[NT] NT women list of shit they put up with from men.

[proximo]

Goodness! All that testosterone has made you so selfish!

"Pragmatic" is closer - if there were just nothing in it for me, I'd do it. But when there's usually nothing but repeated kicks in the teeth, my pragmatism overrides my altruism. It's a bit like how Cassandra must've felt

 

[ThatGirl]

To say there are no inherent differences between men and women is simply ludicrous.

The other day I was watching So You Think You Can Dance with my boy (which he didn't seem all that into). When a cheerleader with long blond hair and big breasts took the stage. Before she even started dancing my son suddenly looked up at me and said "Mom, I love her." I was like......hm. She hadn't performed she hadn't done anything yet, he just simply saw her. I teased him a little then let it go. During the montage they were showing tid bits of other contestants, and my son points out "Her, I love her!." Only it was a different girl, long blond hair, skinny, pretty face, and big breasts. Than another one came on, and another one. He said the same thing each time.

This got me thinking about the crushes I had as a child. None of them were based on looks. All were based on a character or personality. I liked funny or goofy guys who could do martial arts and take down the bad guys. I also liked, the nerds. Who I thought seemed to express more character than the average guy who mingled with his social circle. Men with talents.

Anyway, I started to have the idea, and it makes sense, that men have an inherently superficial quality about them. Even the guy who is most in love with his partner will be attracted to other women (whether he acts on it or not) while women who really love their partner would probably not be attracted to other men. In this way women are capable of a deeper and less superficial (physical or sensory) connection than men are capable of tapping into.

And this realization explained a LOT of frustration I have had over the years with men, even the most sensitive of them, still could not understand the most basic of dimensional concepts.

Now before you guys go all hissy on me, know that I am talking about men and women, NOT this man or this woman. Naturally there will always be an exception to the rule, though if we discount repeditive patterns for the sake of 100% accuracy we fail to see much of what truely goes on. I am not speaking of the exception here, I am speaking of the general.

Think back to the sorts of "crushes" you had as a child vs your gender.

Anyway beside that point, even if men had enough of an understanding that this dynamic did exist and through their values system tried to step out of the social stereotype, this would only mean they had the male perspective of a female. And, I imagine they would be subjecting themselves to over compensating for the natural dynamic.

 

[Resonance]

TG, 'inherent' and 'general with exceptions' are pretty much incompatible.

Hope this helps.

 

[ThatGirl]

TG, 'inherent' and 'general with exceptions' are pretty much incompatible.

Hope this helps.

It is an inherent nature that people are born with two kidneys, though this is not always the case, it is most likely to occur.

 

[Resonance]

It is an inherent nature that people are born with two kidneys, though this is not always the case, it is most likely to occur.

Being superficial isn't like having two kidneys.

 

[Epiphany]

To say there are no inherent differences between men and women is simply ludicrous.

The other day I was watching So You Think You Can Dance with my boy (which he didn't seem all that into). When a cheerleader with long blond hair and big breasts took the stage. Before she even started dancing my son suddenly looked up at me and said "Mom, I love her." I was like......hm. She hadn't performed she hadn't done anything yet, he just simply saw her. I teased him a little then let it go. During the montage they were showing tid bits of other contestants, and my son points out "Her, I love her!." Only it was a different girl, long blond hair, skinny, pretty face, and big breasts. Than another one came on, and another one. He said the same thing each time.

This got me thinking about the crushes I had as a child. None of them were based on looks. All were based on a character or personality. I liked funny or goofy guys who could do martial arts and take down the bad guys. I also liked, the nerds. Who I thought seemed to express more character than the average guy who mingled with his social circle. Men with talents.

Anyway, I started to have the idea, and it makes sense, that men have an inherently superficial quality about them. Even the guy who is most in love with his partner will be attracted to other women (whether he acts on it or not) while women who really love their partner would probably not be attracted to other men. In this way women are capable of a deeper and less superficial (physical or sensory) connection than men are capable of tapping into.

And this realization explained a LOT of frustration I have had over the years with men, even the most sensitive of them, still could not understand the most basic of dimensional concepts.

Now before you guys go all hissy on me, know that I am talking about men and women, NOT this man or this woman. Naturally there will always be an exception to the rule, though if we discount repeditive patterns for the sake of 100% accuracy we fail to see much of what truely goes on. I am not speaking of the exception here, I am speaking of the general.

Think back to the sorts of "crushes" you had as a child vs your gender.

Anyway beside that point, even if men had enough of an understanding that this dynamic did exist and through their values system tried to step out of the social stereotype, this would only mean they had the male perspective of a female. And, I imagine they would be subjecting themselves to over compensating for the natural dynamic.

This was touched on in the PUA thread. Men do tend to be more visual, but beauty is subjective. Some men are attracted to thin women; some are attracted to heavier women. Looks are not irrelevant to most women either. As far as who is more superficial between men and women, in general, I would say that both are equally superficial in different ways. Women tend to be more materialistic and seek men who can provide them with possessions, and are more concerned about social status and where their men stand in relation to other men; whereas guys are superficial mostly concerning physical beauty.

YouTube - Dave Chapelle - Men and Women Phsycology - Very True

[YOUTUBE="5ZRflz-93JA"]Men and Women Psychology[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

GOTCHA, BITCH!

 

[Resonance]

GOTCHA, BITCH!

Are these real leather seats?!?

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Are these real leather seats?!?

Those would be genuine world-class ostrich leather seats. Oh, and did you see the LCD largescreen sunroof and the glovebox minibar? *polishes the pure gold steering wheel*

So, when am I getting laid? The trunk has a built-in flip-out heart-shaped water-filled sexy-bed in it.

 

[Resonance]

Those would be genuine world-class ostrich leather seats. Oh, and did you see the LCD largescreen sunroof and the glovebox minibar? *polishes the pure gold steering wheel*

So, when am I getting laid? The trunk has a built-in flip-out heart-shaped water-filled sexy-bed in it.

You're gonna need to get that food off your head, first.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

You're gonna need to get that food off your head, first.

Yeah, I don't think I could go at it without having a nice sandwich first. Sadly, my car doesn't have a sandwich maker so... Could 'ya hop to that? Extra mayo please.

 

[Resonance]

Yeah, I don't think I could go at it without having a nice sandwich first. Sadly, my car doesn't have a sandwich maker so... Could 'ya hop to that? Extra mayo please.

One knuckle or two?

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

One knuckle or two?

I'm looking forward to this Porsche ride.

 

[Salomé]

Anyway, I started to have the idea, and it makes sense, that men have an inherently superficial quality about them. Even the guy who is most in love with his partner will be attracted to other women (whether he acts on it or not) while women who really love their partner would probably not be attracted to other men. In this way women are capable of a deeper and less superficial (physical or sensory) connection than men are capable of tapping into.

1. This generalization doesn't hold. I know men it doesn't apply to and women it does.
2. Being attracted to someone while you are in love with someone else (and not acting on it) doesn't make one shallow.
3. What does this have to do with the ability to comprehend anything?

Sexual attraction isn't informed by morality. It's largely instinctive, and acquisitory. Whether attracted to someone's physical appearance or intellectual merit, it all boils down to the same thing: desire. They have something we want.
Is it more shallow to cultivate superficial accomplishments: appearance, wealth, status, or to be attracted by them?

To suggest that men are incapable of deep connections is to do them a profound disservice. I would agree that it's easier to turn their heads, but their hearts are as fathomless as any woman's.

 

[proximo]

I would contest the idea that a woman who was so "in love" that she literally did not notice or even fleetingly desire any other person she saw, forever, would be in a healthy state of mind. That's not be so much in love as infatuated and, probably, obsessed. I would not want to be the object of somebody's obsession.

 

[Salomé]

I would contest the idea that a woman who was so "in love" that she literally did not notice or even fleetingly desire any other person she saw, forever, would be in a healthy state of mind. That's not be so much in love as infatuated and, probably, obsessed. I would not want to be the object of somebody's obsession.

I don't think that's fair either.
Some people just have more monogamous wiring than others.

 

[proximo]

I don't think that's fair either.
Some people just have more monogamous wiring than others.

I'm sure they do... but even the most monogamously wired person, surely, still has the odd occasion when they simply NOTICE that somebody else is attractive, even if that doesn't trigger any actual desire to "have" them?? Like appreciating a fine painting, you can't help noticing if a good looking person is on the TV or walks past and you happen to be looking in that direction.

 

[Salomé]

I'm sure they do... but even the most monogamously wired person, surely, still has the odd occasion when they simply NOTICE that somebody else is attractive, even if that doesn't trigger any actual desire to "have" them?? Like appreciating a fine painting, you can't help noticing if a good looking person is on the TV or walks past and you happen to be looking in that direction.

I can appreciate a painting without desiring it.

 

[Totenkindly]

1. This generalization doesn't hold. I know men it doesn't apply to and women it does.
2. Being attracted to someone while you are in love with someone else (and not acting on it) doesn't make one shallow.
3. What does this have to do with the ability to comprehend anything?

My basic perception as well.

Why are so many people in this thread hell-bent on jamming people into boxes based on coarse generalizations, especially in the sense of suggesting that one gender is "better" or "deeper" than another? It's just more nuanced than that.

I think our understanding is limited by what we are capable of experiencing. No man will ever understand what it's like to be a woman, living in a woman's body, unless he does so. And vice versa. It would be great if we all could. Then these types of threads / misunderstandings wouldn't exist.

Ahem. *raises hand*

<<< FTM Transsexual alert

I think being trans gives a person SOME experience (and more than the typical person who spends their whole life "in one gender"), especially in regards to the social influences in play upon a person as well as comprehending hormonal influences... but I'm not quite sure that a transperson truly gets the gender they were assigned at birth. They might look like one, but are they really wired that way? The perception is still distorted.

Just because a person might have lived as a male for many years, for example, doesn't mean that person understood a typical male mindset... and in fact that lack of understanding is what no doubt contributed a lot of angst, since the person was expected to behave as if they did. In fact, the identification with the other gender in terms of identity and alignment, vs the gender assigned at birth, is one primary indicator of the condition. You're trans, Prox, because you DIDN'T identify as a woman but as a man... and thus thought and behaved like one inherently. Anything female you picked up was due to socialization, not necessarily an inherent understanding.

 

[proximo]

I can appreciate a painting without desiring it.

Well exactly. That's what I meant. The way she put it, it was like being in love would automatically not make you find anyone else attractive. Also, I can appreciate a painting, WISH it could grace my dining room wall, but all the while having no intention whatsoever of trying to acquire it.

I see a distinction between the different ways that attractiveness/sex appeal affects me, dependent on whether I'm in a relationship or not. If I'm not in a relationship, then if I see someone I find very desirable, I do actually want them (usually not enough to try to "get" them though!). If I am in a relationship and I see that same person, I can acknowledge their appeal, but am somehow detached from it, as though it doesn't really apply to me. It's as if the "like" and "want" parts of my brain have become disconnected...?