To all the girls out there:

I so often hear from girls that guys don’t understand them, and there’s the whole running joke of “What women really mean: Yes=No, No=No, Fine=No” and all that kind of crap. So in my quest for truth, I have come to this barrier and I’d like any help you’re willing to give me. A few questions about your gender:

  1. I often see in movies or on tv shows, or in Myspace bulletins**, or wherever, this idea of a perfect romantic love, that seems unbreakable and eternal, but even though so many girls seem to like that idea, when a guy really likes them that way they either “just want to be friends” or they don’t trust him and think he’s just out for sex. Why would you reject the fairytale love if you like it so much?

  2. Related: I know girls who watch those kind of movies and post those stupid bulletins, but at the same time act like (or explicitly say) they don’t believe that kind of love really exists. This seems contradictory.

  3. This has nothing to do with love but… high heeled shoes. I have never met a single woman who thought high heels were comfortable, even remotely. Why would you wear them? Why not get some practical woman designer to invent fashionable dress-up shoes that don’t murder your feet all night?

More questions will come as I think of them. I have about 4 billion questions that I would like to hear answers to, (even though I of course already have answers of my own that you would probably disagree with), but I can’t think of most of those questions right now. NOTE TO OTHER GUYS: You probably have the same questions as me. If you can think of any of them post them too.


**Such as: “Find the guy who calls you beautiful instead of hot, who calls you back when you hang up on him, who will lie under the stars and listen to your heartbeat, or will stay awake just to watch you sleep… wait for the boy who kisses your forehead, who wants to show you off to the world when you are in sweats, who holds your hand in front of his friends, who thinks you’re just as pretty without makeup on. One who is constantly reminding you of how much he cares and how lucky his is to have you… The one who turns to his friends and says, 'that’s her.'”

“I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.” --Marx.

Satyr has answered this question in his excellent essay, The Feminization of Man (which can be found in the Essays and Theses forum):

CI: From your post speaks the assumption that girls to understand themselves. Rational men often have trouble seducing women because they treat them by rational standards, whereas they (in general, especially feminine women) respond to emotional ones. Emotional understanding is understanding of the rythyms of nature, understanding that the no of one moment can mean the yes of the next.

I think this whole “men are like this, women like this” nonsense is overdone. No women or man can speak for the rest of her or his gender. Any given woman or man has a trifling amount of insight beyond any given member of the opposite sex. I have found that treating a person as a person, caring about their needs, and being natural is your best bet. There’s no formula for how to understand such a diverse class of people as women or men. What one woman wants, another finds annoying.
Don’t forget that genitals are not a lobe of the brain.

A salmon doesn’t know why it begins swimming upstream, despite the dangers and sacrifices this entails. It follows a preexisting ingrained pattern of behavior (path of least resistance or of habituation) which it remains oblivious to.
It has little self-awareness. It is thoughtless activity; animated matter (life) with little directing brain power (mind).

A human (an otherness) can study this pattern of repetitive behavior and ‘know’ the salmon more than the salmon knows itself.
Man can then sit back and wait for the fish to swim into its net.

Carleas

Yes, well given this line of reasoning we can never know a dog or a salmon or an ass or anything for that matter.
We must treat each individual creature as a pure uniqueness, devoid of a past and fully willful, free and self-aware in all its activities.

This romantic tripe is the underlying cause for much human confusion.

I suspect that saying “Woman have vaginas and men have penises” is a gross exaggeration and generalization that no modern, sensitive mind can accept as a fact.
Imagine categorizing individual minds by studying their outer manifestations and activities.
Imagine that.

Given this line of reasoning marketing should be ineffective, scientific study in psychology or any categorizing discipline (all of them) is primitive.
We should have a distinct psychology for every human being ever born or that will be born, because modern man is soooooo complicated and oh so unique in his individual behavior and activity.
I think we should abolish the study of species altogether and dedicate our minds to studying individual creatures.

Why study and construct behavioral truths about sheep, for instance, when each sheep is sooooooo complicated and unique on its own.

But wait!..
Aren’t all individual creatures also generalizations, or unities of multiplicity?
Should we talk only about cellular behavior?

But this too is a generalization.
Perhaps quantum fluctuations is the way to go – God forbid we insult cells by assuming that they adhere to a pattern of behavior.

It’s obvious. When I look around me I see individual minds, each behaving in unique ways.
It’s a wonder politics works at all or that marketing is effective or that we can organize into communities…being so unique and all.
It’s a wonder why we agree on anything.

Here’s a rule of thumb to keep in mind: The ones most fervently proclaiming mankind’s complicated nature or uniqueness or value or sanctity or free-will or reason, are the ones the least in possession of these ambiguous, absolute ideals.

To put it plainly: The person talking about how special (s)he is or how unique or how incomprehensible (s)he is, or how deserving and special and indefinable, is the most simplistic, simpleton in the group.

I would submit the possibility that a simple mind finds what it above its comprehension complicated or chaotic or random whereas to a more complicated mind the same thing would be understandable, predictable, simple and ordered.

The mind is an ordering mechanism.
The weaker it is, the less able it is to order its perceptions into comprehensible abstractions.

You exaggerate my perpective to an absurd extreme. I merely mean to say that asking anyone to give you the insight into how to pick up women or men is silly, regardless of the gender of the person being asked.
While I didn’t deny mental stereotypes of gender, I do deny that they are biological. This is the clear root of my perspective (that both women and men have about the same amount of insight into female-ness and male-ness).
That said, I am realistic that men and women in society follow certain trends, and that those trends can be used to make mostly accurate predictions. I’m just skeptical of the root of the origin of the trends, and so I do not take the trends to be dogma.
It’s also important to note that a statistical trend will not help you very much on an individual level. Averaged across millions, people are pretty generic, where as any given person may deviate substantially from the norm without affecting the statistical trend.

I don’t believe that there is anything inherently complex about humans, we are all the same, male and female when you boil it down to the foundation.

All humans that have ever walked this earth are ruled by two physical attributes (physically speaking) and those are laziness and selfishness. Technically laziness can be considered a product of selfishness so I guess it can be boiled down to one physical attribute.

When it comes to Women, just treat them the way you would like to be treated and let the chips fall where they may, fighting or trying to control it is futile.

Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!

Ok, rather than examine your motives I am just going to answer your questions, as a female :wink:

#1 We DO like the perfect romantic love. However, it has to be reciprocal. Just because you have the feeling of ‘eternal love’ for a girl doesn’t mean she feels it back. The intensity doesn’t matter if the love isn’t mutual. We DO want that kind of romantic love, but we want it with someone that we can feel that way about in return.

#2 We live in the real world and unfortunately, that kind of love is very rare. Most people are so affected by what the media says, and what your friends say, and maintaining your image and whatnot, that a lot of times you miss the opportunity at something really great. You start believing it doesn’t exist because you don’t allow for it because of your other priorities.
IE, some people are shallow.

#3 High heels - actually, I don’t find them any more UNcomfortable than other shoes, heels are neutral to me. However, Vanity is the word these days, and women will go through even worse things than uncomfortable shoes in order to be ‘acceptable’ by what the society and the media dictate.

Those three replies only apply to some women, and apply equally well to some men. There’s no reason to separate.

As pessimistic as it was, at least Kingdaddy’s post was gender blind. Way to go.

Well like I said, I’m not trying to examine his motives for asking the question, but he asked a question of females, and as 1 of many females, I was just giving my thoughts :slight_smile: That’s all.

The inability to comprehend the meaningful ways in which men and women are so very different is what gender blindness is really all about.

If you can’t see the myriad differences that arise from men being enterers and women being receivers, that women nurture their offspring from within for the first nine months of their offspring’s life, that women are naturally more in touch with their body and feelings than men, then you’re living in a fantasy.

Oh, that is so wrong!

You are speaking merely of those who calibrate from their ego in response to the dog-eat-dog neurotically competitive socioeconomic system that damages people psychologically and makes them physically ill.

That so very many typically need a regular hourly break from the system’s compulsive demand to competitively slave to psychological and physical exhaustion doesn’t mean that’s “human nature”, that only means they value their health.

Human beings desire to thrive by nature, and they will put forth effort to do so given a real chance.

When that real chance isn’t truly there, as in the present socioeconomic system, the masses don’t thrive, they simply struggle to survive.

The lack of thriving and resignation to survive is overwhelmingly exhausting, and many “lazy and selfish” breaks are required to keep one’s sanity and biological health.

You can’t use your superego’s “love” for the present socioeconomic system as the mechanism for discerning what human nature is – you’ll be wrong every time, because you will only be polly-parroting what the system is “saying” as if you were a greedy business owner.

You obviously are a conservative, money-loving, man.

well, you say, when a guy really likes them, they just want to be friends. It is not like they are just going to give it all to just any a guy who likes them, any more than a woman who falls in love with you and treats you right, does not neccessarily make you in love.

your interpretation of the data is where the error lies. Girls and guyes (at least some of us) desire and hope and believe in pationate powerful (even real if you want to use that word) love, but you are interpreting the doubting that many people have about having it in their own lives as a belief, but it is more of personal achievment doubt, and that is the error of your data, not their contradiction. (PS. Life is full of contradictions, especially in love, at least I have experienced that.)

this is kind of a shitty place many women are stuck in. Since modern society values a woman of beauty, then if a women does not wear uncofortable clothes, she is not valued as much as a pretty women. But then on the flip side, if she does dress up real nice, than according to post-christian societies, she is easy, unpure and vain. So, she get’s the shit pileone way or the other. Kind of sucks eh? It isn’t the womans fault that she will be demeaned either way. Society is set up to serve men, women dress up for men. This is an old feminist concept, that will probably be revised soon, but the point still remains, women get the short end of the stick, and it sucks even more when men blame them for it.

creation imperfect, I also have questions about this stuff, but you gotta look at it outside of a males perspective, and these questions are always wicked (as they say in boston) subjective in the way they are interpreted.

well first hint:
stop treading them like aliens, don’t tell me everything men do is comfortable for them? None of us does just the comfortable things… yes it’s true it is not comfortable to wear high hills neither is it to put hot wax on your legs and to pull it off it hurts like sh** and that is true. Yet still trying to find ONE guy who prefers a woman with hair all over you WILL fail. See it’s all the same we both men and women want to be loved… not romantically it’s much plainer. We want someone to be around when we are fine and when we are down, we want every now and then someone to be close to that means physically and we do want to be liked and accepted the way we are. And to find someone who might be tricked into becoming that person to us we try to impress each other permanently. Both do that, men and women. You answered your question pretty much yourself, you said:

Well WHEN, or better if, for most men pretend they have a serious interest and next morning boom gone with the wind, wouldn’t be TOO bad if women wouldn’t have a natural higher risk of a dramatically ending, even WITHOUT him… pregnant means pregnant and nothing is 100% save …
So what to do? Well nothing… we are neither aliens nor are men from mars and women from Venus… we are all human we have all the same needs. If you are honest none of these question was MEANT… you know what YOU want and therefore you know what “she” wants too, only prob, think of her and your risks… done? Great then go and have fun now… but one might give you a small hint , well another guy already did he wrote this song.
(Great thing: you can not call me neither a racist nor a feminist now for it’s John who wrote that:)
Woman is the nigger of
the world
Yes she is…think about it
Woman is the nigger of
the world
Think about it…do
something about it

We make her paint her
face and dance
If she won’t be slave ,we
say that she don’t love us
If she’s real, we say she’s
trying to be a man
While putting her down we
pretend that she is above us
Woman is the nigger of
the world…yes she is
If you don’t believe me take a
look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Ah yeah…better scream
about it
We make her bear and raise
our children
And then we leave her flat for
being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only
place she would be
Then we complain that she’s
too unworldly to be our friend
Woman is the nigger of
the world…yes she is
If you don’t believe me take a
look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Yeah (think about it)

We insult her everyday on TV
And wonder why she has no
guts or confidence
When she’s young we kill her
will to be free
While telling her not to be so
smart we put her down for being so dumb
Woman is the nigger of
the world…yes she is
If you don’t believe me take a
look to the one you’re with
Woman is the slaves of
the slaves
Yes she is…if you believe me,
you better scream about it.

Repeat:
We make her paint her
face and dance
We make her paint her
face and dance We make her paint her
face and dance
By John Lennon

that is partly true you have no clue how often I am called a “little girl” before I even said a word, prejudges ruin it all… most men don’t even try to think about what a woman says… it’s clear she is female she has no brain… instead of that she has got a womb…halleluiah …

John Lennon I love you.

We are all human and we all have the same feelings and fears at our foundation, that’s all I meant, don’t get your panties in a wad.

So you deny the idea that you are driven by selfishness? Fine, can you show me what influences you the most if not self?

Your statement was thread-contextually meaningless.

What you meant to do was pander.

Do you wear panties too, Kingdaddy? :astonished:

After all, “we’re all the same”, to you. :laughing:

Your statement here is much more meaningful than any of your previous ones.

Here you imply allusion to a foundational difference between men and women that’s relevant.

It is not required that I provide annecdotals to rebut your statement that you’ve built upon miscomprehension.

“Selfishness” does not mean “of and about the self”.

Selfishness means unfairly, unequally sacrificing the wants and needs of others for your own ego.

The ego is not the self.

Now stop diverting this thread from the intent of its opening post.

Foundational differences between women and men must be accounted for.

Men must realize that eons of brutally overpowering the women in their lives has created a “genetic” culture whereby men must prove to women that they are safe. Such is done with politeness, patience, and a respect for their feelings. Women who do not respond to that are too damaged, and not worth a man’s time until they repair and get well.

Gender blindness would be a step in the right direction. The golden rule of do unto others has nothing to do with gender or race.

Do you even know what your talking about? Receivers, …Enterers? WTF?

Keep your projections to your self.

You don’t get to redefine the meaning just to suite your agenda, look it up in the dictionary.

I posted on topic with my thoughts, if you don’t like them then too bad, I’ll post when and where I please and you are not the thread police so GFY.

The Golden Rule is topically irrelevant.

The original poster was asking about information unique about women from women.

He was asking for information.

Not only are you a man, but you now give a directive instead of information that was requested.

Your behavior-directive irrelevancy is meaningless.

WTF indeed! :laughing:

That you don’t get it … is why I rest my case about the obvious differences between men and women.

The only one projecting here is you, Kingdaddy. :laughing:

Actually, I’m told by administrators here that everyone is authorized to request that people stay on topic.

So, once again, stop digressing, Kingdaddy.

I’m beginning to wonder, however, if you might relate to something Virulent recently posted:

Hopefully you may find some value in it.