Who's more honorable in relationships, men or women?

[miss_elizabeth]

@Untoward_Parable

I just want people to give their opinion, if you have cites that support your case great.

In my opinion, your OP was one of the stupider posts I’ve read on this board. My cite? Your OP.

[perfectparanoia]

@Untoward_Parable

being straightforward I’m not referring to what motivates the person I’m talking about the interactions. A woman who likes a guy might complain at the end of the night, “I stood alone over at the bar several times but he never came over. I’m so bummed.” a guy would say, “That chick totally shot me down when I tried to talk to her dude. I’m so bummed.”

The guy will initiate and be blunt. The girl will not initiate and pretend not to be very interested even if they are.

I understand you are trying to talk generically but it is coming off as being a little insulting.

I am a (double-checks) a woman. I have always been the one to make sexual advancements when I was single. I currently am the breadwinner of the family. My communication style is to put all my cards on the table and work from facts to a logical solution.

I don’t fit your mold for a woman.

If a girlfriend of mine said that she was bummed that some dude hadn’t come over, I would go over and explain the situation to the guy (since she is apparently a wuss).

I am really sick of gender stereotypes.

[miss_elizabeth]

@Untoward_Parable

If you think young and middle aged men should be sexually attracted to women in their 90’s because of their charm… Thing is young and middle aged women will go out with guys in their 90’s for their wealth and status.

So?! What is the point? How on earth is one more “honorable” than the other? This is utterly asinine. You act is though you conclusions are obvious- they aren’t. Your opinion is dumb.

[Laggard]

@Untoward_Parable

No, it wouldn’t. Animal instincts are not an excuse. Men could dismiss violence the same way which would be absurd.
.

Isn’t being attracted to someone for their looks nothing more than an “animal instinct?”

[Untoward_Parable]

@Inner_Stickler

Human interaction can be a finicky thing, this is true. I think the question you should be asking yourself is, “Are these behaviors I’m noticing an artifact of confirmation bias? That is, are women who don’t act like this merely escaping my notice as opposed to obstinately not existing?” Once you’ve answered that question then you can move onto the next, which is “Are these innate characteristics of women or are they societally motivated behaviors?”

Now, from my perspective, as a man who does not view women as relationship partners in the same way as you and having experience in relationships with a man, I feel I must opine that much of what people attribute to the battle of the sexes is really the battle of two people trying to bring separate lives to the same place.

I am not imagining this. It’s pretty ubiquitous. I have had and do have a fine time with many women who are not this way. In fact I am completely unattracted to this majority of women. I know that when you disagree with someone it’s easier to attack them than argue the merits of their assertions but such is the way of things.

[Laggard]

@miss_elizabeth

In my opinion, your OP was one of the stupider posts I’ve read on this board. My cite? Your OP.

Yeah, I should have left it alone right after “pure and natural.”

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Untoward_Parable

It’s not the lack of women being attracted to looks that is disturbing. It’s that status is more important than looks or personality to most women (in the west, modern culture yadda yadda).

If that’s true (cite? maybe?) - why is it disturbing? I also note that you are implying that men think personality is more important than looks, while women apparently put more ‘practical’ aspects like wealth and status above both - is that what you really think is going on?

[miss_elizabeth]

@Untoward_Parable

I am not imagining this. It’s pretty ubiquitous. I have had and do have a fine time with many women who are not this way. In fact I am completely unattracted to this majority of women. I know that when you disagree with someone it’s easier to attack them than argue the merits of their assertions but such is the way of things.

Let me put it simply.

Your assertions? They have no merits.

So, we’re only left with attack. Sorry. If you don’t like it, come up with ideas that aren’t patently stupid.

[Untoward_Parable]

@Bloodless_Turnip

I disagree. Being interested in the future, especially when contemplating raising children is very logical. Financial stability is directly related. Being interested based only on physical attraction is not only reckless, it shows a complete lack of maturity.

Being logical is not the same as being honorable. If you want to make yourself a whore to provide for your children to be that’s your choice.

I never said “only based on physical attractiveness”. I said that that component was not itself negative or positive and that it was a component in men and women’s attraction. Men’s attraction is superior because it lacks the “maturity” of taking mates for the promise of cash money and the things that require it.

[perfectparanoia]

@Untoward_Parable

Let me preface this by saying that I consider myself a feminist.

Bullshit. That’s like saying you are not racist and then making generalizations about each race.

(I should leave now. I am merely getting more pissed off. sorry.)

[Untoward_Parable]

@Laggard

I realize that English it not the OPs first language so his point may be lost in translation. I doubt in his native language it makes any sense either.

Insult instead of argument. Next.

[Untoward_Parable]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

I really don’t see the distinction. It’s perfectly “natural” to be attracted to good looks AND financial status, and it’s almost a tautology that good looking people and succesful people both make better mates everything else being equal. Neither criterium is inherently good or bad. See also naturalistic fallacy (especially when you start calling things “pure”).

If you want to get into rigorous philosophy we will just ind up proving that none of this matters anyway. Arguing about the ideal use of the word “pure” is meaningless to the conversation.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Untoward_Parable

Being logical is not the same as being honorable. If you want to make yourself a whore to provide for your children to be that’s your choice.

I never said “only based on physical attractiveness”. I said that that component was not itself negative or positive and that it was a component in men and women’s attraction. Men’s attraction is superior because it lacks the “maturity” of taking mates for the promise of cash money and the things that require it.

Your concept of honor is childish, your ideas about men are purely self-serving and your ideas about women are disgusting.

[Untoward_Parable]

@miss_elizabeth

In my opinion, your OP was one of the stupider posts I’ve read on this board. My cite? Your OP.

Insult instead of argument. Next.

[Bloodless_Turnip]

Being logical is not the same as being honorable. If you want to make yourself a whore to provide for your children to be that’s your choice.

So being interested in the financial welfare of your offspring is being a whore. Yet, being attracted to a woman based only on her physical appearance is not being a whore.

Is this correct?

[Laggard]

@Untoward_Parable

Insult instead of argument. Next.

I was defending you ya jackass. You may have meant something very different than what came out.

[miss_elizabeth]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

Your concept of honor is childish, your ideas about men are purely self-serving and your ideas about women are disgusting.

This.

@Untoward_Parable

Insult instead of argument. Next.

As I said, you really leave me with nothing else. Put up a decent argument, and many here will be happy to discuss it. Put up something like this, and you will be mocked and vilified. Personally, I find it to be one of the better features of the board.

[Laggard]

@Bloodless_Turnip

So being interested in the financial welfare of your offspring is being a whore. Yet, being attracted to a woman based only on her physical appearance is not being a whore.

Is this correct?

Correct because being attracted to someone based on her looks is “pure and natural”.

[Inner_Stickler]

Do you not see how your OP and subsequent comments are insulting? I realize it’s annoying when what you perceive as valid points and rebuttals are dismissed by others as inonsequential, but responding with glib dismissals on your part do little to convince others that you’ve a cogent argument. A lot of people have said that they disagree with your premises. That means you either need to reinforce said premises or re-evaluate them. Merely insisting they are true won’t get you very far.

[Untoward_Parable]

@perfectparanoia

I understand you are trying to talk generically but it is coming off as being a little insulting.

I am a (double-checks) a woman. I have always been the one to make sexual advancements when I was single. I currently am the breadwinner of the family. My communication style is to put all my cards on the table and work from facts to a logical solution.

I don’t fit your mold for a woman.

If a girlfriend of mine said that she was bummed that some dude hadn’t come over, I would go over and explain the situation to the guy (since she is apparently a wuss).

I am really sick of gender stereotypes.

Unfortunately many stereotypes are in general true. I have no problem with tendencies have exceptions. I have known plenty of women to operate under different motivations and behaviors.

Funny thing is that in the right circumstance when people aren’t being defensive women will make this case for me. Especially the independent non-sterotype types.

Women tend to wear makeup. Women tend to have longer hair. Stereotypes, but true as anything.