A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes.
by Scott
Feb 22nd, 2004
April and Scott are talking about marriage…
April says:
It’s possible to be self-sufficient, right?
Scotty says:
It’s possible, if that's what you really want.
April says:
Oh, who really knows what they want? It changes all the time.
Scotty says:
My wants don't change really.
April says:
Maybe when it stops changing, maybe that's when you're ready [for marriage]. Hey, good for you!
Scotty says:
I don't know if it stops changing for most women.
April says:
Well, good for me because I’m a girl.
Scotty says:
lol....
April says:
If it never stops changing for women, then how come it's the men that go through mid-life crises?
Scotty says:
They don't want to die.
April says:
Women don't want to die...
Scotty says:
On realization that you're getting old, you try and be young again, or to live. Women don't go through crises?
April says:
I don't know! Women might go through some sort of crisis, but I honestly believe they are so attached to their husbands at that point that they'd never think of going all crazy.
Scotty says:
I don't know; a lot of women cheat a lot. Don't they?
April says:
Some girls do. The majority don't.
Scotty says:
Why don't they? And why do the ones that do, do?
April says:
Because women are pretty loyal.
Scotty says:
Are you sure?
April says:
The ones that cheat; they're selfish, have no morals...and basically, I think they're immature.
Scotty says:
I think most women are selfish, have no morals, and are immature. No one has proven me wrong yet. Maybe you; still, I don't know you well enough.
April says:
Well, I can't argue against the selfish thing. Of course I’m selfish. I mean if I really loved a guy, I wouldn't cheat on him because the aftereffects would be damaging to our relationship, and therefore I’d suffer a lot, especially from guilt. But I also think if I really loved the guy, I wouldn't be thinking about other guys. I tend to get tunnel vision; but I do think I have morals…the maturity thing...I’m working on that. I don't think most women are immature, selfish and lacking morals.
Scotty says:
Based on evidence, I do, but I guess I just don't know women, and I only know girls.
April says:
Then you're hanging out with the wrong girls.
Scotty says:
Well no, mostly all of them are like that.
April says:
I really don't think...a lot of girls I know are like that. Some yes, but.
Scotty says:
They don't base their decisions on how they feel?
April says:
How is that related to immaturity?
Scotty says:
If at one moment, they feel they like a person, and the next they stop liking them...it’s immoral and immature. Well, at least if they act on their momentary feelings
April says:
Men do that more than women.
Scotty says:
What evidence do you have for that?
April says:
Guys will like a girl and she will, um, please them. The next day he's like "I’m out of this".
Scotty says:
That isn't the same thing, he never really liked the girl, and he only wanted the sexual stuff.
April says:
That’s immoral and immature, either way.
Scotty says:
I agree.
April says:
That’s acting on momentary feelings, right?
Scotty says:
Not really. Guys seem to have more of an overall feeling towards objects. Let’s say, for example, a guy and his car. He loves the car, and when it breaks down he gets pissed at it, but he fixes it and maintains his love for it…but a girl and her car, she will love it when it's doing something good for her, making her look cool or feel good with her hair blowing in the wind and stuff, but if it breaks down she lets it go. Do you see that at all?
April says:
No, my car was sick a couple weeks ago and I cried over it.
Scotty says:
You must have missed my point.
April says:
No...I’m a girl, I love my car, it was breaking down, and I fixed it.
Scotty says:
Okay, let’s talk about your guitar. Is it like a best friend, or is it like something you pick up when there's nothing else, or only if you want to accomplish something with it?
April says:
Hmm. I fluctuate between my piano and my guitar, but I love my guitar. If I’m playing and I get tired, I’ll take naps with it because I don't want to let it go.
Scotty says:
You are definitely less wishy-washy than other girls, but I think you're swaying your answers, trying to prove a point
April says:
I know, I was thinking about that, but I think I’m arguing pretty clear-headedly, not swayingly. My car, I’m completely serious about; I talk to it sometimes. Yikes!
Scotty says:
It’s clear headed, but is it portraying the truth of the matter? That doesn't mean it's the same type of relationship that a guy has with it
April says:
My guitar...I feel a bit guilty about that argument because I originally picked it up because I thought it was cool, but now it's like my child.
Scotty says:
How is it like your child?
April says:
I like playing it and even just holding it...I don't get sick of it and I feel I share some strange sort of bond with it. I don't know how to explain it. I'm sure my relationships with my car and guitars are a bit different from guys, but I don't see how that has to do with anything.
Scotty says:
It’s about how the sexes form relationships with things....and people are things to other people.
April says:
So…to a guy, a girl is just another “thingâ€. Nice.
Scotty says:
Guys seem to have more of a transcending love for things, where girls have that more sentient love, which is momentary. To a girl, a guy is a thing. We are all things.
April says:
No, there are more specific words in the English language that convey a more powerful respect. And that is how I view guys, if they deserve respect.
Scotty says:
What??
April says:
“Thing†is like...something to be thrown away. It's property.
Scotty says:
Yeah. That isn't how people view relationships, subconsciously?
April says:
It doesn't sound like it has much value. I don't think that's the way it should be.
Scotty says:
It isn't actual, but it's how things are in society.
April says:
Like...my boyfriend or husband would say, "This is my thing, I like my thing, she's a really nice little thing, you know?"
Scotty says:
You aren't a thing?
April says:
Like I’m some suit coat he picked up somewhere.
Scotty says:
If you aren't a thing, you're nothing and you don't exist. No, it isn't implying that.
April says:
There are thousands of words in the English language. Using a specific word is the least you can do for someone you love. Don't you agree?
Scotty says:
lol…well yeah.
April says:
Exactly. I don't care if I am in actuality a thing.
Scotty says:
You’re embodying "girl" right now.
April says:
No I’m not! And even if I am…I'm right! Would you want your girlfriend to call you her thing?
Scotty says:
No, but in actuality I am a thing, and in actuality I am not her thing.
April says:
But guys view their girls as their thing; their property.
Scotty says:
Girls view guys the same way. This whole "thing" business isn't even what we were talking about, April.
April says:
I know; where were we?
Scotty says:
See what I mean by being momentary? You reacted to that idea of people being things. What I was saying was...the way a man loves his guitar is the way that man loves his woman; same for girls, and other objects, and whatever.
April says:
But that's not true...
Scotty says:
Why not?
April says:
…Because a woman loves her lover more than anything else. It’s different from any other love. It stands on its own when she truly loves him.
Scotty says:
Of course a man will love a woman more than his guitar; he'd give up his guitar for her, or probably most anything else…that isn't what I’m talking about though. I'm talking about the nature of his love, from himself to the object of love; the idea of commitment.
April says:
He doesn't like commitment.
Scotty says:
What?
April says:
Men don't really like commitment…the majority.
Scotty says:
What evidence do you have for that? They commit themselves to whatever they do, generally.
April says:
Yeah, for a night…oh, that was harsh.
Scotty says:
lol no, if they view a girl as a sex object, that's all the girl will be unless she proves his idea of her wrong and becomes more like an equal in personality.
April says:
So what if she really likes him? And she really wants to please him? And she thinks he really likes her? But the whole time he's like "this girl has no personality, but I’m going to screw her, oh yes." That happens a lot.
Scotty says:
It does, and I hate that. It's why I’m being the way I am lately - moral towards girls.
April says:
And that's why it's easier for me to live a moral life, because I know guys are like that.
Scotty says:
Moral doesn't mean "without guys".
April says:
I know, but I don't meet many who have different interests.
Scotty says:
…Different than getting some?
April says:
Yeah.
Scotty says:
Yeah, there aren't many, it seems men are committed to getting some
April says:
lol…my point!
Scotty says:
Yeah I agree with that point. Do you see mine?
April says:
Let me tell you something, Scott.
Scotty says:
K.
April says:
Sometimes, girls don't want to hear that their position in a man's life is comparable to a guitar. It may be true, but slightly disturbing. However…
Scotty says:
You missed the point!
April says:
I do agree that…wait!
Scotty says:
K.
April says:
I do agree that if and when a man is actually committed to a girl, he really does love her; then there is a man who works really really hard for her. I have seen some marriages where I could not imagine life with a wife like that (if I were male) and yet the husband handles her beautifully and kindly all the while, whereas she will snap and cuddle when she pleases. In that, men are less momentary. In that situation! But I don't see it terribly often.
Scotty says:
Why in that situation only?
April says:
Well, what are the other situations? A lot of times a guy will put up with his woman's nuances just to get some at the end up the day.
Scotty says:
Yeah that does happen a lot, but what I meant by my question was that it must be something in the guy's nature which makes that situation generally happen the way it does; something in the way a guy is towards objects...pardon me for calling a guy's girlfriend or spouse an "object". Do you agree with that?
April says:
Yeah, I just don't see the application?
Scotty says:
What do you mean?
April says:
The point you were making with it...
Scotty says:
Girls are generally momentary, and guys aren't.
April says:
Maybe you should explain a bit more how girls are momentary.
Scotty says:
That’s hard for me to do!
April says:
Why?
Scotty says:
…Because it's subtle, kind of hidden from view. You can only know how it is by the way girls are towards things.
April says:
If it's so subtle, maybe you're mistranslating!
Scotty says:
Maybe.
…and the conversation went onto other things.
A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
Genius!!!
Yo ho!!!
Yo ho!!!
-
WolfsonJakk
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
She is a smart girl, Scott. But you are growing wiser. Be careful the holes you dig. Don't chain yourself to one yet, is my advice. Go to college, get a degree in whatever, and until you retire you will be surrounded by leagues of women in office settings (unless maybe you have a degree in engineering, though that is changing). They will be available later in abundance if you decide it is what you still want. Trust me on this. (Sex with a 30 year old is much better than sex with an 18 year old, btw.)
Is she still committed to her piano when she is sleeping with her guitar? The same will be true of all objects in her life. The object must serve her adequately for her to feel attached to it, and thus to respond to it. Men who value cars and other things are no different. This bodes ill for a marriage becuase there will be troublesome times, I guarantee it. Wait until the baby comes. Wait until you are tired of fucking her. When she hates you (momentarily perhaps) will she stay faithfull? Does it matter?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course I’m selfish. I mean if I really loved a guy, I wouldn't cheat on him because the after effects would be damaging to our relationship, and therefore I’d suffer a lot, especially from guilt. But I also think if I really loved the guy, I wouldn't be thinking about other guys. I tend to get tunnel vision; but I do think I have morals…the maturity thing...I’m working on that....<hr>
In other words, serve her well so she does not think about other guys and thus doesn't cheat on you. Hmmm. Not exactly a "commitment," is it?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Hmm. I fluctuate between my piano and my guitar, but I love my guitar. If I’m playing and I get tired, I’ll take naps with it because I don't want to let it go.<hr>
But then she does...
Quote:Quote:<hr>Maybe you should explain a bit more how girls are momentary.<hr>
Ask her why she is here. Ask her what the meaning to her life is. Does she have a mission? Not only will you get "I don't know," but the conversation probably won't even go very far. Too much "out of the moment" thinking. I suspect you (Scott) could ponder the same topic with another philosophically minded person off and on for days or even weeks.
Tharan
Is she still committed to her piano when she is sleeping with her guitar? The same will be true of all objects in her life. The object must serve her adequately for her to feel attached to it, and thus to respond to it. Men who value cars and other things are no different. This bodes ill for a marriage becuase there will be troublesome times, I guarantee it. Wait until the baby comes. Wait until you are tired of fucking her. When she hates you (momentarily perhaps) will she stay faithfull? Does it matter?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Of course I’m selfish. I mean if I really loved a guy, I wouldn't cheat on him because the after effects would be damaging to our relationship, and therefore I’d suffer a lot, especially from guilt. But I also think if I really loved the guy, I wouldn't be thinking about other guys. I tend to get tunnel vision; but I do think I have morals…the maturity thing...I’m working on that....<hr>
In other words, serve her well so she does not think about other guys and thus doesn't cheat on you. Hmmm. Not exactly a "commitment," is it?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Hmm. I fluctuate between my piano and my guitar, but I love my guitar. If I’m playing and I get tired, I’ll take naps with it because I don't want to let it go.<hr>
But then she does...
Quote:Quote:<hr>Maybe you should explain a bit more how girls are momentary.<hr>
Ask her why she is here. Ask her what the meaning to her life is. Does she have a mission? Not only will you get "I don't know," but the conversation probably won't even go very far. Too much "out of the moment" thinking. I suspect you (Scott) could ponder the same topic with another philosophically minded person off and on for days or even weeks.
Tharan
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
I suppose April is one of what you call your 'fuck-buddies' Scott? Did she know you were taping your conversation?
No she isn't one of my fuck buddies, I'm still a virgin. I talk to her on MSN messenger, and we post poetry at the same forum. We are close in spirit.
She is a smart girl, Scott. But you are growing wiser. Be careful the holes you dig. Don't chain yourself to one yet, is my advice. Go to college, get a degree in whatever, and until you retire you will be surrounded by leagues of women in office settings (unless maybe you have a degree in engineering, though that is changing). They will be available later in abundance if you decide it is what you still want. Trust me on this. (Sex with a 30 year old is much better than sex with an 18 year old, btw.)
Yes she is smart. In her senior year of high school she got a 4.2 grade point average; I didn't know such a thing was even possible! I don't see why I should avoid women, though. If I dig myself in a hole with one, then I'm just in a hole. Why does that matter? I'd rather take risks and have an adventurous life, than do nothing out of fear of becoming attached or whatnot. As long as I keep questioning, I'm fulfilling my role as a responsible human being.
Is she still committed to her piano when she is sleeping with her guitar? The same will be true of all objects in her life. The object must serve her adequately for her to feel attached to it, and thus to respond to it. Men who value cars and other things are no different. This bodes ill for a marriage becuase there will be troublesome times, I guarantee it. Wait until the baby comes. Wait until you are tired of fucking her. When she hates you (momentarily perhaps) will she stay faithfull? Does it matter?
If I want to get married, I do need to find a woman that'll stay faithful even when she hates me. I don't really think its a good idea to base a marriage off of whether I'm going to stop enjoying sex with her or not. Marriage seems to be about love; unification of opposites. I believe its actually more of a sacred thing than most view it today...it should be an expression of the unification of opposing forces within oneself.
You bring up a good point about men being the same way with cars, as she is with her piano or guitar. Like we have all said here before, about gender issues: men have some femininity and women have some masculinity. I wasn't really talking about if they will temporarily forget about the object of affection, I was talking about the general love for the object. The way a man loves his car, versus the way a woman loves her (shoes?). The man seems to have a more lasting love, while the woman has a temporary love which is based off of making her feel good or not. If the shoes are called "ugly" by some girl who she looks up to, she most likely won't wear them anymore. Of course, this is a very generalized truth, and seems almost too subtle to be aware of.
In other words, serve her well so she does not think about other guys and thus doesn't cheat on you. Hmmm. Not exactly a "commitment," is it?
No, it isn't. And if a spouse or girlfriend I had wasn't serving me well, I need to make sure that I'm committed to her. If I'm not, how could I possibly expect commitment from anyone else? "You get what you are" is the rule.
Ask her why she is here. Ask her what the meaning to her life is. Does she have a mission?
Her mission is to do good, she says.
...Thanks for your comments.
No she isn't one of my fuck buddies, I'm still a virgin. I talk to her on MSN messenger, and we post poetry at the same forum. We are close in spirit.
She is a smart girl, Scott. But you are growing wiser. Be careful the holes you dig. Don't chain yourself to one yet, is my advice. Go to college, get a degree in whatever, and until you retire you will be surrounded by leagues of women in office settings (unless maybe you have a degree in engineering, though that is changing). They will be available later in abundance if you decide it is what you still want. Trust me on this. (Sex with a 30 year old is much better than sex with an 18 year old, btw.)
Yes she is smart. In her senior year of high school she got a 4.2 grade point average; I didn't know such a thing was even possible! I don't see why I should avoid women, though. If I dig myself in a hole with one, then I'm just in a hole. Why does that matter? I'd rather take risks and have an adventurous life, than do nothing out of fear of becoming attached or whatnot. As long as I keep questioning, I'm fulfilling my role as a responsible human being.
Is she still committed to her piano when she is sleeping with her guitar? The same will be true of all objects in her life. The object must serve her adequately for her to feel attached to it, and thus to respond to it. Men who value cars and other things are no different. This bodes ill for a marriage becuase there will be troublesome times, I guarantee it. Wait until the baby comes. Wait until you are tired of fucking her. When she hates you (momentarily perhaps) will she stay faithfull? Does it matter?
If I want to get married, I do need to find a woman that'll stay faithful even when she hates me. I don't really think its a good idea to base a marriage off of whether I'm going to stop enjoying sex with her or not. Marriage seems to be about love; unification of opposites. I believe its actually more of a sacred thing than most view it today...it should be an expression of the unification of opposing forces within oneself.
You bring up a good point about men being the same way with cars, as she is with her piano or guitar. Like we have all said here before, about gender issues: men have some femininity and women have some masculinity. I wasn't really talking about if they will temporarily forget about the object of affection, I was talking about the general love for the object. The way a man loves his car, versus the way a woman loves her (shoes?). The man seems to have a more lasting love, while the woman has a temporary love which is based off of making her feel good or not. If the shoes are called "ugly" by some girl who she looks up to, she most likely won't wear them anymore. Of course, this is a very generalized truth, and seems almost too subtle to be aware of.
In other words, serve her well so she does not think about other guys and thus doesn't cheat on you. Hmmm. Not exactly a "commitment," is it?
No, it isn't. And if a spouse or girlfriend I had wasn't serving me well, I need to make sure that I'm committed to her. If I'm not, how could I possibly expect commitment from anyone else? "You get what you are" is the rule.
Ask her why she is here. Ask her what the meaning to her life is. Does she have a mission?
Her mission is to do good, she says.
...Thanks for your comments.
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
Wow, Scott, this is a great dialogue, and I was thinking about this very topic last night, probably when you posted it!
Quote:Quote:<hr>Not really. Guys seem to have more of an overall feeling towards objects. Let’s say, for example, a guy and his car. He loves the car, and when it breaks down he gets pissed at it, but he fixes it and maintains his love for it…but a girl and her car, she will love it when it's doing something good for her, making her look cool or feel good with her hair blowing in the wind and stuff, but if it breaks down she lets it go. Do you see that at all?<hr>
I was thinking about the womens' complaint that men consider them objects. I think this is true in that men always approach the world from a transcendent and separate vantage point. Thus all things in the world, whether alive or dead, are objects to men. There are ony two things that aassuage their loneliness - other men, and women. But men always see women as equal parts human and other. Women are not like that. Women have men firmly in the humanity category, and that is one reason they are more blind to what men are really about. They don't see men as other, and therefore don't ask themselves - what is this?
Women, unlike men, tend to have firm categories of animate versus inanimate. I am not sure why. Perhaps because they are looking at the world from within it, whereas men are looking from the outside in. But I think this is why men are more prone to love objects, since all things are things to them. Women feel more insulted by men's objectification than they should. That is man's way.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Scotty says:
It’s about how the sexes form relationships with things....and people are things to other people.<hr>
Well, as I said above, people are things to men, but not to women. Although that sounds like a putdown of men, it isn't. Men are the transcendent gender, and women the immanent gender. Men are focused on all things, women more on 'living' things.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Guys seem to have more of a transcending love for things, where girls have that more sentient love, which is momentary. To a girl, a guy is a thing. We are all things.<hr> As you can surmise, I agree with the first half, but not the second. Perhaps you think so because women appear more selfish and materialistic. I do agree that men have a more loving and giving nature.
Edited by: birdofhermes at: 2/23/04 7:32 am
Quote:Quote:<hr>Not really. Guys seem to have more of an overall feeling towards objects. Let’s say, for example, a guy and his car. He loves the car, and when it breaks down he gets pissed at it, but he fixes it and maintains his love for it…but a girl and her car, she will love it when it's doing something good for her, making her look cool or feel good with her hair blowing in the wind and stuff, but if it breaks down she lets it go. Do you see that at all?<hr>
I was thinking about the womens' complaint that men consider them objects. I think this is true in that men always approach the world from a transcendent and separate vantage point. Thus all things in the world, whether alive or dead, are objects to men. There are ony two things that aassuage their loneliness - other men, and women. But men always see women as equal parts human and other. Women are not like that. Women have men firmly in the humanity category, and that is one reason they are more blind to what men are really about. They don't see men as other, and therefore don't ask themselves - what is this?
Women, unlike men, tend to have firm categories of animate versus inanimate. I am not sure why. Perhaps because they are looking at the world from within it, whereas men are looking from the outside in. But I think this is why men are more prone to love objects, since all things are things to them. Women feel more insulted by men's objectification than they should. That is man's way.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Scotty says:
It’s about how the sexes form relationships with things....and people are things to other people.<hr>
Well, as I said above, people are things to men, but not to women. Although that sounds like a putdown of men, it isn't. Men are the transcendent gender, and women the immanent gender. Men are focused on all things, women more on 'living' things.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Guys seem to have more of a transcending love for things, where girls have that more sentient love, which is momentary. To a girl, a guy is a thing. We are all things.<hr> As you can surmise, I agree with the first half, but not the second. Perhaps you think so because women appear more selfish and materialistic. I do agree that men have a more loving and giving nature.
Edited by: birdofhermes at: 2/23/04 7:32 am
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
Thanks Anna.
Men are the transcendent gender, and women the immanent gender. Men are focused on all things, women more on 'living' things.
I think this is an interesting point; I've seen it before. Katie (my ex-girl I was seeing recently) would get angry with me if I didn't make facial expressions, or didn't tell her how I felt. My face or my temporary emotions aren't who I am, the whole of me as a "thing" is who I am to another person. Some of that is moving and full of life, and some it is still.
Do you think it'd be a good idea for women who love movement and hate stillness to be introduced to logic and ethics in order to be changed, so that society prospers? Or do you think that the current state of woman allows society to run perfectly? I'm personally unsure.
Men are the transcendent gender, and women the immanent gender. Men are focused on all things, women more on 'living' things.
I think this is an interesting point; I've seen it before. Katie (my ex-girl I was seeing recently) would get angry with me if I didn't make facial expressions, or didn't tell her how I felt. My face or my temporary emotions aren't who I am, the whole of me as a "thing" is who I am to another person. Some of that is moving and full of life, and some it is still.
Do you think it'd be a good idea for women who love movement and hate stillness to be introduced to logic and ethics in order to be changed, so that society prospers? Or do you think that the current state of woman allows society to run perfectly? I'm personally unsure.
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
"Anyway, the april/scott conversation sounds like a conversation between spongebob and patrick :D"
- my friend Erin
- my friend Erin
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
Who is Patrick?
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
But I think this is why men are more prone to love objects, since all things are things to them.
Men love objects that are 'doing' things, things that allow them to be masculine - cars, bikes, computers, tools and things for outdoor activities like sporting accessories.
Women love objects that make them feel more feminine - jewellery, clothes, household nicknacks and things for indoor activities like knitting and other crafts.
Both like lazy entertainment stuff, but the men's stuff is active and mostly practical while the womens stuff is sedate and decorative.
On the basis of the number of items women would have more than men, by a fair margin. If you exclude 'useful' items from both sexes, then the ratio of womens things becomes a lot higher. So who really does love objects?
IMO, a lot of hobby type things are more to get away from the opposite sex than anything else.
Men love objects that are 'doing' things, things that allow them to be masculine - cars, bikes, computers, tools and things for outdoor activities like sporting accessories.
Women love objects that make them feel more feminine - jewellery, clothes, household nicknacks and things for indoor activities like knitting and other crafts.
Both like lazy entertainment stuff, but the men's stuff is active and mostly practical while the womens stuff is sedate and decorative.
On the basis of the number of items women would have more than men, by a fair margin. If you exclude 'useful' items from both sexes, then the ratio of womens things becomes a lot higher. So who really does love objects?
IMO, a lot of hobby type things are more to get away from the opposite sex than anything else.
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
Women feel more insulted by men's objectification than they should. That is man's way.
Yet they try their very hardest to make themselves into sex objects, then complain about it when the wrong men acknowledge this or they aren't in the mood. That is woman's way.
Yet they try their very hardest to make themselves into sex objects, then complain about it when the wrong men acknowledge this or they aren't in the mood. That is woman's way.
-
birdofhermes
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm
Re: A Dialogue on the Sexes, by the Sexes, for the Sexes
Quote:Quote:<hr>Katie (my ex-girl I was seeing recently) would get angry with me if I didn't make facial expressions, or didn't tell her how I felt. My face or my temporary emotions aren't who I am, the whole of me as a "thing" is who I am to another person. Some of that is moving and full of life, and some it is still.<hr>Well, I had considered this an extravert/introvert problem. I had two husbands who both were angry and harshly badgered me for having less than an instantaneous response during conversation or argument. I am a slow responder. Often, I do not even have an emotional response until I think about it. I once tried being a supervisor, and the folks got very upset with me and said I never took action. That was because when various tattletales came to me about someone's behavior, I would watch for a week or so before getting riled. To them, that was no action.
My SO and I are emotionally very similar, and both introverted, and in more than two years, have never been more than mildly annoyed, and that most rarely. Sometimes I have been upset over not getting the kind of demonstrativeness I want. I guess he is even quieter than me.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Do you think it'd be a good idea for women who love movement and hate stillness to be introduced to logic and ethics in order to be changed, so that society prospers?<hr>Absolutely. But I'm not sure that is the crux of this particular problem.
Much as people make fun of pop psychology books like Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, that book goes a long way to pointing out that men and women often go about things quite differently, and misunderstand each other because of it.
My SO and I are emotionally very similar, and both introverted, and in more than two years, have never been more than mildly annoyed, and that most rarely. Sometimes I have been upset over not getting the kind of demonstrativeness I want. I guess he is even quieter than me.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Do you think it'd be a good idea for women who love movement and hate stillness to be introduced to logic and ethics in order to be changed, so that society prospers?<hr>Absolutely. But I'm not sure that is the crux of this particular problem.
Much as people make fun of pop psychology books like Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, that book goes a long way to pointing out that men and women often go about things quite differently, and misunderstand each other because of it.
Re: ----
Thanks for your love, man.
First Expansion on the Dialogue O.B.F. The Sexes
I'd just like to add, due to some negative feedback from others who've read this, that: my stance is NOT misogynistic in nature. I love women, and still participate in full fledged relationships with them.
Some people have argued, saying that I overgeneralized. I didn't; there is still room for error. I have said that men can be very 'momentary', and women can be very 'transcendent' in how they view their relationship to objects. Let me compare my argument to race. There are a variety of skintones nowadays, ranging from pale to deep dark black. Is it overgeneralizing to say that most people with darker skin colors are probably African in origin? No, it's just sensible; it's a good way to categorize race. Of course, sometimes you can be wrong...a dark man could just be a very tan European, or could even be a Mexican. In the same sense, there are some women that are fully "transcendent", but I'm guessing that's a comparatively small number. There are inbetweens, where most people are; then there is the extreme "momentary", which is where probably half of women are (based on my own personal examination, which is completely fallible).
There is no way to understand the sexes without taking personal examination, and conversing about it. Then you get a grouping of personal experiences, and you take the average of all to be the closest to what can be considered 'true' about the sexes.
I don't consider my statements to be absolutely true, and I don't really 'believe' them, in the sense that I hold them as natural laws or anything. Every woman or girl that I meet, I see as a human being before anything else. I've had good friends who were women, and I don't see how I couldn't meet more.
People have given me evidence against my claims, saying that they know girls who have been loyal to uncommmitted boyfriends. Things like that. That is one instance in that girl's life, and doesn't tell whether she's momentary in nature or not. You have to look, as someone will to find the truth of the matter, at their every action. Their character. The way they treat their friends, family, lovers. If they lie or not. You have to really analyze the person; all the while not letting them know that you're analyzing their characteristics. I'm sure many of you do that already, without really calling it "observing", "examining" or "analyzing".
One of my best friends is a guy, and he has taken on the practice of being momentary, when he is NOT momentary in nature. He appears momentary, makes irrational decisions, and doesn't think about what he's doing...but I can tell by his actions that he is a transcendent type of person. He has been with his girlfriend for three years now, a rarity at our age, and he is very eccentric about his passions. He is obsessed with cooking, hunting knives, and interacting with people. His choice to be momentary does enable him to act immorally a lot of the time. Does this give me any reason to think less of him? To treat him poorly? No, of course not. It'd be immoral of me to judge his choices as 'good' or 'bad', and react towards him on that judgement. I don't want someone doing that to me; which brings me to my point about morality...
People have been saying to me, "Not everyone has the same morals". I agree with you! My definition of morality is objective. It is the golden rule: Do what you want others to do to you. If you don't want someone to hurt you, you don't hurt them. If people do hurt you, is it justified to hurt them back? No, you're still being immoral, and breaking the golden rule.
So, I may seem misogynistic in saying that girls are generally more selfish, immoral and immature. My goal however, is to make all people unselfish, moral, and mature; for the well being of girls and guys. Are women treated fairly in our society? They are for the most part seen as sex objects, and nothing more. Is that fair? Pointing out that a woman's body isn't generally built for playing football with men's bodies isn't misogynistic (fundamentalist feminists may disagree).
Showing a person their flaws should make them try to correct them, if they are responsible human beings. Instead of having women react emotionally to what I'm saying, they should try to see if it does in fact apply to them, and what the repurcussions are, if what I say is true. Then, if they don't like it, they should change it.
If I were a misogynist, I'd say "women are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about". I don't believe that. I'd probably say, "never trust a woman", but I don't think that's good advice. I've known many more girls than guys that I could trust.
What I pointed out in the Dialogue, was that women have a tendency to be momentary with principals; putting on a principal in order to serve her in that moment. Men have a tendency to be more transcendent and committed; they view things in the long run, think abstractly about circular patterns, and develop systems of action in order to serve himself and others. This isn't about specific events, but the general attitude of the gender in question towards all events in their life: their character. Misogyny is blind-hatred towards women, and I'm positive that taking in evidence isn't considered blind, and that I don't hate women.
First Expansion on the Dialogue O.B.F. The Sexes
I'd just like to add, due to some negative feedback from others who've read this, that: my stance is NOT misogynistic in nature. I love women, and still participate in full fledged relationships with them.
Some people have argued, saying that I overgeneralized. I didn't; there is still room for error. I have said that men can be very 'momentary', and women can be very 'transcendent' in how they view their relationship to objects. Let me compare my argument to race. There are a variety of skintones nowadays, ranging from pale to deep dark black. Is it overgeneralizing to say that most people with darker skin colors are probably African in origin? No, it's just sensible; it's a good way to categorize race. Of course, sometimes you can be wrong...a dark man could just be a very tan European, or could even be a Mexican. In the same sense, there are some women that are fully "transcendent", but I'm guessing that's a comparatively small number. There are inbetweens, where most people are; then there is the extreme "momentary", which is where probably half of women are (based on my own personal examination, which is completely fallible).
There is no way to understand the sexes without taking personal examination, and conversing about it. Then you get a grouping of personal experiences, and you take the average of all to be the closest to what can be considered 'true' about the sexes.
I don't consider my statements to be absolutely true, and I don't really 'believe' them, in the sense that I hold them as natural laws or anything. Every woman or girl that I meet, I see as a human being before anything else. I've had good friends who were women, and I don't see how I couldn't meet more.
People have given me evidence against my claims, saying that they know girls who have been loyal to uncommmitted boyfriends. Things like that. That is one instance in that girl's life, and doesn't tell whether she's momentary in nature or not. You have to look, as someone will to find the truth of the matter, at their every action. Their character. The way they treat their friends, family, lovers. If they lie or not. You have to really analyze the person; all the while not letting them know that you're analyzing their characteristics. I'm sure many of you do that already, without really calling it "observing", "examining" or "analyzing".
One of my best friends is a guy, and he has taken on the practice of being momentary, when he is NOT momentary in nature. He appears momentary, makes irrational decisions, and doesn't think about what he's doing...but I can tell by his actions that he is a transcendent type of person. He has been with his girlfriend for three years now, a rarity at our age, and he is very eccentric about his passions. He is obsessed with cooking, hunting knives, and interacting with people. His choice to be momentary does enable him to act immorally a lot of the time. Does this give me any reason to think less of him? To treat him poorly? No, of course not. It'd be immoral of me to judge his choices as 'good' or 'bad', and react towards him on that judgement. I don't want someone doing that to me; which brings me to my point about morality...
People have been saying to me, "Not everyone has the same morals". I agree with you! My definition of morality is objective. It is the golden rule: Do what you want others to do to you. If you don't want someone to hurt you, you don't hurt them. If people do hurt you, is it justified to hurt them back? No, you're still being immoral, and breaking the golden rule.
So, I may seem misogynistic in saying that girls are generally more selfish, immoral and immature. My goal however, is to make all people unselfish, moral, and mature; for the well being of girls and guys. Are women treated fairly in our society? They are for the most part seen as sex objects, and nothing more. Is that fair? Pointing out that a woman's body isn't generally built for playing football with men's bodies isn't misogynistic (fundamentalist feminists may disagree).
Showing a person their flaws should make them try to correct them, if they are responsible human beings. Instead of having women react emotionally to what I'm saying, they should try to see if it does in fact apply to them, and what the repurcussions are, if what I say is true. Then, if they don't like it, they should change it.
If I were a misogynist, I'd say "women are incapable of understanding what I'm talking about". I don't believe that. I'd probably say, "never trust a woman", but I don't think that's good advice. I've known many more girls than guys that I could trust.
What I pointed out in the Dialogue, was that women have a tendency to be momentary with principals; putting on a principal in order to serve her in that moment. Men have a tendency to be more transcendent and committed; they view things in the long run, think abstractly about circular patterns, and develop systems of action in order to serve himself and others. This isn't about specific events, but the general attitude of the gender in question towards all events in their life: their character. Misogyny is blind-hatred towards women, and I'm positive that taking in evidence isn't considered blind, and that I don't hate women.
-
WolfsonJakk
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm
Re: ----
Well said, young man. I wish I had been so insightful at that age. Continue on. It gets better.
Oh yah...and fuck you!
heh
Tharan
*edit* Edited by: WolfsonJakk at: 2/24/04 6:19 pm
Oh yah...and fuck you!
heh
Tharan
*edit* Edited by: WolfsonJakk at: 2/24/04 6:19 pm