Toxic Masculinty
Gauldoth wrote:
Also, just because women like to act dumb, doesn't mean they actually are. They know damn well the effect their flirts have and the message they send, and generally speaking, they will NOT flirt with a man unless they're genuinely attracted him, or they want to trick him into thinking they are so they can get something from him.
Evidence, please? And no, statistical studies don't count because first and foremost there are always outliers. Secondly, what actual percentage of the female population participated in this survey? Thirdly, given that women keep telling me again and again that they flirt with people they're not interested in what proof do you have that they're lying? When I was younger I actually had women flirt with me and one of em happened to be single(she was friends with a friend of mine). I pursued her but she shied off and it was obvious that she wasn't into me and felt embarrassed that she gave me the wrong idea. You keep citing statistical studies that make claims which I've heard a million times before but when I actually test these claims I keep running into counterexamples......

Gauldoth wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
As for your wife, she is only ONE person. You yourself are giving an anecdote about the particular woman that you married but this does not prove anything about women in general.
As opposed to the women you SUPPOSEDLY talked to who were all appointed emissaries speaking on behalf of all womankind. And who all also suffered from a mental condition that prevented them from ever lying, even in situations where it would benefit them to do so.

In the case of my ex-gf, it was hardly beneficial of her to lie to me about wanting sex because at the time, her sex drive was actually stronger than mine. She believed that because she was employed at the time we met, she'd get paid maternity leave so she wasn't gonna need a partner to provide for her and her yet-to-be-born-at-the-time son since she planned to return to work after being absent for a year and even do work from her apartment. She figured that her being pregnant would be a long term turn-off to most men so in her words she might as well live it up and have *fun* before she got so big that her pregnancy would be too obvious to conceal. She never envisioned us being together in the long term as she still had feelings for her first bf of 9 years but we totally fell for each other despite the fact that being lifelong partners was totally unrealistic.
You're gonna argue that she wanted a provider, which eventually she did but that wasn't until she lost her job and went broke and had to go on welfare + food stamps. She was exceedingly irrational. Don't believe me? Well, it's no skin off my big gentleman sausage! You're seeking out confirmation of your worldview and will try to explain away every counterexample that fits it. Get out once in a while and meet some REAL people! And not just prudes who lie about their sexual desires(or lack thereof).
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Evidence, please? And no, statistical studies don't count because first and foremost there are always outliers. Secondly, what actual percentage of the female population participated in this survey? Thirdly, given that women keep telling me again and again that they flirt with people they're not interested in what proof do you have that they're lying? When I was younger I actually had women flirt with me and one of em happened to be single(she was friends with a friend of mine). I pursued her but she shied off and it was obvious that she wasn't into me and felt embarrassed that she gave me the wrong idea. You keep citing statistical studies that make claims which I've heard a million times before but when I actually test these claims I keep running into counterexamples......
And guess what, some women actually ARE dumb which is why they act that way. Others are simply delusional and do dumb things. But apparently you cannot distinguish between those who are putting on an act and those who actually are what they appear to be.

Translation: "no actual scientific evidence because it won't tell me what I want to hear". Whatever, dude...

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
In the case of my ex-gf, it was hardly beneficial of her to lie to me about wanting sex because at the time, her sex drive was actually stronger than mine. She believed that because she was employed at the time we met, she'd get paid maternity leave so she wasn't gonna need a partner to provide for her and her yet-to-be-born-at-the-time son since she planned to return to work after being absent for a year and even do work from her apartment. She figured that her being pregnant would be a long term turn-off to most men so in her words she might as well live it up and have *fun* before she got so big that her pregnancy would be too obvious to conceal. She never envisioned us being together in the long term as she still had feelings for her first bf of 9 years but we totally fell for each other despite the fact that being lifelong partners was totally unrealistic.
You're gonna argue that she wanted a provider, which eventually she did but that wasn't until she lost her job and went broke and had to go on welfare + food stamps. She was exceedingly irrational. Don't believe me? Well, it's no skin off my big gentleman sausage! You're seeking out confirmation of your worldview and will try to explain away every counterexample that fits it. Get out once in a while and meet some REAL people! And not just prudes who lie about their sexual desires(or lack thereof).
You're gonna argue that she wanted a provider, which eventually she did but that wasn't until she lost her job and went broke and had to go on welfare + food stamps. She was exceedingly irrational. Don't believe me? Well, it's no skin off my big gentleman sausage! You're seeking out confirmation of your worldview and will try to explain away every counterexample that fits it. Get out once in a while and meet some REAL people! And not just prudes who lie about their sexual desires(or lack thereof).
Yeah, cool story, brah. Unfortunately, that still only gives me your word to go on, and little else. And since your word seems to run counter to my own observations as well as scientific research, you'll pardon me if I take it with a grain of salt.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Don't believe me?
No, I don't. Also I don't actually need to look very far to find confirmation of my worldview, since I base my worldview on my own observations of the reality around me, rather than the other way around like some people.
Gauldoth wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Evidence, please? And no, statistical studies don't count because first and foremost there are always outliers. Secondly, what actual percentage of the female population participated in this survey? Thirdly, given that women keep telling me again and again that they flirt with people they're not interested in what proof do you have that they're lying? When I was younger I actually had women flirt with me and one of em happened to be single(she was friends with a friend of mine). I pursued her but she shied off and it was obvious that she wasn't into me and felt embarrassed that she gave me the wrong idea. You keep citing statistical studies that make claims which I've heard a million times before but when I actually test these claims I keep running into counterexamples......
And guess what, some women actually ARE dumb which is why they act that way. Others are simply delusional and do dumb things. But apparently you cannot distinguish between those who are putting on an act and those who actually are what they appear to be.

Translation: "no actual scientific evidence because it won't tell me what I want to hear". Whatever, dude...

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
In the case of my ex-gf, it was hardly beneficial of her to lie to me about wanting sex because at the time, her sex drive was actually stronger than mine. She believed that because she was employed at the time we met, she'd get paid maternity leave so she wasn't gonna need a partner to provide for her and her yet-to-be-born-at-the-time son since she planned to return to work after being absent for a year and even do work from her apartment. She figured that her being pregnant would be a long term turn-off to most men so in her words she might as well live it up and have *fun* before she got so big that her pregnancy would be too obvious to conceal. She never envisioned us being together in the long term as she still had feelings for her first bf of 9 years but we totally fell for each other despite the fact that being lifelong partners was totally unrealistic.
You're gonna argue that she wanted a provider, which eventually she did but that wasn't until she lost her job and went broke and had to go on welfare + food stamps. She was exceedingly irrational. Don't believe me? Well, it's no skin off my big gentleman sausage! You're seeking out confirmation of your worldview and will try to explain away every counterexample that fits it. Get out once in a while and meet some REAL people! And not just prudes who lie about their sexual desires(or lack thereof).
You're gonna argue that she wanted a provider, which eventually she did but that wasn't until she lost her job and went broke and had to go on welfare + food stamps. She was exceedingly irrational. Don't believe me? Well, it's no skin off my big gentleman sausage! You're seeking out confirmation of your worldview and will try to explain away every counterexample that fits it. Get out once in a while and meet some REAL people! And not just prudes who lie about their sexual desires(or lack thereof).
Yeah, cool story, brah. Unfortunately, that still only gives me your word to go on, and little else. And since your word seems to run counter to my own observations as well as scientific research, you'll pardon me if I take it with a grain of salt.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Don't believe me?
No, I don't. Also I don't actually need to look very far to find confirmation of my worldview, since I base my worldview on my own observations of the reality around me, rather than the other way around like some people.
Your own observations, eh? Funny how you don't even give me one single account of an actual observation IRL in the place that you live. Just more statistical studies you got from Mr Google. And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics! Correlation does not imply causality, dontcha know?
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Your own observations, eh? Funny how you don't even give me one single account of an actual observation IRL in the place that you live. Just more statistical studies you got from Mr Google. And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics! Correlation does not imply causality, dontcha know?
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
I don't because personal observations and experiences that cannot be possibly be confirmed or disproved make for very poor evidence in any serious debate. I mean, if I tried to use something that happened to me to prove my point, what would stop you from just going "Cool story, brah" and dismissing everything I said off-hand because I had no way of proving whether or not what I told you even happened or not... you know, basically what I'm doing to you.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics!
Just because the studies and statistics don't tell you what you want to hear doesn't mean they weren't conducted properly or that they're not valid. You're wrong, just deal with it, ffs.

Gauldoth wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Your own observations, eh? Funny how you don't even give me one single account of an actual observation IRL in the place that you live. Just more statistical studies you got from Mr Google. And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics! Correlation does not imply causality, dontcha know?
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
I don't because personal observations and experiences that cannot be possibly be confirmed or disproved make for very poor evidence in any serious debate. I mean, if I tried to use something that happened to me to prove my point, what would stop you from just going "Cool story, brah" and dismissing everything I said off-hand because I had no way of proving whether or not what I told you even happened or not... you know, basically what I'm doing to you.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics!
Just because the studies and statistics don't tell you what you want to hear doesn't mean they weren't conducted properly or that they're not valid. You're wrong, just deal with it, ffs.

Sorry bub, it's teh tr00f
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Gauldoth wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Your own observations, eh? Funny how you don't even give me one single account of an actual observation IRL in the place that you live. Just more statistical studies you got from Mr Google. And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics! Correlation does not imply causality, dontcha know?
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
I don't because personal observations and experiences that cannot be possibly be confirmed or disproved make for very poor evidence in any serious debate. I mean, if I tried to use something that happened to me to prove my point, what would stop you from just going "Cool story, brah" and dismissing everything I said off-hand because I had no way of proving whether or not what I told you even happened or not... you know, basically what I'm doing to you.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics!
Just because the studies and statistics don't tell you what you want to hear doesn't mean they weren't conducted properly or that they're not valid. You're wrong, just deal with it, ffs.

LITERALLY:

Then why are you still replying to me?

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Sorry bub, it's teh tr00f:
Yeah, but you ran AND lost. So you're not just a ret*d, you're also a loser.

Gauldoth wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Gauldoth wrote:
Yeah, but I ran AND lost. So I'm not just a ret*d, I'm also a loser.

Fixed
Didn't you just say I won though?
Nope I win

rdos wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Human behavior is anything BUT rational. And while it may be irrational for women to sleep around and have casual sex with multiple partners, if their partners are male and they are in the reproductive age range, it has the potential to result in BABIES which in turn promotes the survival of our species.
This is not an adaptive behavior in humans. The reason why it isn't is because in the stone age children with single parents were more likely to die, and that wasted reproductive resources for the woman.
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Women do become very dependent when they become pregnant and give birth(until their offspring is at least 1 year old) but humans live in groups and even in the most primitive societies there are other people in the group who pitch in to help care for her(and the baby). If the father is out of the picture, quite often her female relatives(or friends) play the role of caretakers. It's very rare for women to raise children from infancy completely and totally alone just because the baby daddy didn't stick around.
This only works if there are plenty of resources. When resources get scarce, the first babies that will die are those that have no daddy, because the group only helps the single mother when they have already provided for their own needs.
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
And since women cannot physically have as many children as men can and their biological clock is ticking, those who want kids badly enough will try to have as many as their bodies will allow. This practice of course is discouraged among educated women with careers.
The most effective way for a woman in the stone age to maximize her reproductive success was to pair up with a man. Which is why women still prefer this in the "educated West".
Please explain to me why there has been such a statistically significant rise in single motherhood in my country despite the fact that unlike your country, we really DON'T have an economic and social safety net in place for single mothers struggling to support their children despite the claims of diehard hicks who whine about "welfare queens".
And furthermore, in traditional Tlingit culture, children are raised by the mother where the other women from the community as well as the mothers blood relatives act as the provider rather than the father being the provider. When resources are scarce, what makes you think that daddy can provide things when they're aren't enough of them obtainable in the environment? It behooves small tribal communities to keep their population at a sustainable level and that means no letting fatherless babies die out. Particularly when they are competing groups in the nearby vicinity that could outbreed them.
qFox wrote:
One thing that is definitely toxic is the current culture of shaming men for wanting to be masculine. Getting closer to my masculine side has helped me through a depression and helped me stabilize my mind. We shouldn't forget who we are biologically.
I'm not and don't really want to be. don't think there's any shaming of men for wanting to be masculine. its actually the opposite. men are shamed for not being or not wanting to be masculine.
I keep being surprised this thread is still going. I thought for sure it would have stopped on page 2
Lazar_Kaganovich
making a ret*d joke on a forum for autistic people hmm. what made you think that was a smart move?
Overmasculine people should kill themselves to make it easier for us to mate
Gauldoth wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Gauldoth wrote:
Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Your own observations, eh? Funny how you don't even give me one single account of an actual observation IRL in the place that you live. Just more statistical studies you got from Mr Google. And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics! Correlation does not imply causality, dontcha know?
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
Sounds more like you're an armchair social theorist than a person who has had any semblance of a life where you talk to real people and hear what they have to say.
I don't because personal observations and experiences that cannot be possibly be confirmed or disproved make for very poor evidence in any serious debate. I mean, if I tried to use something that happened to me to prove my point, what would stop you from just going "Cool story, brah" and dismissing everything I said off-hand because I had no way of proving whether or not what I told you even happened or not... you know, basically what I'm doing to you.

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
And from a scientific standpoint, you CANNOT prove anything with statistics!
Just because the studies and statistics don't tell you what you want to hear doesn't mean they weren't conducted properly or that they're not valid. You're wrong, just deal with it, ffs.

LITERALLY:

Then why are you still replying to me?

Lazar_Kaganovich wrote:
Sorry bub, it's teh tr00f:
Yeah, but you ran AND lost. So you're not just a ret*d, you're also a loser.

Reported message has been removed. Also, please stop with the bickering otherwise this thread might get locked.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Abusive vs. Toxic |
13 May 2025, 12:09 pm |
Why do Reddit subreddit of ASD (every) are so toxic? |
25 May 2025, 10:40 am |
Is the entire internet a toxic cesspool of abuse? |
25 May 2025, 5:47 pm |