|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 18, 2006 23:53:40 GMT -5
thats why I am here
|
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Mar 18, 2006 23:57:28 GMT -5
So true!  |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 19, 2006 0:09:27 GMT -5
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? Well, Zaab, the fact remains that people are broken by their own misunderstandings all the time. What you and I have here are two different appreciations about how language should be used to describe things. For example, you might be turned off by the title and of couse, there's no right or wrong in your response to the title. Now, on the other hand, let's take a girl who has learned somehow that it is to her best advantage to manipulate men to either get them into a relationship or keep them there. In that case, perhaps my title has exactly the punch it needs to get through her pathology to the point where my point can be made. The title in and of itself implies to her "You're not calling the shots, and you wasted alot of time thinking you did"...as an example. The same can be true for a guy who believes that it's his job in his dating life to please the girl he sets his eye on. It's not true, and that's not how it works, so I use a charged title to wake that guy up. I appreciate that the title doesn't sit that well with you. I don't sense that you were offended, thank you for not flying off the handle too. I'm trying to break through a lot of misconceptions and trying to show my own theory about why some men have more trouble in the dating relationship than others, and for me its good economy to use a charged title. And about the idea itself, I don't think that the idea shows authority of anyone over anyone. I believe that in their natural states, men lead and women follow. If a woman is attractive enough to a particular man to earn his attention, her attractiveness has worked its purpose, it has turned his eye toward her. The problem is that most men don't understand that her attractiveness has served its purpose, and so they become servile to the woman, putting her up on a pedestal. That's a disordered approach to dating or courtship, and NEVER helps the man who treats a woman in that way. Men (and women) need to be broken of their misunderstanding of that truth, in my book. Women who also don't get it typically end up with a string of abusive men followed by a marriage to a weak man, if they can even get that far, fearing the first kind of guy and having nothing but contempt for the last. The 'nice guy' in the end of that story marries out of desperation and ends up being a hen-pecked, disrespected object of contempt of his wife. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 19, 2006 0:19:21 GMT -5
What are some things men have done for women in the past that didn't work? That might be a good way to discuss what guys might do better. Maybe we can come up with our own "Top Ten" list of what not to do in a courtship.
|
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 19, 2006 3:03:42 GMT -5
i think it can be dangerous to make broad sweeping generalizations about people. you're apt to be wrong about any particular person or situation when you do. i prefer to take the people i encounter on a case by case basis. SweetPea, you are right, for certain discussions. But concentrating on generalities is correct for concentrating on other types of discussions. In the simplest of example, consider your own personal doctor. He might listen to your personal story, but before he takes action, he will give precedence to statistical generalisms against your personal story. In other words, unless you have a truly unique symptom, you will be forced into the collective before you get any response from your physician. Personal stories and anecdotes are good for some kinds of discussions, while generalized stories are good for other types of discussions. So, the goal is not to put down generalizations or to instead put down personal anecdotes, but instead to try to understand the value of each. Now, in our particular case in this thread, why is it better to use generalizations as opposed to personal stories? Because the person who began the thread did so with a statement in generalities, and that generalized statement had to do with his own questions about why nice guys might finish last. Therefore, responses are generalized too, and rightly so. In light of his generalized question, it would be completely inappropriate to offer him a response based on a personal experience. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 19, 2006 3:37:26 GMT -5
perhaps. but i've never been afraid to be inappropriate. ;D Look, it's not about you. You mentioned generalities as a topic and I answered accordingly. It's not about you or me. It's about ideas, and the value of one over the other. Your comment "I've never been afraid to be inappropriate" has no value whatsoever in the thread. When you post a response like that, you're doing nothing more than wasting bandwidth. Wait until you have something of importance to add to the conversation, then add it. But get rid of the personal comments that don't add any value whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Mar 19, 2006 4:04:20 GMT -5
perhaps. but i've never been afraid to be inappropriate. ;D Look, it's not about you. You mentioned generalities as a topic and I answered accordingly. It's not about you or me. It's about ideas, and the value of one over the other. Your comment "I've never been afraid to be inappropriate" has no value whatsoever in the thread. When you post a response like that, you're doing nothing more than wasting bandwidth. Wait until you have something of importance to add to the conversation, then add it. But get rid of the personal comments that don't add any value whatsoever. Why are you issuing directives on this board? I don't know if you realize how arrogant you sound with that post. There was nothing inappropriate about what Sweet Pea wrote, but you on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on Mar 19, 2006 6:07:10 GMT -5
Look, it's not about you. You mentioned generalities as a topic and I answered accordingly. It's not about you or me. It's about ideas, and the value of one over the other. Your comment "I've never been afraid to be inappropriate" has no value whatsoever in the thread. When you post a response like that, you're doing nothing more than wasting bandwidth. Wait until you have something of importance to add to the conversation, then add it. But get rid of the personal comments that don't add any value whatsoever. Why are you issuing directives on this board? I don't know if you realize how arrogant you sound with that post. There was nothing inappropriate about what Sweet Pea wrote, but you on the other hand... Honestly... Every post of his in this thread has annoyed me. It all just reeks of arrogance, and everyone who disagrees with him seems to automatically warrant his contempt. Once again we have another (SS comes to mind...) cold, socially inept guy with an insensitivity to the importance of word connotations, trying to describe and explain human relationships. Or for those who need the a metaphors--it's like getting therapy for your spider phobia from a guy who freaks out at the site of anything eight-legged. It's like getting treatment for hair loss from a doctor who wears a toupee. You know; they might have something useful to say or do, but the presentation is so poor that it just seems prudent to question the validity of their advice.  |
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Mar 19, 2006 6:14:47 GMT -5
Honestly... Every post of his in this thread has annoyed me. It all just reeks of arrogance, and everyone who disagrees with him seems to automatically warrant his contempt. Once again we have another (SS comes to mind...) cold, socially inept guy with an insensitivity to the importance of word connotations, trying to describe and explain human relationships. Or for those who need the a metaphors--it's like getting therapy for your spider phobia from a guy who freaks out at the site of anything eight-legged. It's like getting treatment for hair loss from a doctor who wears a toupee. You know; they might have something useful to say or do, but the presentation is so poor that it just seems prudent to question the validity of their advice. Annoying is a good word for it. It is like one of those people you meet who try to fake knowledge about something. It is easy to gleen from his posts that he has not relationship experience to speak of or he wouldn't be spouting such nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 19, 2006 6:50:01 GMT -5
as far as i know i have the right to express myself in any way i see fit on this board as long as i'm civil, and have always done so. if you feel that my posts have no value, feel free to ignore them. I shouldn't have criticized your comment as I did Sweet Pea, I apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Mar 19, 2006 6:50:48 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. That would be the Chilli Peppers. Didn't know that's what the song was about, though. Not sure I'd be basing life off songs written by the same guys that wrote this, either... |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 19, 2006 23:36:22 GMT -5
i think there's plenty of room on this board for people who disagree. none of us agrees with each other all the time. but we should treat each other with respect and maintain a sense of humor. Amen  |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 19, 2006 23:43:45 GMT -5
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. That would be the Chilli Peppers. Didn't know that's what the song was about, though. Not sure I'd be basing life off songs written by the same guys that wrote this, either... Hi Stranger, hold on a moment....I'm not basing life off their lyrics or their philosophy. Don't forget, I was only explaining where the title for the concept came from. Congrats, you located the band who came up with the title "Breaking the Girl". That title ended up sticking as part of an overall philosophy on relationship management. |
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 20, 2006 23:57:23 GMT -5
OK, about "why nice guys finish last", it is important to lay out a few "founding principles". If the principles I'm about to lay out are false, then my entire philosophy is false. Of course, founding principles always speak in generalities.
Rule #1: Women and men are equal in value and in rights but different in biology and in function. The fact that women and men are different biologically shows at face value that each is more suited to specific expressions than the other. There is quite a bit of false science out there trying to show that men and women are somehow interchangeable, that there is "gender equality", and that each is equally suited to perform any task in a monogamous relationship. This idea of gender equality in function is false, and is the primary reason why most marriages fail in our society today. Of course, this also applies to the question of "why nice guys finish last", but the question of courtship can't be addressed until this first premise is established.
In a relationship, women and men are best suited to DIFFERENT functions. They are not interchangeable. This does not mean that either the woman or the man is enslaved to perform only certain functions in the relationship, not at all. But it is important to realize that nature dictates a law that in a relationship, each gender is more naturally inclined to exceed at fulfilling certain functions while the other gender is equally inclined to fulfilling very different functions. This is true from first meeting to courtship to marriage to childrearing and beyond.
To guys who feel that "nice guys finish last", it might be a good idea to learn a bit about feminism, the feminist movement over the past fifty years, and the difference between which ideas in the feminist movement actually helped women compared and contrasted to those ideas in the feminist movement that actually hurt women.
You might not think that your date is effected by feminism, but she is. It's your job to understand HOW your girl has been effected by feministic ideas. The only way you will be able to do that is to understand the feminist movement yourself better than she understands it herself. Once you do that, you will have access directly into the thought processes that define the most important decisions that she makes.
Always remember that you don't learn more about feminism than she herself knows so that you can trick her or control her, but only so that you can protect yourself in the coursthip stage and so that you can properly assess whether or not the girl who catches your eye really deserves your heart. And also so that if you decide that she is in fact the girl for you, you can love her the way she needs to be loved.
Guys who feel disadvantaged by your dating lives, please understand my point to you: it is NOT your date's job to explain these things to you. It is YOUR job to understand these dynamics even better than she does, even before your first date with her (and before your first date with any other woman, for that matter).
|
|
|
|
Post by shyiscool on Mar 21, 2006 0:05:03 GMT -5
Why are you issuing directives on this board? I don't know if you realize how arrogant you sound with that post. There was nothing inappropriate about what Sweet Pea wrote, but you on the other hand... Honestly... Every post of his in this thread has annoyed me. It all just reeks of arrogance, and everyone who disagrees with him seems to automatically warrant his contempt. Once again we have another (SS comes to mind...) cold, socially inept guy with an insensitivity to the importance of word connotations, trying to describe and explain human relationships. Or for those who need the a metaphors--it's like getting therapy for your spider phobia from a guy who freaks out at the site of anything eight-legged. It's like getting treatment for hair loss from a doctor who wears a toupee. You know; they might have something useful to say or do, but the presentation is so poor that it just seems prudent to question the validity of their advice. Hi there Green Ferret, thank you for responding to my posts. I understand concern about lack of sensitivity to word connotations, and I agree that anyone who enters into any public forum on any issue needs to be aware of the connotations...and I am. I just wanted to point out that well before your post about sensitivity to word connotations, I had already stated that I was choosing my words deliberately for their shock value, I had also stated that I was conscious of my word choice when I made it, and that I was in fact capable of choosing more subtle words and would have done so had it been my desire to do that. I'm in complete control of my words and their connotations and the likely effects of those connotations on whoever might read my comments. I appreciate your insight and I hope you will continue to post on the ideas presented here and elsewhere in the thread! |
|
