Funny you should ask…
Doesn’t this directly contradict his argument in the virgins thread in which he’s claiming that men should turn down sure shots at sex if the woman is non-virginal?
I’m so confused.
Julie
Wow.
I bet all this attention will run him off. Do you think what he says is really how he feels? Some of the people in this thread have been here for years. How can you not know any better by now?
Hey, what the fuck happened to protecting the fragile male ego when it come to that sort of stuff. This thread is really begining to make me anxious.
Yes, yes I do.
Man… I’m real glad to know that any guy who would be attracted to me at this time is a pervert. Must mean my last boyfriend was a pervert and I should be glad he lost interest. Considering all of what he’s said as well it must mean I should also stay single until such a time as I can once again be of use to a male by being receptive to his ‘seed.’ :rolleyes: Or perhaps I’m just deemed unfit as I am no longer a virgin.
I’d get all pissy and blast him but I’m half asleep and just having read a bunch of his stuff I really don’t feel the need to get worked up by this fool. It’s not worth the effort.
Sigh
And Lezlers, true to form comes up with the tried and true cliche that everyone who lives with their parents are EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL.
Lez, this guy is a jerk k? Wether or not he lives with his mum and dad or not doesn’t come into it.
I’m tired of this 'ooooo if you live with mummy and daddy that means you’re not a proper human being and that is why you are creepy/psychotic/a serial killer/look at me funny 'cos I spilled his pint etc. blah blah.
The ‘you are a lesser form of life because you live with your parents’ thing is OLD!
This guy would be an idiot mysoginist whoever he lived with.
:rolleyes:
I don’t see a big deal with any of the stuff quoted in the OP. I don’t care for his characterizing the message board so broadly as geeks and losers, and I guess that’s Biggirl’s main complaint also.
As for his remarks on men and women…well, there’s alot of truth there. In most situations, women do control the scarcity of the resource when it comes to the sex act, because men demand the resource with greater frequency than it is offered as available. On his other point, men and women think so differently that even the most straight-forward, honest, non-manipulative woman in the world might be seen as playing “mind games” from time to time from the male perspective. Myself, I prefer straight honesty and directness in my relations with others and don’t feel like compromising that, but I’ve heard most guys talk at least once and awhile about having to drop that attitude out of necessity when dealing with women. Maybe it’s more polite to keep that attitude in the context of guy-talk, but I don’t fault this guy for being open about his opinions (presuming of course that they are his opinions, and not trolling.)
And it’s certainly true that, on the balance, internet dating sites (much like their predecessors, the Lonely Hearts Clubs) tend to attract the socially inept. “Sexually frustrated” and “celibate losers” might be an extremely cynical way to view it, and somewhat harsh, but it’s basically the opinion I hear most often about those services. Even the people I know who have used such services often seem embarassed to have done so.
He went over the top with his remark about treating people as “dogs”. But even though his opinions about men and women are somewhat extreme, from a cynical point of view there is a nugget of truth there. And, IMHO, a cynical viewpoint is very defensible. If you ask around, you’ll find alot more stories of disaster and failure in male-female relationships then you will find success stories. There’s no shortage of men and women you meet every day whose lives were derailed or even destroyed by trusting the other. When the WW2 generation finally starts dying off, prepare to see that oft-quoted “50% of marriages end in divorce” skyrocket to new heights.
There is a “power” component of interpersonal relationships that doesn’t go away simply because we wish our relationships to be more egalitarian. Speaking frankly about it may be unusual these days, but I don’t see how anyone could expect to improve their situations and accomplish their goals by denying reality and just wishing things to be better. You have to confront reality and manipulate it to serve your ends. If someone has a flawed notion of reality, it will only be repaired through experience. You can’t alter a person’s perception of reality by fiat.
sigh yourself.
Calm down, Lass, I wasn’t capping on everyone who lives with their parents, I was attempting to paint a little picture of the beloved Giggle. Moreso trying to establish him as a younger male…
What’s with the hyper (and very much off topic) sensitivity? Do you live at home? If you do, maybe you should move out, as you seem rather insecure about it.
:rolleyes:
Actually, what I understood from Giggle’s thesis is that it is MEN who control the resource (oh, what a charming term that is) by dictating which ‘goods’ are deemed acceptable for trade…in other words, there’s plenty of sex out there, but men control the level of scarcity by picking only virgins.
In my extensive experience, men are just as good at game playing as the most skilled of women. It’s a human thing, not a gender thing.
Well, you need to define what you mean by ‘socially inept’ here. I imagine that people who use dating services might need GREATER social skills to negotiate the dating path than those who use more conventional means (like picking up in a bar or being introduced by friends of friends etc). Being socially limited, either by choice or circumstance, does not equate with being a loser you know.
What on earth does THIS passage have to do with the argument at hand Rex? What is this ‘reality’ of which you speak? Care to fill us in?
He’s still going at it in here… the rate at which he keeps churning out psuedo-intellectual doublespeak is fast approaching lekatt proportions.
Hmmm… a lekatt of misogynism, this is gonna get ugly.
Double, triple, all sorts of multi-speak and five pages and this joker has yet to produce one single iota of back-up for any of his colorful claims. I’m really kinda suprised he’s still hungry after all this.
You all do realize that Giggle Gaggle is our old friend who has been banned as transitionality, Lucid Dreamer and apricot syrup, right? There were some superb gems under each of those names as well.
That’s a mighty bold accusation there AvhHines. Be careful, and if you think there is something awry, contact the mods rather than making such a public announcement.
Whether or not any one realizes this to be true, it is bad, bad form to call another poster a sock. You should e-mail your suspicions to a mod.
Hey Rex, you loser geek nerd-- nice to see ya! I can call you that since you don’t think it’s such a big deal, right? Like I said earlier there are plenty of losers such as yourself with what I consider stupid ideas about male/female relationships-- so defend away you geeky nerd, you.
Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that bit of netiquette.
Oh my–**Giggle Gaggle ** dropped off a double in this thread: Do any females not find asian males distasteful?
Niiiiiiiiiiiice.
Not netiquette. Specific board rule. Live and learn.
Yes, and his refusal to provide any links to back up his claims is the reason I’ve pretty much given up on that thread. Let others with greater perseverance than I keep trying. It’s like debating with a boulder.
With such a wonderful understanding of woman in the *“Do any females not find asian males distasteful?” * thread, how could he go wrong? :rolleyes:
After the recent run of sweeping generalisations and general jock/arsehole statements, why hasn’t he been banned?