(Not Quite)27 Things Not Nearly Enough Men Know About Women (This one is actually logical and funny)

[BGH122]

TL;DR: You're an arrogant hypocrite and I felt the need to throw some actual, unbiased psychology meta-analyses at you so that guys and girls visiting this thread might learn a thing or two about one another from someone who's actually done their research.

#5 - Absolutely anything involving another woman, be it the menage, going to your local dirty shop to pick up a porn, or going to a strip club together: if it's your first time exploring this naughtiness, let HER come up with the idea. Even if you know she's bi and it's not her first time getting a lapdance/watching a porn with a boyfriend/engaging in a 3some, if she really cares about you the suggestion coming out of your mouth may land you in hot water. Now, if you're both just freakazoids and she likes it when you suggest a 30-women+you orgy in a leather dungeon, I guess you're just luckier than I

Not to sound like a parrot of the first reply, but your personal opinions on women and how one should interact with them are your own. Do not show such disgraceful hubris in applying your personal views to all women everywhere in a "hai gaiz this is what women want" thread. I picked the above quote because it was the worst offender. So let's go:

Who the hell do you think you are that you believe that you should be the one in the relationship to suggest sexual adventure? If it makes you feel negative in any way when guys try to dominate your sex life then what on earth makes you think that it's acceptable to just switch roles and place your lover into a role you clearly don't enjoy? The only reason I can think of that you might feel legitimates this reversal is the negative stereotype that guys just love anything to do with sex, but girls don't, so it's logical that the girl should dictate all sexual experience since her limits are the only limits in the relationship, but this is exactly the kind of crass, offensive stereotyping that you claim to abhor.

Also, please do not try and bullshit us by claiming that this thread was directed at a single specific person when the damn title says "Men" in it, not the name of the purported subject. So allow me to give you a piece of advice about interacting with any human being regardless of gender: the rule of reciprocity. If you don't want it done to you then don't do it to them. If you don't want men stereotyping women then don't stereotype men. If you wouldn't want to be in a position where the male had all the sexual power then don't subject him to such a position. If you hate being treated like a generic woman instead of an individual then how dare you treat men like as if they're generic?

Your post angered me a lot, one of the main reasons being that it was an arrogant list of your own beliefs forced on all women and all men without anything but your personal experiences to validate it. So here's some statistics for you regarding gender from another post I made a few days ago that seems to have attracted some positive feedback followed by another on inter-gender relationships, note both posts cite actual science, not just my own opinions:

Gender. That's another thing I want people to shut the fuck up about. The American media is obsessed with gender. I can't watch a damn television show without seeing men being thrown into one of the following stereotypical roles: competitive, immature, aggressive (this one has some truth to it at least, I'll explain later), sex obsessed, unemotional/emotionally insensitive and so on. Even more irritating (and nonsensical) is the fact that women are always portrayed as the tonic to these masculine gender defects. However, women don't get off scot-free either; women in the media are usually portrayed as one of the following: irrational, innocent/naive (may not sound like a bad thing, but innocence and infantilization go hand in hand and no-one wants to be denigrated to the position of a child), stupid and, more often than not, unpleasant/bitchy.

This is really annoying because a spiffing brilliant 46 study meta-analysis by Hyde et al (2005) of the University of Wisconsin discovered that there were no statistically significant differences between genders in any behavioural or cognitive areas other than aggression (moderate to strong correlation with males, especially when aware of observation (0.58-0.64 correlation on all types of aggression)), sexual attitudes (men don't tend to see masturbation as 'wrong' and don't tend to consider casual sex to be 'wrong' either (interestingly, despite the media portrayal, Hyde et al found that sexual satisfaction (amount and pleasure gained) leaned very slightly more towards women than men)) and lastly motor-skills and complex shape manipulation (being able to mentally rotate and manipulate 3-D shapes, just seems that women aren't usually created in such a way as to be neurologically geared towards this sort of task). A recent study of testosterone has also shined doubts upon its efficacy in causing aggression, as it was found that women in a blind trial were significantly more likely to exhibit aggressive/competitive tendencies when told they'd been given testosterone (when in fact none had been administered) than when they actually received testosterone. Basically, gender has jack shit to do with anything; the way your life has treated you is the most crucial factor in what makes you different from other people in nearly all aspects.

(TL;DR: Women send out mixed and inaccurate body language and tend to lie about their true feelings (the latter point goes for both genders))

Well, it is of course sexist to predicate personality on gender, but with that out the way let's look at the reality:

Source: http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/06/why-men-prefer-direct-pick-up-lines.php

Wade et al (2009) had 40 men and 40 women rank pick up lines in order of effectiveness, both genders placed chat-up lines "in order of directness, with the most direct also perceived as the most effective ... The only surprise is the low ranking of funny or sexual humour. Men don't seem to appreciate the lewd come-ons suggested by gender stereotypes. This relatively low rating for a jokey approach is another thing shared by both sexes. Previous work by Bale et al. (2006) found that women weren't particularly impressed with men trying to be funny, despite what we are often told. It seems opening lines are a serious business for both sexes."

"Grammer et al. (2000) videotaped opposite sex pairs meeting for the first time to catch the nuances of body language in the first 10 minutes of an interaction. Afterwards women were asked how much interest they had in the man they'd been talking to. The researchers revealed two counter-intuitive results:

* In the first minute women behaved no differently to men they fancied than those they didn't. They sent many positive nonverbal signals to all the men and hardly any negative signals.
* It is only between the 4th and 10th minute that any correlation was seen between an increased sending of positive nonverbal behaviours and wanting to date the man. But even then the difference was only between some positive signals and slightly more positive signals. Again negative signals were very rare.

The reason men prefer a direct approach becomes clearer. Women may think they are sending out all the right nonverbal signals and may blame men for failing to pick up on them. But from a man's perspective there may often be little to pick up on because women, being polite, are always sending positive nonverbal signals.

While it's not good practice to generalise too much from one relatively small study of 45 participants whose age ranged from 18 to 23, the results accord with what men say anecdotally: they often can't tell if women are interested or not because the signals are too ambiguous."

So that's your reason ladies, apparently the famed excellence of female non-verbal communication isn't quite as excellent as popular opinion would have us believe. This fits in well with research regarding gender differences in lying:

Source: http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/are-you-a-liar.php

"Feldman et al. (2002) told 121 participants they were going to have a chat with someone new for 10 minutes. Then half were divided into 3 groups, each with different goals from the conversation:

1. Competence: try to present yourself so that the other person thinks you're are competent.
2. Likeable: try to present yourself so that the other person thinks you are likeable.
3. Control: no specific goal.

All the participants were secretly videotaped during the conversation then, afterwards, asked to point out their own lies. They were told that lies include things like falsely agreeing with others and the misrepresentation of feelings. Then, while watching the video, they wrote down all the instances of their own lying.

The very first thing to say is that 40% of people claim to have told no lies whatsoever.
[...]
The other 60% did report some lies, though, with the average number being just under 3 in the 10 minutes. The lies they told were categorised as either subtle, exaggerations or outright lies. The most popular category of lie was the outright lie.

Lies were also categorised as to whether they were self-oriented or other-oriented with men telling more self-oriented lies than women. Overall, though, men and women told about the same number of lies, contrary to the popular conception that men are bigger liars than women.
[...]
Lies were categorised by the researchers into 5 areas: feelings, achievements, plans, explanations and facts. Below is the breakdown for women and men in each of the 3 conditions: the control group, the group asked to appear likeable and the group asked to appear competent (these are averages for the 10 mins)."

"As you can see the most popular category was feelings which, in this study, included lies about emotions, opinions and evaluations. Lies about feelings were particularly pronounced when women wanted to appear competent and when men wanted to appear likeable. This is a well-known finding: people are often found to lie more about their feelings than anything else."

So there you go. Both genders lie to one another and are then baffled as to why the other gender 'doesn't get them', coupled with the above proof that female non-verbal cues leave a lot to be desired leads to a conclusion that honesty would definitely work better when flirting than subtlety (possibly male non-verbal cues too, but there's no research on that (well, none I've found)).

 

[funguy2121]

Bloated - perhaps, rushed - sort of. Pretentious? Please explain.

And no, I won't "try harder next time." It was an experiment and the goal was not to impress all the lovely escapists I will never meet face to face.

I think "pretentious" has become a quick go-to word when someone doesn't like what someone else has said. What about my post appeared ostentatious or misleading or otherwise "look at me" to you?

For everyone else: the point about the other thread was stated in my OP. He overreacted, big time. Although he did try to inject a bit of humor here and there, he also reacted with a furor that frankly surprised me. I mean, dumb bitches of both genders do say dumb things, do they not? Do we get pissed when Megan Fox tries to tell us we're all bisexual? I'll admit, it was a bit rushed and the ending parentheses of the title appears a bit dickish in retrospect, but so does posting the equivalent of a Seventeen Magazine article and reacting to it with righteous indignation.

Edit: I'm not gonna change it, though. The delete key is for cowards. I presented it poorly (except the last part) and I'd be a wuss if I tried to hide it.

(1)Though I love it when people try to off-handidly insult my intelligence over the net, I don't suppose you'd see what's misleading or self-absorbed about your post or, hell, even the title of the topic. Specifically the "(2)(This one is actually logical and funny)" part, which was both misleading and has a strange sense of undeserved pride in something that is (3)neither witty or well-written.

Truth be told, your (4)list of facts are just as full of holes and pretensions as the previous thread/response, so it seems full of undeserved self-worth.
(5)Not trying to be an asshole, well, I am now given you tried to take a jab at my vocabulary, which I'm quite proud of, but I think (6)alot of time went into making this when all it is is a simple piss-filled rant because you didn't like the (mostly (7)parodic) response of another poster.

It IS prentious.

(1)I wasn't "off-handidly" insulting your intelligence, but rather calling you out to back up your claim, and you are smellin' rather like a troll about now. You failed to explain what was misleading or self-absorbed about my post (because it was neither).
(2)Way to call me out on something I already admitted was a mistake.
(3)Funny, I haven't seen much humor out of you yet. Perhaps you should actually back up your statements while you're trying to convince yourself you're actually smarter than me.
(4)You obviously didn't get it. Those aren't facts. It was a commentary on the other poster's reaction to the Cosmo tripe that's been trotted out for years as an accepted norm. While I do believe all of what I said to be true, it was supposed to serve as a counter to the nonsense found in those magazines. And I'm still surprised that so many didn't get that, for which I do take partial credit in rushing it out. But like I just said, back your arguments up. The point of these threads is discussion/debate, so AGAIN, tell me where these holes and pretensions lie (or else prove yourself a troll) Exactly how did I misrepresent myself with the OP?
(5)Who the Hell insulted your vocabulary? I just requested that you back up a statement (one clearly meant to insult me).
(6)/(7)The other post was a piss-filled rant, and one that wasn't incredibly thoughtful. I thought the guy was 13 until he said he was a sailor (no reason to believe the guy's a liar, I suppose). He pretty much said he bought that this is the kind of shit women believe. I've reread my own post and I don't really see the vitriol in there that you're inferring. So:

If you can define how this post was pretentious or piss-filled, then please explain. I'm more interested, however, in the holes you perceive in my logic. See, that's more interesting to me, because that's why I'm here. Not to trade barbs back and forth with self-important nerds.

I stopped reading here.
Pretentious, while often used by people who do not know what it means such as yourself, does infact exist to serve a purpose It is a descriptive, and it fits this list quite perfectly.

But of course, kind sir, in asking someone to support a claim that is disparaging towards myself, I must be both a pretentious ass and too insipid to recognize the word.

BTW, at the end, where it says, "what do you think," do you really think I was asking you to tell me how great I am? I was asking what your opinion on the subject was.

TL;DR: You're an arrogant hypocrite and I felt the need to throw some actual, unbiased psychology meta-analyses at you so that guys and girls visiting this thread might learn a thing or two about one another from someone who's actually done their research.


Not to sound like a parrot of the first reply, but your personal opinions on women and how one should interact with them are your own. Do not show such disgraceful hubris in applying your personal views to all women everywhere in a "hai gaiz this is what women want" thread. I picked the above quote because it was the worst offender. So let's go:

Who the hell do you think you are that you believe that you should be the one in the relationship to suggest sexual adventure?

Funny, you don't seem to have done your research and, while you did a bang-up job in the argument you actually made, you missed the point from the outset. This was a reference to another thread, and one that was linked (perhaps one that shares a very similar title?) Sexism, towards anyone, was not among my reasons for making the thread. I never presented these statements as anything other than my own opinions. I personally got a kick out of "applying your personal views to all women" when the very first point was that all women are clearly not the same. I'm also not a chick, Mr. Smartypants. The point I was making with regard to sexual adventure was that, we unfortunately living in a society that is not as accepting of different forms of sexuality, if you do not know that your woman is okay with something it may not be the best idea to suggest that the two of you fuck your ex girlfriend together, if in fact you want her to remain your girlfriend. Perhaps if I had linked this to the two points about being open and honest from the beginning you would have understood what I was trying to say. Again, I am partially to blame due to the limits of my own language. The whole point of this was "what do you think would be good advice?" or "what do you think of this?" That's how I ended the post. I've seen some of your posts before and you're obviously a smart guy, but I'm afraid your currently showing your ability to be an ass. I still don't get what about the post came across as arrogant or hypocritical.

To all the other flamers, talk about gender or fuck off. At least BGH brought some interesting points to the debate (even if it was the wrong one).

 

[BGH122]

Funny, you don't seem to have done your research and, while you did a bang-up job in the argument you actually made, you missed the point from the outset. This was a reference to another thread, and one that was linked (perhaps one that shares a very similar title?) Sexism, towards anyone, was not among my reasons for making the thread. I never presented these statements as anything other than my own opinions. I personally got a kick out of "applying your personal views to all women" when the very first point was that all women are clearly not the same. I'm also not a chick, Mr. Smartypants. The point I was making with regard to sexual adventure was that, we unfortunately living in a society that is not as accepting of different forms of sexuality, if you do not know that your woman is okay with something it may not be the best idea to suggest that the two of you fuck your ex girlfriend together, if in fact you want her to remain your girlfriend. Perhaps if I had linked this to the two points about being open and honest from the beginning you would have understood what I was trying to say. Again, I am partially to blame due to the limits of my own language. The whole point of this was "what do you think would be good advice?" or "what do you think of this?" That's how I ended the post. I've seen some of your posts before and you're obviously a smart guy, but I'm afraid your currently showing your ability to be an ass. I still don't get what about the post came across as arrogant or hypocritical.

To all the other flamers, talk about gender or fuck off. At least BGH brought some interesting points to the debate (even if it was the wrong one).

Yes, I did read the original thread that you linked and, yes, the guy was indeed being a misogynistic arsehole, but the points he was satirizing were themselves very misandric and offensive. Your points, however, despite what you claim, are not an obvious parody of anything. They are often self-contradicting (I made this point above, which you have ignored and instead decided to show me the places in which they obviously collude, without attempting to fix the contradictions) and disrespectful.

I assumed you were female, wrongly, because the post to which you linked us is an attack on women and your post emphasises the importance of the rights of the female over the male. There's no reason why these points must necessarily lead to the assumption that the poster is female, but it made it seem likely.

If you consider me an arse then that is unfortunate, but know that I have at least made it clear why I believe I am legitimated in treating you badly, for your own original post was incredibly offensive, patronizing and hypocritical. The rule of reciprocity comes into play again.

EDIT: I should address your query, it is bad form to simply ignore a request for ratification.

I considered your post preachy because it speaks in absolutes from the get-go. It doesn't qualify statements with, "to me it seems..." or, "Personally..." I understand why you aren't speaking in this manner (because the original MSN points which it pastiches speaks in absolutes also), but you must have realised that the women in those quotes came across as abominably awful people whom one might rightly avoid like the plague and hence borrowing from their cue, so to speak, would transfer this same aura of contemptuous haughtiness to you.

Also, I do not consider the prompt, "What do you think?" at the end of a large list of offensive generalisations to be a cue to build a great community project in which we compile our knowledge and create a list of paradigms men should follow. The entire premise suggest generalisation, as it presumes a paradigmatic man and woman with stereotypical behaviour.

However, now that we have talked, I understand that this was not what you intended, so I rescind my earlier hostility. However, I advise that in future you take a read through what you've written and consider if you're giving off the impression of yourself that you wish to portray.

 

[CK76]

#1 - Not all women are the same.

Agreed, and for #2 I'd say, "good luck gents".

 

[x0ny]

Awww it finished prematurely! I was enjoying that... =(

 

[GDW]

(1)I wasn't "off-handidly" insulting your intelligence, but rather calling you out to back up your claim, and you are smellin' rather like a troll about now. You failed to explain what was misleading or self-absorbed about my post (because it was neither).
(2)Way to call me out on something I already admitted was a mistake.
(3)Funny, I haven't seen much humor out of you yet. Perhaps you should actually back up your statements while you're trying to convince yourself you're actually smarter than me.
(4)You obviously didn't get it. Those aren't facts. It was a commentary on the other poster's reaction to the Cosmo tripe that's been trotted out for years as an accepted norm. While I do believe all of what I said to be true, it was supposed to serve as a counter to the nonsense found in those magazines. And I'm still surprised that so many didn't get that, for which I do take partial credit in rushing it out. But like I just said, back your arguments up. The point of these threads is discussion/debate, so AGAIN, tell me where these holes and pretensions lie (or else prove yourself a troll) Exactly how did I misrepresent myself with the OP?
(5)Who the Hell insulted your vocabulary? I just requested that you back up a statement (one clearly meant to insult me).
(6)/(7)The other post was a piss-filled rant, and one that wasn't incredibly thoughtful. I thought the guy was 13 until he said he was a sailor (no reason to believe the guy's a liar, I suppose). He pretty much said he bought that this is the kind of shit women believe. I've reread my own post and I don't really see the vitriol in there that you're inferring. So:

If you can define how this post was pretentious or piss-filled, then please explain. I'm more interested, however, in the holes you perceive in my logic. See, that's more interesting to me, because that's why I'm here. Not to trade barbs back and forth with self-important nerds.

(1.) Pardon? A troll? My apologies if I came off as one, but, given your complaints are all reflected at the original poster completely overreacted, when the man, quite clearly, stated that he was joking more than anything. Not his fault you took it to heart and thought he wasn't just making a jokingly open and, again, parodic observation on those articles, I thought it was hillarious. Not insightful, but given I've seen those lists a hundred thousand times as I'm sure he has, it was just nice to see a uniform list being applied in the same fashion. He didn't really plan to back up those statements, there wasn't much to be said, other than to give the male perspective on those ridiculous things that they try to say women believe.
You couldn't not the constant jokes and sterotypes formed and fashioned in a similar way? (although profanely so). I did.

(2.) Like I read anything past the original post.

(3.) What? I can't relay a similar opinion? You went on about how utterly immature and overracted whatshisnames list was and I couldn't help but laugh at it... your's was just... well, the exact opposite. Nothing humorous about it. Who the fuck do you think I am? I sure as shit am not the one who went to type a list in response to another poster's list on--
Oh wai-- Shit!

(4.) I'm not arguing, sir. I'm, again, basing my subjective statments against yours. Though, to be honest, I could go on to note that your list is about as true and relevant as any of that "Cosmo tripe". To be truthful, my point is an editorial that is in response to another editorial is that an opinion doesn't null an opinion, which brings me to the next point:

(6./7.) It was a joke. Does "National Lampoon" get reemed for posting similar thoughts? It wasn't just a rant, but, once AGAIN more of a parody, or atleast that's how I read it. None of his points were any more insightful, but provided just the right amount of rebound against the same blind and ignorant lists that plague magazines which attempt to help men with its dipshit logic with equally blind and ignorant logic, just more obviously humorous.

Finally, pretentious and piss-filled because you took a joke out of context and tried to pull out your list in response to the same material, however, your doing it with the same unfounded "reason" that those ridiculous editorials do. Perhaps if you made it seem more like a joke and still made your points I wouldn't think you were mis-representing yourself... such as saying it was, and, I'm sorry, it wasn't to me, and didn't seem like you were trying to be.
That's why I said "Try again". Believe it or not (and I'm pretty sure you don't, given your "troll" logic) I was being serious.


Also,
(5.) Practically flat-out saying I was misusing the word "pretentious" like so many others do and mentioning that I was somehow just using it to describe something I don't like?
Really? Not insulting my vocabulary? Or perhaps just the usage.

Whatever. Why am I arguing with you?

 

[Loop Stricken]

Awww it finished prematurely! I was enjoying that... =(

That's what she said!

 

[funguy2121]

snip

Thanks for the reply, and for the record, I don't believe you're an ass, though I do believe I was being an ass when I titled the thing. Again, I should've worded it better. If responses continue to come in, I may add to the OP but to change it would be cowardly so for now I'll just leave it alone.

To repeatedly state "it seems to me" and the like is tiresome for me; I thought it was understood that they're just my beliefs and my beliefs are just that, nothing more. Since all of them except #5 in some way address stereotypes and stereotypical behavior, I thought it would be clear with that one that I wasn't suggesting we stereotype anyone. Being forthright from the beginning, even about one's sexuality, is important for both partners. One of the #'s I neglected to add was how you can tell if a woman is a good lover or not - if you try something she doesn't like and her response is "what the Hell are you doing" or if it's more "oo, no, don't do that, do it like this." While I do agree that an equal partnership in life requires an equal partnership in the bedroom, this does lead us back to #1, whether it's an oral trick or role play or whatever. There is an effective way to communicate when something isn't working, and the goal should be to find common ground or, even better, explore new horizons together. I in no way meant that women should bring the whip into the bedroom (unless that's what both partners like), just that a man suggesting any form of polyamory/honest non-monogamy in a new relationship can be a dangerous game, and it is a fairly widespread phenomenon.

Also, I was mocking the article as much as the reaction to it. You're right, though. There's no point in posting such a long thread again without taking the time to present it the right way.

 

[Legion]

While these are not bad points, they are not funny at all really.

TL;DR

I am yet to come across a post of yours without that phrase in it (without cheating and looking at your profile).

Awww it finished prematurely! I was enjoying that... =(

That's what she said!

Very good.

 

[funguy2121]

snip

I must admit, I can't argue with all of that. One way I define trolling is name-calling and not backing up your statements, and no, I don't think asking you to define how any of the OP was pretentious was insulting you. "Pretentious" is a word that most all adults know and use, myself included. I could've phrased the OP better and you're right (except for the last one), it wasn't incredibly funny.

But I stand by what I said. How is that not sound advice? The idea was, what if one of these articles included real advice (which would never happen). Which of these is tripe? And I'm not flaming here, I'm being serious. Do you think a guy should take the same approach to every woman he pursues/dates?

And though he may have stated that it was intended as parody, the poster of the other thread was clearly very pissed off. He even admitted he was flame-baiting.

I wanted to post an alternative reaction to the article. And I do believe that Jane Krakowski was having fun at MSN's expense.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

While these are not bad points, they are not funny at all really.

And I thought I was going to be the first to say this, considering what everyone else was saying. Yes, your stuff makes sense and yes I'll say they're valid (even though I have no place saying that). But the title is misleading I think.

 

[Sevre]

I don't understand girls these days. So you don't all want the same thing? Why do you have to be so complex?

 

[GDW]

I must admit, I can't argue with all of that. One way I define trolling is name-calling and not backing up your statements, and no, I don't think asking you to define how any of the OP was pretentious was insulting you. "Pretentious" is a word that most all adults know and use, myself included. I could've phrased the OP better and you're right (except for the last one), it wasn't incredibly funny.

But I stand by what I said. How is that not sound advice? The idea was, what if one of these articles included real advice (which would never happen). Which of these is tripe? And I'm not flaming here, I'm being serious. Do you think a guy should take the same approach to every woman he pursues/dates?

And though he may have stated that it was intended as parody, the poster of the other thread was clearly very pissed off. He even admitted he was flame-baiting.

I wanted to post an alternative reaction to the article. And I do believe that Jane Krakowski was having fun at MSN's expense.

I didn't think I was name-calling, just stating how it came out. Again, I'z not be trollin'.

Truth be told, I'm only saying that it seemed from the same school of logic as those articles, i.e. the purpose of your list is pretty m uch nulled by the first two items, most notably the "never take advice from" and "all women are different". See, most people know that, it's common sense, hell, most MEN know that, and if the list had ended there I would have chuckled and nodded.
It just seemed more upset by the fact that the previous poster was makign a fuck-around response to those same things than anything, but my reason for calling it tripe is just that there's no REAL way to define it as "sound advice"... again, aside from the first two pieces, but it's just hard to hear a response to those types of articles with, roughly, the same idea in mind.

So, no, I think a guy should take no advice, if he needs it then he'd better re-evaluate his goals. No advice is necisarilly sound advice.
That's what I mean by pretentious. The concept of giving a "serious response" to a ridiculous idea, but somehow thinking your advice is any more sound. I don't think you're WRONG in doing so, it just doesn't make any more sense to do it.

 

[molester jester]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/funny

you do not seem to know what funny means, so i have provided a link to help you.

 

[BGH122]

snip

Thanks for the reply, and for the record, I don't believe you're an ass, though I do believe I was being an ass when I titled the thing. Again, I should've worded it better. If responses continue to come in, I may add to the OP but to change it would be cowardly so for now I'll just leave it alone.

To repeatedly state "it seems to me" and the like is tiresome for me; I thought it was understood that they're just my beliefs and my beliefs are just that, nothing more. Since all of them except #5 in some way address stereotypes and stereotypical behavior, I thought it would be clear with that one that I wasn't suggesting we stereotype anyone. Being forthright from the beginning, even about one's sexuality, is important for both partners. One of the #'s I neglected to add was how you can tell if a woman is a good lover or not - if you try something she doesn't like and her response is "what the Hell are you doing" or if it's more "oo, no, don't do that, do it like this." While I do agree that an equal partnership in life requires an equal partnership in the bedroom, this does lead us back to #1, whether it's an oral trick or role play or whatever. There is an effective way to communicate when something isn't working, and the goal should be to find common ground or, even better, explore new horizons together. I in no way meant that women should bring the whip into the bedroom (unless that's what both partners like), just that a man suggesting any form of polyamory/honest non-monogamy in a new relationship can be a dangerous game, and it is a fairly widespread phenomenon.

Also, I was mocking the article as much as the reaction to it. You're right, though. There's no point in posting such a long thread again without taking the time to present it the right way.

It seems you and I have little more to discuss, because I found the quoted post summarised most of my views on the matter. Certainly, stereotypes are internally useful (unless they become dogmatic) because to refuse to induce anything from our experiences would just be a waste. But, what I hate is the recent cultural phenomenon wherein people feel the need to axiomatically shove their own stereotypes down everyone else's throats as if their own personal experiences trump everyone else's. I see, however, that this was not your intention.

TL;DR

I am yet to come across a post of yours without that phrase in it (without cheating and looking at your profile).

Perhaps you would prefer that I make the same obsolete one-line posts as you? That I sum up complex matters in a single sentence? Or perhaps you would prefer that I stop including TL;DRs as a courtesy for those who cannot be bothered/do not have the time to read a long spiel? Whatever the case, your observation requires further explanation to be of any use. Currently you are simply informing me of something I obviously already know. However, given your apparent wonderment at the use of TL;DRs, perhaps you prefer to keep your posts insufficiently short due to your reticence to use summaries?

EDIT: If you intended no offence then I apologise for the rant. However, I would suggest that you think about what use your post will be to others before hitting post.

 

[Altorin]

Why help the plebians?

If they can't get women because they're uncouth, more for us.

and if they can, then wtf do you know?

 

[President Moocow]

Yeah, no. The other 27 tips were more funny. Nice try though, I'm glad at least you understood the other article was not serious (although I'm still not sure if you understood it was intended to be funny).

1 was ok, 3 was good. The rest, erm, not so much.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Threads like this make me question why I bothered to log back in. For fucks' sake, can't we get over the whole "men don't understand women" thing already? We think you're stuck-up bitches and only interested in material possessions, you think we're all cheating, lying, neanderthalic scum. Great, can we move on to one of the more pressing issues now? Like global warming, christian hate, gun control, fuel prices, etc? How about we discuss and come up with something that could actually make the planet a hell of a lot better for all of us?

Oh wait, that requires us to stop thinking that we're all the most important thing in creation. My bad, go back to the bullshit.

 

[President Moocow]

Threads like this make me question why I bothered to log back in. For fucks' sake, can't we get over the whole "men don't understand women" thing already? We think you're stuck-up bitches and only interested in material possessions, you think we're all cheating, lying, neanderthalic scum. Great, can we move on to one of the more pressing issues now? Like global warming, christian hate, gun control, fuel prices, etc? How about we discuss and come up with something that could actually make the planet a hell of a lot better for all of us?

Oh wait, that requires us to stop thinking that we're all the most important thing in creation. My bad, go back to the bullshit.

Bah, Penn and Teller take care of all of those issues and manage to encourage lots of sex at the same time. Sex is kinda human nature.

 

[high_castle]

As a woman, I agree with many of the points you make, but especially this one:

#4 - A trap that many in this generation of men without father figures falls into is playing the role that women used to play: the whiny, lovelorn, lovesick puppy. Blech. That's only attractive to the most opportunistic of women. Don't do that. I believe that damned near everyone does at one point, though, so if you must, do it only once, and thereafter always remember that there are more female fish than male fish in the sea. Would you rather be branded a stalker by the girl you can't get over and miss out on opportunities because you can't stop talking about her, or would you rather move on with your life and be your own person, a person who's much more likable and date-able?

The last two guys I've gone out with have both practically stalked me with the amount of texts and calls. And even when I tried to suggest nicely that they give me a bit of space, were unable to take the hint. So that brings me to the biggest bit of advice missing from that list:

LISTEN. All women are different just like all men are different. Don't take advice from a list, any list, if it contradicts something your girlfriend says. Listen to her. Ask her about her opinion. Get a sense of her beliefs. And then remember what she says.