Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Why are a lot of women on here so hypocritical???

Page 12 of 12 [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Previous topic | Next topic

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,682
Location: Houston, Texas

23 Oct 2010, 11:47 pm

zen_mistress wrote:
^ Thats a New Zealand woman, too. We are all actually like that.


I thought her boobs were bigger than that.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

24 Oct 2010, 4:20 am

I dont know. I have never thought about how big her bust is.


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

24 Oct 2010, 9:44 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
zen_mistress wrote:
^ Thats a New Zealand woman, too. We are all actually like that.


I thought her boobs were bigger than that.


lol, she will kill you.



zen_mistress
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,033

25 Oct 2010, 10:39 pm

Image

Baby Goat wonders why we all just cant get along.


_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf

Taking a break.


Preston
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 112
Location: Long Island, NY

27 Oct 2010, 10:00 pm

Dearest Hyperlexian,

Replying here was on my to-do list for today, but I'm rather tired, so this writing will be sliiightly abridged.

Your husband = not relevant? If no care, don't reply.

"Emotional crock pot" = long lag time in emotional response. Males = emotional microwave.

The flirting was more than friendly. I'm no angel, but I didn't flaunt what happened to the boyfriends, so I didn't try to make them mad.

hyperlexian wrote:
Preston wrote:
Hyperlexian, you make it sound like more than a small percentage of college students would be in a LTR.

Secondly, women are generally known to be emotional crock pots; if they're willing to cheat, it's pretty unlikely to be with someone they just met. I've mutually flirted with most of my at-the-time attached female friends to an extent that'd make a normal monogamous guy angry.

Thirdly, men will always cheat more than women because they are less emotional and sex is more pleasurable for us; this is for biological reasons. Over several posts, you're sounding like a man-hater; cut it out... or you'll make a very powerless enemy ;-)

hyperlexian wrote:
nothing suprising in the study, but it's sort of annoying. a high percentage of men on a college campus said they would have sex with a moderately attractive and unfamiliar interviewer. she said something like, "i find you attractive. would you go to bed with me?"

when faced with the same question by a male surveyer, women ALL said no and reacted with shock and anger.

it was a high percentage of the men who said yes- can't remember how many (75% or something), but it makes me sad because a whole bunch of those guys must have been in relationships. sick that they would throw it all away for some random woman.

nope, i love men. but who cares if you think i hate men? my husband is very, very satsified with our relationship, and that's what matters - not what random people in a forum think.

i said the study annoyed me because i try to think that men should be above behaviour like that if they are in a relationship. i don't know the percent of college men who are in relationships of any sort, so i am not sure how many of the men would have been cheating if they had gone ahead with it. hard to find stats on that, so right now i am not sure either way.

emotional crock-pots. 8O that's kind of a weird thing to say. flirting is not equal to sex anyways. but... why were you flirting with them like that if you knew it would make other men mad? takes two to tango.



Preston
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 112
Location: Long Island, NY

27 Oct 2010, 10:04 pm

For there to be superficiality, there has to be victims. For instance, seeing icebergs and navigating the ship as if they're not a lot bigger beneath the water.

If one highly values physical attractiveness and would date someone who's at least of average attractiveness, how are they highly limiting their dating pool if they're willing to date half the people or gender they're attracted to?

Yayy.. to-do task completed.

hyperlexian wrote:
Preston wrote:
Hyperlexian, you're being ironically superficial in not looking into the deeper meaning of my commentary on visual attractiveness and superficiality :-p You're taking one of the definitions of superficiality too literally.

I'll frame things differently: let's use a hypothetical person who's highly attracted to physically appealing people, at the exclusion of many other factors. Who's the [potential] victim and why?

hyperlexian wrote:
Preston wrote:
Hyperlexian, a lot can often be determined about a person just by looking at them, but I'm generally speaking from the context of whether a certain attraction to someone is a good idea to chase or not. If physical attraction is a good selling point for someone and it has staying power long term with someone (e.g. they don't stop caring some time in that their partner's hott), then it's not superficial for them. For a short term fling, the bar's lowered even more because you don't care how attractive a person or feature of a person will be long from now. Is this making sense?

i am not sure what you are saying, because looks are a superficial quality - the word itself means :

being at, on, or near the surface

a person can't judge someone by their looks, or select someone according to outward attractiveness, without it being superficial by definition. yes i know some people really are that shallow, but it is a bad thing and not a good thing. it reduces people to their outer shell and ignores the wonderful things inside.

i didn't say there was a victim. i said that it is superficial to select mates based on physical appearance. if it is the main criterion for selecting potential mates, it will seriously limit a person's dating pool. apparently it is especially true if a person does not have equally valuable traits, or if a person is not particularly good-looking themselves. but i'm just basing that on what other people say - i don't give a crap about that kind of stuff myself.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

28 Oct 2010, 4:14 am

Preston wrote:

If one highly values physical attractiveness and would date someone who's at least of average attractiveness, how are they highly limiting their dating pool if they're willing to date half the people or gender they're attracted to?




Mean =/= Mode


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


CrinklyCrustacean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,284

28 Oct 2010, 5:37 am

Preston wrote:
For there to be superficiality, there has to be victims.


Nope. There may be victims of someone's superficiality but they do not define the attitude.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

28 Oct 2010, 5:50 pm

CrinklyCrustacean wrote:
Preston wrote:
For there to be superficiality, there has to be victims.


Nope. There may be victims of someone's superficiality but they do not define the attitude.


'Zactly. You said it far better than I could have.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


sunshower
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Age: 126
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,985

28 Oct 2010, 7:34 pm

Bethie wrote:
Preston wrote:

If one highly values physical attractiveness and would date someone who's at least of average attractiveness, how are they highly limiting their dating pool if they're willing to date half the people or gender they're attracted to?




Mean =/= Mode


Don't you mean Median?


_________________
Into the dark...


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

28 Oct 2010, 9:27 pm

sunshower wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Preston wrote:

If one highly values physical attractiveness and would date someone who's at least of average attractiveness, how are they highly limiting their dating pool if they're willing to date half the people or gender they're attracted to?




Mean =/= Mode


Don't you mean Median?


That's the one! :D


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.