "pretty" they are. From my experience, conversations with women are more enjoyable and engaging with women than with men who share similar opinions to the OP.


It's a legitimate point. Our society puts an emphasis on women being pretty and men engaging. That's a fact, and it does cause men and women to develop in certain ways because of it. Most of the girls I know don't put as much an emphasis on developing an engaging personality. I did, however, notice that many of the women who went to all girl schools had more engaging personalities than those who didn't. I do believe that phenomena is due to hetero-dating pressures mentioned by the OP.



Dolorous Haze said:


> Have you ever considered that _*you might be the problem, not *shocker* women? Maybe you're chasing after the wrong type of woman or women who are "out of your league". Maybe you're not as good of a guy as you think you are. Maybe you have some issues you need to deal with. Maybe you don't put yourself out there enough? Maybe you're looking for women in the wrong places.
> 
> I have difficulty dating too, but I would never blame and resent a woman for not being attracted to me. I'm aware that it's usually either because of me, or because I'm simply not their type. Of course, some people can't handle this knock to their ego so they create arguments such as those in the OP.*_





BuckeyeENFP said:


> Okay, now I think I'm starting to see where my issue lies. That the assumption by these guys is that women do not want healthy mutual loving relationships.
> 
> Perhaps the problem is NOT that women do not want this while these guys do, but rather they are simply chasing after the wrong women. When guys are only looking for *hot* women, you get what you ask for. The same goes for women who chase after only gorgeous men.


Both of these points are similar, so I'll address them together. It has been my observation that a cultural shift has taken place regarding women. One which devalues loving relationships and encourages a nearly isolated view on independence. Our culture also loves to devalue men; specifically boyfriends, husbands, fathers, etc. It's not that guys are chasing "the wrong women", it's that our culture is actively cultivating "the wrong women" who are taught to not value and respect men as equals. It's not a question of hotness, most women think they are "8s" and that most men are "2s" when statistically they are both mostly "5s".

There could be a hundred reasons as to why I am single, but none of them take away from the fact that women just plain don't want mutual relationships, especially when they are told that men have nothing to give.



strangestdude said:


> I think I can see where you got that perspective from, but the solution is really seeing women as human beings, but they have 'games' and 'transaction' desire that are predominantly found in their demographic. And so we have to be mindful and navigate them (that's what I got from Patrice and others).


Yes, but I question whether those games and transactions should be navigated in the first place. O'Neal claims "woman are like x so we must do this..." and while everybody is discussing whether or not women are or aren't the way he claimed I tend to ask "should they be this way?" Patrice is resigned to their behavior, whilst I believe that behavior is more malleable.



strangestdude said:


> My next thread is going to be about realism vs idealism in dating ie. Patrice is very much in the realist camp, whereas a lot of angry responders to my threads are in the idealist camp.
> 
> I find the subject of hetero-dating fascinating.


 I do as well, and find it to be a topic worthy of discussion.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> In now way does that challenge my previous point where I wrote;
> 
> *It's not necessarily genetic, but culturally there are differences in the values and communication patterns of men and women. What is enjoyable and interesting platonically amongst women, isn't what is enjoyable and interesting when courting men*
> 
> You're not a man.




So what is enjoyable for you when 'courting' women?



> No, I don't.
> 
> In response to both statements.


At least you'll admit that you have no experience, I suppose. You do realise that little experience means that you have no idea what you're talking about?





> I've no idea how you derived that conclusion from the OP.
> 
> Please present your line of reasoning for analysis.





> As a result women spend more time looking pretty than developing personality traits that are enjoyable and engaging.






> The truth is many of them don't have to, because men will give them attention regardless of their personality which has led to 'pretty girl syndrome'.




^ Complete over generalisations and you're ignoring the fact that men often do the same or similar things.




> You can literally pay highly attractive women to please you sexually.




You are reducing women to their looks and sexuality.




> If an attractive woman receives positive attention, regardless if her personality is bitchy or boring, then she will continue to be that way and won't reflect on her character.







> Nice guys finish last, because they put pussy on a pedestal.



You are clearly blaming other men here for your inability to get a date. "It's because other men are too nice, right?!" (Because, obviously in your mind any woman who isn't attracted to you is a bitch with no personality.)


Anyone who is familiar with your posts will know how you blame women and other men for your dating woes over and over again.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> thus tipping things towards men which makes sense because this thread is aimed at men, but it takes away value from women.


Unnecessary value that men put on women.



> Now as for your argument I can't say much about my "putting women on the throne". I'm pretty sure at some point of my life I did (because I did), but I just don't do it anymore because I came to learn from life that just like men ,women can be sexist, disgusting, racist, bullys, aggressive, competitive, assholes, etc. So there is really no reason to treat women in general like they are special over men.


Ah, you've seen through the matrix.

There's a great thread on a bodybuilding site where dudes were saying stories that made them realize that women can be incredibly manipulative, deceitful and spiteful in dating and relationships. 



> Now should you treat them worse? No. You shouldn't, but people still do.


Yeah I agree. That's why I put that part about being mindful of the tendency to become passive aggressive in my post.



> I used to think stereotypes existed for a reason. I realize now that stereotypes exist because people like having a simple knowledge of things they don't understand.


I disagree.

OK cupid's data shows that the stereotype of women caring about money is true.

The Big Lies People Tell In Online Dating « OkTrends


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

WamphyriThrall said:


> *So which is "gayer"*: not living up to the societal expectations of a "real man", or caring so much what another man does or does not do sexually?


If you are insinuating homophobia towards me, I'm not heterosexual.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

I like putting things on pedestals. It really showcases them and makes them more ergonomically accessible.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

marked174 said:


> Both of these points are similar, so I'll address them together. It has been my observation that a cultural shift has taken place regarding women. One which devalues loving relationships and encourages a nearly isolated view on independence. Our culture also loves to devalue men; specifically boyfriends, husbands, fathers, etc. It's not that guys are chasing "the wrong women", it's that our culture is actively cultivating "the wrong women" who are taught to not value and respect men as equals. It's not a question of hotness, most women think they are "8s" and that most men are "2s" when statistically they are both mostly "5s".
> 
> There could be a hundred reasons as to why I am single, but none of them take away from the fact that women just plain don't want mutual relationships, especially when they are told that men have nothing to give.


If that was the case then the majority of women would be single or in homosexual relationships.


* *




They're not.


----------



## lethal lava land (Aug 2, 2011)

Whippit said:


> I like putting things on pedestals. It really showcases them and makes them more ergonomically accessible.


I agree. more genitals need to be placed on pedestals!


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Dolorous Haze said:


> If that was the case then the majority of women would be single or in homosexual relationships.


Are you saying women only care about looks?

Here's the data I think he's referring to, from OKcupid.

The Women Of OK Cupid Are More Superficial Than The Men


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

I hate all these dating advice and games. 

Guys don't put the pussy on the pedestal, don't be a nice guy, impress her but don't do it too much otherwise she'll think your weak. Women don't be too independent, dress sexy, but not too sexy. It's all crap.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

WamphyriThrall said:


> So which is "gayer": not living up to the societal expectations of a "real man", or caring so much what another man does or does not do sexually?


I remember a time when the word gay meant happy. Now its just a subjugated word for someone who is homosexual, its also sometimes used to smirch said homosexuals whenever something unfortunate happens for people who have obvious homophobic insecurities. " Did you see that play they just called, MAN that was GAY (unfair)". 




WamphyriThrall said:


> I don't think anything should be put on a pedestal.


Can we put values that can actually further society, Like love, peace, intellect, individuality, creativity, expression, and freedom on a pedestal?.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Are you saying women only care about looks?
> 
> Here's the data I think he's referring to, from OKcupid.
> 
> The Women Of OK Cupid Are More Superficial Than The Men


I was referring to the fact that he claims that women are encouraged to be completely independent and not begin relationships with men.

Man, you really are obsessed with that OK Cupid "study" aren't you?


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Personally I hate "special snowflake" syndrome but I don't see it as adding anything to the discussion at hand to call out every special little snowflake in this thread.


Sure, if that's what you want to call it, then go and do it and fail when you expect shit of people because you've labelled them to death. 

I didn't encourage anyone to drop any and all pre-formed concepts, but the OP was full of exaggerated ones and I just can't stand that.

My "own generalizations" were a purposefully placed exaggeration to make a point...
Sorry, I thought that was understandable.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> Sure, if that's what you want to call it, then go and do it and fail when you expect shit of people because you've labelled them to death.
> 
> I didn't encourage anyone to drop any and all pre-formed concepts, but the OP was full of exaggerated ones and I just can't stand that.
> 
> ...


It's simply my position that humans are more similar than we are different. "Special snowflake syndrome" is merely when someone views themselves/everyone as being more unique than similar. Exaggerated concepts are sometimes a prerequisite for meaningful discussion, after all without different positions it's just small talk. 

In the case of the OP the exaggerated position helped clarify the principles behind the idea, which is normally helpful since it makes it clear what is being discussed from the starting point. 

This goes back to what I wrote on my first post in this thread, fuck the form, fuck the grammar, fuck the phrasing or word choice, look at what he's SAYING.


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> It's simply my position that humans are more similar than we are different. "Special snowflake syndrome" is merely when someone views themselves/everyone as being more unique than similar.


If you'd read what I said, you would know that this is not what I was arguing. 
"People of all genders will always have traits of both sexes mixed up within them to different amounts, and that's completely normal". I wasn't saying that everyone is more unique than similar.






Scelerat said:


> exaggerated position helped clarify the principles behind the idea, which is normally helpful since it makes it clear what is being discussed from the starting point.


That's what I was doing too, Einstein. Besides, I don't agree with his starting point, exaggeration or no.




Scelerat said:


> This goes back to what I wrote on my first post in this thread, fuck the form, fuck the grammar, fuck the phrasing or word choice, look at what he's SAYING.


Amusing. If you think that someone's choice of words is not part of what they are saying, then all hope in your understanding of language is lost... where?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> On a related note, I would love to see a hidden camera experiment where a range of men went through their lives for lets say a month and treated all women like they treat their buddies and other men just to see how the reaction would be.


This post reminded me of this cartoon..


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Great post, thanks for contributing and sharing your experiences.



series0 said:


> I am not sure I can relate well to this. In many ways, I find, I am typically the most difficult man the women I have relationships with have ever been with. They are stunned at the lack of standard culturally accepted entitlement benefits they receive. They get mad at it. They say so. Then, almost unanimously, they find it irresistible, for the first few months anyway.





> In fact, after those first few months go away and the glow of uniqueness and initial passion wears off, a lot of these women, at least most of the ones I know, begin to harbor resentment. They see the carefully polished and erected pedestals other women are standing on and they covet them, they wallow in envy without realizing the downside of such treatment, the lack of equality and partnership it entails. A lot of my relationships end this way.


Regarding your experiences, you would love the 12 episodes of the Black Phillip Show as a humorous catharsis. 

Patrice says exactly the same thing (with expletives and humor). 

In a nutshell he says women want quasi-traditional gender roles, not a balanced relationship like they often say. But they will engage in a power struggle, because they will simultaneous resent the non egalitarian nature of the relationship... 

Basically It's a catch 22.

IMO there's a lot of truth to what he says. Though there are women who really don't have a sense of entitlement, or if they do like traditional gender roles they are grateful for being treated with chivalry.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@Veggie

Nothing you wrote was relevant to the OP.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> There is no point in arguing how true any of those prejudices are. They greatly vary in accuracy, and *if you slap your stupid labels and expectations onto an individual without really trying to get to know who and what they really are, you're always going to be unfair towards the individual you're dealing with. This will keep you both from being hurt AND from actually establishing a fulfilling connection with someone.*


The entire point of the OP was to get men to encourage men to get to know women's character's and intention's. 

If you would have actually read the OP you would have known that.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> If you'd read what I said, you would know that this is not what I was arguing.
> "People of all genders will always have traits of both sexes mixed up within them to different amounts, and that's completely normal". I wasn't saying that everyone is more unique than similar.


So, basically you're saying that everyone has a mix of traits from both sexes to varying amount isn't an argument that everyone's unique? Because that's sort of what you seem to be saying. If everyone has a mix of both column A and column B, it seems unlikely that you'll have an even distribution of traits in similar amounts in enough of a population based to be able to generate generalizations and thus principles. 




> That's what I was doing too, Einstein. Besides, I don't agree with his starting point, exaggeration or no.


If you can't stand it when people use exaggerated positions, but do it yourself then you're not exactly helping. 



> Amusing. If you think that someone's choice of words is not part of what they are saying, then all hope in your understanding of language is lost... where?


Of course it's part of what they are saying, but the "trend" here on PERC is that word choice = 90% meaning = 10% (yes that's an exaggeration). About 5 pages of this thread is completely wasted due to semantics, and people disagreeing with the form while not discussing the message or the general principles.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> The entire point of the OP was to get men to encourage men to get to know women's character's and intention's.
> 
> If you would have actually read the OP you would have known that.


Doesn't look to me that it was really a nice guy issue, but a doormat issue. You get male and female doormats. Nothing wrong with being nice. Problem is some people just don't have backbones.


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> So, basically you're saying that everyone has a mix of traits from both sexes to varying amount isn't an argument that everyone's unique? Because that's sort of what you seem to be saying. If everyone has a mix of both column A and column B, it seems unlikely that you'll have an even distribution of traits in similar amounts in enough of a population based to be able to generate generalizations and thus principles.


Do I have to teach basic semantics to you?

_"more unique than similar" does not equal "no similarities"


_


Scelerat said:


> If you can't stand it when people use exaggerated positions, but do it yourself then you're not exactly helping.


Again, just for you: 
"_I don't agree with his starting point, exaggeration or no." does not equal "I don't agree with exaggerated positions.
_I was pointing out that I disagree with the point behind it. I honestly don't understand how you can misunderstand everything.


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> *P.S.* I read you post and I thought to myself if she isn't type she has to be an INFP, probably E4 and wouldn't you know, I was right.


I actually don't identify as INFP right now (just recently got into this whole MB thing), and I mentioned the term "individual" about a gazillion times in my post, so just about anyone could have made the conclusion that I am an E4 - it being in the name itself, the individualist. So yeah, you can stop congratulating yourself for your mad people reading skillz, Sherlock.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> He also knew that despite the gender specific term of 'player' - women play games. And he explained games that predominantly women play in hetero dating.
> 
> 
> _(I'm referring to Eric Berne's definition of games; an interaction between people involving an ulterior motive. But it's important to point out that playing games can be good or bad, depending on the ulterior motive.)_
> ...


You can have 3 long talks and long multi chapter discussions AND "authoritative" advice from female psychologists who realize about all of this but still a bunch of nobodies will jump right at you in a forum telling you how wrong you are. And there are more misinformed nobodies than pro female psychologists.

I had very interesting talks with friends in the field of psychology, pro female psychologist and that was enriching  the rest? denial, denial, denial and off topic, specially battles in forums.

*The problem with problematic people is no matter how much you read and discuss, the ones that need the most to understand are the ones less willing to do so.* Eric Berne wrote very good stuff that served me to bury many cases of "discussions" with women when actually most of it was them demanding stuff while giving nothing. 

It's an ancient game.
And try to prove it  oh? what? so you said... no I don't understand it... what?

ha ha that's their second favorite game.

As I'm getting older I'm less interested on discussing and explaining this kind of things (they won't listen) I just jump from person A to person B and save time. It's up to us men to avoid problematic people. Funny, I'm not handsome and not even bright but since then I never had so many opportunities with women, now they come after me.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

monemi said:


> Doesn't look to me that it was really a nice guy issue, but a doormat issue. You get male and female doormats. Nothing wrong with being nice. Problem is some people just don't have backbones.


I'm not sure what you are responding to?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I'm not sure what you are responding to?


Meant to be quoting OP but got distracted at this end. I see women who let men walk all over them. I see men who let women walk all over them. The problem isn't pedestals so much as spineless people. They always existed and will always exist.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

monemi said:


> The problem isn't pedestals so much as spineless people.


Men treating women with an abundance of affection, or believing they are 'out of their league' because they are sexually attractive, is a pretty well known phenomenon.

The behavior between the sexes may have similarities but sometimes the motivations are different.

Men can lack boundaries because they simply have a negative self image, or they can do it because they have learned culturally to put pussy on a pedestal. Or a mixture of both.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Dolorous Haze said:


> I think most women would also appreciate it if you stopped limiting us to our genitalia.
> 
> There are so many things wrong with this post but I'm really not bothered getting into it. I'm just going to suggest that you visit your counselor friend for a professional visit, as it seems you have many issues with women that you need to get over.


He's saying women are being worshiped because of their genitalia, therefore, their genitalia is what is being worshiped. OP is stating the problem to mean that men are so obsessed with sex that they will do anything to get it. Therefore, the name of the post is quite valid indeed. I've witnessed this time and time again. Let's take a basic example. Say a woman joins an online game on say Xbox live and let's her voice be heard. I guarantee you she will be bombarded by 'nice guys'. They don't care about her as a person, they just want sex, and they would do anything for it, even make themselves look like idiots. The point OP is making is that guys need to stop valuing sex so highly and by doing so, women will be valued for their personality, not attractiveness or usefulness as a sexual object. The same end-result is produced as wanted by feminists, the method of achieving it is simply different.

Men are so caught up in sex because our culture says you are a failure if you don't have it that they ignore every other aspect of the women because culture does not care about those traits, only the end result of an attractive partner who will have sex with you.

Men objectify women sexually and in certain cases, this works in the women's favor. They can have men slaves who don't have the balls to realize their own stupidity (passive-aggressive friend-zone), men who give far too much, get stepped on, or give favoritism to women on the basis they are attractive. Women don't want to lose these privileges so of course they'd get a little pissed over this topic. But if we looked as women the same way we look at men in today's society, we'd avoid a hell of a lot more women. I see so many women practically worshiped due to their attractiveness. What happens when they are judged for more than that? It all falls apart. 

In short, we humans objectify everyone. We just tend to give far more weight to attractiveness and aptitude sexually when objectifying women. With men, we look at more personality: Are they fun to be around? Are they intelligent? Can I have a good conversation with them? Is he obnoxious?


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

Signify said:


> He's saying women are being worshiped because of their genitalia, therefore, their genitalia is what is being worshiped. OP is stating the problem to mean that men are so obsessed with sex that they will do anything to get it. Therefore, the name of the post is quite valid indeed. I've witnessed this time and time again. Let's take a basic example. Say a woman joins an online game on say Xbox live and let's her voice be heard. I guarantee you she will be bombarded by 'nice guys'. They don't care about her as a person, they just want sex, and they would do anything for it, even make themselves look like idiots. The point OP is making is that guys need to stop valuing sex so highly and by doing so, women will be valued for their personality, not attractiveness or usefulness as a sexual object. The same end-result is produced as wanted by feminists, the method of achieving it is simply different.
> 
> Men are so caught up in sex because our culture says you are a failure if you don't have it that they ignore every other aspect of the women because culture does not care about those traits, only the end result of an attractive partner who will have sex with you.
> 
> ...


I know exactly what he meant, but he could have expressed himself without shaming women at the same time. By doing that he's just furthering the problem instead of fixing it.

Also, in most cases, the "friend zone" is merely an illusion which only exists in the minds of "rejected" men.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Dolorous Haze said:


> I know exactly what he meant, but he could have expressed himself without shaming women at the same time. By doing that he's just furthering the problem instead of fixing it.
> 
> Also, in most cases, the "friend zone" is merely an illusion which only exists in the minds of "rejected" men.


I'm not sure you are understanding both he and I at this point now. Firstly, his purpose was not a shaming tactic, simply using the most accurate word to get across the point. If it is so shaming, I'm not sure these discussions are for you.

In terms of friend-zone, it is not an illusion. It is a state in which rejected men continue to provide elaborate services to female in hopes of winning her over. The stupidity is no illusion, it is once again, worship of a woman in hopes of sex. The worship is the problem. 

The solution is for men to acknowledge when women are not willing to perform the transaction that forms a relationship and to not give their portion of the transaction unless they know they will get something return and in equal proportion. 

Traditional gender roles and chivalry were a transaction. The man gave the women protection (he fought for her, went to war when she did not have to, protected her against physical danger), housing, and money. The woman was then expected to cook for the man, be submissive to him, and to raise the children as a role-model. As time progressed, technology removed some of the services men provided to the scale became imbalanced. Men no longer spent long hours toiling at work in a field so what the women were providing was more than the man. Men eventually came home earlier, worked far less intensely, securing a woman's protection became easier as she was still expected to perform the old ways. The transaction was imbalanced. 

Upon women's rights, women were then no longer expected (legally) to abide by the old ways, but neither were men (chivalry). Chivalry was the old gender-role construct of men giving niceness, favors, etc with women returning with grace, beauty, and submissiveness. As it stands today, women give nothing of the sort and think of chivalry as something a man is only to provide. Men are providing one aspect of chivalry while the woman does not return her side of the deal. If you want to remove gender roles, you have to break down chivalry. Now, the transaction is imbalanced. 

Men are to no longer trade all kinds of effort to a woman in exchange for just her looks. If she expects me to have a good personality, job, hygiene, and to be interesting, since she is also capable of a job, I will expect the same of her. We are in a transitional period and only time will tell how long it will take or what the new social construct will become.


----------



## Dolorous Haze (Jun 2, 2012)

Signify said:


> I'm not sure you are understanding both he and I at this point now. Firstly, his purpose was not a shaming tactic, simply using the most accurate word to get across the point. If it is so shaming, I'm not sure these discussions are for you.
> 
> In terms of friend-zone, it is not an illusion. It is a state in which rejected men continue to provide elaborate services to female in hopes of winning her over. The stupidity is no illusion, it is once again, worship of a woman in hopes of sex. The worship is the problem.
> 
> ...


 Just because I don't completely agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.

It's not simply the word, it's his whole attitude towards women that tainted his OP.

"The Friend Zone" in most cases is an illusion. Most women see the "victim" as a friend for good reason. He thinks that just because he's "nice" to her and buys her gifts, he'll be "in there". Yes, that is "worship of a woman in the hopes of sex" but in most cases, the woman is blamed, when it's (usually) the man's fault. This also works both ways. I've often seen women strung along by men.

lol, Do you think I don't know all of that already? I didn't ask for Gender Roles 101. This part, however, I do not agree with :

_"As it stands today, women give nothing of the sort and think of chivalry as something a man is only to provide."

_Women _are_ still expected to be 'graceful', 'beautiful' and submissive. It's why whenever Obama speaks we focus on his policies, but whenever Hilary Clinton speaks, we focus on her hairstyle. I agree though, chivalry is outdated and needs to be gotten rid of. However, chivalry is often confused with men being genuinely nice, and not "nice". It's thrown around as an insult by certain people.

Yes, that's exactly what most women want. Women are just as limited by the views expressed in the OP, if not more so, but the OP phrased it in such a way that it suggested that men are the sole victims in the whole situation, which is positively ridiculous.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> Do I have to teach basic semantics to you?
> 
> _"more unique than similar" does not equal "no similarities"_


_ 

_It doesn't have to, and I don't believe I argued that it did. What I did say is that if humans are more unique than similar, then your data becomes overly convoluted due to too many variables.

If every human being has their own mix of traits from the female and male columns of "trait selection", then it follows that unless we limit those traits to very few and the degree of manifestation to have low limits, the data can never result in a generalization of principles. This does not mean that there are no similarities, nor does it mean that humans are more unique than similar, it just means that it becomes impossible to have a reasoned discussion about the topic because of "special snowflake" syndrome. 

If humans are more similar than unique then generalizations can be used and even exaggerated to prove a point (which is what the OP did). 


FauxPlasticTrees said:


> Again, just for you:
> "_I don't agree with his starting point, exaggeration or no." does not equal "I don't agree with exaggerated positions.
> _I was pointing out that I disagree with the point behind it. I honestly don't understand how you can misunderstand everything.


You wrote: 

"I didn't encourage anyone to drop any and all pre-formed concepts, but the OP was full of exaggerated ones and I just can't stand that."

Which does read kind of sound like you can't stand posts full of exaggerated pre-formed concepts, which is exactly what your reply to the OP was. 

Also, your tangent about evolutionary psychology just shows that you fail to understand it.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Dolorous Haze said:


> Yes, that's exactly what most women want. Women are just as limited by the views expressed in the OP, if not more so, but the OP phrased it in such a way that it suggested that men are the sole victims in the whole situation, which is positively ridiculous.


So, question, will it ever be possible to have a discussion about men on this forum without it being derailed with "but women!" posts?


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

This deserves to be enshrined as a classic ENTP post and thread. Nothing like starting shit.

If you can get past the base reference in the title and post, what really comes through is this: Treat women as people, and demand that they act the part. The title is not degrading so much as provocative. There are plenty of instances of men treating women like pussy, and women obligingly acting like not much more than genitalia.

So in a roundabout way, @Strangest Dude has published a post-modern endorsement of not only feminism, but traditional dating and courtship. He proposes a new chivalry based not on the exchange of male condescension for potential sexual favors from attractive females, but based on mutual respect.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Dolorous Haze said:


> Just because I don't completely agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.
> 
> It's not simply the word, it's his whole attitude towards women that tainted his OP.
> 
> "The Friend Zone" in most cases is an illusion. Most women see the "victim" as a friend for good reason. He thinks that just because he's "nice" to her and buys her gifts, he'll be "in there". Yes, that is "worship of a woman in the hopes of sex" but in most cases, the woman is blamed, when it's (usually) the man's fault. This also works both ways. I've often seen women strung along by men.


The general thought-process on this is that if the woman knows he is interested in her for more than a friendship and continues to allow him to be lavish in his giving, she shares the fault. He's not doing it because he's a 'friend'. And if she were a true friend, she'd feel bad about him giving so much and not trying to reciprocate in some way (does not have to be romantically). If he occasionally gives gifts, she'd have the decency to at least consider returning the favor. 



Dolorous Haze said:


> lol, Do you think I don't know all of that already? I didn't ask for Gender Roles 101. This part, however, I do not agree with :
> 
> _"As it stands today, women give nothing of the sort and think of chivalry as something a man is only to provide."
> 
> ...


I've seen time and time again where women complain about "What happened to chivalry?" as if it is their God-given right. I also disagree on your point that women are still expected to be graceful and submissive. If women were still expected to be submissive (and it were widespread in American culture), you would not be talking to me as an equal (assuming you are American to begin with). If you compare Japanese and American culture on how women are expected to behave, that is how I define submissive. As for graceful, I'm surprised when I even see a hint of manners from any gender among youth these days.



SlowPoke68 said:


> This deserves to be enshrined as a classic ENTP post and thread. Nothing like starting shit.
> 
> If you can get past the base reference in the title and post, what really comes through is this: Treat women as people, and demand that they act the part. The title is not misleading so much as provocative. There are plenty of instances of men treating women like pussy, and women obligingly acting like not much more than genitalia.
> 
> So in a roundabout way, @_Strange_st Dude has published a post-modern endorsement of not only feminism, but traditional dating and courtship. He proposes a new chivalry based not on the exchange of male condescension for potential sexual favors from attractive females, but based on mutual respect.


Let's see how many people get hung up over semantics to be able to actually talk about the actual meaning of the post. The 2-star rating already says something.


----------



## HouseOfFlux (May 18, 2013)

That is a pussy on a pedestal. 

If you can't bring yourself to say "women", well, that's your problem.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

I kneel for pussy. 
With due respect. roud:


----------



## will-o'-wisp (Feb 11, 2013)

To be honest, I don't think it would be a particularly flattering look


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Equality and pedestals don't go together, 
but try talking about it with people who like double standards! 



WamphyriThrall said:


> I don't think anything should be put on a pedestal.


That sounds very reasonable.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm guessing this thread has dissolved into a war with staunch feminists and guys who delusionally claim sex doesn't matter to them going up against purposive and anybody else who looks at a female and just sees a warm wet hole.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

willow the wisp said:


> To be honest, I don't think it would be a particularly flattering look


I respectfully disagree. =)


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I respectfully disagree. =)


You would like to see a vagina mutilated from its owner on a pedestal?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Signify said:


> I've seen time and time again where women complain about "What happened to chivalry?" as if it is their God-given right. I also disagree on your point that women are still expected to be graceful and submissive. If women were still expected to be submissive (and it were widespread in American culture), you would not be talking to me as an equal (assuming you are American to begin with). If you compare Japanese and American culture on how women are expected to behave, that is how I define submissive. As for graceful, I'm surprised when I even see a hint of manners from any gender among youth these days.



The women I've seen complain about lack of chivalry have been the same type of women who have lectured me on why I shouldn't ask out men (men will see the woman as easy), the same women who gave me lectures for putting my kids in daycare, the same women that brag about their cooking and cleaning skills/habits, the same religious women quoting me long bible verses. You're getting types of women mixed up. I have had men and women take shots at me for failing to be submissive and too outspoken. Society has not given full reign to women just yet. Old fashioned people are still around. Hence, there are some bemoaning lack of chivalry. I don't see feminists complaining about it.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> So, question, will it ever be possible to have a discussion about men on this forum without it being derailed with "but women!" posts?


So you mean discussion about men focusing on men? doable.

Among male friends I would run out of paper if I make a list of how many complained and still married the problems they complained about.

I mean, focusing on men only, there are many who despite their complains about lack of equality will still buy their wives even if they get bad treatment in return. I'm out of the bad guy-girl thing, I'm just talking about how many men are willing to be treated as inferior. It's a big problem because they SAY want to be important at home but they are the first ones to blame for their own lack of self respect.

I have many stories alike, a friend per example: we were very good close friends and he believed in equal rights, a woman working on his side, battling against manipulation and still, over the years... he failed. Finally got married to a woman who does nothing at home, doesn't work, puts him to cook and clean the house and he pays for the travels to her country. He bought a wife, useless if you ask us (me and female friends who managed to know them). This story doesn't go around her, it's about him and how badly he complained and still... he is there.

He had heated discussions with his own parents because they didn't like her, not the usual thing, they were very reasonable, she is lazy and the very few things she does.. are wrong!!! so she can't even do a single thing right. He was more loyal to her than to his own parents. 

Result? many of us walked away from his friendship and the ones left refuse to talk about relationships with him.

Keep your eyes on him, he puts pussy on a very high pedestal. That's embarrassing. HE even critiziced lack of education and still married someone who will make you laugh while talking because she can't even use well her own native language.

About this kind of guys (this ex friend of mine) my grandmother used to say that the higher they fly, the lower they end up living.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You would like to see a vagina mutilated from its owner on a pedestal?


Oh dear...actually I prefer served on a silver platter. :dry:


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

monemi said:


> The women I've seen complain about lack of chivalry have been the same type of women who have lectured me on why I shouldn't ask out men (men will see the woman as easy), the same women who gave me lectures for putting my kids in daycare, the same women that brag about their cooking and cleaning skills/habits, the same religious women quoting me long bible verses. You're getting types of women mixed up. I have had men and women take shots at me for failing to be submissive and too outspoken. Society has not given full reign to women just yet. Old fashioned people are still around. Hence, there are some bemoaning lack of chivalry. I don't see feminists complaining about it.


It's only because I spend lots of time with that very same type of women that I can also validate they arn't nearly as submissive or quiet as you dictate (and if those you experience are, you got lucky). I've seen chivalry requested from various types and even the most "old fashioned" have yet to submissively tell me "Yessir" at the request of a sandwich (I qualify here this last part was a joke before I get all kinds of rage).


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Oh dear...actually I prefer served on a silver platter. :dry:


I was going to say golden platter, but to each is own.

Weirdo, having a fetish with silver platters and shit.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Signify said:


> It's only because I spend lots of time with that very same type of women that I can also validate they arn't nearly as submissive or quiet as you dictate (and if those you experience are, you got lucky). I've seen chivalry requested from various types and even the most "old fashioned" have yet to submissively tell me "Yessir" at the request of a sandwich (I qualify here this last part was a joke before I get all kinds of rage).


Lucky? My IL's are a mix of sweet and annoying as hell. 

I'd be shocked if the women who complained were serious and had ever taken women's studies in university. At best, they'd be uneducated feminists. Ignorance comes from both genders.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

changos said:


> So you mean discussion about men focusing on men? doable.


From my perspective, the OP's intention was for this thread to be a discussion about how certain men give undue credit to certain females based purely on the appearance of the female, and thus behave in an undignified and ineffective manner vis a vis the opposite sex. From what I've read of this thread it appears to be anything but, I'm guessing but I'd think that 9/14 pages are people complaining about the way language used in the OP in some way, another 2 pages are people arguing about the thread title, a page or so is probably used to complain about various pointless issues and the other remaining 2 are relevant inputs to the discussion.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> From my perspective, the OP's intention was for this thread to be a discussion about how certain men give undue credit to certain females based purely on the appearance of the female, and thus behave in an undignified and ineffective manner vis a vis the opposite sex. From what I've read of this thread it appears to be anything but, I'm guessing but I'd think that 9/14 pages are people complaining about the way language used in the OP in some way, another 2 pages are people arguing about the thread title, a page or so is probably used to complain about various pointless issues and the other remaining 2 are relevant inputs to the discussion.


It's an ENTP gift to start a discussion with a good overall meaning and still manage piss everyone off.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I was going to say golden platter, but to each is own.
> 
> Weirdo, having a fetish with silver platters and shit.


That is sooooo pre 2008! Silver is the new black. :dry:


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Signify said:


> It's an ENTP gift to start a discussion with a good overall meaning and still manage piss everyone off.


I'm an INFP.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

android654 said:


> Have you ever noticed that when someone believes something--believes it to be true despite the mountain of evidence and reasoning that makes it incompatible with the situation they're discussing--they'll repeat it on end and beat the topic to death in hopes of finding someone who'll verify their belief, even though that person doesn't exist?


He's found at least one person believing in that nonexistent alternative reality as well. "Here are the problems men have in dating." "Actually, they really just revolve around the faults of women."


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> He's found at least one person believing in that nonexistent alternative reality as well. "Here are the problems men have in dating." "Actually, they really just revolve around the faults of women."


Following the original posters line of thought, is it a weird Ni question to ask if penis is ever put on a platter ?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> He's found at least one person believing in that nonexistent alternative reality as well. "Here are the problems men have in dating." "Actually, they really just revolve around the faults of women."


People simplify complicated things and complicate the simple things. Genders aren't definitive of personality, psychology, education or anything else. But, people who are jaded and damn themselves to be that way, won't see anything but their own woes.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

StElmosDream said:


> Following the original posters line of thought, is it a weird Ni question to ask if penis is ever put on a platter ?


I think they do that in some European countries. :kitteh:


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> I think they do that in some European countries. :kitteh:


Lies! lol


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> I think they do that in some European countries. :kitteh:


It's called a Portuguese breakfast.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> I think they do that in some European countries. :kitteh:


Oh no...platter-pedestal ideas of superiority seemed just as silly in my mind then again people will 'eat' most things.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

StElmosDream said:


> Oh no...platter-pedestal ideas of superiority seemed just as silly in my mind then again people will 'eat' most things.


Personally, I like the thread better now that we're discussing penises on platters. Brings new meaning to the phrase "eat a dick."


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Personally, I like the thread better now that we're discussing penises on platters. Brings new meaning to the phrase "eat a dick."


We eat testicles in Portugal... literally... 

I'm not kidding...


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> We eat testicles in Portugal... literally...
> 
> I'm not kidding...


Are they tasty? :kitteh:


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I guess I was wrong about penises, but same _ball_park?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Are they tasty? :kitteh:


From what I was told, the taste is nuts.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

@strangestdude, it would be interesting to hear what you think about @snail's response (#92). I think that a lot of her points are relevant and true.

I hope that most of us recognize that the key to any good relationship is that a person has to find, accept, like and respect herself/himself first. Without that solid base, any other relationship is doomed before it even begins. Both immature men and women do what society dictates is the "right way", instead of bothering to do some soul searching to figure out what would make them, as an individual, truly happy. Another person will never be able to get me there - it is hard work and I have to do it all on my own. (Which is why I consciously decided to be single for several years before I happened to meet my husband.)
If the love for & understanding of oneself is achieved, many of the issues that you bring up in the first three posts would resolve themselves - true for both men and women.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> The entire point of the OP was to get men to encourage men to get to know women's character's and intention's.
> 
> If you would have actually read the OP you would have known that.


I totally respect the message of "don't overvalue women's physical appearance." Makes sense all around; no argument here.

When you go on to say elsewhere in the thread that women are only interested in talking about the intricacies of their haircuts, insinuating that women have nothing to contribute _besides_ physical appearance, I... hmm. Makes one wonder which women you're talking to.





HouseOfFlux said:


>


I'd worship that.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

chimeric said:


> When you go on to say elsewhere in the thread that women are only interested in talking about the intricacies of their haircuts, insinuating that women have nothing to contribute _besides_ physical appearance, I... hmm. Makes one wonder which women you're talking to.


Extra interesting on a personality forum, where we supposedly hang out to learn & understand personalities, rather than genders. As an INTJ woman, I probably act a bit more like a stereotypical man, but I ended up in a woman's body (not complaining, just saying - I see myself as a human being first and foremost and as a female secondary). Some men & women tend to treat me as a gender while others make more of an effort to get to know me as a person; my thoughts, ideas, humor, etc. Guess which category people with whom I have relationships with come from...

The following statement makes me wonder too:
"The truth is there are a lot of pretty women out there, who desire or are willing to sleep with you because they like you, or for money. So why perceive her to be special because she's highly attractive, there are plenty of highly attractive women out there?"
So while the intent might have been to encourage men to look past the pretty wrapping paper to see the actual person on the inside, the goal is still to find someone "highly attractive"? It sounds like a contradictory messages to me, unless you redefined "highly attractive" from physical assets to personality assets?


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Are they tasty? :kitteh:


Must be... they're served basically everywhere... personally, never tried it...
















_It's pig testicles..._


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> He's found at least one person believing in that nonexistent alternative reality as well. "Here are the problems men have in dating." "Actually, they really just revolve around the faults of women."


I'm not sure what's in error about critically analyzing the problems and inconsistencies of the thoughts and actions of groups and individuals within a society.

"Are men (on average) doing something wrong in dating?" "Are women?" I don't see why these can't be valid questions. Admittedly, such a discussion would require a level of maturity which this audience might not be properly prepared for. But why not try?


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

chimeric said:


> When you go on to say elsewhere in the thread that women are only interested in talking about the intricacies of their haircuts, insinuating that women have nothing to contribute _besides_ physical appearance, I... hmm. Makes one wonder which women you're talking to.



It's a two-way street, really. If guys treat women as special objects of delight -- objectifying them -- there are women who respond by acting down to expectations. Those are the girls who get the attention, the interest, the dates, etc. There's a market at work here. When guys generally treat women like "pussy" they respond by acting like "pussy", and thus the game is on.

It's a shitty game, that's all.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

marked174 said:


> I'm not sure what's in error about critically analyzing the problems and inconsistencies of the thoughts and actions of groups and individuals within a society.


When you analyze with a severe bias, I wonder about your capability for this so-called critical analysis. That is all.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> When you analyze with a severe bias, I wonder about your capability for this so-called critical analysis. That is all.


That's why the dialogue is important. It can be used to shave off the assumptions and get to the legitimate circumstances.


----------



## Strange Moon (Nov 10, 2012)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> Yay, another one of those "women fall for bad boys because blablabla, nice guys finish last because blablabla, whine whine"-guys. Whatever dude. I'm tired of this bs. You expect bad things of a woman just because she is a woman - that's not the description of a nice guy. If you're smart, you're going to reflect on that. Good luck.
> 
> PS: It doesn't matter if you pay or not, it's the reasoning you have.


Huh? I'm not whining at all. I have no reason to. I've never been single for more than a couple of weeks since I was 17 years old. I'm now 46. I just advise any guy to not pay the drinks for the woman he is dating and CERTAINLY to not give her any gifts.


----------



## Strange Moon (Nov 10, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> Yep, sounds like a "nice guy" response. Screw this bitch she's a woman so she's an ungrateful piece of shit that doesn't appreciate me, I'm gonna make her pay for her food and behave like I don't like her so she finds someone else, so I can continue to have a pity-party.
> 
> 
> Maybe if you had a more positive attitude of women in general you wouldn't be lonely.
> ...


LOL...what is it about my post that everybody misunderstands it? I'm not lonely at all and I've never been lonely. I'm in an LTR. I also don't think that anybody could mistake me for a "nice guy" LOL.
I wrote that IF I would date somebody (which fortunately I don't have to) I would not shower the women with gifts and pay their meals because it would be a sure way to lose any attraction I might have.


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

Strange Moon said:


> Huh? I'm not whining at all. I have no reason to. I've never been single for more than a couple of weeks since I was 17 years old. I'm now 46. I just advise any guy to not pay the drinks for the woman he is dating and CERTAINLY to not give her any gifts.


Hahah. Your relationship details don't change a thing about the fact that you say sexist things


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

Strange Moon said:


> IF I would date somebody (which fortunately I don't have to) I would not shower the women with gifts and pay their meals because it would be a sure way to lose any attraction I might have.


Wow. I feel sorry for you if your plentiful dating history has given you these strange convictions. Where I live, people are attracted to people for who they are and their looks, not for their gift-withholding. But to each their own...

So you're openly saying that you're not a "nice guy", but you give guys advice about how to act towards all women (in a sexist way). I think we can agree then  You're giving asshole advice?

Ps. It also seems a bit weird to me when a middle aged guy argues with a bunch of younger people online about relationships, but that is, of course, not of any relevance here.


----------



## Killbain (Jan 5, 2012)

For many years rather "Pussy on a pedestal", I have applied the Rolls Royce principle to so-called attractive women who think their looks give them licence. Nice to look at and appreciate but costs a whole lot of time money and effort, and if you can't get the keys and drive away - don't bother.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Sorry, I know that this is not part of the OP, but it does touch on the current discussion.

I am not sure whether this is a cultural difference or not, but I have never been into the guy paying for the date - unless it was someone I was in a relationship with and then it was still pretty much 50/50.
I had/have a few (more or less valid) reasons for this: 
- I take pride in being independent (this is not only true for economy, but other aspects if life as well)
- I want my date to know that I am there with him and not for what he can give me
- I don't want my date to feel that I "owe him" anything (which is probably me being paranoid more than anything else). If the date ends up being terrible, neither of us will feel used.

It s not impossible that things can have changed in Sweden since back when I was dating. Unfortunately, we get a lot of crazy ideas and influences from US TV and movies (like outrageously priced engagement rings, princess weddings, Halloween, etc), so one can only hope that our relative equality does not take several steps backwards.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Strange Moon said:


> Huh? I'm not whining at all. I have no reason to. I've never been single for more than a couple of weeks since I was 17 years old. I'm now 46. I just advise any guy to not pay the drinks for the woman he is dating and CERTAINLY to not give her any gifts.


That actually makes sense to an extent. I think a lot of women tend to be in the mindset that gifts or drinks are a sort of pressure from a guy, and the question of whether or not he expects you to have sex lingers in the mind. I've always thought that gifts were one of those more intimate things that you should wait in the relationship to give unless on the occasion of a birthday or similar holiday.


----------



## dalex (May 26, 2012)

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> @_Swede_
> 
> Snail is a nice lady, but I believe I'll get dragged into a feminist ideology debate if I reply. (Sorry @_snail_ thanks for taking the time to respond, but we always get into pro vs anti-feminist debates and I want to keep the thread about the subject of the OP)
> 
> Besides you said you were ignoring me swede.


That's okay. I was mostly adding my perspective to the ideas you were expressing, or explaining why I agreed or disagreed with various points rather than intentionally debating anything. If I had wanted to get into a fight, I'm sure I could have easily found an excuse somewhere in this thread, but I didn't feel like reading through all of it just to argue. I only fight when it feels important.


----------



## YouPullMeThroughTime (Dec 23, 2010)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> Useless argument, usually used by people who run out of things to say.


As opposed to the well thought out, and well reasoned:



FauxPlasticTrees said:


> "because blablabla" "because blablabla" "whine whine" "Whatever dude"


...If your intent is to _reach someone_ because you're actually concerned that their viewpoint is damaging to their future relationships, or warping their perspective incorrectly; perhaps try something a little more compassionate and attempt to reach them at an empathetic level, instead of shouting down their throat. 

I see nothing on this thread that hasn't been repeated on every one like it: Anger, and bringing a topic that was by a man and intended for other men to benefit themselves (and respect themselves, by getting over a common inferiority complex); being brought back to how you think it affects you. BTW, the mentality surrounding a statement like "whine whine", is something a man will hear his entire life, it's a cheap shaming tactic intended to silence him when he speaks out on something troubling him. I know you might not want to think about that, but there it is.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> An unemployed person will be under the 40k income bracket. It's as simple as that.


Have you heard of a trust fund baby? :laughing:

Also, one could be a drug dealer and not have any taxable income.

Or perhaps a lottery or game show winner.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Oh I put it on a pedestal, a pedestal that sits right around waist height.:kitteh:


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

YouPullMeThroughTime said:


> As opposed to the well thought out, and well reasoned


Yeah, what a very good idea to judge a whole post based on a few picked out words... You just invalidated your own point.






YouPullMeThroughTime said:


> ...If your intent is to _reach someone_ because you're actually concerned that their viewpoint is damaging to their future relationships, or warping their perspective incorrectly; perhaps try something a little more compassionate and attempt to reach them at an empathetic level
> (...)
> Anger, and bringing a topic that was by a man and intended for other men to benefit themselves (and respect themselves, by getting over a common inferiority complex); being brought back to how you think it affects you.



My point was not to "warp" anyone's perspective and neither was I trying to compassionately reach the author of the post, I don't know where you get those ideas; I'm not a kindergardener for someone who is stuck in unreflected thinking patterns, nor am I going to worry or guesswork about a stranger's relationships. 

I was making a point based on the sexist advice he was giving, and in no way was I "bringing it back to how I think it affects myself". You are making this up out of thin air. Try to actually _read_ the conversation instead of guessing, and you'll see that actually, _*the person I replied to turned the whole thing from a general discussion to something about himself.*
_Which is another tactic employed by people who don't really have anything to found their argument with, but nonetheless they want to keep arguing. Ridiculous. I'm so out of here.


----------



## Strange Moon (Nov 10, 2012)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> Hahah. Your relationship details don't change a thing about the fact that you say sexist things


I only wrote about it because for some reason you assumed that I'm some kind of frustrated single nice guy.
So now advising guys to not give gifts to women they are dating is considered sexist? Interesting.,


----------



## Strange Moon (Nov 10, 2012)

FauxPlasticTrees said:


> Wow. I feel sorry for you if your plentiful dating history has given you these strange convictions. Where I live, people are attracted to people for who they are and their looks, not for their gift-withholding. But to each their own...
> 
> So you're openly saying that you're not a "nice guy", but you give guys advice about how to act towards all women (in a sexist way). I think we can agree then  You're giving asshole advice?
> 
> Ps. It also seems a bit weird to me when a middle aged guy argues with a bunch of younger people online about relationships, but that is, of course, not of any relevance here.


So now I have to check the age of a poster before I engage in a discussion?
There are plenty of people in their 30s and 40s here.
If you just want to converse with teens and twens
you maybe should look for a more appropriate website.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

YouPullMeThroughTime said:


> BTW, the mentality surrounding a statement like "whine whine", is something a man will hear his entire life, it's a cheap shaming tactic intended to silence him when he speaks out on something troubling him.


Excellent point! I knew that there was a reason why I kept reading all these posts; this kind of observation is what makes it worth my time. 

Have you ever watched Tony Porter's A Call to Men TED Talk? He is touching on how differently he raised his daughter and his son based on gender alone. I don't recall how old his son was, but I believe he was about 3 and Tony told him to stop whining when the son was crying. When his daughter was in the same situation, he tried to comfort her. And people wonder why US men generally have a hard time expressing emotions. 
(My parent shut all of us three girls up by telling us that we "felt sorry for ourselves" all the time, so I have a very hard time sharing what bothers me too. This was true even when we were seriously sick and should have ended up in the hospital; "walk it off". Later in life, this conditioned attitude almost literally had me killed, I am not joking. I have no idea if it was denial on their part, laziness, or that they just didn't care - I guess it really doesn't matter anyway. I agree that it is a very efficient way of shutting someone up/down and making them internalize everything. And no, I am not whining, just making a point.) 

That said, there are different ways to express a concern to make an audience more accessible/sympathetic, as has been pointed out in other posts on this thread. It is up to the individual reader to embrace that message or not.


----------



## FauxPlasticTrees (Jul 2, 2013)

Strange Moon said:


> I only wrote about it because for some reason you assumed that I'm some kind of frustrated single nice guy.
> So now advising guys to not give gifts to women they are dating is considered sexist? Interesting.,



Nope, people are considered sexist for saying sexist things, aka. the thing I quoted off you earlier. 


I don't know why I would still bother with your pointless arguing, as you seem be unable to keep track of your own sayings or grasp basic concepts, but here goes.


Here is what you said in two different posts of yours:

"I would not shower the women with gifts and pay their meals because it would be a sure way to lose any attraction I might have."

"I really like to give gifts and pay for drinks or even for a dinner every now and then, I often do it for friends (male and female) but if I would "date" a woman I'd let her pay for herself because I know my generosity will probably not be appreciated."



*sex·ism*

_noun_ \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\

*Definition of SEXISM*

*1*
*:* prejudice or discrimination based on sex; 

*2*
*:* behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex


Expecting a certain kind of behaviour based on said person's sex, (for instance the failure to appreciate a favour or a gift, or loosing attraction to someone in the absence of favours or gifts): sexism.

You're welcome.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

series0 said:


> Anyway, I have almost fallen into the pit of despair my friend in High School called, "Going Cosmic". He refused to bother with women at all. Not worth the trouble. In general, I agree.


I understand that pit too. I don't want a serious relationship again for a while (I'm 29, so perhaps late 30's), but desire a casual one. I don't seem to be the kind of man who can separate sex from emotion (all the more power to those who can).



> On the flip side one of my best friend's dad just deals with prostitutes and claims to be the happiest man alive. He gets tit every time for his tat. Truth be told he says he engages a few of his whores on a deeper level and that goes well also. It's the missing expectation and entitlement gradient that he points to as the issue. I think he is right.


That's interesting. 

Patrice O Neal attributed his 'turn around' in regards to dating and relationships after spending time with friendly prostitutes in Brazil. He said the way the treat you doesn't make you feel like you are just 'paying for pussy', in contrast he said there's a mutual resentment in the prostitute-client relationship in the US. 

He said before his experience with Brazilian prostitutes he was literally the kind of guy who would write poems, and give flowers, etc to women. And when he came back he thought to himself "Why do I have to travel to a 3rd world country to get whores, to experience this?"

After that he became the misogynist genius that he was...]

(A classic clip from the show)






One of his most interesting statement is (paraphrasing); women are only attracted to men they see as better than them...

But I digress.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I'm going to ignore the passive aggressive jabs at me to repeat these 3 things about the OP.
> 
> 1) The OP wasn't criticizing female behavior, it was criticizing men's behavior.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with your final conclusion above for several reasons.
- understanding and agreeing is not the same thing
- everything is not black and white; a person can agree with all, no, or some points from the OP
- I have seen at least 2 women here who understood and agreed with some of what you were talking about and I already pointed out that you chose to not respond to one of the more well thought out responses to the OP
- I get the impression that you are quick on dividing people's opinions into buckets depending on their gender, but this may be in unfair conclusion on my part. This is not a great approach towards a dialogue. There is a difference between stating "this is how it is, end of story" and "this has been my experience, how about yours?". Especially if you are frustrated about hetero-dating - wouldn't it be better to understand where different women come from? If you read posts from females and put them all in the same buckets, you miss that we are all individuals with different personalities, experiences and opinions. This is part of your "pedestal" problem; see women as individuals rather than as a group of people who are essentially the same. If you take the time to get the individual, you are more likely to see a partner rather than a pussy.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I understand that pit too. I don't want a serious relationship again for a while (I'm 29, so perhaps late 30's), but desire a casual one. I don't seem to be the kind of man who can separate sex from emotion (all the more power to those who can.


One of those inconvenient "truths" is that you generally find someone you really click with when you have stopped looking - happens to a lot of us. Taking a break from relationships is not a bad thing; I believe that it is instrumental to personal health (I already wrote about that earlier in this thread). My experience is that planning your dating life seldom works out satisfactorily.

If you want to have a casual relationship with a woman your own age, please be upfront with the fact that it is not 'serious'. As you know, women only have so many years to get pregnant and that time starts trickling away fast around 30. I have seen some women who got their chances at motherhood ruined because they were in LTRs with men who were not interested in becoming fathers to *their* children, but said men chose not to have an uncomfortable discussion rather than giving the women a fair chance at a decision.

If you are not focused on age of your casual date, you may want to look into women that are a bit older than you are. I believe that, in general, older women are less into games than young women are. I may be wrong about that.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Definition of feminism 

Bing Dictionary



fem·i·nism

[ fémmə nìzzəm ] 




> 1.belief in women's rights: belief in the need to secure rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men, or a commitment to securing these
> 2.movement for women's rights: *the movement committed to securing and defending rights and opportunities for women that are equal to those of men*
> Synonyms: women's movement, radicalism, women's liberation, women's rights, women's lib, women's studies


I just wanted to clarity the difference between true feminism and PSEUDO-feminism. The OP is probably thinking of perhaps radical feminism ie. Andrea Dworkin and their ilk?

From what I have read in this thread; it sounds as if a lot of confusion could be avoided if the definition of this word was clarified; as I assume that the OP is in favour of women having EQUAL rights with men and _vice-versa_. I do find it very interesting that the worst place to observe conflict between the sexes can easily be found on dating sites that spearates them and far less on sites like PerC, which focuses on similarities between them and to unite them based on their both being human.

*ducks out of thread*


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

@_NichirenWarrior_

Agreed. But there have been countless "if it really were about equal rights, wouldn't it be called equalism?" debates on PerC.

I don't like "feminism" being used as a slur either, as it's a complex and nuanced movement. But...that debate's happened a gazillion times already, so I've been overlooking that word usage. 

Ideas are more interesting than semantic debates, and it's easier to find common ground discussing ideas individually rather than pinning oneself to an ideology. (I refer to feminism, anti-feminism, and MRAness here.)


----------



## LoveAshley (Mar 31, 2013)

NichirenWarrior said:


> Definition of feminism
> 
> Bing Dictionary
> 
> ...


Thank you!

We wouldn't have to have so many debates on whether or not feminism is a right's movement or a hate group if people learned what feminism actually is. A lot of people are blowing it out of proportion, making it contradictory, and then that image gets passed on people think it's true to what feminism was originally intended for. 

We need to better understand what feminism really is and what it isn't before we demonize it.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

chimeric said:


> @NichirenWarrior
> 
> Agreed. But there have been countless "if it really were about equal rights, wouldn't it be called equalism?" debates on PerC.
> 
> I don't like "feminism" being used as a slur either, as it's a complex and nuanced movement. But...that debate's happened a gazillion times already, so I've been overlooking that word usage.


Well I guess it's called "feminism" as opposed to "equalism" - I think that would be great idea btw - is that when it was initially created, women weren't considered "equals" *legally* in any meaningful way. I do consider myself to be a "feminist" and I cringe when I see it being misused.

This type of misusage is not specific to feminism per say; religion has also been wrongly used to bolster a wide range of unethical positions that are more than likely at odds with that particular religion's original focus. ie. the Spanish inquisition etc.

I would be fine with "equalism" but I am concerned that substituting "humanism" might not address all of the various inequalities affecting _both_ genders.

For example, I consider it a extreme form of child abuse that men and little boys are shamed for crying. The cultural shaming of boys and men have lead to men dying at earlier ages from stress-related diseases like heart disease and alcoholism. The higher crime rate amongst men; may also be a factor in this culturally based pervasive form of male-specific gender abuse at a young age.


> Being “Macho” Can Affect Your Health
> 
> By Andy Moodie
> Reviewed by QualityHealth's Medical Advisory Board
> ...


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Your argument requires specific examples though, LoveAshley. If most people who call themselves "feminists" are indeed radical then it is fair to refer to people as "feminists". Words have no objective definition they change overtime. 

It's also kind of presumptuous to say "feminism is about equal rights". Should I also define communism as "a system of equality for all people" ? The question of whether feminism is about equal rights is debatable . 

If it's about equal rights where were the feminists complaining about the draft in the 1920's ? Where are the feminists now complaining about men's issues ? If there are examples they are rare and it's a more of a sidenote.


----------



## YouPullMeThroughTime (Dec 23, 2010)

LoveAshley said:


> We wouldn't have to have so many debates on whether or not feminism is a right's movement or a hate group if people learned what feminism actually is. A lot of people are blowing it out of proportion, making it contradictory, and then that image gets passed on people think it's true to what feminism was originally intended for.
> 
> We need to better understand what feminism really is and what it isn't before we demonize it.


I hear this viewpoint a lot; but no-one in the pro-feminism camp has actually heard or meaningfully discussed anything negative about it, as it's shouted down, shame tactic'd out of the way, and certainly never shown on mainstream media as it's just way too off the scales of Politically Correct. If you're secure in your viewpoints and have a genuine want to debate the positives of all types of feminism, watch something like this video and let me know what you think (yes, I'm linking her again; no, I won't be shamed out of this... :wink: )

Me, a Feminist? No Way.

"so many debates" - How many people have dared to bring this viewpoint to you in real life? A bunch of threads on a single forum would not constitute "so many" in my humble opinion, especially when I had heard "so many" times that women were always oppressed through history, which is a total lie when you put it on a comparable scale with the dangers inherent to being a common man of the same time-frame. And "blowing it out of proportion" is easy to say when it doesn't negatively effect you nearly as much as it does men.



NichirenWarrior said:


> Well I guess it's called "feminism" as opposed to "equalism" - I think that would be great idea btw - is that when it was initially created, women weren't considered "equals" *legally* in any meaningful way. I do consider myself to be a "feminist" and I cringe when I see it being misused.


As Chaoticbrain says; the "privilege" of being a male was at the time of the early 1900's; for the say 90 percent of common man that wasn't wealthy or in political office: Conscription, or in a time of "peace": Hard, dangerous, underpaid, manual labor, that women couldn't possibly perform (for their biological differences), nor should be expected to perform; and they lost life and limb in droves on the alter of providing for the family unit, and serving their country (in turn, protecting their women and children). Women were required to serve the function that men could not (for their biological differences) - Growing a human being (a job that HAD to have to lot more time and effort than typically today, for reasons like infant mortality, contraception, lack of affordable childcare, lack of technological convenience items) to continue their family unit. And they were protected and assigned reverence for that CRITICAL position.

There was never some "conspiracy" of "patriarchy". Every feminist I've encountered to this point, has always, universally, had this viewpoint that there was a conspiracy of patriarchy, to hold a woman down. This IS what feminism identifies with. NO, IT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S FALSE. When the technology became available to ease the load and danger on manual labor, to make childbirth mortality rates do down and life expectancy to go up, there would have been a natural progression of more women into the workplace; But the early feminists (driven mostly by very wealthy females) had to kick and scream and shout "oppression" until we got the society we have today; which has a huge bias towards things like female education initiatives; for a tip of the ice-berg example.

If your view is that there was not a conspiracy of a patriarchal society, that there is no "rape-culture" in our society (more shame heaped on innocent males, as opposed the the tiny minority who rape, who are narcissist, empathy free sociopaths and no message would actually get to anyways), I would suggest you not identify yourself with a movement that proposes exactly that, and take up a cause of equality, and actually mean it. It's like assigning yourself to the Nazi Party and saying; "Oh, yeah I'm a Nazi - Naw, I don't believe in what the vast majority of them believe, I just like the color scheme of their uniforms, and then I make up my own viewpoints..." You can't glean good fruit from a rotten tree of shaming, and in the end; total lies. 

Because unfortunately there is still some guilt party being rained over our new generation of men (and don't tell me differently if you're not a male; because I've experienced it first-hand) - from the female dominated teaching profession, from mainstream feminist dominated media, and to mixed extent by our own parents who were also told this stuff during their lifetime. No-one ever wants to hear a flip-side, it's so utterly taboo to even think about talking on it, because if you do you must hate women and women's rights.

I guess what I'm trying to do is open a little awareness of the lies we grew up with and the right of men to live free of them and free of guilt, because most people in the end are decent and have nothing to be ashamed of.


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Ooh. Feminism. What an emotionally charged word. The funny thing is no one _really_ knows what it means.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

YouPullMeThroughTime said:


> I hear this viewpoint a lot; but no-one in the pro-feminism camp has actually heard or meaningfully discussed anything negative about it, as it's shouted down, shame tactic'd out of the way, and certainly never shown on mainstream media as it's just way too off the scales of Politically Correct. If you're secure in your viewpoints and have a genuine want to debate the positives of all types of feminism, watch something like this video and let me know what you think (yes, I'm linking her again; no, I won't be shamed out of this... :wink: )
> 
> Me, a Feminist? No Way.
> 
> ...


----------



## steffy (Aug 21, 2012)

Why can't we all just get along:shocked:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

steffy said:


> Why can't we all just get along:shocked:


----------



## steffy (Aug 21, 2012)

@NichirenWarrior literally just LOL'd... Whether thats Appropriate, I just don't know, or care to:angry:


----------



## YouPullMeThroughTime (Dec 23, 2010)

steffy said:


> Why can't we all just get along:shocked:


We all can get along; We can do it! :happy: 

As a part of "getting along", there has to be an awakening for men that they have nothing to apologize for, that even if there were (and there was NOT on mass) - "Sins Of The Father"; that they should never be visited in retribution on their descendants, or be used to devalue their own needs over those of a woman's, with this unique chapter of human society that we've entered. 

We either figure out a balance of those needs and an equality, and an embrace of the masculine identity, or we start passive aggressive aversion to the opposite sex in coming generations, and they'll start dating pillows like they are in Japan. :tongue:


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

Disclaimer:The opinion expressed below is of my own and is based on my current experiences in life and my view on the world. 
I would appreciate it if no part was taken out of context, however if anyone feels the need to dissect it they have every right to do so. (side note : English is my second language so if there are any grammatical errors I sincerely apologize).


While I would welcome a world where both gender interactions are on equal terms and on equal ground 
or a world where everyone is merely a blob of floating dna with no outward physical qualities (ok, hats are acceptable; I would be the one wearing a tophat xD ) that is not the world right now, and as such it needs to be discussed and viewed in its current state.

I find OP's viewpoints to be very valid, it must be remembered that it does not reflect on every single being but rather a majority mindset that exists in the world today that has plagued many a man and has been accepted by many a woman.
*
Social Conditioning*

I think a core reason for this type of mindset to exist is because of the way in which society has for the most part treated both genders. Exploitation based on base wants & needs is one such example. I mean do you ever find men gathering protesting against the objectification of women on all forms of media? Hell I wouldn't protest for something like that because I enjoy the female form and being a heterosexual male as I understand it its in my dna to enjoy something like that and that shouldn't be considered wrong in anyway shape or form. 
What about the group of women that do take part in these activities? do they protest against it? do they 
say " well we would like it if the dresses we are being fitted on for this runway shoot be a little less revealing." Or would the pornstar say "well even though I've signed a contract with you guys saying I will comply to anal sex, could we maybe not do it?"
no they go about it, why? because they get what they want from it, whether it be stardom, fame or piles of money. 
(Of course this is considering the proper side of this area, I'm well aware of the darker aspects of both these professions but bringing that into discussion only brings an imbalanced argument considering the topic that is being discussed).

Where are men in all this? the portrayal of women in such a way penetrates our minds and influences many a mindset. Is it mans fault for this then? no it is not. They are subject to the environment and and society they have been brought up in. It is also much easier to accept a majority than rebel against it. 

*
Old Fashioned Values*

Being in a community that is a bit behind the times I was technically brought up in a generation X mindset, but I am myself a generation Y. Now that being said, it is a common practice an acceptable practice and an expected practice for the men to not just put things on pedestals, but build monuments in favour of the opposite gender. I have always viewed this as a very negative aspect of society as a whole and I do understand that many other countries have the same ideas and notions.
I would start from the bottom but that is a very descriptive and tiresome discussion so let me skip around a bit.

In the old days - Men were considered the bread winners, the manual labour, and the war fighters. Women were brought up to raise children see to the household activities etc.

In the current day and age - The lines have blurred, some men enjoy the household chores(myself included), can see to the care of the children. The women are empowered, they go about carrying out business activities, matching the level and sometimes surpassing there male peers etc.

My point in all this is while somethings have definitely changed (for the better I might add as a world where gender roles are not defined would be an ideal world in my eyes) the core ideas the core mindset of what should be done by who and what shouldn't be done by who still exists today.

That is to say the justification that men, considering the dating world have to make all the moves, take all the pressure and ultimately deal with most if not all of the fallout from a negative experience still exists. That is quite saddening. 

Picture this, a room full of attractive women dressed to the 9's in one room. Lets imagine that this is some dating scenario and the women are there to vet potential suitors. Now there are other males conversing with the women approaching them, engaging in conversations. 

I walk in, no imagine two versions of myself walk in.

The first being a smart looking young gent in full suit, carrying a few roses inside his jacket pocket, a mind full of witty one liners and one who has pumped himself up with the most amount of confidence he can muster. He glows with confidence as they would say. But to do this he has conditioned himself. He has neglected a few parts of himself to bring about that amount of confidence, it has had a strain on his being on his soul yet he doesn't show it. 
Yet outwardly he is not alone, many of the other suitor are similar if not of the same external level as he is. Either with overflowing confidence, or a more humorous personality or gifts or tokens to show their affection.

Now the second version walks in. He is himself, as he would describe it. No roses, no witty one liners, enough confidence to walk in to the room, enough to bear the brunt of the intimidation he is currently facing. He dresses how he wishes to, casual smart. He likes a jacket on occasion so he has worn one, yet he wears it in the way he wishers to. He has made little effort on his outward appearance wearing the same old shoes he can afford. The same glasses that he has worn since his teenage years. Hes half shaven because he doesn't like the way his mustache feels yet likes his beard. Outward appearance would suggest that he hasn't really tried. Yet that is the way he wants to be. He is very much himself, the way he wants to be. 

Now both men notice two empty chairs in the center of the room, and both take a seat in each chair. 
Both engage in friendly eye contact with several women in the room who are not being engaged upon by other interested male suitors. They share that inherent quality in common, they are both charming and witty individuals in there own way. Yet neither of them move from that seat, neither of them get up and physically engage in conversation.

Tell me, which of these two individuals would walk away with the most amount of numbers?
Also tell me which one is the happiest out of the two?

The first has made himself the way in which society has expected him to, yet he doesn't want to conform to some of the norms. He is ultimately frustrated, because for all his effort the chances that he will be approached and accepted was still minimal.

The second has been himself the whole time. He refuses to accept the norms and while with full understanding that it might not get him anywhere he is still happy that he didn't have to change himself, he didn't have to become something else. 

(now I have purposefully omitted the female aspect in this example. I am fully aware that there exist well rounded, intellectual women with personalities that shine brighter than the stars.) 

This was considering what the average man has to go through in life. What he has to face to even remotely garner some attention from the majority of the opposite gender. 


That concludes my opinion on this matter. I will leave with a quote that might undermine this entire post but it is a reality that exists in this world.

“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

steffy said:


> @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=52403" target="_blank">NichirenWarrior</a></i></span> literally just LOL'd... Whether thats Appropriate, I just don't know, or care to:angry:


It was the shortest RK clip I could find.  *Side note: my intention was not to make any light whatsoever of Mr. King's tragic ordeal.* 



YouPullMeThroughTime said:


> We all can get along; We can do it! :happy:
> 
> As a part of "getting along", there has to be an awakening for men that they have nothing to apologize for, that even if there were (and there was NOT on mass) - "Sins Of The Father"; that they should never be visited in retribution on their descendants, or be used to devalue their own needs over those of a woman's, with this unique chapter of human society that we've entered.
> 
> We either figure out a balance of those needs and an equality, and an embrace of the masculine identity, or we start passive aggressive aversion to the opposite sex in coming generations, and they'll start dating pillows like they are in Japan. :tongue:


See, here's the thing; I *do* agree with you about all of the injustices that men have faced in our society but I vehemently do NOT agree with you that feminism has anything whatsoever to do with it, and by disparaging the value that feminism has brought to BOTH men and women; you are using a straw man argument. Yes, I do blame "patriarchy" or whatever you would prefer to substitute for the creators of the society which we live in, and NO, I don't believe that anyone who wasn't involved in its creation has any responsibility whatsoever, for the fucked up world which we live in.

Rule of thumb



> Nonetheless, belief in the existence of a "rule of thumb" law to excuse spousal abuse can be traced as far back as 1782, the year that James Gillray published his satirical cartoon Judge Thumb. The cartoon lambastes Sir Francis Buller, a British judge, for allegedly ruling that a man may legally beat his wife, provided that he used a stick no thicker than his thumb, although it is questionable whether Buller ever made such a pronouncement.[11] The Body of Liberties adopted in 1641 by the Massachusetts Bay colonists states, “Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband, unless it be in his own defense from her assault.”[12] In the United States, legal decisions in Mississippi (1824) and North Carolina (1868 and 1874) make reference to—and reject—an unnamed "old doctrine" or "ancient law" by which a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb.[7] For example, the 1874 case State v. Oliver (North Carolina Reports, Vol. 70, Sec. 60, p. 44) states: "We assume that the old doctrine that a husband had the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not the law in North Carolina." In 1976, feminist Del Martin used the phrase "rule of thumb" as a metaphorical reference to describe such a doctrine. She was misinterpreted by many as claiming the doctrine as a direct origin of the phrase and the connection gained currency in 1982, when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report on wife abuse, titled "Under the Rule of Thumb".


 @UtterMess , I completely agree with everything you said. What pisses me off about this whole discussion, is that people seem to be expressing pretty much the same ideas but for reasons - that I cannot begin to comprehend - are having a ridiculously insane war over semantics:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

YouPullMeThroughTime said:


> *I hear this viewpoint a lot; but no-one in the pro-feminism camp has actually heard or meaningfully discussed anything negative about it,* as it's shouted down, shame tactic'd out of the way, and certainly never shown on mainstream media as it's just way too off the scales of Politically Correct. *If you're secure in your viewpoints and have a genuine want to debate the positives of all types of feminism*, watch something like this video and let me know what you think (yes, I'm linking her again; no, I won't be shamed out of this... :wink: )
> 
> Me, a Feminist? No Way.


Okay, here's what I think. She claims that women got voting rights for 'nothing' where men had to 'purchase' it. I picked this out in particular, since this is an attempt to 'character assassination' of 'feminism' by your admired libertarian blogger. 



> The right to vote in national elections was not returned to women until 1919, and was practised again in the election of 1921, for the first time in 150 years. In the election of 1921 more women than men had the right to vote because women got the right just by turning 21 years old while men had to undergo military service for the right to vote. In a decision 1921 men received the same right as women and this was practised in the election of 1924.
> Women's suffrage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As you can see, it was clearly misrepresentation of facts. The fact that men didn't have that right initially isn't reasonably the fault of the women's suffrage movement, and mind you, this is just after WWI. It was corrected relatively fast. Also, the situation in my country (Netherlands) and in for instance UK wasn't like that. So she's making a claim as if this can be attributed to 'the' feminist ideology (rather than situational factors, and only in the US) which is a big misinterpretation of facts if not serving ideological spin. 

Her argument is just plain dumb, since democratization and emancipation (liberalism) is an ongoing process over hundreds of years, meaning you could say the same about for instance the Jacksonians or any movement that expanded voting rights, or banned voting suppression and restrictions like poll-tax and literacy tests that disfranchised certain groups. 



Jacksonians; said:


> Expanded Suffrage
> The Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men. By 1820, universal white male suffrage was the norm, and by 1850 nearly all requirements to own property or pay taxes had been dropped


I wonder if she knows, that in the US, many women affiliated with women's suffrage, were also in the abolishonist movement to end slavery. However after the Civil War, black men were given the vote (quote unquote) but not to women. This issue, (only ban on discrimation on race, not on gender) divided the movement in two. So women's suffrage started in 1848 and was accomplished not until 1920. 



Abolition Movement; said:


> Even as women played crucial roles in abolitionism, the movement simultaneously helped stimulate women's rights efforts. A full ten years before the Seneca Falls Convention, the Grimkés were travelling, lecturing about their experiences with slavery. As Gerda Lerner says, the Grimkés understood their actions' great impact. "In working for the liberation of the slave," Lerner writes, "Sarah and Angelina Grimké found the key to their own liberation. And the consciousness of the significance of their actions was clearly before them. 'We Abolition Women are turning the world upside down.'"





15th amendment; said:


> One source of opposition to the proposed amendment was the women's suffrage movement, which before and during the Civil War had made common cause with the abolitionist movement. However, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which had explicitly protected only male citizens in its second section, activists found the civil rights of women divorced from those of blacks.[SUP][10][/SUP] Matters came to a head with the proposal of the Fifteenth Amendment, which barred race discrimination but not gender discrimination in voter laws. After an acrimonious debate, the American Equal Rights Association, the nation's leading suffragist group, split into two rival organizations: the National Woman Suffrage Association of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who opposed the amendment, and the American Woman Suffrage Association of Lucy Stone and Henry Browne Blackwell, who supported it. The two groups remained divided until the 1890s.
> Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also, it's the OP who speaks of 'THE feminists' so what I made bold is something you should address to him. You seem to take what you reply to as a defensive argument where it is meant to educate. For instance, if someone has a general opinion about black people, based on aggressive hip hop and Black Panthers, do you think it's up to black people to explain not all blacks hate white people, and not all white people who object with that view are 'White Knights' or is it just plain ignorance and prejudice? 

That's it for now, more to come later. =)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Well we got to 30 pages without it descending into the standard pro-feminism vs anti-feminism debate. I'm guessing it's downhill from here.

So...

Thanks for your contributions everyone!


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Well we got to 30 pages without it descending into the standard pro-feminism vs anti-feminism debate. I'm guessing it's downhill from here.
> 
> So...
> 
> Thanks for your contributions everyone!


I think if more people kept their emotions off of the table and not _only_ saw the merits of the OP but realized that *we are not ever going to have a better society unless BOTH men and women, acknowledge their common aspirations and work together to achieve it.* Anyone who thinks that any of this can possibly be accomplished without the efforts of _both_ sexes; is being seriously delusional.


----------



## 59465 (May 31, 2013)

NichirenWarrior said:


> I think if more people kept their emotions off of the table and not _only_ saw the merits of the OP but realized that *we are not ever going to have a better society unless BOTH men and women, acknowledge their common aspirations and work together to achieve it.* Anyone who thinks that any of this can possibly be accomplished without the efforts of _both_ sexes; is being seriously delusional.


I think if both sides tried to understand each other, then maybe we could set something up.
But as it seems from an Spectator, its an all out war between people with too much Pride.

But please dont ask me to throw away my Emotions.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

tobbe628 said:


> I think if both sides tried to understand each other, then maybe we could set something up.
> But as it seems from an Spectator, its an all out war between people with too much Pride.
> 
> But please dont ask me to throw away my Emotions.


That's not exactly what I meant, lol. I was referring to people allowing their emotions to obfuscate their understanding of the issues. It sounds like that's apparently _not_ a problem for you.


----------



## 59465 (May 31, 2013)

NichirenWarrior said:


> That's not exactly what I meant, lol. I was referring to people allowing their emotions to obfuscate their understanding of the issues. It sounds like that's apparently _not_ a problem for you.


Never heard the word Obfuscate before! 
Now i know a new word!

Thanks! :happy:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

tobbe628 said:


> Never heard the word Obfuscate before!
> Now i know a new word!
> 
> Thanks! :happy:


You're Welcome. I honestly don't know what I'd do without Google. roud:


----------

