Re: There are no Nice Girls.
MrWigglesworth
the niceness is motivated by insecurity rather than a genuine concern for
the other person. For me it's about attitude. If a guy says he is a nice
guy, but also believes that "nice guys finish last", he's automatically
suspect.
A good looking woman will get away with a lot of selfish behaviour. But
then, so will a good looking man.
JimSummers
Except if they're real artists, men can't have it all, they can't both
look innocent - be rewarded for Goodness, and at the same time get all
the
>earthly rewards they want.
This is brilliant!!!! Great way of describing it!
GoddessBaybee
MrWigglesworth says...
Exactly.
IMO, Frank seems to be hiding from some of his own issues with these elaborate
"nice guys / submissive&dominance theories". He seems to want to portray
himself as a 'persecuted victim' who is being tragically punished for his
'goodness'. I'm guessing the truth is far less glamorous. Like most guys here,
he probably doesn't do too well with women because he's shy and rather socially
isolated.
Frank,
if you're reading this, I gotta ask...
why do you twist issues around to cast yourself as "victim"?
Do you see yourself as a victim in general?
Were you victimised in your past?
Baybee
MrWigglesworth
>own issues with these elaborate "nice guys /
>submissive&dominance theories".
To be fair, I think he's on the right track with a lot of what he posts,
he just takes it too far and uses it to justify his inaction.
>He seems to want to portray himself as a
>'persecuted victim' who is being tragically
>punished for his 'goodness'.
Yeah, I get that impression too.
>Like most guys here, he probably doesn't do too
>well with women because he's shy and rather
>socially isolated.
Yes, I keep saying that the social isolation is one of the key factors
here. Don't know if anyone listens, though.
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article
<2f24aa16f7189a7f...@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com>
MrWigglesworth <mrwiggles...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>However, sometimes the niceness is motivated by insecurity rather than
>a genuine concern for the other person. For me it's about attitude.
Why does the motivation for a behaviour (that benefits you!) matter?
>If a guy says he is a nice guy, but also believes that "nice guys
>finish last", he's automatically suspect.
A reasonable suspicion - as such a guy would be persisting in irrational
behaviour *consciously* (even if only due to inertia).
>A good looking woman will get away with a lot of selfish behaviour. But
>then, so will a good looking man.
An ugly girl will *also* get away with a lot of selfish behaviour. That
was Fr@nk's point - niceness tells you relatively little about a woman's
(un)selfishness.
- --
I've generally found that the fastest way to get the right answer on the net
is to confidently assert the answer you believe to be right; those who know
will immediately correct you, while if you just ask, often no answers arrive.
All it requires is a willingness to look bad on occasion.
- Joe Buck on g...@gcc.gnu.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFC7ziB/FmLrNfLpjMRAlGSAJ4iKfA+L1uNUjz5p9IsFQAVz3Bi6QCfV3FY
YHh9ngzaVqpdG0IRzu9UVDY=
=By3o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
helen
{so fuck you}
h
Russ
their niceness to guys. Women seem to feel that showing strength and
bitchiness is a turn on for all guys, for it's only true for some.
Women think that if they show their true vulnerable selves that men
won't like them, But this is not true. I find vulnerablity in women
very attractive and a real plus for me. In the same way, i like to feel
vulnerable around a woman i know i can trust and share feelings with.
MrWigglesworth
>benefits you!) matter?
If someone is being "nice" because they are insecure, then they are more
likely to be cloying, distrustful and passive-aggressive down the line.
If someone's motivations for being nice aren't genuine, the crap will
bubble to the surface sooner or later. This is the same whether they are
man or woman.
>An ugly girl will *also* get away with a lot of
>selfish behaviour. That was Fr@nk's point -
>niceness tells you relatively little about a
>woman's (un)selfishness.
Well, I don't know about that. If a pretty girl pulls some shit, she can
bat her eyelids and people will say "Awww... how could I be mad at you?"
I don't know if an ugly girl could get away with that. Not in my
experience.
Is Frank trying to say that a man's motivation for being nice is
automatically suspect, while women are assumed to be nice by default? I
can kind of wrap my head around that, but I don't think it's as big an
issue as he is making out.
F家nk
Russ <russm...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> I think nice girls do exist, they just don't feel that they can
> express their niceness to guys. Women seem to feel that showing
> strength and bitchiness is a turn on for all guys, for it's only true
> for some.
>
> Women think that if they show their true vulnerable selves that men
> won't like them, But this is not true.
> I find vulnerablity in women
> very attractive and a real plus for me.
and so do most men. I don't agree with you theory that girls have to act
mean when they want to attract a guy. Sure, many girls play hard to get, but
I don't call that meanness. Meanness, for me, is more something like a bad
guy who will make fun of one of his friends in front of the girl he likes,
because girls like to see a guy demonstrate his manliness, especially by
meanness.
And anyway, you have to admit that we don't often hear the advice given
to girls : "your problem is that you're too nice! You're a nice girl! That's
why you don't attract men!".
> I think nice girls do exist,
I never said the contrary. I even said that most girls are nice, so much
that even when a girl is a real bitch, it's hard to tell. The question was :
"are there *purely* nice girls?", cause my point is that if women are
generally nicer than men (it's a generally known fact), it's because for
girls, niceness and utility coincides. That's why there are so many nice
girls. But they have few merit, as they don't know what it is to be a nice
guy, where real pure niceness means renouncing to many earthly rewards that
we would get if we were less nice. While for girls, being nice does not just
deprive them of no earthly reward at all, on the contrary, niceness itself
brings them more earthly rewards.
So yeah, girls are nice, sensitive, cute, often shy, but it's easy for
them. For girls, selfishness and niceness are basically the same thing.
> In the same way, i like to
> feel vulnerable around a woman i know i can trust and share feelings
> with.
yeah, and girls can afford that, while you can't. I mean, maybe you'll
find a gf one day, despite that, maybe you already have one, but it doesn't
change the fact that showing your niceness to a woman (unless it's fake bad
boy niceness) will rarely help you get the girl. On the contrary, for most
girls, pure niceness, pure non-selfishness is a turn-off for most girls. It
makes them see you as a priest, or at best, as a good friend.
JimSummers
bubble to the surface >sooner or later.
What about if someone's motivations for being a Bad Boy aren't genuine
either?
MrWigglesworth
>Boy aren't genuine either?
What do you mean? You mean, if someone is being an asshole to attract
women, rather than being an inherent asshole?
I don't know. Often people can tell whether a guy is actually "Bad" or
just a poser.
JimSummers
women, rather than being an >inherent asshole?
Yes, how many of the guys are just copying the asshole behavior without
really meaning it?
>I don't know. Often people can tell whether a guy is actually "Bad" or
just a poser.
Are you sure?
F家nk
GoddessBaybee <goddes...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> In article
> <2f24aa16f7189a7f...@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com>,
> MrWigglesworth says...
> >
> > I don't think that niceness is a bad thing for guys. However,
> > sometimes the niceness is motivated by insecurity rather than a
> > genuine concern for the other person. For me it's about attitude.
> > If a guy says he is a nice guy, but also believes that "nice guys
> > finish last", he's automatically suspect.
> >
> > A good looking woman will get away with a lot of selfish behaviour.
> > But then, so will a good looking man.
>
> Exactly.
>
> IMO, Frank seems to be hiding from some of his own issues with these
> elaborate "nice guys / submissive&dominance theories". He seems to
> want to portray himself as a 'persecuted victim' who is being
> tragically punished for his 'goodness'. I'm guessing the truth is
> far less glamorous.
> Like most guys here, he probably doesn't do too
> well with women because he's shy and rather socially isolated.
Shyness is just the expression of my Goodness. Same for social isolation
: for example receiving emails makes me really nervous, and replying really
feels like a chore. Why? Because I can't stand the thought of using people,
of taking pleasure out of them. I'm just constantly thinking of what *I* can
do for *them*. For example, when I feel bad, I could act on my desire to
talk about my problems with someone, like a good person I trust, or a family
member. But I don't. I just don't want to bother people, with anything. And
as I know that nothing in my life is attractive, I don't want to bother
anyone (I was only keeping contact with really assertive girls, hoping that
one day they would accept to use me...)
Now, I recognize that I was probably *too* good. My only definition of
Goodness was non-selfishness (and non-narcissism). So I was just sacrificing
my self constantly, and I was even refusing to be proud of my Goodness,
because I thought that pride was bad (and yeah, these double-binds of
non-selfishness morals made me go insane). I was refusing to do anything
that would make me look superior to anyone else. It was some kind of general
vow of total poverty. And despite all this, I was always feeling terribly
guilty for doing few charity work (not enough, by far), but this was because
of another double-bind : on one hand, I didn't want to work in college
because intelligence and culture was the one thing that was making people
feel inferior to me, and on the other hand, I was finding it ridiculous to
help others (more charity work) while personally being unable to support
myself.
But 1) you can't blame me for applying the fucked-up Christian ideology of
Goodness as non-selfishness, non-narcissism, poverty, self-sacrifice...
2) when a girl does the same, even when she ends up being a total
self-hating slave (as I was), as long as she's not ugly (and I'm far from
ugly), she easily finds a bf or husband. Why? Because men *love* slaves. On
the contrary, as most women are submissive, as most women are looking for a
confident man, it's been really hard for me to find a gf, despite my
"ABUSE-ME!" sign written on my forehead (and my good looks).
So that's why I repeat that, for girls, self-sacrifice never really
exists, cause the more a girl behaves like a slave, the stronger a provider
she will attract. I know that because it's what my mother did.
> Frank,
> if you're reading this, I gotta ask...
>
> why do you twist issues around to cast yourself as "victim"?
I don't twist issues. I proved that there is a double-standard. Prove me
wrong, or deal with it.
> Do you see yourself as a victim in general?
When a man tries to be Good, he becomes a victim. Other men take
advantage of him, most women ignore him. When a woman tries to be Good,
nobody asks her why she keeps behaving as a victim. Why? Because in girls,
goodness and utility are the same thing. That's why nice girls are winners,
while nice guys are constantly put down for being "losers", behaving as
"victims".
But now I won't let you women call me false victim anymore. Stop trying
to put me down. It doesn't work. It doesn't work anymore. I *was* Good, it's
true, deal with it. This Goodness itself led me to be ignored by girls, it's
true, deal with it. Goodness in girls is always rewarded, that's why girls
are generally nicer than guys, it's true, deal with it. A nice guy has more
merit for being nice than a nice girl, it's true, and you don't want to
admit this. Your hot woman's life is far easier than a shy man's life, it's
true, and you don't want to admit it, you hate it when people denounce your
priviledges, you'd rather see yourself as someone who's neither a victim nor
lucky, just a normal person. But let's face it : who ever admits to having
priviledges?
> Were you victimised in your past?
Oh yeah. And I didn't want to become a sadistic abuser, full of
narcissistic rage, as he was. I just wanted to be good. Sorry. No, no, don't
congratulate me, all the sacrifices I've done it was probably easy to do
them. I have no merit and I don't deserve any reward for it, earthly or
spiritual. I'm just a whiner playing victim to get what he wants, I know.
F家nk
helen <helens...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> i'm a nice (not mean, quiet, sexually ambivalent) grrl.
> {so fuck you}
being a nice girl is easy, and well rewarded. That's why I say that pure
niceness in girls can't really exist.
MrWigglesworth
>asshole behavior without really meaning it?
A lot of them, I guess. They see what behaviours "work" and copy them. I
put work in quotations because being an asshole is very good at attracting
a certain type of women, which is fine if that's what you're after.
>Are you sure?
No, not really. I guess if they're *that* good at pretending to be
assholes, then no-one would know either way.
F家nk
MrWigglesworth <mrwiggles...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote :
> > Why does the motivation for a behaviour (that
> > benefits you!) matter?
>
> If someone is being "nice" because they are insecure, then they are
> more likely to be cloying, distrustful and passive-aggressive down
> the line. If someone's motivations for being nice aren't genuine, the
> crap will bubble to the surface sooner or later. This is the same
> whether they are man or woman.
>
> > An ugly girl will *also* get away with a lot of
> > selfish behaviour. That was Fr@nk's point -
> > niceness tells you relatively little about a
> > woman's (un)selfishness.
>
> Well, I don't know about that. If a pretty girl pulls some shit, she
> can bat her eyelids and people will say "Awww... how could I be mad
> at you?" I don't know if an ugly girl could get away with that. Not
> in my experience.
Well, to put it differently, I'd say that the point is not who gets away
with being bad, it's who gets away with being good. And men usually don't
get away with being (too) good, they end up alone, rejected, ridiculed,
humiliated, considered as fags, losers, false victims. And they're certainly
not praised for all this Goodness. On the contrary, women can get away with
being good, even too good. That attracts providers, Masters, and though they
may use her, let's face it, people who are too good, like to be used, they
like to see themselves as saints. And these women who are extremely good,
self-sacrificing, shy or even social phobics get very well away with it :
not only do they find a man to support them financially, but once they've
had 2 children and done a bit of charity work in their spare-time, they're
praised as if they were total saints, and as they haven't become angry at
life as their male saintly counterparts, they're never called whiners or
losers or people using their apparent niceness as an alibi for their
failures in life.
Now, about getting away with being bad... Well, I think that the point
is not which men can get away with being bad. The point is that men HAVE TO
BE BAD. We have to be real men, strong, providers, selfish, we shouldn't
have too much feelings, not too much conscience... So yeah, the point is
that women can get away in life with being good, while men generally can't.
> Is Frank trying to say that a man's motivation for being nice is
> automatically suspect, while women are assumed to be nice by default?
Well at least in this group, a nice guy is usually suspect of just using
niceness as an alibi for his laziness (not enough efforts to overcome
shyness), and his wimpiness, and IRL, it's a fact that many people will
suspect a very nice guy of being gay. People seem to think : "why is he so
nice?? He probably knows that being very nice, very polite etc won't get him
laid with any woman... So if he's so nice, it probably means that he's
gay!". They never think : "hey, maybe he really would love to find a gf, and
treat her well, but maybe he's so nice that he thinks that lusting after a
girl is bad, maybe he thinks that being a manly bad guy is bad...". IE they
never think that he could be nice just for moral reasons.
While I say that *on the contrary*, it's girls whose niceness should be
suspect, and for good reasons : it should be suspect of just being a way of
conforming socially, in order to be popular and get laid with bad boys. IOW,
a really prosaic motivation for morals...
So yeah, I think that the issue is big. What I'm denouncing is the whole
lie and double-standard of good girls / bad guys. I think that we live in a
Christian society where sexuality is usually considered as bad, and it's a
shame that it's only guys who have to bear the responsibility of doing
things that are considered bad by our society (like fondling a stranger girl
from behind, in a club, for example).
Now of course, girls are also considered bad when they accept to have
sex with too many guys. But once again, the point was not to know who gets
away with being bad. Anyway, girls who sleep around have a lot of fun, and
if they were feeling so bad then they wouldn't do it. The point is that it's
much easier for a girl to get by in life being good, than it is for a guy.
There is far fewer conflicts for a girl between being good and being happy.
A girl can be good, bordering on saint, and get married, have children, live
a happy sexuality, and she will never have anything wrong to do to get all
these earthly rewards. IOW, her hands will be totally clean. While we, shy
guys who are shy because we're nice (and yes, that leaves out Babs!), we ALL
have, one day or another, to face this tricky metaphysical conflict : should
I remain a nice person, a good boy, a good mamma's boy, or do I soil my
hands, do I decide to kill my father figure and fuck my mother figure (oh
btw, you know, the mother, the Good woman, the Good person, the person who
managed to live a successful life without ever soiling her hands, the woman
that thus, we put on a pedestal, as we did, then, with all the other members
of the female gender, these *nice* people, *good* people, so nice, so sweet,
so morally perfect, so fragile that we became totally afraid of soiling
them, afraid of taking responsibility for breaking the Christian taboos
linked to sex and trying to establish a sexual relationship with another
human being...)
So instead of being blamed, I think that bad boys should be praised for
having the courage to break the fucked up Christian morals, the fucked up
morals of non-selfishness, with which there would be no masters on life,
just slaves, and if "bad" boys didn't take the responsibility of breaking
the taboos of sex, then the human species would become extinct!
I mean, sure, bad boys are sometimes praised, but certainly not by
feminists, and the fact that they're still called "bad" says a lot. I think
that bad boys are just guys who try to have sex. And there's nothing wrong
in that.
MrWigglesworth
how secular France is compared to Australia, but I don't think France is
as puritan as all that. Some guys think it's bad for a guy to think of a
girl in a sexual way. So women end up thinking of him as gay, or
asexual.
I don't know how you define "nice", but it seems to encompass a whole lot
of thought patterns and behaviours that aren't necessarily a good thing.
Being afraid to express your sexual interest in someone, while it may be
motivated by a genuine concern for the other person's feelings, isn't a
behaviour that should be respected or condoned. A person can be "too
nice".
It's a spectrum. You have a complete asshole on one end, who just wants
sex and doesn't care who he hurts to get it. On the other end, you have a
guy who is unable to act, crippled by his concern for the other person's
feelings. A healthy guy should be in the middle somewhere.
And yes, a woman will be praised and respected for a different set of
behaviours than a man. Women and men aren't interchangable cogs, but you
know that already.
Darkfalz
obvious and immediate reward (ie. date with good looking guy).
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <42f02b59$0$30060$636a...@news.free.fr> "F?ank"
<a...@for.email> wrote:
>But now I won't let you women call me false victim anymore. Stop trying
>to put me down. It doesn't work. It doesn't work anymore. I *was* Good,
>it's true, deal with it.
You're such a jerk, Fr@nk. I'm so proud of you!
:)
- --
There is a lot of food in a supermarket, too, but a supermarket isn't
the best place to hold a dinner party. -- Christopher Faylor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFC8J3f/FmLrNfLpjMRAmOrAJ0QCUk8ofyRLkiT658wbiMLVClETQCfXKlk
dtCbqgOpmlCztXlXC9+w23w=
=li4S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <Xns96A710CA2C58Eeh3du@localhost> Troll <tr...@master.com>
wrote:
>For some reason, many people by the term "nice girl" mean a fat and
>totally unattractive bitch with no female qualities. So, when they say
>that "men don't pay attention to the nice girls because they are
>shallow" they mean that men don't find fat depressed blobs fuckable.
A while ago I made the mistake of challenging those women on that Rules
board i was stalking (I finally just gave up one day - one of the straws
of negativity/victimology broke this camel's back) on these implicit
associations between "nice" and "unattractive".
They were talking about movies which portray a woman spilling all her
tears on some nice guy's shoulders, and they eventually get together. I
pointed out that IRL, the nice guy *doesn't* get the girl. He gets to
see how the love of his life goes from one jerk to the next.
The (predictable, in retrospect) response was that there's probably a
nerdy girl whom he isn't even noticing.
Take note of the implicit value judgement: the nice guy "deserves" a
"nerdy" (probably a euphemism for ugly, un-fun) girl. For such a guy,
getting a girl he finds attractive is an unreasonable hope. Instead, he
SHOULD (moral judgement) "settle" for a girl in his *own* league. That
being "nerdy" (read as un-pretty, un-fun) girls, of course.
I'm still looking for a soundbite to parry the next time a woman tells
me I'm "nice" in a way that suggests she has this implicit association
between "nice" and "unattractive". Something that passes her test
without making me an outright jerk.
I'd have loved to see that Harvard (?) study on implicit associations
compare "nice" with "attractive".
- --
"If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge." - Henry Spencer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFC8KS7/FmLrNfLpjMRAmnAAJ9cAsY2HrwaFjH2iY+RFNB3EcM0MgCfdo4H
1EjddIFjjV60wXH1PInP+zM=
=dtZd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
GoddessBaybee
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <Xns96A710CA2C58Eeh3du@localhost> Troll <tr...@master.com>
>wrote:
>>For some reason, many people by the term "nice girl" mean a fat and
>>totally unattractive bitch with no female qualities. So, when they say
>>that "men don't pay attention to the nice girls because they are
>>shallow" they mean that men don't find fat depressed blobs fuckable.
If you could see how it's the exact same situation with "nice guys",
you'd finally get it. "Nice guy" is repeatedly used to describe physically
unattractive and severely socially awkward guys, it's a euphemism that doesn't
really have much to do with "nice".
>A while ago I made the mistake of challenging those women on that Rules
>board i was stalking (I finally just gave up one day - one of the straws
>of negativity/victimology broke this camel's back) on these implicit
>associations between "nice" and "unattractive".
>
>They were talking about movies which portray a woman spilling all her
>tears on some nice guy's shoulders, and they eventually get together. I
>pointed out that IRL, the nice guy *doesn't* get the girl. He gets to
>see how the love of his life goes from one jerk to the next.
>
>The (predictable, in retrospect) response was that there's probably a
>nerdy girl whom he isn't even noticing.
>Take note of the implicit value judgement: the nice guy "deserves" a
>"nerdy" (probably a euphemism for ugly, un-fun) girl.
This is because "nice guy" like "nice girl" is often used as a euphemism for
unattractive. When an unattractive guy complains that he's getting ignored by
women, many women understandably point out that he's doing the exact same thing
by ignoring women he finds unattractive. The most annoying thing about the
"nice guy" and "nice girl" debate is the tendency to want to assume some sort of
moral high ground, where as far as I can see, neither gender has one.
>For such a guy,
>getting a girl he finds attractive is an unreasonable hope. Instead, he
>SHOULD (moral judgement) "settle" for a girl in his *own* league. That
>being "nerdy" (read as un-pretty, un-fun) girls, of course.
>
>I'm still looking for a soundbite to parry the next time a woman tells
>me I'm "nice" in a way that suggests she has this implicit association
>between "nice" and "unattractive". Something that passes her test
>without making me an outright jerk.
>
>I'd have loved to see that Harvard (?) study on implicit associations
>compare "nice" with "attractive".
That would be interesting.
I don't really think they'd be a strong correlation (if actually measuring
actual objective nice traits). In reality, attractive people can be nice or not
nice and unattractive people can be nice or not nice. I'm sure some would argue
that good looking people are more likely to be nasty cuz they can get away with
it, but prolly unattractive people are more likely to be nasty due to
bitterness, so I'm guessing it probably evens out in the end, and true niceness
is a rather individual thing.
Baybee
helen
w/ all those erect penises pointed at us like shotguns?
>and well rewarded. That's why I say that pure
>niceness in girls can't really exist.
don't worry frank-ly,
you'll always be the bigest victim,
esp. of yourself.
h
helen
etc....
you've given this a lot of thought...
too bad.
{keep it up}
h
GoddessBaybee
Frank, this sounds more like neurosis than "goodness".
I'm not trying to insult you; you do really seem like a good person, but you
also seem to have serious mental health issues.
>My only definition of
>Goodness was non-selfishness (and non-narcissism). So I was just sacrificing
>my self constantly,
Martyrdom and goodness aren't exactly one in the same.
You can be a good person without constantly self sacrificing.
>and I was even refusing to be proud of my Goodness,
>because I thought that pride was bad (and yeah, these double-binds of
>non-selfishness morals made me go insane).
You seem to have *a lot* of guilt issues.
>I was refusing to do anything
>that would make me look superior to anyone else. It was some kind of general
>vow of total poverty. And despite all this, I was always feeling terribly
>guilty for doing few charity work (not enough, by far), but this was because
>of another double-bind : on one hand, I didn't want to work in college
>because intelligence and culture was the one thing that was making people
>feel inferior to me, and on the other hand, I was finding it ridiculous to
>help others (more charity work) while personally being unable to support
>myself.
>
>But 1) you can't blame me for applying the fucked-up Christian ideology of
>Goodness as non-selfishness, non-narcissism, poverty, self-sacrifice...
>
> 2) when a girl does the same, even when she ends up being a total
>self-hating slave (as I was), as long as she's not ugly (and I'm far from
>ugly), she easily finds a bf or husband.
She might find a bf or husband to abuse her.
A woman this neurotic would probably scare off normal men.
The female version of what you've described is also a mess.
>Why? Because men *love* slaves.
To abuse maybe.
But all men aren't abusive, most aren't.
Normal well adjusted men do not seem to be looking for a neurotic, guilt ridden
martyr.
>On the contrary, as most women are submissive,
IMO, this is not the case.
>as most women are looking for a
>confident man,
I'm a confident, non-submissive women and I find confidence in a man attractive.
You don't have to be submissive to find confidence appealing.
>it's been really hard for me to find a gf, despite my
>"ABUSE-ME!" sign written on my forehead (and my good looks).
Well, please get that "ABUSE-ME!" sign off of your forehead pronto!
You are a good person and you don't deserve to be abused. Also, as a good
person you have an obligation to be good to yourself. Staying in an abusive
situation (as an adult with choices) is not "goodness". You're "goodness"
obligates you to be good to *yourself* as well as to others.
With respect to gender issues,
women with "ABUSE-ME!" signs are also unappealing to most men (except for maybe
a one-night-stand).
I'll tell you one thing, I know for sure that my confidence has made me *much*
more successful with guys over the years. For example, I've gotten much more
attention than less confident but similar in appearance/age/etc girls.
Confidence is attractive. However, it shouldn't be confused with jerkiness,
bitchieness, arrogance etc which can be unattractive.
> So that's why I repeat that, for girls, self-sacrifice never really
>exists, cause the more a girl behaves like a slave, the stronger a provider
>she will attract.
You are nuts.
If a woman "behaves like a slave" to her s.o. he'll either leave her (if he's
normal) or abuse her (if he's the abusive, asshole type).
Guilt ridden, neurotic, martyr syndrome type women who "behave like a slave" do
not attract "strong providers", they repel them.
These women tend to end up with the violent, unstable, and often unemployed
losers... and who knows, maybe she wants that. Maybe's it's part of her guilt
ridden martyr syndrome.
>I know that because it's what my mother did.
Did she really act like a guilt ridden, neurotic, martyr?
If so, the odds would say that your dad either left her or he stayed and
emotionally and/or physically abused her.
>> Frank,
>> if you're reading this, I gotta ask...
>>
>> why do you twist issues around to cast yourself as "victim"?
>
> I don't twist issues. I proved that there is a double-standard. Prove me
>wrong, or deal with it.
OK, there's a double standard in that neurotic, guilt ridden, martyr syndrome
women have an easier time finding a ONS, and maybe they have an easier time
finding an abusive loser to hook-up with who will beat them.
The women who have these neurotic, guilt-ridden, martyr issues tend to do
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy worse in terms of romance than do their well adjusted
peers. It's a bad deal for either gender.
>> Do you see yourself as a victim in general?
>
> When a man tries to be Good, he becomes a victim. Other men take
>advantage of him, most women ignore him. When a woman tries to be Good,
>nobody asks her why she keeps behaving as a victim. Why? Because in girls,
>goodness and utility are the same thing. That's why nice girls are winners,
>while nice guys are constantly put down for being "losers", behaving as
>"victims".
When a women acts like a guilt ridden, neurotic, martyr people will probably try
to help her to a point, but if she persists, most people will just end up giving
up on her and won't want to be around her.
> But now I won't let you women call me false victim anymore. Stop trying
>to put me down. It doesn't work. It doesn't work anymore. I *was* Good, it's
>true, deal with it. This Goodness itself led me to be ignored by girls, it's
>true, deal with it. Goodness in girls is always rewarded, that's why girls
>are generally nicer than guys, it's true, deal with it. A nice guy has more
>merit for being nice than a nice girl, it's true, and you don't want to
>admit this.
I'm not saying you are a "false victim".
I get the feeling you are a victim of some sort, just not a victim of
"goodness".
>Your hot woman's life is far easier than a shy man's life, it's
>true, and you don't want to admit it,
I'll admit that.
Things like that are often a crap shoot.
I got lucky in some ways.
>you hate it when people denounce your
>priviledges, you'd rather see yourself as someone who's neither a victim nor
>lucky,
I'll admit that I've been very lucky in some respects.
>just a normal person. But let's face it : who ever admits to having
>priviledges?
Everybody has privileges and disadvantages.
It's not a perfectly balanced world where everybody is equal.
You've probably had privileges that I haven't, and I'm sure that I've had
privileges that you haven't.
In light of this, you can either wallow, or buck up and make the best of what
you've got. Life isn't fair, but it does seem to be a lot easier for those who
really try to do the best with what they've got going for them.
>> Were you victimised in your past?
>
> Oh yeah.
I'm really sorry to hear that.
>And I didn't want to become a sadistic abuser, full of
>narcissistic rage, as he was.
Good.
>I just wanted to be good. Sorry. No, no, don't
>congratulate me, all the sacrifices I've done it was probably easy to do
>them. I have no merit and I don't deserve any reward for it, earthly or
>spiritual. I'm just a whiner playing victim to get what he wants, I know.
Frank, your issues over past abuse do not make you a whiner.
You're still here to write about it, so you're a survivor.
I used to work as a counselor at a rape crisis center, and learned it's
counter-productive to continue being a "victim" forever. You were a victim
while the abuse was happening. Now you're a survivor. You survived didn't you?
You must be strong to have made it this far, and you can get even stronger.
While working with rape survivors I noticed that they often liked to rant about
elaborate injustices (often these injustices were exaggerated or even imagined).
I think they did this cuz they weren't ready to deal with the abuse they endured
specifically (and they weren't ready to be angry at the person who abused them -
often it was a family member or someone they knew and trusted). It seemed
"safer" to them to be a "victim" of society.
Are you in therapy?
Baybee
JimSummers
compare "nice" >with "attractive".
You are right, the guy with rugged handsome looks will never be called
"nice" simply because all women will kneel before him because of sexual
attraction. The true "nice guy" is labelled nice because he can't qualify
as anything more!!!
F家nk
helen <helens...@yahoo.com> wrote :
you're just dodging. This was not the point, obviously.
> you'll always be the bigest victim,
> esp. of yourself.
you can't be a victim of yourself. By definition.
F家nk
helen <helens...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> > Nice guys do exist. Nice girls don't.
>
> etc....
>
> you've given this a lot of thought...
> too bad.
why? Too bad... for you?
> {keep it up}
yeah, thanks. A few years from now, I will contact the Blanche editor. I
hope it will be translated. I'll offer you a copy.
F家nk
[ if you don't have the courage to read all that, my point is all
summarized in this short parody I wrote last year :
http://tinylink.com/?KxTy60272g "If you think you're a Nice Girl" ]
[ and/or just read the 2d part of my post, cause the 1st part was just
an attempt to understand what I said in the 2d part ]
[ if you're bored, read everything. :) ]
In news:dcqrh...@drn.newsguy.com,
GoddessBaybee <goddes...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> If you could see how it's the exact same situation with "nice guys",
> you'd finally get it. "Nice guy" is repeatedly used to describe
> physically unattractive and severely socially awkward guys, it's a
> euphemism that doesn't really have much to do with "nice".
That's precisely where you're wrong. Hell, I remember that girl in
"junior high" who had asked me to "go out with her" (IE kiss her, etc), I
guess she knew that I was looking at her a lot in class... I just managed to
reply "maybe...", and as I was scared, I did not do anything more. And then
whoops, she completely stopped hitting on me... So that's the problem with
niceness/shyness in guys (and yes, I believe shyness and niceness are 2
really close things, except exceptions) : girls interpret it as a sign of
lack of interest.
So I admit that girls don't particularly dislike niceness in itself, but
as they want you to prove yourself, to initiate things, you necessarily have
to be aggressive in some way. And I understand why you're unaware of the
consequences of other women's behaviour, because they're unaware of it
themselves. I don't know if it's what some guys call the "bitch shield", but
it's a fact that such shields will necessarily push away the nicest men. And
once again, I think that women are unaware of how their behaviour pushes the
nice men away. Women are so used to the traditional situation (aggressive
man looking for easy sex, and *maybe* more) that they use a shield, and to
defeat it men have to prove themselves : they have to say that they love the
girl (even if they barely know her), they have to be able to handle several
forms of rejection (girls play hard to get, to test the motivation of the
guy), etc etc.
And girls don't realize that this shield doesn't protect them from macho
guys who want just want to fuck them, on the contrary :
1) guys who pass all these tests are usually precisley the worst bad guys :
they have no qualms about lying as much as needed about their "true
feelings" for the girl, they will handle all the rejection tests (playing
hard to get) really easily (actually they could care less about the
difference between a girl playing hard to get and a girl who just doesn't
want them), etc.
2) these shileds filter out the really good guys who a) refuse to pretend
they have true feelings for a girl they barely know. b) will take a
rejection as a rejection (they've heard that insisting when a girl says no,
or expresses disinterest in whatever way, is something close to rape. They
respect women), so they don't pass the "playing hard to get" test.
Or maybe girls are not so unaware of that, and, consciously or not, they
use these shields not against the bad guys (as they pretend they do), cause
it obviously doesn't work, but against the good guys. Why? Because women
prefer dominant guys.
So while it's true that us guys will often equate nice girl with ugly
girl, I think it's not the same thing for girls. Actually, we "find again"
my theory about morals :
- in girls : good = nice = good
- in guys : good = aggressive = bad.
So yes, we indeed will often call a girl a "nice girl" when she's ugly.
And that's because niceness is all she has, and thus, we *do* feel guilty
when we reject or ignore her. IE we don't deny the fact that she's actually
nice = good. While girls feel less guilty when they reject a nice guy,
because they will always try to mess with your brains and explain you that
he was not really nice, because actually, though they won't admit it, in
guys, they consider that nice = aggressive = bad. They will explain you that
the guy they rejected was not really nice, precisely because he didn't
manage to pass all the tests (IE he refused to lie about his "true feelings"
for her, and took a 1st rejection as a definite rejection), which is
supposed to be a shield against bad guys, while actually it's a shield
against nice guys.
So that is the problem : men are honest : we admit that our primary
concern is looks (though we often have very different tastes...). While
women will try to mess with our brains and will always deny that their
primary concern is confidence and aggressiveness (IE traditional manliness).
And this is plain wrong. Women are dishonest.
> This is because "nice guy" like "nice girl" is often used as a
> euphemism for unattractive. When an unattractive guy complains that
> he's getting ignored by women, many women understandably point out
> that he's doing the exact same thing by ignoring women he finds
> unattractive. The most annoying thing about the "nice guy" and "nice
> girl" debate is the tendency to want to assume some sort of moral
> high ground, where as far as I can see, neither gender has one.
This is not the same thing : men will recognize that girls they call
"nice girls" and that they reject, are really good human beings, and they
admit that they're the ones who are guilty, because yeah, they go after good
looks, primarily. While women are completely dishonest : they're so caught
up in their shame and their obsession of denying their submissiveness that
they will *deny* that the guy they rejected was actually a really good human
being (who would have accepted to be their equal instead of dominating
them), instead of taking responsibility for their preferences, like guys do,
women keep pretending that they have the moral high ground, by denying the
fact that the guy they rejected was actually a good guy.
On the contrary, men will never try to prove you that REAL nice girl =
good-looking girl (see my parody http://tinylink.com/?KxTy60272g "If you
think you're a Nice Girl", where I was copying and making fun of what girls
say about nice guys : I was telling to girls who consider themselves as nice
1) who are you to call *yourself* "nice" ?? 2) you say that guys reject
you despite the fact that you're a nice girl, but actually, you're not
really nice, you're just desperate, clingy, a loser... You pretend that guys
only go after looks but it's wrong (denial...), we go after a girl who likes
herself, knows what she wants, is happy with her life, is independent, fun,
has conversation, etc).
And fortunately for women, men (nearly?) never try to mess with women's
brains like that. We take responsibility for our "shallowness". But on the
contrary, women, in order to deny their submissiveness (hide their taste for
aggressive guys), will go as far as denying the fact that the guy they
rejected was a really good guy. Thus, the guy feels insulted twice. Women
are adding insult to injury.
And the worst thing is that while men will admit that the girl they just
rejected was a good girl (but ugly), as I proved in this thread, being nice
as a girl is not that hard. Girls are nice, especially ugly girls, because
they want to attract [confident] men. So that is not that much praiseworthy,
as in girls, niceness is rather close to utility. While for nice guys,
1) Women most often try to deny the fact that we're actually good human
beings, nicer than the bad guys.
2) While actually, instead of seeing our Goodness suspected and denied by
women, it should be praised *twice more* than niceness in girls, because in
guys, it's a fact that there's an opposition between niceness and utility,
because we know that niceness is certainly not what will get us laid.
So...:
- Both men and women have shallow preferences
- Men take responsibility for their shallow preferences (beauty), women
don't.
- Being a nice guy is much harder than being a nice girl, because while nice
girls are nice because it attracts men and/or because they're ugly, nice
guys are nice for spiritual reasons (obviously, as they know all too well
that niceness doesn't bring them earthly rewards)
- despite that, men recognize that they often reject nice girls (because
they were ugly), in other words, niceness in girls is recognized, praised,
validated, including by the men who reject them.
- while women most often *deny* that they often reject good guys. So while
being a nice guy is really a tough way of life, niceness in guys is often
denied, ignored, laughed at.
And when, after understanding all that, a nice guy decides to become
bad, and starts getting laid with many girls, granted, the girls he sleeps
with will praise him and call him a good guy (until he leaves them), but all
his ex's and all the other women will call him "bad", and they will use that
as another excuse for denying the fact that he used to be a very good
person. I know that because it's exactly what happened lately with my
feminist friend : I was telling her that now I wanted to become a Man, a
Real Man (even if millions of women say it's bad), and she basically
answered : "yeah, it's easy for you guys, in our male dominance society. You
see, as I said, your niceness was just an act, and now if you still find it
hard to become a man, it's because you still want to keep your niceness act,
you don't want to admit that you're becoming bad".
So yeah, typical female attempt to fuck with the brains of any guy who
tries to question women's dishonesty and moral double-standards. But now
that won't work with me anymore.
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <42f2179b$0$24317$626a...@news.free.fr> "F?ank"
<a...@for.email> wrote:
>and she basically answered : "yeah, it's easy for you guys, in our male
>dominance society. You see, as I said, your niceness was just an act,
>and now if you still find it hard to become a man, it's because you
>still want to keep your niceness act, you don't want to admit that
>you're becoming bad".
"just an act" (IOW you are already bad) vs. "becoming bad" (you are not
yet bad). Which is it, Ms Fr@nk's Feminist Friend?
- --
Seen in comp.lang.c:
> cody wrote:
>> The problem is that i believe that my assertions are correct.
> Yes, that is a problem.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFC82aF/FmLrNfLpjMRAlTqAKCI5XwhbcndVad1esAMu2B/keN0WQCcCDDK
SZdpG7wOaP7CwUJ90MQBAAQ=
=p2vw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
GoddessBaybee
>In news:dcqrh...@drn.newsguy.com,
>GoddessBaybee <goddes...@yahoo.com> wrote :
<snippage throughout>
>> If you could see how it's the exact same situation with "nice guys",
>> you'd finally get it. "Nice guy" is repeatedly used to describe
>> physically unattractive and severely socially awkward guys, it's a
>> euphemism that doesn't really have much to do with "nice".
>
> That's precisely where you're wrong. Hell, I remember that girl in
>"junior high" who had asked me to "go out with her" (IE kiss her, etc), I
>guess she knew that I was looking at her a lot in class... I just managed to
>reply "maybe...", and as I was scared, I did not do anything more.
Scared into inaction and nice are not the same thing.
Sure the two can be correlated, but if your primary problem is the
"scared shitless" part, focus on that, not the "nice" part.
Nice isn't the problem here.
>And then
>whoops, she completely stopped hitting on me... So that's the problem with
>niceness/shyness in guys
Same thing happens to girls.
I have a very similar story from high school.
I had a huge crush on this guy for months. Apparently he liked me too because
he showed up where I "casually mentioned" I'd be hanging out over the weekend.
He kept trying to talk to me...he was rather obvious about his interest.
Unfortunately, I panicked. I could barely even say two words to him.
I couldn't even really get myself to look at him because I was feeling so shy
and scared shitless. He probably thought I hated him. To make a bad story
worse, I confided my woes to my best friend at the time. The next day she made
a play for him (I guess she figured he'd be feeling vulnerable... cuz he
obviously thought I rejected him). This so-called friend of mine ended up
dating him...further more, she seemed to really enjoy flaunting their
relationship in my face. Needless to say, I no longer considered her a freind.
>(and yes, I believe shyness and niceness are 2
>really close things, except exceptions) : girls interpret it as a sign of
>lack of interest.
So do guys.
If being "scared shitless" when someone shows interest in you is your problem,
try as hard as you can to fix it, I did.
I never let anything like that happen again.
> So I admit that girls don't particularly dislike niceness in itself, but
>as they want you to prove yourself, to initiate things, you necessarily have
>to be aggressive in some way.
Yes, I think you are starting to get it.
The problem is shyness not niceness.
>And I understand why you're unaware of the
>consequences of other women's behaviour, because they're unaware of it
>themselves. I don't know if it's what some guys call the "bitch shield", but
>it's a fact that such shields will necessarily push away the nicest men.
"Bitch shields" are used in situations where women are likely to be hit on by
large numbers of strangers. Women, as a rule, do not feel comfortable around
male strangers, and they are only likely to lower their guard for guys they find
extremely physically attractive. This is why women tend to be so picky in dance
clubs and on online personals. Women do not tend to act this way in regular
social settings. For example, if a friend introduces you to a woman at a back
yard barbecue, it is very unlikely that you'll have a problem with the "bitch
shield". She may or may not consider you a romantic prospect, but at least
she'll talk to you like a normal person.
>And
>once again, I think that women are unaware of how their behaviour pushes the
>nice men away.
With respect to dance clubs and online personals, I'd agree that the "bitch
shield" pushes away shy guys, many of whom may be good people. However, I don't
think this impacts woman as much as you seem to suspect because most people seem
to meet their s.o. through friends and social groups. Shy guys are not at a
huge disadvantage here... unless they are so painfully shy that they don't have
any friends or they don't actively participate in group social activities. Then
shyness becomes a serious problem.
>Women are so used to the traditional situation (aggressive
>man looking for easy sex, and *maybe* more) that they use a shield,
Yes, and the "bitch shield" is very effective in the sense that we use it to
screen out all guys who are looking for "easy sex", except the for the guys we
might actually consider having "easy sex" with. The guys we find so extremely
physically attractive that we'd maybe (just maybe) consider for a fling. All
others tend to get blown off instantly. This is logical and it makes good sense
to do this is setting where we are likely to get bombarded by a lot of strangers
who are probably looking for "easy sex" (dance club, online personals).
I'm sure what I wrote seems shallow, but men are the same way and have no moral
high ground here. Men don't look heavily at personality and "goodness" when
considering a women for a sexual fling. It's about looks. For women, it's
about looks and sexual confidence (which suggests he'll be good in bed)
>and to
>defeat it men have to prove themselves :
OK, sure, to defeat "the bitch shield" men have "to prove themselves" to be
physically attractive and sexually confident.
If a woman is even going to consider you for a "easy sex" type of fling these
are indeed the requirements.
>2) these shileds filter out the really good guys who a) refuse to pretend
>they have true feelings for a girl they barely know. b) will take a
>rejection as a rejection (they've heard that insisting when a girl says no,
>or expresses disinterest in whatever way, is something close to rape. They
>respect women), so they don't pass the "playing hard to get" test.
Girls meet good (maybe even shy) guys through friends and social activities.
They usually end up marrying these types of guys, because for a long term
relationship personality matters, and good guys have an edge here (even if they
aren't the very best looking).
> Or maybe girls are not so unaware of that, and, consciously or not, they
>use these shields not against the bad guys (as they pretend they do), cause
>it obviously doesn't work, but against the good guys. Why? Because women
>prefer dominant guys.
Women prefer physically attractive, sexually confident guys for flings.
> So while it's true that us guys will often equate nice girl with ugly
>girl, I think it's not the same thing for girls. Actually, we "find again"
>my theory about morals :
>
>- in girls : good = nice = good
>- in guys : good = aggressive = bad.
>
> So yes, we indeed will often call a girl a "nice girl" when she's ugly.
>And that's because niceness is all she has, and thus, we *do* feel guilty
>when we reject or ignore her.
Same thing with girls.
If a guy is ugly and nice, the girl will often feel guilty about rejecting him
because he's a good person and she doesn't want to hurt him. Often she will try
to sugar coat the rejection by focusing on the positive (niceness).
>IE we don't deny the fact that she's actually
>nice = good. While girls feel less guilty when they reject a nice guy,
>because they will always try to mess with your brains and explain you that
>he was not really nice,
Maybe he isn't really nice.
A lot of the so called "nice guys" around here embrace nazism and think women
deserve to be raped and killed if they have the nerve to reject any guy.
A lot of self-proclaimed "nice guys" are far from nice.
>> This is because "nice guy" like "nice girl" is often used as a
>> euphemism for unattractive. When an unattractive guy complains that
>> he's getting ignored by women, many women understandably point out
>> that he's doing the exact same thing by ignoring women he finds
>> unattractive. The most annoying thing about the "nice guy" and "nice
>> girl" debate is the tendency to want to assume some sort of moral
>> high ground, where as far as I can see, neither gender has one.
>
> This is not the same thing : men will recognize that girls they call
>"nice girls" and that they reject, are really good human beings, and they
>admit that they're the ones who are guilty, because yeah, they go after good
>looks, primarily.
Women admit this too (to their friends). They may not admit it specifically to
the guy they reject, because women tend to think it is cruel to tell someone
specifically that they are unattractive.
>While women are completely dishonest : they're so caught
>up in their shame and their obsession of denying their submissiveness that
>they will *deny* that the guy they rejected was actually a really good human
>being (who would have accepted to be their equal instead of dominating
>them), instead of taking responsibility for their preferences, like guys do,
>women keep pretending that they have the moral high ground,
I don't think women have the "moral high ground", but neither to men.
Guys who pull the "nice guy" complaint are clearly trying to create an illusion
"moral high ground" for themselves.
>by denying the
>fact that the guy they rejected was actually a good guy.
Good people get rejected all they time. This is especially true if they are
unattractive or painfully shy. Most people won't deny this is general, but
seldom will they admit it specifically to the rejected party. Rejections tend
to be sugar-coated.
> On the contrary, men will never try to prove you that REAL nice girl =
>good-looking girl (see my parody http://tinylink.com/?KxTy60272g "If you
>think you're a Nice Girl", where I was copying and making fun of what girls
>say about nice guys : I was telling to girls who consider themselves as nice
>1) who are you to call *yourself* "nice" ?? 2) you say that guys reject
>you despite the fact that you're a nice girl, but actually, you're not
>really nice, you're just desperate, clingy, a loser... You pretend that guys
>only go after looks but it's wrong (denial...), we go after a girl who likes
>herself, knows what she wants, is happy with her life, is independent, fun,
>has conversation, etc).
>
> And fortunately for women, men (nearly?) never try to mess with women's
>brains like that.
I'm not trying to mess with your brains.
I'm trying to tell you like it is.
If a guy has problems with women, he should probably make the most of his
physical appearance, and work on shyness issues, and get out there and socialize
in settings where there are likely to be women present.
This "nice guy" stuff and this "moral high ground" stuff is really just a denial
strategy which will unfortunately take you further away from the real issues.
Baybee
F家nk
Bernd Jendrissek <ber...@prism.co.za> wrote :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <42f2179b$0$24317$626a...@news.free.fr> "F?ank"
> <a...@for.email> wrote:
> > and she basically answered : "yeah, it's easy for you guys, in our
> > male dominance society. You see, as I said, your niceness was just
> > an act, and now if you still find it hard to become a man, it's
> > because you still want to keep your niceness act, you don't want to
> > admit that you're becoming bad".
>
> "just an act" (IOW you are already bad) vs. "becoming bad" (you are
> not yet bad). Which is it, Ms Fr@nk's Feminist Friend?
Well these may not be exactly her exact words. Hell, I will translate
her exact words :
<< (...) Everything that's happening to you is because you're just a woman
in the skin of a man, you find it hard to accept the idea of being
dominated, so you want to become a man, IE to become a dominator. But as
you, nevertheless, don't want to admit all that and break your "nice" guy
image, you prefer to find a scapegoat [feminism]. Rachel, the bad person. >>
[ of course her real name is not Rachel :) ]
NB : I'm sure you Bernd know that, but for others, "you're a woman in the
skin of a man" is something that I told her myself.
Actually it really took me a long time to understand this feminine
state-of-the-art attempt at messing with my brains... Actually I'm sure that
she, herself, didn't even really know what she was meaning, I think the only
point was to try to attack me with whatever she could come up with (without
wasting too much time on thinking hard...).
So this is what I've finally written down for myself (without sending it
to her) :
- I'm not looking for a scapegoat, because what I'm accusing the feminists
of, you're precisely doing it right now! (IE you assimilate being a dominant
guy with being bad and priviledged)
- She accuses me of wanting to remain nice, as if the problem was not the
wrong definition of Goodness given by feminists (Good = being a
non-threatening guy), but my will to be Good itself !
- You (and other feminists) are those who are using men as scapegoats for
your own problems.
- "You're a woman in the skin of a man" : well this precisely proves that
without the body of a woman, a feminine person loses all its priviledges,
all the priviledges that [feminine] women have. And without a manly
behaviour, a man loses all his masculine priviledges. And yeah, I grant that
a man in the skin of a woman will suffer from discrimination (things are
always harder for female leaders), but not as much as a woman in the skin of
a man (where you end up being considered as a fag [while women are never
called fags, obviously, and yeah, this is discrimination], without even
having the possibility to find a woman to fuck you / protect you)
F家nk
>
> etc....
>
> you've given this a lot of thought...
> too bad.
Well if you find that thinking is difficult, boring and a waste of time,
it's ok, but don't generalize that to everyone.
> {keep it up}
ok... (though it feels like you're talking about something bad...)
JimSummers
time. The next day she
made a play for him (I guess she figured he'd be feeling vulnerable...cuz
he obviously thought I rejected him). This so-called friend of mine ended
up dating him...further more, she seemed to really enjoy flaunting their
relationship in my face. Needless to say, I no longer considered >her a
Only women act like that...no man ever takes his friend's girl away
just "because he can"
>OK, sure, to defeat "the bitch shield" men have "to prove themselves" to
be physically attractive and sexually confident.If a woman is even going
to consider you for a "easy sex" type >of fling these are indeed the
requirements.
Do women have to prove anything to men to get easy sex from them????? I
doubt it...it seems like women just have to sit there and look pretty and
men don't require anything more than that...
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article
<aaa498c9d00fc431...@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com>
JimSummers <jimsum...@aol.com> wrote:
>Only women act like that...no man ever takes his friend's girl away
>just "because he can"
Not even franco's "friend"?
>Do women have to prove anything to men to get easy sex from them????? I
>doubt it...it seems like women just have to sit there and look pretty
>and men don't require anything more than that...
Maybe nothing for *easy sex*, but women do have to prove something to
get *commitment*. For example, women would have to prove they're not
slutz0rz if they wanted commitment from some of the male posters here.
According to what said male posters post anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFC+c5e/FmLrNfLpjMRAs1QAKClpiNCMeosEIa1y+mjAyWp6ZeIGACdEznV
EN2qLI1ZF73VL/CC8kMHSsQ=
=IbqK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----