The Trouble With Women..is..

[easyskanka]

I heard BCK talk of donning a kevlar vest and other protective clothing (metophorically speaking of course),when speaking about something that he thought might antagonize some of the ladies.As it turned out nothing developed that might have been regarded as a battle of the sexes.

My point that I'm trying to make is that men are often very careful not to get on the wrong side of females for fear that at the very least we'll get a verbal tongue lashing from easily enraged feline helcats.

The flip side is that very few women are so reserved in their feelings towards the male of the species when it comes to how they go about describing our seemingly never ending shortcomings as percieved in their eyes.

Their is only about two men on CY for example who gives it out in the same direct manner that is all too common with the 'ladies straight talk.'
Is it an inbuilt fear of not getting what we think we need from the ladies when we need 'it' that makes us tread that more carefully than otherwise we might? Or is it a fear and respect passed down from our mothers or other highly influential females that places the brakes on our behavior?

Anyhow I think that it is a psuedo form of respect that we men often attempt to show to women when we try not to get on the wrong side of them. Afterall I've noticed that men who are direct and don't mince their words with women will often illicit perhaps more respect from said women even if the women appear not to initially appreciate their type of approach.

Women are remarkable on many levels but on the most basic and fundermental level this saying holds true for them as much as for many other situations and it is this;give them an inch and they'll want to take a mile,and respect you less in the long run into the bargain.

[Twinkie]

Or is it a fear and respect passed down from our mothers or other highly influential females that places the brakes on our behavior?
I thinks it's the one above. As a matter of fact. I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. I however, must lend my expertise being a feline helcat.

I am very straight forward. At least I try diligently to be. But my approach differs with the person I am forced to deal with. My lover will definitely feel my wrath because up to a certain point he is to know me, if not better than himself.

The stranger gets off way easier than that. I prefer a man to step to me straight forward as well. Tell me QUICKLY what is it you want to know, to hear, to feel. Express to me with whatever you are feeling, the things you think i need to know.

[Twinkie]

Not every situation reserves "kiddie gloves" If I am doing something that offends or disappoints you then step to me in a manner that will not have me laughing it off a few minutes later.

Don't step to me like you're a hooligan, but, your delivery should have me captivated and even contemplating what it is you are relaying to me.

If I am emotional about something, trust me you will know.

Another thing we women tend to over look is that, men have feelings too. We are oft taught that men are to be tough, no fear, no crying, no feelings and bearing these things in mind, we lash out knowing if he shows emotion...is a mah-mah-man.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Another thing we women tend to over look is that, men have feelings too. We are oft taught that men are to be tough, no fear, no crying, no feelings and bearing these things in mind, we lash out knowing if he shows emotion...is a mah-mah-man.

And for this reason, it is ironic, that in many relationships, women lament bitterly when their men live up to these expectations.

[Juliet]

Trouble is in the eye of the beholder...

[Gillion]

Snippet of a telephone converstation ...

Me: I notice I have been getting bald.

Woman : Yes I have been meaning to talk to you about that. I don't like it. Its like your so young but your head looks like some hobble foot old man ready for the grave. Why don't you shave your head bald so I don't have to have it blind me. When you shave it won't be so obvious.

Me: Hmmm your right I have been looking like the crypt keeper ... so hey when last you watch a good tales from the crypt ...

** conversation continues into wee hours of morning **

Another converstation MANY moons later ....

Woman:Darling I think I am getting fat. You think I am getting fat ?

Me: Yes.

Woman: WHAT! WHAT YUH MEAN YES ?

Me: Yes you have been getting a little chubby and bordering on getting out of hand with all the snacking you been engaged in. So now you have this neat little wheel around your waist and your arms are flapping like wings in the breeze.

Woman: ...... !!!! sobs .... hangs up phone.

** me .... I am going to pay for that for a long time ! **

[Gillion]

This is the same woman that told me my six pack has long since disapeared and turn into a dutch pot.

[Virus]

Tell me QUICKLY what is it you want to know, to hear, to feel. Express to me with whatever you are feeling, the things you think i need to know.Honestly, i wouldn't. Express whatever im feeling..... :eusa_shif no Twinks, not everybody that emotional. I never hear my dad spilling his guts out to my mom, and i would find that sorta strange.

Not saying that u cant know ur partner, but certain things i should b able to keep to myself


Edit: @ gillion - lol lol lol lol lol olo lmao dwl.. nice

[BlackCryptoKnight]

This is the same woman that told me my six pack has long since disapeared and turn into a dutch pot.

:rofl: :rotflm: :dwl:

Dat nuh right. :icon_mrgr

[Bahama Mama]

LOL @ Gillion.

I have to admit that was a true scenario you posted there :rotflm: .

[easyskanka]

:icon_arro Gillion is most definitely on top form:dwl: :rotflm: :eusa_clap

[acidblade]

Snippet of a telephone converstation ...

Me: I notice I have been getting bald.

Woman : Yes I have been meaning to talk to you about that. I don't like it. Its like your so young but your head looks like some hobble foot old man ready for the grave. Why don't you shave your head bald so I don't have to have it blind me. When you shave it won't be so obvious.

Me: Hmmm your right I have been looking like the crypt keeper ... so hey when last you watch a good tales from the crypt ...

** conversation continues into wee hours of morning **

Another converstation MANY moons later ....

Woman:Darling I think I am getting fat. You think I am getting fat ?

Me: Yes.

Woman: WHAT! WHAT YUH MEAN YES ?

Me: Yes you have been getting a little chubby and bordering on getting out of hand with all the snacking you been engaged in. So now you have this neat little wheel around your waist and your arms are flapping like wings in the breeze.

Woman: ...... !!!! sobs .... hangs up phone.

** me .... I am going to pay for that for a long time ! **
LOL Yes Yute :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro Gillion's Girl

Eediat ting dat.

But I know what you guys are referring to. But there's a trick to it. I can especially relate to this:


Afterall I've noticed that men who are direct and don't mince their words with women will often illicit perhaps more respect from said women even if the women appear not to initially appreciate their type of approach.

Do you ever wonder why women are constantly drawn to guys who are jerks? It's based on this very simple premise:

Women are attracted to men who behave like men.

That's why "nice" guys will always finish last (or not at all). Women prefer men who are assertive, self-sufficient and don't worship them.

Yes, that's right.

The more mystique a man has, the more he seems to care less about what she thinks, the less dependent he is on her affection is the MORE attractive he is to her.

That's why I can especially relate to what easyskanka wrote up there. Women tend to take you for granted when you duck for cover or act as if you have something to loose from them when you have something to say. Women are attracted to men who are strong in character.

If you got something to say, say it. They won't necessarily like what you have to say, but you actually become more attrative to them for it. In fact, I've taken up the practice of telling a woman "No" recently. Have you ever tried that?

A girl asked me out recently. I flatly told her "No". It's not that I didn't find her attractive or didn't want to go out with her, but I was deliberately denying an immediate gratification for her desire. It makes it MORE intense for her. Ofcourse, she didn't stop pestering me to go out with her.

Little did she know, that I was BUILDING HER ATTRACTION for me. Even if I told her what I was doing. It wouldn't make a difference.

Give a woman everything she desires from you and she will eventually loose interest. Tell her "No" every once in a while, and she will feel LESS in control of you. Don't rationalize the "No". Don't even discuss it. Just say "No", leave it at that and walk away. In fact, if you're going to rationalize it, be cocky about it:

Her: Why not?
Me: Because then you're going to have a hard time resisting my incredible sense of humor, and I just can't have that.
Her: (laughs) Why? are you gay?
Me: (with a serious face) No. I just don't want to make you jealous when the other girl next to us starts hitting on me.
Her: (bursts out laughing with a ludicrous look on her face) Yeah you wish!
Me: I'm not the one asking you out, remember that. ;) (cocky smile on my face)

Let's just say I had a hard time getting her off the phone in the following weeks.

Works wonders. I'll tell you why:

Give her more credit for being a woman than is necessary, and she can dangle her crotch in front of you any day of the week. But if you're a man with "balls", you can say what you have to say and not fear loosing anything. A woman who can use her virtue to effect a man's opinion is the master of that man and thus, he becomes her slave.

[Xenocrates]

[Cont'd]

Quite frankly:

Women are not attracted to men they can control.

HOWEVER, if a as man, your woman (or women in general) cannot strike fear into your heart by witholding her virtue, or otherwise tongue-lash you into wimptitude, she will realise quite frankly, that you are in control of your person and there's nothing she can dangle (or say) to change your opinion. In this case, you are your own master and she controls nothing about you. In fact, play your cards right, and she will actually (subconsciously) subject herself to you.

Why does this happen?

It's based on a well-documented psychological phenomenon known as the Female Edifice.

What is the female edifice?

It's a 3 pronged concept. In layman's terms:


Women love a man with mystique. - The less she knows, the more she wants to know, and hence the more she becomes attracted to that man. Women are helplessly curious people. Less is more to a woman. This is the same reason why women are the #1 consumers of romance novels and soap operas. The mystique of the story pulls them in. It is from this part of the edifice where we derive the expression "curiosity killed the cat". The 'cat' reference in this expression is an obvious innuendo for the female reproductive organ. This is the same reason why a woman will call a guy who hasn't called her in two weeks, but not a guy who calls her 8 times a day and takes her to the movies every tuesday and constantly buys her presents. ;)


They love a man who is sure of himself. - Women are the fairer, weaker sex. Therefore, a man who is prone to giving her the option of making daily choices will not strike her fancy. She perceives him as weak and undecided. She needs to feel that a man is strong enough to rely on when she is incapable of doing that herself (which happens more often than you might realise). Therefore, a man who is always accommodating is always misread by a woman as being "weak" or "spineless". She won't say it to his face, because she "likes him as a friend". This is part of the reason why "nice guys finish last". The other reason is that:


They love a man who is self secure. - A man who "ducks for cover" or tries to be "nice" is a man who is insecure about his own self (not throwing words here - just stating facts). Such men always do things in an effort to make the woman like him. Women can see this (subconsciously) and often have a gut-level distrust of men who behave that way. They will trust that man only on a social level, but will develop no sexual attraction for him. Women are often very insecure by default (which explains why they ask men silly questions sometimes). Therefore, an insecure man will be unattractive to her. A woman perceives a man who doesn't "mince his words" as a man who is so secure about himself, that her reaction to his remarks won't phase him. Women find such men attractive, because when she sees such a man, she perceives "inner strength on which I can rely on to compensate for my own inadequacy". This is the same awesome admiration that a little girl has when she views the kind of superiority daddy has over mommy. A woman who grew up with daddy being "the boss of the house" will not be attracted to men who are fearful of what they think.


Women are naturally engineered like that. This is why men who act like "jerks" will always be the ones who attract the most women.

This is also why men who are very "direct" or "brazen" fire up a woman's libido much more inciduously than those who are constantly concerned about "how she might feel if I say this". This is ultimately why women are attracted to "Bad boys".

Don't believe me? Try it:

Walk over to a girl you know and engage in conversation. End the conversation at the most entertaining moment, just when you are both enjoying it, but before she does. Then walk away. I guarantee that she will not be able to resist the innate temptation to continue it or seek you out afterwards.

Works everytime. ;)

If you think you can master that, try it with a girl you don't know. It doesn't matter what you look like. Women are naturally drawn to your character, not your good looks (or lack thereof).

Now go over to the "What did you learn today?" thread and make a journal entry. I've just shared an ultimate secret with you blokes.

My god, I should charge for this. :eusa_thin

[nuhsenutten]

this guy never ceases to amaze me with his points of view on any given situation...i wonder if u have ever been in a situation where u were at a loss for words ?

[nuhsenutten]

u could just write a book/(S) on ur thoughts ........but then again to write that all down would take ages............

[Bahama Mama]

So to sum up your previous posts Dr. Love Xenocrates, women are more attracted to men that play hard to get, than men that easily give of their time and attention? Really? Women dont handle rejection as well as men from my estimation, so how would that work out? A guy would more easily pester a girl who has turned down his offers for courtship, while alot of women wouldnt 'chase' a guy, even if they liked him, our egoes as well as our more fragile emotions would get in the way me thinks.

[tiffany]

:icon_arro Xenocrates, I reckon you may very well be correct.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

ahh bwoy ... :rolleyes:

[Xenocrates]

Women dont handle rejection as well as men from my estimation, so how would that work out?

- This is only the case where a woman is not as sought after as her kin or has severe insecurity issues. Usually this is the case if she is not particularly physically attractive. In this case, being rejected would be tragic. But don't misread me - playful rejection is different. Every normal woman wants to be needed by some man. It's an innate, insatiable desire. Therefore, if a man plays "hard to get" it won't hurt her feelings. I'm not talking about flatly (or uninventively) turning her down. He has to make her feel that she has to seek him out. A woman won't seek out a man who compliments her constantly. A man who only gives her enough to satiate her imagination will shortly become the center of her lustful desire (because women are naturally curious like that).

However, the average, decent looking woman is petitioned by guys on a regular basis. It's all a matter of the taste of the guys who sorround her on a social level. The average woman is relatively satiated in terms of receiving a fair amount of male attention (even if it's just a stare). Women generally don't care who they get the attention from. So long as it's a man and he finds her attractive, that's good enough for her. Even when women complain about the lewd remarks she gets from some men, deep down, she still appreciates that some man finds her attractive. She just knows that she is not obliged to return the favour.

In fact, what every man should know, is that if there's a woman whom he finds attractive, he should be aware that she has already been prodded and petitioned by many men before him. Therefore, his job is to make himself "different" from the other suitors.

...as such

If a male were to approach this woman and try to woo her, telling her how "hot" she is will do NOTHING for increasing her attraction for him - because she's heard it a thousand times before. All he will have done is given her daily recommended dose of self-confidence, that "hey, I'm still hot".

HOWEVER

If his approach is not to immediately gratify that expectation, the woman will take notice (she thinks: "wait a minute, why didn't he give me the same expected reaction?"), and instead of taking on the role of being saught after, will now become the pursuer, out of sheer curiosity (she thinks: "I must find out why he didn't try to charm me").

[Xenocrates]

If the woman is not regularly satiated (even by guys whom she has no interest in) then it is obvious that this approach will not work. It is quite likely that this is because the average guy doesn't take interest in a woman he doesn't find visually appealing (there has to be some initial instantiator to get his attention). Such a woman needs to be suited with special care, since the average male probably wouldn't have taken the opportunity to get to know her in the first place. In fact, if a male were to tell such a woman that he finds her interesting, she is likely to mistrust him, because of her own insecurities ("I'm not attractive. Is he trying to play with my feelings?").

It's a sad reality, but the case is true with men as well.

The average woman won't give an ugly guy a time of day unless he comes across as being substantially different from the rest. He HAS to stand out from the pack or else she won't even notice that he exists. In fact, as a rule of thumb:

"The attractiveness of a man is inversely proportional to how hard he has to work to get her attention."

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if he is Brad Pitt or joe average. What about those guys who aren't as genetically endowed as the rest? The average girl prefers 6-packed, 2-gunned, 6 ft. tall cute, machos.

The average man is 5' 8" tall, will never get 2 guns (pumped triceps) let alone a 6-pack or even a cute face like mine. :eusa_shif

However, we are so designed that even a less than average man can attract ANY woman. That's why, my dear, you will see pot bellied men with super-hot chicks as their wives.

Less than hot chicks have nothing to worry about. There are guys in the world who actually believe that they should steer away from girls who get lots of attention (the hallmark of insecurity) and instead target women who are not so vivacious, or "hot" so to speak. Furthermore, women are not attracted to guys primarily by their physical characteristics anyway. So they will both make compromises as necessary (i.e. lower their standards)

Interestingly enough, those guys will always find just reward in finding diamonds in the rough, i.e., really great women who aren't necessarily eye candy. If he can find both, then he would have hit the jackpot...

...ideally, ofcourse, but not usually.

:icon_arro BCK

- DUUUUCK! :icon_mrgr

[BlackCryptoKnight]

:icon_arro BCK

- DUUUUCK! :icon_mrgr

Fortunately for me, God is merciful. :cool:

I'm a "nice guy", who cares about peoples feelings, and I married a "hot woman" who could have had her pick of any guy she wanted. ;)

The generalizations made above, are not binding in all situations.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

It has took me a while to overstand what this thread was about, and thankfully (so far) it hasn't had anything to do with bashing of any sort.

Xenocrates' descriptions of a woman's tendencies and thought patterns may be common enough in most women for most people (men) to be considered a general (enough) rule. But I might disagree with how general it should be used.
I believe it can be used to describe most women within a particular age group as it identifies women who are basically underdeveloped and insecure. But thankfully I have met enough women who by any rule define themselves.

Having the distinction of NOT being a bachelor and having had years of marriage notched on my belt I will leave Xeno's instruction manual up to you young bucks who NEED it :)

The truth is that the years of my trod in this I-ration, especially with marriage has taught me a lot about inter-personal relationships and about myself. I have learned the lessons I have because I sought to learn them, especially the ones which I HAD to.
Too many people go though life taking things for granted, expecting things to be given to them simply because. They fail to realize that life is a learning experience and your success in how you function in this life depends on how much we learn from our own experiences.
These people go through life as the rest of the mindless hordes, they don't think for themselves and possibly do not know how to. They are categorized and generalized by the powers that be which makes it easier to market whatever product or service to them.
Causualties of a streamlined industrialized world.

The first thing you learn is that respect is not only earned, it is assumed; prejudice towards your sex, appearance, where you live, how you speak etc. will determine for the most part how people relate to you, at least initially.

As a general rule I have learned not to break things down by gender but to see people as people; the truth is no matter the gender or the position in life, people who are in the position to, or people who are given the opportunity to, will general abuse or take advantage of whatever situation given to them.
The same things that a man will do, will usually be the same things that a woman will do, given the same opportunity.
By being unsure and unassertive about yourself will give that man or that woman the opportunity to dominate you, and they will.

The popular New Age writer James Redfield describes relationships between people as being a competition for the others energy, it may be ficticous or far fetched but I believe this view is a very insight way of looking at it, as it describes the various personality types and how each of them use various methods of obtaining the others energy.

I believe the so called Battle of the Sexes is exaggerated and is done so deliberately by each party mainly out of ignorance and fear, to further confuse the issues between man and woman, each ascribing a place, position and role that the other should fit in.
As each gender struggles in this millennia to find their own place in a changing world which is vastly different from the one their parents grew up in, growing pains are expected but it helps to know yourself first, which is important before you can overstand and relate to others.

Izemi-Clem

[BlackCryptoKnight]

As a general rule I have learned not to break things down by gender but to see people as people; the truth is no matter the gender or the position in life, people who are in the position to, or people who are given the opportunity to, will general abuse or take advantage of whatever situation given to them.
The same things that a man will do, will usually be the same things that a woman will do, given the same opportunity.
:eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Thou speakest the truth.

[AngelsKiss]

Hail

It has took me a while to overstand what this thread was about, and thankfully (so far) it hasn't had anything to do with bashing of any sort.

Xenocrates' descriptions of a woman's tendencies and thought patterns may be common enough in most women for most people (men) to be considered a general (enough) rule. But I might disagree with how general it should be used.

Izemi-Clem

Having read a few of your post, I have come to expect your mature and level headed way of expressing your thoughts. This post is no different.

Strangely enough I was just telling a friend that a big problem with relationships is that too often the people entering relationships do not have a good understanding of themselves muchless the other person.

To make matters worst we need to understand that there are differences between men and women and we need to understand those differences and accept them.


As a general rule I have learned not to break things down by gender but to see people as people; the truth is no matter the gender or the position in life, people who are in the position to, or people who are given the opportunity to, will general abuse or take advantage of whatever situation given to them.

I have been saying this forever so I am glad to see someone else saying it.

[Xenocrates]

I'm a "nice guy", who cares about peoples feelings, and I married a "hot woman" who could have had her pick of any guy she wanted.

- You got one-on-one assistance with homework, so you had the opportunity to exude your exceptionality where the others did not. You sir, were lucky -A situation where opportunity met preparation. Nothing more. It's the same principle being applied here. If the circumstances were any different, master BCK, you'd be in a very different boat. I guarantee it. Indeed; God was good.

However, there are hundreds of thousands of guys out there, just like you, who weren't so... shall we say... "lucky". They're prepared, but the opportunity hasn't yet presented itself. This is why your view on the whole situation is this: :rolleyes: - it's because your opportunity has already come and you see the rest of it as a charade, a silly, perhaps, childish game of sorts.

Most guys have to create that opportunity, master BCK, because the average woman doesn't notice the average man (that's how nature intended it). They only notice the exceptionally attractive man (this is natural selection at work). Some men (i.e. "nice guys"), sit and wait for the opportunity to present itself. In most cases, it never does. Some are lucky (the opportunity does occur), most are not. Your case is therefore, quite exceptional - since all you did was wait.

The guy who waits will never have his seed predicated. That's how nature ensures that wimps are weeded out of the g-nome. ;)


The generalizations made above, are not binding in all situations.

- Any reference to human behaviour is automatically a generalization. Tell me something I don't already know. This is hardly a counter-point, if it was intended to be. Anything else? :icon_mrgr


I believe the so called Battle of the Sexes is exaggerated and is done so deliberately by each party mainly out of ignorance and fear, to further confuse the issues between man and woman, each ascribing a place, position and role that the other should fit in.

- Opening a can of worms here:

Which battle are you referring to exactly? If you are talking about what was being discussed earlier, this has nothing to do with a battle. It's a psychological trait that is hardwired in every man and woman. We're nothing more than highly sophisticated animals.

The same rules apply in the jungle and in nature on a whole, just on a more visceral level. Every animal has a mating ritual. In every ritual the male courts the female. In most species the male is the dominant creature (particularly in the case of mammals, reptiles, avians, pices and most non-social insects) and the male is the one that initiates the act of courtship. The purpose of the male in courtship is to make himself more attractive to the choice female than the other competing males (don't y'all watch the Discovery Channel?) The same rules apply here.

(I can't believe I'm explaining this to you guys. :rolleyes: )

Our ID is our most primal psychological function. When a man finds a woman and they become attracted to each other, the very act is a predication of our animalistic ID. Everything about courtship is a fulfillment of the ID hardwired in our genetic construct.

Humans are just so sophisticated, that we often try to "over-rationalize" the very premise on which our psychological construct is based. We often try to construe an animalistic instinct as being "wrong", "flawed", "backward" or "silly". An attempt to do this will always fail as it is an attempt to raise us above the level of animal proper. Any attempt to do so will fail, since at the end of the day, we will only react to our environment like animals do - negating any point that would have been made before.

Sometimes our advanced intellect jars what would otherwise be a natural instinct (eg. being a "nice guy", expecting a woman to make the first move or that something will happen just because you both are within each other's proximity). No crocodile ever won a mate by waiting around. Only if he and that female croc are the only ones in the swamp at a given point (highly unlikely) would this occur. Even then, he'd still have to convince the female croc of his "masculinity". Therefore:

Carpe Diem! (Seize the day!)

If you snooze, you loose. Only in exceptional circumstances will anyone be in the right place at exactly the right time with absolutely NO competition. That's the stuff of soap operas. It's not that way for most people - not in real life. ;)

[nester-san]

LOL, Oh the battles I fought...memories.

Damn, I'm scarred like a wily samurai veteran....

But; Vene, vide, vince! (I came, I saw, I conquered!)

Not the woman, (cough,cough), but the situation.

Seeing as I am not even moderately attractive plus a nice guy to boot.

Two strikes against!

[AngelsKiss]

because the average woman doesn't notice the average man (that's how nature intended it). They only notice the exceptionally attractive man (this is natural selection at work). Some men (i.e. "nice guys"), sit and wait for the opportunity to present itself. In most cases, it never does. Some are lucky (the opportunity does occur), most are not. Your case is therefore, quite exceptional - since all you did was wait.

The opposite works too, very often I see men out there who won't give an average girl a second glance because she just isn't pretty enough or she doesn't have the right body type.

Life is about ppl not just about 1 sex. Yes we do have our differences but often enough it boils down to the individual . In other words maturity and consciousness comes in all forms.

We have overworked this man woman thing to death and have used it for all manner of excuses for human behaviour.

[Xenocrates]

The opposite works too, very often I see men out there who won't give an average girl a second glance because she just isn't pretty enough or she doesn't have the right body type.

- That base has already been covered. Check it:


If the woman is not regularly satiated (even by guys whom she has no interest in) then it is obvious that this approach will not work. It is quite likely that this is because the average guy doesn't take interest in a woman he doesn't find visually appealing (there has to be some initial instantiator to get his attention).

xD ;)


But; Vene, vide, vince! (I came, I saw, I conquered!)

- Just because I have a library stuck up my @$$:

Correction; It's Veni, Vidi, Vici

Latin verb conjugation follows the same principles as are found in Spanish (actually it's the other way around, since Latin predicated Spanish). But you get the idea. Ejemplo:

Vener (Latin: To arrive, to come, Spanish: Venir infinitive tense, same definition)
Vidir (Latin: To see, Spanish: Ver, infinitive tense, same definition)
Vice (Latin: To capture, conquer ....you get the idea)

All verbs are in their past irregular tense.

Yes, I know. I'm such a... :rolleyes:

[AngelsKiss]

- That base has already been covered. Check it:


Covered or not I was stating or for this matter restating a point to make point. It's as simple as that:icon_mrgr

[Xenocrates]

Awesome! http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/xenocrates/Smilies/2thumbs.gif

[BlackCryptoKnight]

- You got one-on-one assistance with homework, so you had the opportunity to exude your exceptionality where the others did not. You sir, were lucky -A situation where opportunity met preparation. Nothing more. It's the same principle being applied here. If the circumstances were any different, master BCK, you'd be in a very different boat. I guarantee it. Indeed; God was good.

However, there are hundreds of thousands of guys out there, just like you, who weren't so... shall we say... "lucky". They're prepared, but the opportunity hasn't yet presented itself. This is why your view on the whole situation is this: :rolleyes: - it's because your opportunity has already come and you see the rest of it as a charade, a silly, perhaps, childish game of sorts.

Most guys have to create that opportunity, master BCK, because the average woman doesn't notice the average man (that's how nature intended it). They only notice the exceptionally attractive man (this is natural selection at work). Some men (i.e. "nice guys"), sit and wait for the opportunity to present itself. In most cases, it never does. Some are lucky (the opportunity does occur), most are not. Your case is therefore, quite exceptional - since all you did was wait.

The guy who waits will never have his seed predicated. That's how nature ensures that wimps are weeded out of the g-nome. ;)

:cool:

I don't believe I was lucky. I believe I was blessed. There was no chance occurance there. I didn't just sit and idle. I prayed, waited on the Lord, and treated the people I came across with respect and friendship. Many people ruin their chances at having good relationships by trying to create that opportunity, rather than making the most of those that present themselves each and every day. Luck has nothing to do with it. People eliminate potentially good mates because of their prejudices towards "wimps" and "plain" people. Opportunities pass people's way every day.



- Any reference to human behaviour is automatically a generalization. Tell me something I don't already know. This is hardly a counter-point, if it was intended to be. Anything else? :icon_mrgr
It wasn't intended as a counter-point. It was intended as a statement of fact. :icon_mrgr

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail


- Opening a can of worms here:

:icon_arro Xeno, even worms are useful :)

We're nothing more than highly sophisticated animals.

I would like to believe that we (especially I and I) are more than just that.
Another thread perhaps?

Fact is that in the animal kingdom mating rituals are to prove to the female of the species the superiority of the male’s genes.
Whether he has to beat an entire army of bachelors or beat other peacocks in a plumage beauty contest, the female make her decision based on natures requirements to ensure the survival of the species by making use of the best gene pool available.

With humans, evolution in human behavior, society, advances in the sciences and especially human related politics has released us from such straight forward hard-wired impulse acceptance.


When a man finds a woman and they become attracted to each other, the very act is a predication of our animalistic ID. Everything about courtship is a fulfillment of the ID hardwired in our genetic construct.

- Our animalistic ID certainly influences our decisicion making process but today we see people making the choice of their mate not solely on the basis of who has the better gene pool but rather on a miriad of other qualifications. The importance of each qualification varies with the individual (both men and women) as they place their own point scheme to each quality.

We could through Manslow's hierarchy of needs or even get Freudian and we would still not be able to list the all the qualifications that someone could use to chose their mate.
You must have missed that episode of the Human Animal. :eusa_eh:

I'll be brief here as I believe that I've made my point as we all can sight various instances even among ourselves or our friends where selections have made no apparent sense to anyone but the people involved.

Izemi-Clem

[AngelsKiss]

even worms are useful

Yep...they are...for me to crush them :icon_mrgr





Oops that's my evil twin talking there :)

[Bahama Mama]

This has been a great discussion so far (only on CY). I find some nod of agreement with all the sides that have been presented, esp. Izemi's and Xeno's. I think there exists some intermediate between all that has been presented concerning human relations. Goes to show that like all things, human relations is not black and white, but rather strewn with grey areas.

[AngelsKiss]

-

Vener (Latin: To arrive, to come, Spanish: Venir infinitive tense, same definition)
Vidir (Latin: To see, Spanish: Ver, infinitive tense, same definition)
Vice (Latin: To capture, conquer ....you get the idea)


Since you seem to be giving language lessons do it properly, you forgot the Spanish for capture....Capturar :icon_mrgr

[nester-san]

You know, I watch TLC and Discovery and I have to say for a large majority of the times, behaviour between sexes still follows (as much as rule bound society will allow) ANIMAL behavior.

I saw an episode on sex and mating and was traumatised for days...

I learned:

Women who cheat, use birth control with husband/bf MUCH more than with Joe.

40% of Women in Married/Long Term relationships admitted that child may not be partners.

Women enjoy sex and request it more frequently from Joe than from hubby.

This was explained by saying just like in nature, women want to mate with the strongest, biggest man (insert gardener/poolboy/boss). Society allows them the freedom to do this while having the security of the good guy at home who will then raise and install good values into the offspring.


To counter us men rely on old Mother Nature too. When Animal part of brain thinks wifey maybe up to no good, our sperm count goes up by thousands of percentage points.

We unleash weird crooked looking sperm whose job it is to tangle up and destroy Joe's invaders, and semen fluid becomes some what acidic to help crooked sperm work. Then our super charged regular sperm get sent out.

So really, how much is attraction is still biological and how much is "newer"
choices based on modern rules.

[easyskanka]

The more you love someone is the more pain you feel when they hurt you. I don't understand women.Not many men would claim to,if they are being honest. I don't mind not understanding women.What I don't like in women is that sense of unprecedented air of vindictiveness they can appear to bring to bear if they decide you are an enemy.

One of the major strenghts of women is their determination. What they often lack in physical strength is more than made up for in focus and single-mindedness, hence amazing achievements in scholarly learnings and teachings. Physical and mental persuits like sailing the seas,mountaineering polar expeditions all testify to the remarkable attributes that women can summon up at their disposal when the going demands it.

Women often bemoan the lack of 'good men' being difficult to find as if they occupy the high ground where goodness is concerned.The truth is that 'good' is subjective to what your aspirations pertain to. Women were never meant to be fully understood, not by men anyway, just as the comings and goings of the wind has a margin of wonderment to just how it might or may not blow on any given day.

I must say that the kind of humour and quick wittedness displayed by Gillion is a very useful tool to have in one's arsenal when dealing with the ladies.Not only does it have the capacity to entertain and amuse those blessed with a sense of fun and humour but it can also serve to maintain that essential balance women seem to need in order to keep them from overstepping that fine line between respect and scorn.

Of course if Gillion does not have other positive attributes to compliment his wit and humour, then even these fine attributes will not necessarily ensure him being able to hold on to the lady of his dreams.

This is a male perspective of just a tiny fraction of my view of women.Reading the input from the posts submitted to this topic is genuinly a step or three in a forward direction for me personally.I have an idea of the sort of female that I would like to spend my life with.I may not find such a person to reciprocate my feelings but there's no harm in having them all the same.In fact I can't help having them, but I'd rather be alone than be with somene who is incapable of giving as much as they can recieve.

[Gillion]

In my readings on Zen I was told the story summarized thus.


A zen master was asked to enlighten the prince on zen.

For many months the prince did not understand the concept of zen.

One night the prince came to the master frustrated ...

"Master I meditate, I Study in great detail yet I cannot understand this thing."

Looking up at the sky the master said ... bring a bucket and fill it with water.


The prince brought the bucket of water and placed it on the ground.

The master said "Stir"

And the prince began to stir.

Then the master said ... look into the bucket of water and tell me what you see.

The prince said ... "Ripples of light.

The master said ... "stop the stir and let the water settle"

When the water settled ... the master asked the prince ... "what do you see ?"

The prince said ... "I see the moon !"

Good the master said ... that is ZEN !

You cannot see it unless you let you mind settle and become still like the bucket of water. If you stir your mind too much trying to grasp the knowing of a thing you will miss it and only get glimpses.

The studenet became enlightened.


I apply this story to this thread thusly ...

For us men ... when we deal with women ...

SETTLE YOUR MIND FIRST !

And this means ultimately ... KNOW THYSELF !

Or you will miss the whole picture.

A moon is prettier than mere ripples of light.

You get the message ?

--Ja matane...
Gillion san.

[nuhsenutten]

deep.......me get the drift ....deep ...........strying from the point a little .......what is zen all about G.

[Gillion]

deep.......me get the drift ....deep ...........strying from the point a little .......what is zen all about G.

In a nutshell ... constantly practiced mind and self discipline and a way of living.

Not having an over worked mind and body.

[nuhsenutten]

ok .......
mi going to have a look at it ....seems interesting

[Gillion]

ok .......
mi going to have a look at it ....seems interesting

You can find zen in the book of proverbs.

[nuhsenutten]

what about the site of google ?

[Gillion]

what about the site of google ?
The book of proverbs is much better at setting the foundation.

[Xenocrates]

I prayed, waited on the Lord, and treated the people I came across with respect and friendship.

- Tell that to the hundreds of perfect gentlemanly christian bachelors out there who are 40 year old virgins. ;) They're still "waiting on the lord" so to speak. I can count on one hand the number of women I know who would walk up to a guy and start a conversation just because she likes him. It never works that way in the real world 99% of the time.

What you may not realise, is that to expedite the process of marriage, many church congregations deliberately create opportunities for young people to get to know each other. Even Inter School Christian Fellowship (ISCF) facilitates this very function. That takes a significant deal out of the courtship routine for many christian men (hence the "waiting on the lord" fallacy). The church congregations repeatedly create this opportunity on a weekly basis. It has very little to do with "blessing" (yet another misnomer of christendom). For those men, it's just a matter of showing up at the weekly young people's meeting. Virtually every church congregation has a similar facility in place.

Even in this scenario, the truth is that if there's a girl that a guy likes and is introduced to her, she quite probably won't have the courage to make the first move after that. Even if it is the first phonecall, the first date, an amicable first hug, or just asking for her contact info, SOMEBODY has to make the first move! I don't know about you, but i haven't met many females who would do that. Thus:

The onus is on the male to initiate the rite of conquest, just like it is in the more raw animal kingdom.

Few men are lucky enough to find a female who is just as bold!

Have you ever been told by a male friend that a girl he liked got married to his best friend? When he told her how he felt, (like after several years of marriage) her response was:

"I felt the same way, but you didn't say anything to me, so I assumed you weren't interested..."

Have you ever heard that one before, Master BCK? Trust me dude... it happens. Like I said, if you snooze, you loose. So even if he waits on the lord, he shouldn't expect the lord to literally move the woman into his arms. He will put her within accessible proximity. The sexual protagonist is always the male (that's how God designed us!), so he has to make his intent known.

<ribbing>I feel however, that it's because you got married so young, why you feel the way you do about this issue. Isn't it? :icon_mrgr </ribbing>

I know you'll probably deny it, but it's the stuff of classic "Convenience Logic". This is where we say all really nice and fluffy things, because our situation was so convenient, that we never really got a chance to see how it really is out there. But that's ok. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it would help the greater reading audience to know, that it is never as simple as "waiting on the lord" and all the other wonderful things that come with it. Always remember James 2:20.

Cheers! ;)

[BlackCryptoKnight]

- Tell that to the hundreds of perfect gentlemanly christian bachelors out there who are 40 year old virgins. ;) They're still "waiting on the lord" so to speak. I can count on one hand the number of women I know who would walk up to a guy and start a conversation just because she likes him. It never works that way in the real world 99% of the time.
It never will work that way for those who have no faith in it working that way. ;)



What you may not realise, is that to expedite the process of marriage, many church congregations deliberately create opportunities for young people to get to know each other. Even Inter School Christian Fellowship (ISCF) facilitates this very function. That takes a significant deal out of the courtship routine for many christian men (hence the "waiting on the lord" fallacy). The church congregations repeatedly create this opportunity on a weekly basis. It has very little to do with "blessing" (yet another misnomer of christendom). For those men, it's just a matter of showing up at the weekly young people's meeting. Virtually every church congregation has a similar facility in place.
Social activities are available all over the place. We meet people at work, school, church, shopping etc. I'm well aware of the social activities which churches organize to help young people form friendships and such. Just throwing people in a room or other setting isn't going to guarantee a lasting relationship. All that is good is a blessing from God, good women included. ;)
There are quite a bit of those persons who show up for these organized match making gigs and still have not found a suitable partner. Despite orchestrated attempts to accelerate things, things will only happen in their own time, according to God's schedule.



Even in this scenario, the truth is that if there's a girl that a guy likes and is introduced to her, she quite probably won't have the courage to make the first move after that. Even if it is the first phonecall, the first date, an amicable first hug, or just asking for her contact info, SOMEBODY has to make the first move! I don't know about you, but i haven't met many females who would do that. Thus:

The onus is on the male to initiate the rite of conquest, just like it is in the more raw animal kingdom.

Few men are lucky enough to find a female who is just as bold!
I've met a few ladies who take the initiative. There are a lot more of them than you think.


Have you ever been told by a male friend that a girl he liked got married to his best friend? When he told her how he felt, (like after several years of marriage) her response was:

"I felt the same way, but you didn't say anything to me, so I assumed you weren't interested..."

Have you ever heard that one before, Master BCK? Trust me dude... it happens. Like I said, if you snooze, you loose. So even if he waits on the lord, he shouldn't expect the lord to literally move the woman into his arms. He will put her within accessible proximity. The sexual protagonist is always the male (that's how God designed us!), so he has to make his intent known.
Dude, I agree that one has to do the right thing at the right time in order to take advantage of an opportunitity that is presented to you. Where we may differ in opinion is in the determination of what the appropriate action really is, and whether it is in fact true that persons of a particular personality type are doomed to "finish last" and "lose" to others of more "Type A" mentality.
I just think that people are individuals and are unique, and though some traits may be similar in some people, the "forumula" you've given can't work for all persons. Not everyone is as how you described.


<ribbing>I feel however, that it's because you got married so young, why you feel the way you do about this issue. Isn't it? :icon_mrgr </ribbing>
Dude, I didn't get married "so young". I feel the way I feel about the issue because observation, experience, and what I have read/studied has convinced me of such.


I know you'll probably deny it, but it's the stuff of classic "Convenience Logic". This is where we say all really nice and fluffy things, because our situation was so convenient, that we never really got a chance to see how it really is out there. But that's ok. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it would help the greater reading audience to know, that it is never as simple as "waiting on the lord" and all the other wonderful things that come with it. Always remember James 2:20.

Cheers! ;)

There you go with the absolute statments again. If it weren't so simple as that, then I wouldn't be married. The fact that it worked that way for me, means that it can be as simple as that.

Psalm 37:3-6 NIV

3 Trust in the LORD and do good;
dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.

4 Delight yourself in the LORD
and he will give you the desires of your heart.

5 Commit your way to the LORD;
trust in him and he will do this:

6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn,
the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.

It doesn't work like that for many people because they've got this whole relationship thing warped. They think it's a game, so they look to play it. The honesty and sincerity God intended us to have toward each other becomes lost. People have lost whatever faith they have in the good that God intended for us. They've replaced it with theories and strategems to con and trick people into gratifying them, with the justification that, "that's how things are".

I'm very familiar with the challenges facing people in the dating scene Xeno, that's why I avoided all those pitfalls and headaches and took the course of action which I felt was appropriate and most effective.

I simply couldn't navigate through all the mess out there. God can. I just let Him drive.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Looks like we've gone a bit off track. :eusa_shif

[Xenocrates]

Looks like we've gone a bit off track.

No we haven't actually. The issue was "The trouble with women is...", but I've challenged the notion. The trouble is not really with the women, it's how we men approach the issue...

...which leads us to where we are now. Technically, we're still on topic. More on this later.


It never will work that way for those who have no faith in it working that way.

- Are you for real dude? :eusa_eh: You have got to be kidding me. Read and weep:


You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

- Fair enough? Moving on...


Just throwing people in a room or other setting isn't going to guarantee a lasting relationship.

- Quite right. Somebody needs to do something.


All that is good is a blessing from God, good women included.

- I concur. But some blessings we have to work for. God has never blessed any man or his family with riches unless he worked for it. Heck, for that reason alone, I'm not particularly tempted to use the word "blessings" so indiscriminately.


There are quite a bit of those persons who show up for these organized match making gigs and still have not found a suitable partner.

- Would that have anything to do with the fact that most women won't approach a man first? Hmmm... :eusa_thin


Despite orchestrated attempts to accelerate things, things will only happen in their own time, according to God's schedule.

- Right. When they're 40+ years old and not getting any younger. Makes sense to me. ;) The best time to get married is in the prime of your youth. I don't subscribe to the notion of mindlessly waiting on something magical to occur. You either make it happen or someone else will make it happen for you. The latter is highly improbable.


I've met a few ladies who take the initiative. There are a lot more of them than you think.

- Don't give them false hope BCK. Your wife is 1 in a million. Most women aren't like that. You make the mistake of assuming that there are enough women around like your wife for all the shy guys out there. You should take comfort in the fact that your wife is far more unique than you think. ;) In fact, ask as many women as you can find. Most women either aren't that bold or will never move the first pawn - period.


I just think that people are individuals and are unique...

- That sounds like an excuse for timid people to remain in their shell. For those of us with less of a force of character, "hoping" for a braver partner is not necessarily the wisest thing to do. They could be waiting a looong time.

[more...]

[Xenocrates]

The fact that it worked that way for me, means that it can be as simple as that.

- WRONG. The fact that it worked for you was a function of blind fate (more people would say "luck"). If you went to a different high school, your odds of a chance meeting would be severely slim. Average guys don't run into average women like your wife. The scenario is fundamentally flawed for general case application because it's such a warped exception to a general case! What you're failing to recognize here master BCK, is that:


In the GENERAL case - Most women won't make the first move. They're not creatures who have very high levels of self confidence by default. There are very gorgeous looking women out there BCK, who have remarkably, inexplicably low self esteem. So much so, that some guys are perplexed when they say things like "I'm ugly" or "I'm fat" etc. etc. You just haven't met enough women to realise this fact yet. Your wife is not the only woman in the world y'know. ;)


In exceptional cases - Few women have the self confidence to approach a male of interest. Have you ever heard of a "cocky" woman? It's pretty rare isn't it? Your wife is a remarkable exception and loosely falls into this category (not necessarily "cocky" women, just an exceptional case).


In comparison, guys have a substantially higher propensity to be "cocky" and self-assured than women. How many guys you know love to cry or are highly emotionally expressive? Few right? How many guys you know would ask his girlfriend if he was "fat"? :rotflm:

That's why it's a GENERALIZATION and applies to the vast majority of men and women. Highlighting exceptions do nothing to prove anything.

The fact that there are shy guys odes to a different sort of problem. However, sitting around won't guarantee shy guys any fortuitous female attention. Even if they do get female attention, it's usually of the "I only want to be friends" sort. Make no mistake, girls LOVE shy guys - but mostly for platonic friendships - which is like torture for a "hopeful" male.

When guys find the need to assume the role for which nature has predestinated for them, then that perception of a "problem" with women disappears. Y'see, as a man, you have to know yourself, before you can understand women. Understanding the psychology behind a woman's rationality is not as quantum physics as most men think. Once we understand how we think and why we think the way we do (and thus, eschewing our fallacious expectations of women) we can truly understand how women work.

That is why, my friend, you think this is a "game" or sorts. Faar from it. The trick is really to understand the problem with our own ways of thinking. My very first comment on this issue addressed a change in the behaviour of men, NOT women.

The problem with women is that men make excuses for their lack of success with women by blaming them for issues which originated in the minds of men.

There, I've exposed the fallacy.

So technically, the problem is with men.... not women. If you're not the most forward person out there, blaming women for their eccentricities won't make it go away. Hoping to find a match through sheer eventuality is a lost cause as well. There's too much element of chance in that scenario.

Once we accept that change management begins with us, the "problem" with women becomes more of act of discovery, rather than a ludicrous blame game on the opposite sex. I don't think it's fair to assume that there's a problem with women when there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we men tend to analyse the issue.

[Gillion]

Another zen story was told to me ...


Tanzan and Ekido were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.

Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.

"Come on, girl," said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.

Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"

"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"


As zennnnnoooo has said and I have also in my first post to this thread ... it is all in how we deal with ... fill in the blanks.

[Gillion]

The problem with women is that men make excuses for their lack of success with women by blaming them for issues which originated in the minds of men.


I don't think it's fair to assume that there's a problem with women when there's something fundamentally wrong with the way we men tend to analyse the issue.

Ahh smaddy close di chred !!!

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Xdude, if you re-read my posts, you'll see that I have no objection to the point that action has to be taken at the appropriate time in order to capitalize on an opportunity which presents itself. No need for me to weep over that. I already stated that I didn't sit idley and twiddle my thumbs either. I made mention of treating people with respect etc. in the way God intended us to. That's the "works" as far as I'm concerned - living according to God's word - not moving in like a predator on some "unsuspecting" hapless female that we've sized up as such because of generalization. The reward is the blessing of a good partner. God is faithful to those who are faithful to Him. Waiting on the Lord doesn't mean sitting back and doing nothing. It means trusting that He will deliver on His promises.

But I think y'all are taking my comments about kevlar and ducking behind walls just a bit too seriously. You've made some assumptions about my level of timidness, or my wife's level of assertiveness, which I dont' think are warranted or even necessarily accurate (funny thing about generalizations and assumptions :eusa_thin).


- Don't give them false hope BCK. Your wife is 1 in a million. Most women aren't like that. You make the mistake of assuming that there are enough women around like your wife for all the shy guys out there. You should take comfort in the fact that your wife is far more unique than you think. In fact, ask as many women as you can find. Most women either aren't that bold or will never move the first pawn - period.
It's not false hope Xeno. Everybody is "one in a million". We are all unique. That's a fact, not an excuse. It's because of this fact that generalizations cannot be relied upon as if they are true for all. People can, and do chose to break stereotypes.Generalizing the way you have actually hurts your chances of having any meaningful relationship because those viewpoints make it harder to look at people as people (individuals) but instead as just another player on the field on the other team. That approach won't be successfull.

The trouble with men and women, is that they both fail to put certain things in their proper perspective. Some things, which are really not that big a deal, are hyped, while the real things, are flopped.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

- WRONG. The fact that it worked for you was a function of blind fate (more people would say "luck"). If you went to a different high school, your odds of a chance meeting would be severely slim. Average guys don't run into average women like your wife. The scenario is fundamentally flawed for general case application because it's such a warped exception to a general case! What you're failing to recognize here master BCK, is that:


In the GENERAL case - Most women won't make the first move. They're not creatures who have very high levels of self confidence by default. There are very gorgeous looking women out there BCK, who have remarkably, inexplicably low self esteem. So much so, that some guys are perplexed when they say things like "I'm ugly" or "I'm fat" etc. etc. You just haven't met enough women to realise this fact yet. Your wife is not the only woman in the world y'know. ;)


In exceptional cases - Few women have the self confidence to approach a male of interest. Have you ever heard of a "cocky" woman? It's pretty rare isn't it? Your wife is a remarkable exception and loosely falls into this category (not necessarily "cocky" women, just an exceptional case).


You're making them assumptions again. lol I know a lot more than you give me credit for. I just come to different conclusions on some things than you do.

I don't believe in "blind luck" as you call it. With God, there's no "luck" or "chance" I think. I've seen too much evidence of divine design and planning in my life to think that anything named luck is to be credited. If I went to a different high school, He'd still have found a way to provide me with the companion I needed. He's that good.


That is why, my friend, you think this is a "game" or sorts. Faar from it. The trick is really to understand the problem with our own ways of thinking. My very first comment on this issue addressed a change in the behaviour of men, NOT women.
You've got it twisted my friend. I'm not the one who thinks it's a game. I actually take it seriously. Many of the wanna be pimps/pimpstresses and players think it's a game. That's why they come up with these ridiculous "rules" and "tactics" to "win". Generalization and stereotyping are at the root of these rules and tactics.

[easyskanka]

The trouble with men and women, is that they both fail to put certain things in their proper perspective. Some things, which are really not that big a deal, are hyped, while the real things, are flopped.[/QUOTE

Need we say anymore? I think this is the crux of the matter! I just wanted to place my head above the parapet to see what sort of potshots would come my way.You took your time BCK but you have crossed the line.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Need we say anymore? I think this is the crux of the matter! I just wanted to place my head above the parapet to see what sort of potshots would come my way.You took your time BCK but you have crossed the line.
Crossed which line breddrin?:eusa_thin

[nester-san]

I'm Curious too ???

hmmm...??

[AngelsKiss]

Need we say anymore? I think this is the crux of the matter! I just wanted to place my head above the parapet to see what sort of potshots would come my way.You took your time BCK but you have crossed the line.

Potshots? Crossed lines?

I am lost here. I think I missed something, may be someone can point it out?

[easyskanka]

Crossed which line breddrin?:eusa_thin

The start finish line

[BlackCryptoKnight]

The start finish line
Didn't know I was in a race. :eusa_thin

[AngelsKiss]

Didn't know I was in a race. :eusa_thin
LOL...you and who :icon_mrgr :dwl:


I should behave myself:p

[Xenocrates]

...not moving in like a predator on some "unsuspecting" hapless female that we've sized up as such because of generalization.

- I've made NO such allusion. What you're doing here is villifying what I wrote earlier. Nothing I have written earlier in this thread is "predatory" in nature. That's the #1 excuse of the same kind of mentality that I'm talking about.


It means trusting that He will deliver on His promises.

- Let me show you how flawed your argument is by asking you a simple question: After we trust God, (pray, etc. etc.) what next? Better yet, what are we trusting God for? Think about the question CAREFULLY before you answer, lest you start bawling that I twist you up again. :eusa_ange


You've made some assumptions about my level of timidness

- Errr... No I haven't. I've never once made mention of you or your timidness. I didn't even know you were a timid person. Are you really a timid person? If you are, this is the first time I've become aware of such a thing. If that's the case, then that explains why you're so strongly opposed to what I wrote earlier. In fact, this:


...I stood under a doorway and my poor wife (just an acquaintance at the time) was wandering around dazed, so I pulled her under the doorway with me. First time I held her in my arms, the earth moved...

...would seem to suggest otherwise - that you're not a timid person. I think you've misread me master BCK. Either that, or I've misinterpreted your personality characteristic as a rather bold, assertive individual. Which is it cassanova? :icon_mrgr


...or my wife's level of assertiveness

- No I haven't. YOU said:


...I married a "hot woman" who could have had her pick of any guy she wanted.

- Most women aren't exactly, shall we say, "hot", having a choice of any guy they want. That doesn't define the average woman, as was very clearly stipulated in what I wrote, which was this:


Average guys don't run into average women like your wife....Your wife is a remarkable exception and loosely falls into this category (not necessarily "cocky" women, just an exceptional case)

Read carefully before you respond to my statements master BCK. Don't villify my statements without due justification. I would never defame either yourself or your wife. You should know me well enough to know that such is faaar below me. I'm a little hurt you'd suppose such a thing. But like water off a duck's back...

... You're forgiven. Nuh feel nuh way my yute. He'vrybody mek mistake. We're brejins. We nuh lib suh. :icon_mrgr

Back to the discussion...

[more...]

[Xenocrates]

Everybody is "one in a million". We are all unique.

- WRONG again. What if I told you that there are 4 personality archetypes for EVERY person on this planet? I can walk up to any woman right now, start a casual conversation about politics, and immediately know whether or not she is my type - not because of her opinions, but how she responds to the questions. People are not as unique as you might believe!


That's a fact, not an excuse. It's because of this fact that generalizations cannot be relied upon as if they are true for all.

- For the 27 thousandth time, this is a Logical Fallacy! A generalization cannot be true for all. If it were, then it would be a RULE, an APPROXIMATION a QUANTITATIVELY OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON not a generalization.

ALL Generalizations assume that there exists AT LEAST ONE counter-positive.

For example:

Rule: Electrons are positively charged.
Generalization: Black governments tend to be corrupt.

Rule: Quantum particles travel at approximately 186,000 miles per second.
Generalization: Women tend to be insecure.

Rule: Cancer is caused by a deficiency of certain vitamins at the cellular level.
Generalization: Men are more bold, more assertive, more self-secure, and more obnoxious than women.

In every rule, there exists NO counter-positive. In every generalization, there exists AT LEAST ONE counter-positive.

There ARE some black governments that aren't corrupt - but they are FEW.
There ARE some women who aren't inherently insecure - but they are FEW.
There ARE some men who aren't bold - but trust me, THEY ARE FEW.

In contrast,

There are NO positively charged electrons.
There are NO sub 186,000 mps velocity quantum particles.
There are NO forms of cancer that aren't vitamin deficiency related.

Does everyone now see the difference between a GENERALIZTION and a RULE?

Therefore, this statement:


Generalization and stereotyping are at the root of these rules and tactics.

...is not proving anything. Pointing out that they're generalizations doesn't make a point. It's only pointing out a useless fact. We already know that. It doesn't make the statement any less true!

Wheel and rewind again chief. :p

[AngelsKiss]

All relative...from hot to average...all relative :icon_mrgr


Darn relative must be my new favourite word or something :p

[Xenocrates]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the issue you're trying to prove is that what was said earlier seems "dishonest". There's nothing dishonest about it if that's how God created people to interact with and court each other.

In fact, what I'm trying to get into your skull, master BCK, is that when you did this:


...so I pulled her under the doorway with me. First time I held her in my arms...

...YOU WERE ASSERTING YOUR MASCULINITY

It's the SAME THING I've been saying all along. You can pretty it up with "God sent" and "He blessed" as much as you want. The bottom line is this:


Your wife is a woman.
Women are attracted to bold displays of male masculinity
If you hadn't asserted your masculinity in some way, she would NOT have been attracted to you (not sexually anyway).


Herein lies our problem. Many men believe that being "super nice" is a way to get a woman's attention - herein, why it is falsely perceived that there is a problem with women. It will get a woman's attention, but not for mating purposes. In this scenario, a woman doesn't differentiate between a "nice guy" and one of her female friends.

Women don't want to get into relationships with "nice guys", because they only appeal to the non-sexual side of their mentality - the purely social, platonic, emotional side of her psyche. In her deep subconscious, she identifies him as a "gal-pal", but with a *****. She needs those kinds of friendships to fulfill a desire that a masculine male would probably do poorly at. That's one of the reasons why women LOVE going shopping with gay guys.

So essentially, A "nice guy" is only castrating himself.

Proof:

Did you know that a woman who is ovulating (shedding eggs from the fallopian tube) is more attracted to men which have more well defined physical masculine features, but when she is seeing her period (or after seeing her period) she is more attracted to men with more feminine features?

It's a WELL DOCUMENTED PSYCHOLOGICAL FACT!!! Don't take my word for it. GO TO THE LIBRARY AND PROVE IT YOURSELF!

Therefore, nothing I've written here is a "game" or a "tactic" or schemingly dishonest in any way shape or form. Women are attracted to men who behave like men. Men who behave like less of what they are won't get any serious female attention. I'm sure there were other masculine displays between you two that sealed her decision forever - but we don't need to get into that here.

Case in point: You didn't act like a wuss during that earthquake. ;)

I rest my case.

Locuti est. Causa finita est.

xD

[AngelsKiss]

Your wife is a woman.
Women are attracted to bold displays of male masculinity
If you hadn't asserted your masculinity in some way, she would NOT have been attracted to you (not sexually anyway).
[/list]

Herein lies our problem. Many men believe that being "super nice" is a way to get a woman's attention - herein, why it is falsely perceived that there is a problem with women. It will get a woman's attention, but not for mating purposes. In this scenario, a woman doesn't differentiate between a "nice guy" and one of her female friends.



Super nice is good, very good, so is a knight (man) in shinning armour:) Women don't want a man with a rusty armour :p

See BCK, we are back to the rescue me syndrone....darn am such an idiot :dwl:

[nuhsenutten]

hey r we still on topic here ....?????????????

[Lisa20]

It doesnt look that way..............but then again thats what we do best isnt it?:icon_lol:

[Madhacker]

:icon_arro Gillion's Girl

Eediat ting dat.

But I know what you guys are referring to. But there's a trick to it. I can especially relate to this:



Do you ever wonder why women are constantly drawn to guys who are jerks? It's based on this very simple premise:

Women are attracted to men who behave like men.

That's why "nice" guys will always finish last (or not at all). Women prefer men who are assertive, self-sufficient and don't worship them.

Yes, that's right.

The more mystique a man has, the more he seems to care less about what she thinks, the less dependent he is on her affection is the MORE attractive he is to her.

That's why I can especially relate to what easyskanka wrote up there. Women tend to take you for granted when you duck for cover or act as if you have something to loose from them when you have something to say. Women are attracted to men who are strong in character.

If you got something to say, say it. They won't necessarily like what you have to say, but you actually become more attrative to them for it. In fact, I've taken up the practice of telling a woman "No" recently. Have you ever tried that?

A girl asked me out recently. I flatly told her "No". It's not that I didn't find her attractive or didn't want to go out with her, but I was deliberately denying an immediate gratification for her desire. It makes it MORE intense for her. Ofcourse, she didn't stop pestering me to go out with her.

Little did she know, that I was BUILDING HER ATTRACTION for me. Even if I told her what I was doing. It wouldn't make a difference.

Give a woman everything she desires from you and she will eventually loose interest. Tell her "No" every once in a while, and she will feel LESS in control of you. Don't rationalize the "No". Don't even discuss it. Just say "No", leave it at that and walk away. In fact, if you're going to rationalize it, be cocky about it:

Her: Why not?
Me: Because then you're going to have a hard time resisting my incredible sense of humor, and I just can't have that.
Her: (laughs) Why? are you gay?
Me: (with a serious face) No. I just don't want to make you jealous when the other girl next to us starts hitting on me.
Her: (bursts out laughing with a ludicrous look on her face) Yeah you wish!
Me: I'm not the one asking you out, remember that. ;) (cocky smile on my face)

Let's just say I had a hard time getting her off the phone in the following weeks.

Works wonders. I'll tell you why:

Give her more credit for being a woman than is necessary, and she can dangle her crotch in front of you any day of the week. But if you're a man with "balls", you can say what you have to say and not fear loosing anything. A woman who can use her virtue to effect a man's opinion is the master of that man and thus, he becomes her slave.
DAVID DEANGELO dont lie u know it :eusa_whis
works every time Remember Dont Be A Wuss:eusa_danc

[Twinkie]

Well if it makes any difference, I totally agree with jus about everything Xeno is saying, I can't help it. I see me in almost every explanation or example he gives.

I want a man who will order dinner for me to when I ask for some doo-goo doo-goo, flat out tell me no!

[BlackCryptoKnight]

hey r we still on topic here ....?????????????
Honestly, I think wi gone off track still.

[Temptress]

This is the same woman that told me my six pack has long since disapeared and turn into a dutch pot.

Eeediat ting that, though when we are in a relationship after a while we all get comfy and stop doing some of the things we usually did when we first met

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Xdude, we gonna have to agree to disagree on some things. I know many females who don't fit into the characterizations you've expounded on, and I know many other "nice guys" who don't finish last. They aren't any less masculine because of their compassionate nature, and there are women who appreciate them for that.


After we trust God, (pray, etc. etc.) what next?
We wait on Him to fulfill His word while we continue to live according to His word.


Better yet, what are we trusting God for?
We should be trusting and having faith in God in everything. We shouldn't be holding back.

Hebrews 10:38 (King James Version)

38Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

We should trust that God will provide us with what we need, and that He will see to our happiness. He knows what is best for us, and that may not even be what we want, or expect.

When you make statements like:


Do you ever wonder why women are constantly drawn to guys who are jerks? It's based on this very simple premise:

Women are attracted to men who behave like men.

That's why "nice" guys will always finish last (or not at all). Women prefer men who are assertive, self-sufficient and don't worship them.

Yes, that's right.

The more mystique a man has, the more he seems to care less about what she thinks, the less dependent he is on her affection is the MORE attractive he is to her.

and


So essentially, A "nice guy" is only castrating himself.

you're making "nice" guys out to be something less than real men, which is ridiculous. You don't have to be a jerk to be a real man attract good women.
There are many women who see right through these guys and their gimmicks.

There's another side to that coin about the women falling for the jerks ... they eventually get hurt by said jerks. I've heard enough of these women complain bitterly after they've been abused and hurt (not necessarily physically) by these kinds of "men" and the women confess that what they really need and want is a man who will treat them with respect, and truly love them. All of the women I have met who fell for the kinds of "alpha male" guys you speak of, confess that they're actually no good and that the air of bravado and machismo is all a sham. Those guys cover up their insecurities and wimpiness (yes many of them are actually true wimps) by over emphasising their assertiveness, arrogance and self-confidence. This doesn't make them any more of a man than the "nice guys". The "nice guys" are the ones who have real courage and confidence to be true to themselves and their principles despite the negative things that may be said about or towards them.

"Nice guys" don't finish last dude. They avoid much of the drama and headache that others beat their heads up against. Those women who bypass them, are not real losses to them, because those women have issues. When these guys find their partners, they are truly happy, because those women are the sensible ones who aren't phased by the "airs of manliness" the jerks exude. They look past all that and see the real men. The women who go for the jerks have real problems psychologically - they aren't supposed to link with messed up people like that. Many women like that who I've met have serious self esteem issues and are insecure. They link with the jerks because the air of confidence and machismo compensates for their own perceived inadequacies. It's not a good thing, nor is it "normal".

So like I said, the trouble with men and women is that many times we give the wrong things priority and back bench those things which should have priority.

[easyskanka]

There are some men who are very clever in espousing great and lofty views etc etc, but in contrast to all their intelligence, are easily led by the schemings that some females inevitably get up to. Samson and Delilah spring to mind along with Ahab and Jezebel.

Why is it that no matter how intelligent a man might purport to be,there is almost always a female who will be able to wrap him around her little finger and lead him around like a bull with a ring in it's nose.Is this simply down to feminine charms or is there something somewhat more sinister at work here.

These type of women are undeniably strong willed and have strong character but surely they are preying on the insecurities of the men they seek to have control over.No doubt men who can see just what they are up to will be given extremely short thrift and will probably be set upon by their lacky males.

I love women but it does not make me blind to the more negative aspects of their characters.Women are not slow in coming forward to denounce men when it comes to debating their shortcomings,I should know,I am currently under such scutiny right now,but should that frighten me off from saying it anyhow? I think not! Far from attacking women for the sake of it,I tend to think that it is something positive that I have learned from women themselves,the ability to say what I mean,and mean what I say.

If by my expressing certain views I hold comes across as personal attacks by some individuals,is that really insecurity on my part or theirs? I have my faults and I sometimes admit to them.Does this make me insecure? Or am I just admitting that I have weaknesses and am willing to hold my hand up to it.;)

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

If by my expressing certain views I hold comes across as personal attacks by some individuals,is that really insecurity on my part or theirs? I have my faults and I sometimes admit to them.Does this make me insecure? Or am I just admitting that I have weaknesses and am willing to hold my hand up to it.

:icon_arro Easyskanka
Only you can answer these questions for yourself king, who you are in this forum is determined by how you present yourself.
No one is able to nor can they be expected to definetifively physco-analyse anyone's profile through this virtual experience.


These type of women are undeniably strong willed and have strong character but surely they are preying on the insecurities of the men they seek to have control over
Scenario: If you leave your car keys in the ignition and the doors wide open, you will only have yourself to blame if it is stolen.

Similarly if you allow a woman or any person to take advantage of you, it is yourself that has allowed them to do so.
The responsibilty is yours, what you find is that people make such generalizations about men and women to excuse their own inadequacies and failure to deal with their relationships effectively.

I have found that a strong willed woman is less likely to have a lacky as her mate, but rather it is the woman with deep rooted insercurieties and usually a history of personal truama that will need to exert that kind of control over her mate and vice-versa.
If you allow yourself to be led, you will be led, it is not what others have done to you but what you have allowed them to do to you.
If someone is bashing another person about their short commings, it would be wise to take a good look at what is happening on their side of things.

Izemi-Clem

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Scenario: If you leave your car keys in the ignition and the doors wide open, you will only have yourself to blame if it is stolen.
:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap


Similarly if you allow a woman or any person to take advantage of you, it is yourself that has allowed them to do so.
The responsibilty is yours, what you find is that people make such generalizations about men and women to excuse their own inadequacies and failure to deal with their relationships effectively.

I have found that a strong willed woman is less likely to have a lacky as her mate, but rather it is the woman with deep rooted insercurieties and usually a history of personal truama that will need to exert that kind of control over her mate and vice-versa.
If you allow yourself to be led, you will be led, it is not what others have done to you but what you have allowed them to do to you.
If someone is bashing another person about their short commings, it would be wise to take a good look at what is happening on their side of things.

Wrist-spec', anklespec, fingaspec' an' toespec' breddrin.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Persons who are secure and truly confident in themselves don't need to engage in overt displays of force, domination, machismo, arrogance, manipulation or aggression in order to prove themselves worthy, manly, womanly or whatever.

Well said Izemi.

[nuhsenutten]

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap


Wrist-spec', anklespec, fingaspec' an' toespec' breddrin.


.
mi think we get the point from the first one still BCK........:dwl:.

[AngelsKiss]

:icon_arro Easyskanka
Only you can answer these questions for yourself king, who you are in this forum is determined by how you present yourself.
No one is able to nor can they be expected to definetifively physco-analyse anyone's profile through this virtual experience.

Scenario: If you leave your car keys in the ignition and the doors wide open, you will only have yourself to blame if it is stolen.

Similarly if you allow a woman or any person to take advantage of you, it is yourself that has allowed them to do so.
The responsibilty is yours, what you find is that people make such generalizations about men and women to excuse their own inadequacies and failure to deal with their relationships effectively.

I have found that a strong willed woman is less likely to have a lacky as her mate, but rather it is the woman with deep rooted insercurieties and usually a history of personal truama that will need to exert that kind of control over her mate and vice-versa.
If you allow yourself to be led, you will be led, it is not what others have done to you but what you have allowed them to do to you.
If someone is bashing another person about their short commings, it would be wise to take a good look at what is happening on their side of things.

Izemi-Clem

Well said, I don't think it could get much better than this. :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

[easyskanka]

Didn't know I was in a race. :eusa_thin


Some things require a degree of common sense to be understood and a fully appreciated,not necessarily a university degree. common sense, normal good sense in practical matters,gained by experience of life not by special study.common-sense adjective showing common sense.

Some things are worth repeating for those who live by their own made up rules.;)

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Some things require a degree of common sense to be understood and a fully appreciated,not necessarily a university degree. common sense, normal good sense in practical matters,gained by experience of life not by special study.common-sense adjective showing common sense.

Some things are worth repeating for those who live by their own made up rules.;)

Huh? :eusa_thin


...

[AngelsKiss]

Huh? :eusa_thin


...
:dwl: Simply put yuh nuh got nuh common sense:dwl:

[Temptress]

Some things require a degree of common sense to be understood and a fully appreciated,not necessarily a university degree. common sense, normal good sense in practical matters,gained by experience of life not by special study.common-sense adjective showing common sense.

Some things are worth repeating for those who live by their own made up rules.;)

Regarding the topic - what u're saying is.............:icon_ques

[acidblade]

.................................................. ........................

[BlackCryptoKnight]

:dwl: Simply put yuh nuh got nuh common sense:dwl:

Aye caramba. :rolleyes:

[nuhsenutten]

Aye caramba. :rolleyes:
u watch some of those little inspector cartoons recently right ?

[BlackCryptoKnight]

u watch some of those little inspector cartoons recently right ?
A di new talk fi 2K6. Watch how it ago tek ova di place. You heard it here first. :icon_mrgr




Aye caramba. :rolleyes:





:rofl:

[nuhsenutten]

lol....dude ......wha u sey a u bus da one de!!!!!!!!!!!!.....nuh se nutten!

[Jae]

lol....dude ......wha u sey a u bus da one de!!!!!!!!!!!!.....nuh se nutten!
The whole lock stock an' barrel a unnuh in ya mad!!! Every single one!!!!

[BlackCryptoKnight]

The whole lock stock an' barrel a unnuh in ya mad!!! Every single one!!!!


Aye caramba. :rolleyes:

[bernie]

The whole lock stock an' barrel a unnuh in ya mad!!! Every single one!!!!
you deh call peeps mad?!:eusa_thin
what ever happened to that "life's little ironies" thread?:eusa_thin

[Gillion]

Aye caramba. :rolleyes:

mas grande mas grande mas grande !

[easyskanka]

mas grande mas grande mas grande !

Do you mean muy Grande (very big) mas grande is more big ( I think):icon_ques lo siento ( I am sorry) if wrong:)

[Brownsugar]

The trouble with women...is...we are too nice!:eusa_ange

[Nastro]

The trouble with women is.............Man

[nuhsenutten]

The trouble with women is.............Man
argument done ....nuff said nastro.........just run over to the next thread and mek the other post:D

[Temptress]

The trouble with women is.............Man

That solves it........:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Wonder what other males think about that:icon_lol: :icon_lol:

[Twinkie]

Bernie is the voice of all. So if he agrees, they all agrees. Now if this is a cop to get rid of all men, I am not down...see Independence or is it?? thread

[Xenocrates]

...back from Germany

Schaussen! :icon_mrgr


Honestly, I think wi gone off track still.

- No we haven't. We're discussing the problem with women - the problem is men. Now let's get to it:


I know many females who don't fit into the characterizations you've expounded on, and I know many other "nice guys" who don't finish last.

- Yes I know Master. For the 35 billionth time, every generalization has an exception to the rule, and that's why rules based on human behaviour are generalizations. I get the feeling I'll be repeating myself a billion fold until you guys get this right. :eusa_wall


They aren't any less masculine because of their compassionate nature, and there are women who appreciate them for that.

- Quite true; Yes they do appreciate them for that. They just don't want them as husbands. That's the problem; hence this discussion. ;)


...you're making "nice" guys out to be something less than real men, which is ridiculous.

- Now THAT is ridiculous. You know what is truly ridiculous BCK? Nice guys who want women who are attracted to men who behave like men.

If there is a problem with women, it's that they are only attracted to men who act like the creature they are. If that means that there's a problem with women, then something went terribly wrong in creation. Cuz heterosexual women just don't feel that kind of gut level attraction for these kinds of guys. They just don't, and that is truly sad. That is ridiculous - especially since God created them all. How messed up is that?


You don't have to be a jerk to be a real man attract good women.

- Nothing here asserts acting like a Jerk. The problem is that guys who are jerks behave that way by default. ;)


There are many women who see right through these guys and their gimmicks.

- Women who can "see", see through gimmicks that are intended to bed and leave them. Women who don't "see", can't tell the difference. If a man uses this knowledge to bed as many women as he pleases, he is indeed a jerk. But that doesn't make those men who attract women who they intend to marry, "jerks" as well. Ahhhh! A flaw with your logic!

I won't accuse you of generalizing, since that would constitute the same pointlessness that was attempted earlier. Now we can't have that, now can we? ;)

If you should sit and watch men who are "naturals" with women, you will notice the SAME kinds of behaviour. I know MANY such men, and they are respectable, MARRIED, christian men. They don't know about the specifics of their behaviour that draws women to them, they just notice that they have a way with women, and have a LOT of female friends. They don't understand the "why", they just notice that girls are just their biggest fans.

Does that make them jerks too?

Think about it. ;)

[Xenocrates]

There's another side to that coin about the women falling for the jerks ... they eventually get hurt by said jerks.

- True. Some knowledge is probably too dangerous for simpler minds. This doesn't make the knowledge dangerous - just the user. Guns are only as dangerous as the people who wield them. You fail to realise that not everyone with a gun is evil, likewise, not every man who knows how to attract women, is intent on exploiting them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that ANY use of this knowledge is evil - am I right or wrong?


Those guys cover up their insecurities and wimpiness (yes many of them are actually true wimps) by over emphasising their assertiveness, arrogance and self-confidence.

- That is indeed true. The cover-up part is the first step of their failure. As I have said before on this forum (not in this thread), "nice guys" who are frustrated with failure won't be mature enough to try to change the "who they are" instead of the "what they're doing".

When a guy changes the "who he is" in favour of becoming less of a "wimp", he is edging more and more towards something psychologists call "psychological integration". Remember those 4 personality arche-types I mentioned to you earlier? (I'll start a new thread on this soon) When a guy embodies all four of those personality arche types, behavioural psychologists refer to that as Psychological Integration - a state of PERFECT MALE MATURITY.

When a man is perfectly mature, he is:

25% Intellectually stimulated
25% Assertively motivated
25% Socially integrative, and
25% Artistically appreciative

The "wimps" we are referring to here are more:

65% Intellectually stimulated
5% Assertively motivated
10% Socially integrative, and
20% Artistically appreciative

It's always the "smartest" guys who are the weakest with women. Have you noticed? Remember that thread I started back some time ago called "Anti-Social Techies (http://www.caribyard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2401)"? Now you see my ulterior motive. ;)

The guys who become players, never truly alter their mindset. To them, it's more like a weapon of revenge. The guys who become truly mature, act that way by default. They are the ones who have made a conscious effort to change the person who they are, as opposed to the methods they employ. It's usually a long and trying process. But in the end, it becomes so hard wired in their psyche, that they achieve a level of psycho-social integration that embodies the true persona of masculinity that was intended for men!

[Xenocrates]

This doesn't make them any more of a man than the "nice guys". The "nice guys" are the ones who have real courage and confidence to be true to themselves and their principles despite the negative things that may be said about or towards them.

- NONSENSE! :eusa_snoo

There's NOTHING WRONG WITH MASCULINITY. God MADE us that way. All I'm saying here BCK, is that men should rediscover their masculinity. There is no sin in it. If they are devious people with socio-pathic disorders, then they should seek professional help.

But a man who fears women is NOT psychologically mature. A man who expects women to be drawn to them through an overly nurturing persona is NOT psychologically mature. A man who seeks only to beguile and entrap women is NOT psychologically mature.

Don't try to justify nice guys remaining nice guys because "that's who they are". You are only encouraging them to remain in their immature, psychologically undeveloped state. Every man has the ability to become a mature masculine edifice.

Again I state it:

The problem is not with women. The problem is with men.

God deliberately designed men with an aura and stigma of authority which women have a gut level attraction to. They can't explain it, they just know that it "turns them on" in as much as we men are sexually attracted to the fairer, weaker, femininity of women. It creates a gut level attraction that we men are inexplicably helpless to resist at times.

God deliberately designed men and women that way. There are no two ways about it.


"Nice guys" don't finish last dude. They avoid much of the drama and headache that others beat their heads up against.

- Nothing great ever came out of avoiding trials to beat one's head up against. In fact, most of our greatest inventions or freedoms today were earned through hard work and bloodshed. So don't go around making this kind of justification. Only nothing comes from nothing.

A man who runs from who he really should be is a coward. Nothing more. Nothing less. Men weren't designed to be cowards. That's the fundamental flaw with your arguments, they seem to support "nice" guys not wising up and accepting who they should be. If that were not the case, God would not call for "young men, because they were strong" and he most certainly did not lead armies with female soldiers. There is purposeful intelligence in our design.

In fact, now that you mention it, how can you talk about the double standards of women in authoritative roles, if you as a man have not already decided that the man is the stronger of the two sexes? THAT my friend, is a double standard. It's a double standard because now you're defending the "right" of men to be weak and effectless.

I'm sure you wouldn't find a woman who acts like a man attractive. It's the SAME thing here. Women don't find men who act like "women" attractive. It's that simple.

It's the man's job to be brave and the woman's to be nuturing; not the other way around. Get it right damnit. :icon_mrgr

[Xenocrates]

Those women who bypass them, are not real losses to them, because those women have issues.

- NOPE! Those women just didn't notice those men. All it takes to woo a good woman is to get yourself noticed. Once you're noticed, the job will fall at the foot of the man to do the sifting. That's how humans are programmed. This is yet another fallacious belief of innately cowardly men, that the woman must automatically notice me out of a crowd, because I'm a "nice" guy. That's not her job. His job is to get himself noticed. He has to establish himself as being worthy of courtship. That's how nature intended it. I've told you before, we're nothing more than sophisticated animals. The same rules apply in nature:

Male gorillas beat their chests.
Male Peacocks spread their feathers.
Male bluejays sing an elaborate song.
Male chickens do an elaborate dance with an extended wing.
Male crocodiles have to drown their competition.

...so why should male humans wait for the female to make the first move? :eusa_eh:

Good men go unnoticed all the time. But it's not necessarily the woman's fault. Good men have just have to make themselves stand out more distinctively than those "jerks" you are referring to. Why should the jerks be the only guys beating their chests, extending their feathers or singing an elaborate song?

God forbid!

Good guys have to do it too!

It is not a woman's job to court a man. It's the OTHER way around.


When these guys find their partners...

- Correction: When these guys get lucky. Ok, carry on:


...they are truly happy, because those women are the sensible ones who aren't phased by the "airs of manliness" the jerks exude.

- Sir, you are not giving women any credit. If I were a feminist, I would say that this remark was mysoginistic. The only reason why those women "discover" these men is because they got their opportunity to differentiate themselves from the rest.

That's why when I was a teenager, none of us coders would be without our "Norton Utilities". Macho guys are often too dumb to know how to solve his girl's diskette or virus problems. You have NO idea how many dates with great gals we earned because of Norton Utilities. :rotflm:

Man, those were the days.

The rules are still the same: We were able to differentiate ourselves from the rest. You're a techie - you should know this better than anybody else here.

[Xenocrates]

The women who go for the jerks have real problems psychologically - they aren't supposed to link with messed up people like that.

- HOW can you say that? If the man is already a jerk, OFCOURSE he will attract lots of unsuspecting women! How is that the woman's fault?

Everytime a woman becomes attracted to a man, she is taking a blind leap of faith. She is acting entirely on instinct and emotional unction. That's how women are designed!

There's nothing psychologically flawed with a woman for behaving this way. This is same nonsense argument I hear some christians saying, that "women are the reason why mankind is in sin".

RUBBISH!

Eve didn't know any better. Satan was a jerk. Once there's a jerk in the equation, there's NO WAY it can be the woman's fault. (God never even warned Eve about Satan - anyways, that's another thread) That's just us men trying to point the finger at women for our problems again. That's weak. We don't even have the balls to admit when we are wrong. If Adam was equally blameless, he'd have been smart enough to deny Eve - but he didn't. He didn't know any better either. So how's this the woman's fault again?

Case closed.


Many women like that who I've met have serious self esteem issues and are insecure.

- NEWSFLASH: Women are inherently insecure with self esteem issues - by default. Yes, it's a generalization. That's God's way of creating a desire in them for men. If women were inherently self-secure, they probably wouldn't need men in the first place.

You should pray to your God of love that your wife NEVER asks you if she is getting fat. If she does, (God forbid), I'd like you to remember this discussion. ;)

HINT: If women were already self-secure, they wouldn't be asking that question in the first place. In fact, women wouldn't:

1. Ask: "Do you think she's prettier than me?"
2. Get jealous over a passing female who catches his eye.
3. Keep the company of other females who are less attractive than herself
4. etc. etc.

Xeno: I could go on but...
CY: (cutting me off) ....blah, blah, blah, yes Xeno, we know... jeez :rolleyes: Get on with it already.


They link with the jerks because the air of confidence and machismo compensates for their own perceived inadequacies.

- And THAT, master BCK is how it works, at the ID level. That's the "gut" level attraction that I'm talking about. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. Women aren't attracted to men who can't be "Strong" for them. If she doesn't perceive it, she won't notice that he exists.

If that's a problem with women, then we men are about to find out which God we really serve.

Now excuse me. I'm running off to watch "King Kong". :icon_mrgr

[easyskanka]

:icon_arro Xeno. I think in your attempts to be overly nice to the ladies you end up sounding a wee bit on the condescending side.The observations that I make mention to are more than compensated for in the discussions that women can hold at any given time about men.

The problem with this discussion is that people are unable to distinguish when someone is playing devil's advocate (BM aside,see her response in the trouble with men..is..thread),she alone seems to understand exactly where I am coming from. Just because someone is capable of arguing or putting up a topic up for discussion does not mean that such a person only has a one dimensional outlook on a given subject.

Maybe this is what holds blacks back compared to many other races when it comes down to the finer points of macro and micro dynamics of discussions and comprehension.

I've said it before and I unfortunately keep on seeing it in our interactions in these postings,emotional content gets the better of logical detachment.Folks take things too personal as IF they think I am deliberately launching a personal attack on them.

Nevermind at least I am learning some valuable lessons as to why despite some very bright people amongst us we are seeking to diminish ourselves because we do not understand or respect who we are.A surefire recipe for disaster me thinks.

[AngelsKiss]

-
HINT: If women were already self-secure, they wouldn't be asking that question in the first place. In fact, women wouldn't:

1. Ask: "Do you think she's prettier than me?"
2. Get jealous over a passing female who catches his eye.
3. Keep the company of other females who are less attractive than herself
4. etc. etc.


This is news flash to me. I didn't realise that women did this and am a woman. I have many female friends and I don't recall seeing anyone of them behaved this way nor am I aware that they think this way.

What I find funny is item 3, that women would go out of their way to keep female company that is less attractive than they are. I thought people had friends for friendship and not for looks or to boost their self-esteem, well at least the genuine friendships that is.

Hmmm...may be I should start polling my friends on this to see what they think.

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail

:icon_arro Xeno, BCK, everyone

Allow me to make an "eye-servation".

Both your arguments will never mesh, regardless of how valid and relevant they are; 2 different sets of paradigms here.
BCK's definition of a "Nice Guy" has no relevance to the assertive, self confident male type of which Xenocrates speaks of.
Very definitively I might add.

I will suggest to you that BCK's position (like a few of us) differ because he is deemed to be "Honoured among Men" not only by his peers and society but most importantly by his wife and family.
He is a married man, separate from the "bag-a-man" grouping referred to as bachelors, not only by status but by philosophy as well.
His attitude and thinking will be different from his days of bachelorhood, his responsibilities are different, his perception of the world has changed.
For those of you who aren't married if and when you get there you'll overstand.
Having already bagged his prize (so to speak) his focus will no longer be on asserting himself to get that competitive edge in this tireless, protocol-changing world of mating rituals.
In BCK's world being a nice guy means it is important not to be a jerk, while asserting himself as man of the household his assertiveness has to be different while at the same time he has to be sensitive, tolerant,confident and disciplined. Easier said than done, few can live up these ideals, many married men are still behaving as if they are still bachelors: an excuse for thier indicipline, it is definetly not easy as now he no longer represents just himself but his union.

By no means am I disrespecting bachelors, it is the most important stage of a man's life, this is where he establishes himself and his ideals. This is where he learns his most important lessons in life and builds his foundation.

Xeno has taken an analytical approach to this period as he overstands that to be successful in any endeavor one has to overstand the "Why" in everything that he is involved with, rather than just acting on instinct.

I believe both BCK and Xeno are talking about two differnet fields of application which has lead to some very stimulating and very insightful discussion.

:icon_arro EasySkanka

I believe this thread has gone far beyond what you had originally intented as seems to be norm around here.
It has certainly been a good one (so far?).
I find that playing the devil's advocate has always been counter productive for me, misunderstandings is such cases are inevitable.
Being straight foward and direct (cause it what it may) in a forum such as this serves the purpose for which it was intended; to openily discuss thoughts and ideas and to share perspectives.
I have found that in virtual mediums such as this it is easy to take the difference in relating to people which you cannot face eye to eye for granted. Why make it any harder?
I know it's probably your style so let's use the term "strategically manipulative" rather than the "devil's advocate" it sounds "easier" to "Skank" to :icon_lol:

Izemi-Clem

[easyskanka]

:icon_arro Izemi-Clem.Well you can refer to it differently if you so wish,but I know what I had in mind when I chose to go down this path. My persuit was/is not to gain popular support by treading a fine line. To always seek never to offend is to become often compromised as we try to pander to that which will ensure we do not lose popularity points.

That is where I come in.I say what I honestly think without fear or favour to anyone except my conscience. I acknowledge that I cannot possibly be right in every aspect of thought that I might hold or attempt to espouse and again I am not afraid of differing responses to what I have to say.However it is interesting to me that what I knew I had in my own mind was only corresponded to by one individual,who thankfully happened to be a female person who was not ensnared by my approach to that subject.

devil's advocate,one who tests a theory by putting forward possible objections to it. I was being objectionable but not intentionally personal as to launching an attack on women. Sometimes we have to enter the lion's den and once inside you don't sweet-talk the lioness.

[Xenocrates]

I think in your attempts to be overly nice to the ladies you end up sounding a wee bit on the condescending side.

- No chief. Ask anyone here who knows me from TechJamaica days. When it comes to a debate, I don't feel the need to score points with anyone. I'm just confident enough in my positions to defend them logically and assiduously. That will always be misinterpreted as arrogance or condescendence. I don't believe that emotional interpretation of a man's arguments has any place in a debate, because it's what makes us form attitude perceptions of each other (which are usually false), instead of focussing on the argument. I just state what I believe with as much logic and reasoning behind it as possible.

Concordantly, I'm not particularly interested in having people agree with me. The instant that happens, we'll have nothing to talk about. ;)

When it comes to debates, I'm very much a predominantly left-brain kind of person. I'm not big on the emotional "fuzzy-logic" side of things, because to me, that right-brain kind of position always convolutes the truth of the issue and thus perpetuates a belief in what is obviously a logical fallacy.

I save the right-brain kinds of discussions for when I'm having some down time chilling with my favourite people. :icon_mrgr

But, as Izemi-Clem has stated:


I believe both BCK and Xeno are talking about two differnet fields of application which has lead to some very stimulating and very insightful discussion.

- which is the intended end result. BCK and I are not enemies. We've been having these kinds of discussions from 2003 back on TechJamaica. We do this for the fun of it.

HOWEVER, this:


I will suggest to you that BCK's position (like a few of us) differ because he is deemed to be "Honoured among Men" not only by his peers and society but most importantly by his wife and family.

...nicely surmizes the situation, and succinctly confirms what I've stated before in this thread:

The primary reason why anyone would hold the opposing side of this debate is because they are already married and have never had to develop masculine maturity outside of marriage. Such a person would probably not be able to relate to what I'm talking about. Therefore, I expect anyone in that position to defend it to the death. It only makes sense!

(Who's the real devil's advocate now? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/xenocrates/Smilies/mwahaha.gif)

The logical flaw with this position is directly related to the fact that marriage has already taken place, in BCK's situation, much sooner than the average guy would have normally. That alone has skewered his belief for the "nice guy" philosophy. His unusually favourable position (God bless him) has led him to believe that that's how it really is in the real world.

Most men know otherwise.

The REALITY of the situation is that most people in that situation were just in the right place at the right time. Whether one decides to interpret this as "God's blessing", "Blind luck" or even "love at first sight" is quite probably inconsequential. The bottom line is that it doesn't work that way most of the time.

Therefore, telling any other guy (especially an unmarried or uncommitted guy) that it's that simple is incredulously misleading. 99% of all guys are never in the right place at the right time. That sounds more like a fairy tale or the plot to a romantic comedy to me than a real world depiction. So please forgive me if I don't believe in pink unicorns.

The average male marries between ages 25 - 31. Statistically, most marriages which start sooner than this end in divorce (UN World Statistics, circa 2003). However, some young people form prolific bonds from their early teens and marry early in life with very lasting marriages. That's a reality - but it is a comparatively RARE occurrence. That's my point.

Anyone in the abovementioned position will NOT understand the subtelty of the psychology behind this scenario - which is easily misread as being a "game" or "gimmick" of sorts. It's NOT. That's why I agree with this:


Having already bagged his prize (so to speak) his focus will no longer be on asserting himself to get that competitive edge in this tireless, protocol-changing world of mating rituals.

...which is EXACTLY what I've been saying since the debate started.

I am a firm believer in the fact that all things have a rational explanation - ALL THINGS. We humans only interpret "magic" when we can't see the logic behind it. People in BCK's position will still have a lot of "magic" to contend with. That's not a bad thing. In fact, that's EXCELLENT! Therefore, I wouldn't expect anyone in this scenario to get it - not that they would need to.

Why would they concern themselves with such things? They're already married! (Chi-ching!)

Cheers mates. :cool:

:icon_arro AK

It happens more often than you think my dear. But have you ever considered the reality of the fact that outspoken women like yourself will obviously be more openly opinionated than those who fit the general case? Think about it. That's what makes you so unique. ;)

[Manu]

........
I see something never change. Another pointless...long and drawn out debate....lol. Atleast I know I didn't miss much :D

[BlackCryptoKnight]

:icon_arro Izemi

Respec' for the kind words breddrin.

My views on the whole man woman thing haven't changed much after marriage. If anything, they've re-enforced what I already observed, and believed. When I was single, I was a "nice guy". I had opportunities to be with ladies, and I opted to wait until I found the one that was right for me. When I met her, I made the most of the opportunity as best a "nice guy" can. My competitive edge was the fact that I was in fact, a "nice guy". I actually respected, listened to, and understood the women I came into contact with (notice I didn't say women in general - each one is unique). If I were single today, I'd approach it the same way, and I know I'd get good results.

There is an element of truth to Xeno's stereotype, but it only applies to some women, and particularly those who have been socialized a particular way. Those women's definition of what is "masculine" and desirable in a man is influenced heavily by their family environment and the messages they receive in the media etc. There are some women, who had family lifes and experiences which lead them to different perspectives on what constitutes "manliness" and their definition is broader than the alpha male kind of view that Xeno proposes. These women view "nice guys" as real men.

:icon_arro Xeno

Like I said earlier though, I think we'll have to agree to disagree with respect to certain points. We differ in our viewpoints on what constitutes being a "real man" and whether "nice guys" fall into this category as far as how females view them. Your observation and experience leads you to your view, and mine leads me to my view. If it works for you, then great. Mine worked, and is working for me, so I'm kewl ;)

Oh, I didn't actually get married that early dude. Dunno where you got that from. Loads of people get married much younger than I did. In my case though, my wife and I were together for a long time before marriage. So it kinda feels like I've been married a long time ;)

You'd be surprised at how much more stories like mine are possible X. The problem is that people have been socialized to work against facillitating those kinds of opportunities. Every person of the opposite sex that you meet is a potential mate (unless you're already related). It's just a matter of whether you are compatible, and willing to give each other a try. Too many people kill the chance for anything to blossom, not realizing that they are in the right place at the right time. I don't trivialize the hand that God has to play in these things. I may not know that opportunity is knocking but He does. Hence I believe that by doing as He wills, essentially helps me to work with the program and reap the benefit of what He has facillitated. As such, I don't believe that my opinions as expressed offers false hope to anyone. Women today suffer so much rubbish at the hands of wannabe players and alpha males that many of them appreciate the refreshing change of pace when a "nice guy" actually approaches them with respect and genuine care/concern/compassion. But too many guys are afraid of diminishing their maleness to actually be a "nice guy" and see the rewards.

Such is life.

I just think people are people. People have many problems, many of them, self inflicted.

[AngelsKiss]

Nicely put BCK.

I have quiet a few male friends who are the nicest men you would ever find on the face of the earth and they are all happily married to wonderful women.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Nicely put BCK.

Not bad for a guy with no common sense huh? :eusa_whis
:icon_mrgr

[AngelsKiss]

Not bad for a guy with no common sense huh? :eusa_whis
:icon_mrgr
LMBO...true...me thinks you may have some common sense after all:icon_mrgr

[Twinkie]

Hail
I find that playing the devil's advocate has always been counter productive for me, misunderstandings is such cases are inevitable.
Being straight foward and direct (cause it what it may) in a forum such as this serves the purpose for which it was intended; to openily discuss thoughts and ideas and to share perspectives.
Izemi-Clem
No no no no no. None of that straight forward stuff around here. "It is shunned upon, especially if it goes against the grain"

[Xenocrates]

:icon_arro BCK


Oh, I didn't actually get married that early dude. Dunno where you got that from.

- I'll show you:


...Yup I got married "in the prime of my youth"...

- Taken from this page (http://www.caribyard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5749&highlight=married+early#post5749). http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/xenocrates/Smilies/mwahaha.gif

Anyways, well done chief. :eusa_clap I think I've played Devil's Advocate long enough with this topic. I think every point has been brought out and exhausted on both sides. So now, I'm off to find another thread to hijack and victimize... http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/xenocrates/Smilies/devil.gif