|
|
Post by zaab on Mar 17, 2006 11:09:13 GMT -5
breaking the girl in this case is the same as setting your boundaries That's fine, if that's what he means. That's normal. He just has a strange way of putting it. |
|
|
|
Post by albetross on Mar 17, 2006 17:01:32 GMT -5
sure we do. like don't do what I've been doing because it don't work ;D
yeah, don't have any
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Mar 17, 2006 22:38:34 GMT -5
Wow, "breaking the girl."  This thread is getting wierd. Now we're talking about women as is they were wild horses, not quite human. I believe in courtship behaviors, to a degree, but this is just too off the wall and dehumanizing for me to swallow. Sometimes i wish i could just set a trap and catch a gf.  I'm a pretty fair shot when it comes to these things, even if my trap-setting skills are a bit rusty.  |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 18, 2006 22:10:58 GMT -5
Thank you for your participation, I appreciate it very much. Logic and logical fallacies lol so you wanna go eh? Bad move space cadet There are plenty of holes but I'll just start with two. 1. Reaching a conclusion with no evidence. 2. Demanding opponents disprove your theory rather than you supporting it. Well, I'm not reaching a conclusion, I'm presenting a theory. It's not my job to prove anything, because I am offering my response to the person who started the thread. That person is not obligated to agree with my theory. Second, I'm not demanding that anyone prove or disprove my theory for me. What I did say to you is that if you bring points against my theory, and if you want to discuss them with me, then you will have to be prepared to argue your points. So far all you have done is take the discussion personal by raising the irrelevant question of whether or not I have a girlfriend, and then by assuming that I don't, and then by criticizing me. What good are those kinds of statements in a discussion of point and counterpoint? By the way, it does not take a parent to realize that parents who abuse each other in front of children are also damaging the children. Nor does it take a doctor who has survived a brain tumor to be an excellent brain surgeon. Your logic sounds cool and catchy and true when it first meets the ear, but is flat out false once you sit down to think about it. Sometimes theory is more valuable than experience. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 18, 2006 22:14:37 GMT -5
Wow, "breaking the girl." This thread is getting wierd. Now we're talking about women as is they were wild horses, not quite human. I believe in courtship behaviors, to a degree, but this is just too off the wall and dehumanizing for me to swallow. It's only dehumanizing if you bring a dehumanizing idea to define the phrase. I predefined it before using it. Men and women all have to be broken (disabused) of untruths that govern them. A man takes a new job and then learns about certain requirements that bother him, and he rebels against them. The company breaks him to the reality of the situation. He either conforms, leaves or is fired. There are no other choices for him. In that situation, because he entered in without proper understanding, it was him that needed to be broken. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 18, 2006 22:31:33 GMT -5
Wow, "breaking the girl." This thread is getting wierd. Now we're talking about women as is they were wild horses, not quite human. I believe in courtship behaviors, to a degree, but this is just too off the wall and dehumanizing for me to swallow. Sometimes i wish i could just set a trap and catch a gf. I'm a pretty fair shot when it comes to these things, even if my trap-setting skills are a bit rusty. From my own observations the best thing to do is to be involved in activities where you are exposed to many members of the opposite gender without the setting being one for singles or where attention is paid to matchmaking. Of course, this is especially difficult for highly shy or introverted people, but I have noticed success even for extroverts with this approach. For example, no matter how you try to pretty it up, events for singles *all* carry the baggage of a meat market, and the heightened expectations cause more failure than not. I am not saying that single events - clubs - etc aren't worth something, but what I am saying is that if you take a hundred singles and put them together on presenting a musical theater production and take the same hundred and stick them in a singles event, the statistical odds are that you'll get more couples out of the theater production than you will out of the singles events. Stressing of course that sometimes the singles things do work! I have *one* friend who met her husband via a singles dating internet site. Also, the more specialized the singles event or website, the higher the chance of connections. Shy and highly introverted people have an especially high chance of connecting with other people who share that life-defining characteristic. Shy people should not be discouraged so easily, in a sense, there is a well defined pool of potential mates out there who wouldn't touch extroverts with a ten foot pole ! |
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Mar 18, 2006 22:34:00 GMT -5
By the way, it does not take a parent to realize that parents who abuse each other in front of children are also damaging the children. Nor does it take a doctor who has survived a brain tumor to be an excellent brain surgeon. Your logic sounds cool and catchy and true when it first meets the ear, but is flat out false once you sit down to think about it. I was under the impression you wanted to have a logical debate. Obviously you don't know how to. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 18, 2006 22:43:59 GMT -5
By the way, it does not take a parent to realize that parents who abuse each other in front of children are also damaging the children. Nor does it take a doctor who has survived a brain tumor to be an excellent brain surgeon. Your logic sounds cool and catchy and true when it first meets the ear, but is flat out false once you sit down to think about it. I was under the impression you wanted to have a logical debate. Obviously you don't know how to. Well Snotpnats, I did in fact answer your two points that you outlined. You are looking a little confrontational to me. I am NOT interested in a confrontation with you or anyone else. If you don't like or agree with my ideas, just say why, but don't attack me, it's not nice to attack people just because they think something that you don't like. By the way I modified one of my statements just as you were replying to it, I added a final line about theory versus practice. I am mentioning it here because you replied to the statement before it was amended, and in case you wanted to see the entire statement. |
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Mar 18, 2006 22:54:57 GMT -5
it's not nice to attack people just because they think something that you don't like. I'm not nice. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 18, 2006 23:02:33 GMT -5
breaking the girl in this case is the same as setting your boundaries That's fine, if that's what he means. That's normal. He just has a strange way of putting it. Yeah Zaab. it doesn't come off as the prettiest way of putting anything. I think the phrase stuck in certain circles because of a popular song that had it either as title or as a prominent lyric in the song. The song was from at least ten years ago, maybe fifteen. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 18, 2006 23:10:59 GMT -5
The fact is that there is many guys that complain - that are told that they are so nice by everyone around them, especially the women they are after, yet they can never get the women they want. That is reality, and no I am not interested in a logical debate that would come to a conclusion that this is not so. It is. Otherwise there would not be any debate. The issue speaks for itself, right. Maybe it would be a good idea to point out some things that dependent men do that independent men would never do in a courtship. Strangeley enough, if nice guys finish last, then not so nice guys finish last too, even if a bit later. Also, women who are habitually attracted to not so nice men also have some bad baggage of their own. So I don't think it's a matter of 'nice' or 'not nice' that wins in the end. It only appears that nice guys finish last to sensitive, overly dependent men who don't really think about divorce statistics or aren't quite up on what ends up happening to women who habitually spend time with not so nice men. There is nothing sadder than a woman who is in her fourth abusive relationship and not realizing that it is she who did the choosing each time. Or an abusive guy who ends up destitute as he approaches middle age because he never had anyone show him how to be nice. The best way to be is independent, secure as a single, not weak to be attached, and then those qualities alone are attractive enough to work well for a man who is at least out there where the women are. He will notice women wanting to open up to him and wanting to befriend him, but not because he is "too nice", but instead because they feel secure in his company, and safe telling him things, opening up to him. That's exactly where a man wants to be in his life. He can then pick and choose his mate, and still be nice. Niceness is a very important characteristic. The entire topic of "why nice guys finish last" is really a misnomer. It should be called "Overly sensitive, emotionally dependent men finish last." Heck, a guy who has his emotional compass pointing in the right direction can be nice, and shy, and highly introverted, and still considered an excellent catch by the woman who come across his path. As long as he doesn't become a girl each time he is approached by one. |
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Mar 18, 2006 23:20:08 GMT -5
A man takes a new job and then learns about certain requirements that bother him, and he rebels against them. The company breaks him to the reality of the situation. He either conforms, leaves or is fired. There are no other choices for him. In that situation, because he entered in without proper understanding, it was him that needed to be broken. I don't think boss/employee relationship is a good example. It is not a peer/equal relationship like a romantic relationship is. boss/employee is doing a job for money. If you want the money you have to do the job. A relationship of course, people want to be together. They aren't there cause they have to be but rather they want to be. Not saying there won't be disagreements on things but that is where communication comes in. You discuss things and work things out and some issues never have resolutions and that is ok. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 18, 2006 23:31:53 GMT -5
Well, you're right that it's not a very good example at all for describing the how-to and why of relationships. I'm just trying to find a way to show that 'breaking the girl' is not a term that describes mistreating anyone at all. It's an excellent term in that it grabs attention, but the downside is that it is easy to assume that it speaks of male domination. I use the job example only to give some other example of how men need to be broken too.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Mar 18, 2006 23:34:45 GMT -5
Wow, "breaking the girl." This thread is getting wierd. Now we're talking about women as is they were wild horses, not quite human. I believe in courtship behaviors, to a degree, but this is just too off the wall and dehumanizing for me to swallow. It's only dehumanizing if you bring a dehumanizing idea to define the phrase. I predefined it before using it. Men and women all have to be broken (disabused) of untruths that govern them. A man takes a new job and then learns about certain requirements that bother him, and he rebels against them. The company breaks him to the reality of the situation. He either conforms, leaves or is fired. There are no other choices for him. In that situation, because he entered in without proper understanding, it was him that needed to be broken. Its dehumanizing because it, almost certainly deliberately, implies that you can break a woman like you can break a horse. I didn't bring that in, it was phrased in that manner. If the person who created the concept didn't want me to think that, then there are a limitless number of ways he could of rephrased it. The example that you give, imo, is dehumanizing as well. This is the MO of an authoritarian company. Good companies find ways to utilize their employees talents and help them fit in, to their benefit, and balance their needs with their employess, again to their benefit. In a healthy environment, noone should have to be broken. |
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Mar 18, 2006 23:43:38 GMT -5
That's fine, if that's what he means. That's normal. He just has a strange way of putting it. Yeah Zaab. it doesn't come off as the prettiest way of putting anything. I think the phrase stuck in certain circles because of a popular song that had it either as title or as a prominent lyric in the song. The song was from at least ten years ago, maybe fifteen. Authoritarian concepts don't sit well with me, as you can tell. Maybe the idea isn't that bad, but if I can't get past the title, then what's the use? |
|
This thread is getting wierd. Now we're talking about women as is they were wild horses, not quite human. I believe in courtship behaviors, to a degree, but this is just too off the wall and dehumanizing for me to swallow.
I'm a pretty fair shot when it comes to these things, even if my trap-setting skills are a bit rusty. 