I bet Leaffan wishes he’d given this thread a different title, given the number of people who clearly don’t read posts very carefully!
I read (most of) the posts, I certainly read the OP, but this thread took a left turn at Albuquerque…
Oh, no, sorry, that wasn’t aimed at you (or anyone else in particular)! Just a general observation reading through the thread; I don’t think it went quite the way the OP probably intended!
I’ve learned a valuable lesson about thread titles and people’s inability to read and comprehend the OP.
I keep learning the same lesson every few years. About 25% of posters don’t bother with OPs. All about the title baby.
Damn! 
I’d be interested the nanosecond he said that, too, but because it’s an unusual occupation - not vanishingly rare, but certainly not common - and therefore I’d find both the topic and the man attached to it intriguing.
Sorry if you or your buddies assume this means I’m gonna even *let *you in my pants, let alone *pursue *your dick.
That was unnecessarily contentious. :dubious:
Drink some Natty Lite beer while watching an episode of ESPN golf reruns and have a laugh …
You paint women with a broad brush. A whole buncha posters come in to point out how they don’t fit your stereotype. You blame our faulty memories. Ah, yes, that must be it.
Yep, count me in too.
In answer to the OP, I will always check out a stout man - even better if hairy:)
I don’t even know which way your buddy might be lying-- making more, making less? I haven’t the faintest idea what a pilot might make. I would say “what do you do?” because it’s a way to spark a conversation, not because I am thinking about income.
I’m not doubting you. But pilots make good money and it was evident from the behavior that followed that it mattered. In this case we were all pilots but only one of us did it for a living. Somehow flying as a hobby didn’t hold the same fascination.
I can just see the conversation:
Lisa: What kind of work are you in, Joe?
Joe: I’m a pilot for United Airlines.
Lisa: Oh wow, that’s awesome!
Magiver: Oooh, me too, I have a little plane I fly for fun!
Bob: Yeah, I do that too, pay attention to meeee!
Lisa: :dubious:
Good for you. Honestly. Now tell me because you don’t like expensive shoes that a statement suggesting women do is false or that men don’t like sports or that women can’t like sports.
He didn’t assume anything other than to cross these women off his list of potential mates. He wasn’t interested in “getting into their pants” which makes your assumption sad and funny at the same time because you’re making the same type of assumption you think can’t be made from observed behavior.
No I blame your sense of political correctness and insistence that any observed behavior is somehow an indication of how every person on the planet behaves. Like it or not there are men who like large breasts and women who like large wallets. We evolved from a society where men made the money and that was a major part of the equation when marriage was considered. We still see the vestiges of that in engagement rings and expensive weddings so don’t come in here all butt hurt that there are a noticeable number of young women who find wealth a desirable trait.
Actually you’re pretty close. It was the commercial pilot who worked his buddies into the conversation. Somehow the love of flying didn’t matter. The young ladies were written off from the start because of this but we had fun watching it unfold.
I dunno–the whole thing comes across as kind of coattails.
In any case, look at how you originally responded to the question about what women were interested in:
Here you’re saying it’s a given that women ask what guys do for a living because they want to know about the dude’s wallet, because that’s what they’re attracted to.
That’s the sort of misogynist bullshit that people object to.
Later, you simultaneously back off and attack, saying:
Note the irony of the first sentence: when people object to your conclusion that “it’s almost a given” that a woman is attracted to a man’s wallet, you respond by accusing THEM of saying that “any observed behavior is somehow an indication of how every person on the planet behaves.”
Not to put to fine a point on it, but no u.
I made no absolutes about anything. I pointed out an observed behavior which is no different than any other observed behavior. Did you think it was an absolute when I said women like shoes?
I thought when you said “it was almost a given” that you were saying something was almost absolute. Did you not intend it that way?
IF: **purple **doesn’t like expensive shoes (a true IRL statement, as it happens)
{AND}
IF: **purple **is a woman (likewise, an IRL truth, which makes it easier to follow this little logic experiment)
THEN: the statement “***all ***women like expensive shoes” is false
{AND}
THEN: the statement “***some ***women like expensive shoes” is true
But your statements earlier paint women with such a crudely drawn broad brush that it’s understandable that the majority of people reading your posts would reasonably assume that you were not referring only to a select few individuals in your statements.
… after their perceived gold-digging behavior. Which means that while they were still potential candidates, a bit of pants-getting-into would have been highly acceptable.
But isn’t that what you did?
Still not sure what that has to do with the OP, though. I thought we were trying to agree if some guys are into ta-tas while others are not.
Reread the OP :).
Personally, I find casual misogyny very sexy.