The problem with letting a woman know you care about looks

Post Reply New Topic

ValentineWiggin, you couldn't possibly be further from the truth... Do you have any idea how many times I've told women that makeup is lame? And what is their response every f*****g time? Well, I'll tell you. It goes like this: "I'm not doing it for a man, I'm doing it for me, to make myself look pretty!"

I personally would not give a flying f**k if my girlfriend stopped wearing bras, or stopped shaving. She doesn't wear makeup or high heels now ever, and I can't stand either of those two things. You women are your own worst critics, and you do it all to yourselves. How the hell can you blame men? Men are stereotypically complained about not being hygienic, so how the hell can you claim that WE'RE the ones putting those stupid beauty/hygiene standards on you? Make some sense, would you please?

And as far as the word patriarchy is concerned, you need to go read a dictionary:

pa·tri·arch·y   [pey-tree-ahr-kee] Show IPA
noun, plural pa·tri·arch·ies.
1.
a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.

In other words, man is in charge, and that's what you're blaming for all your problems... You are a perfect example of a sexist.

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that men are responsible for all the ridiculous beauty/hygiene standards put on women, despite the fact that men are usually thought of as dirty and hairy(and women complain about it all the damn time). At least as men we don't ALSO judge you based on how much money you make. Most of the time you don't have to make any money at all, and we still want to be with you, but if we don't have our own job, car, house, and all this other BS, we're no good to you... Whatever. Wrong planet is full of sexist females.

I watched a TV programme tonight called Secret Eaters (channel 4 in the UK). There have been 4 shows so far in the series and each week they feature an overweight family who don't understand why they are so heavy and want to know why so they can lose weight. These people are asked to keep a food diary for 5 days beforehand and they all, without exception, reckon that they are consuming far fewer calories than they would require to maintain their current weight. The programme makers fit out their homes with cameras, and employ private investigators to find out how much they eat, what they are eating and when. Some of them are consuming more than twice the calories they think they are.

This week's show was particularly relevant to this thread as the wife, who weighs 17 stone, said that her husband loves her no matter what weight she was or how she looked. She then went onto to say that this really was doing her no favours as she had let herself go and piled the weight on.

Imho, being obese is as natural as having your blood filled with nicotine or your lungs filled with tar.

How many women? All women?


This is why deception is sometimes needed.


So that means, not being honest but rather lying to her so she doesn't get angry (even if she hates fat men which would be an expected double standard as the probability would go), and make her feel better and lie to her for your own sake. Nice advise for aspies.

Last edited by blunnet on 06 Jun 2012, 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The problem with letting a woman know you care about looks is that youll be unjustly judged for something not only all men do but all women do.

…we have not spent the last 65 million or so years finely honing our physiology to watch Oprah. Like it or not, we are the product of a very long process of adaptation to a harsh physical existence, and the past couple centuries of comparative ease and plenty are not enough time to change our genome. We humans are at our best when our existence mirrors, or at least simulates, the one we are still genetically adapted to live. And that is the purpose of exercise. - Mark Rippetoe

I was thinking about this thread last night, the following thought came about:

When is it okay to judge someone who is being judgmental?

I couldn't answer that question, and not being able to answer it sort of explained why I have been so "ick" about this thread as a whole. The entire argument is that one person is judging another for being too judgmental. This concept makes my head spin!

Good quote, 1000Knives.

Turnabout is fair play, right? I mean if they accept that it's ok to judge, then they shouldn't mind. Unless they have a double standard, and I don't accept double standards as valid.

If Person A is being judgmental, and Person B is chastising them for it, it just seems hypocritical on some level. What you are saying is Person A should be able to take it, and that's well and good. But, what gives Person B the right to be judgmental on Person A in the first place? It seems like the metaphor that for every finger pointing forward there's 3 (or 4) pointing back at you.

I understand what judgments are being rendered on both sides. I'm just having a hard time with the concept in general. "Who art thou to judge?" (or something of that nature)

Why would it be lying? Wouldn't you be concerned about her health and interested in doing what you could to help her restore it? If not, then it is hard to think you ever cared about the person.

Keeping hurtful opinions to yourself isn't lying, it is putting someone else's feelings ahead of your own. There is no duty to utter everything you think in this world.

I am saying this: express what you think to the extent it can have a productive side, but keep to yourself the stuff that is destructive. I do know this can be very hard for some with ASD, but my husband mastered it, and we work with our son on it (not specifically re weight, but re his need to blurt out everything he thinks to his sister, which hurts her feelings constantly). There is no lie in keeping a thought to yourself or evading a question, or focusing on the positive messages related to your thoughts.

You do a good job of challenging me to look at things differently. It's good.

I have a lot of regrets about starting this thread, particularly when I noticed it get hairy earlier today, but there is also some thoughtful discussion on why obesity has become such a difficult issue, a few comments I actually agree with from posters I'm otherwise fighting with. Food and health is that complicated a subject in today's world.

As a parent, figuring out to raise my kids with healthy attitudes towards food has been something I have given a lot of time and thought to. It hasn't been easy or natural for me, but I do think I have learned a ton about destructive attitudes, why the problem is so difficult, and more. And I feel like I could write books on it ... which no one really wants to read, so I'll leave it at that. Wrong board for it anyway

Here's what it is for me. I am not normally judgemental because no consent has been given to explore/analyze and it makes people uncomfortable. When someone's judgemental, that no longer applies - they've waived those rights by unilaterally violating that right, or dismissing its validity.

This is especially true when the judgement is being stated such as to invite commentary. Usually they only desire agreement or positive commentary, but I don't recognize any onus to restrain commentary to agreement or approval.

Finally, the judgement of an idea is wholly different from the judgement of a person. I recognize no protection for ideas whatsoever, under any circumstances. All ideas are valid topics of criticism, at least, among adults.

I think this is it. I see people judging the person rather than their ideas. I'm always open for critical discussion about ideas, but when it's the person being judged as bad for holding such ideas, I think that's when I'm more likely to rally behind them even if I disagree with their ideas.

This is what I keep hearing as being "the way it should be," but I disagree with it.


Here's what I have an issue with. Why isn't the person who's feelings that have been hurt being held accountable for not having a tough enough skin to hear the truth? Why does the onus ALWAYS fall on the other person for "hurting their feelings"? You don't say anything about telling your daughter to suck it up, but instead talk about how you're working with your son to hold his tongue. She is learning that whining about something someone else said that "hurt her feelings" is going to equal results. What happens when she grows up and has a tough boss?

I know it is tempting to state, "Well, there are consequences in the real, working world for not holding one's tongue, so training him is what's more important so that he can succeed in the future." I stipulate that there are consequences only because parents don't raise their children to have tougher hides. One begets the other. If he's trying to get a date and all those girls were raised to throw hissy fits when they hear something they don't want to hear, how is it his fault that they weren't raised to have tougher hides? I also stipulate that by not being able to handle hearing the truth, we are raising a society that is more weak mentally. Too weak to handle criticism. Too weak to handle standing up to a tyrannous government. Too weak to stand up to verbally abusive boyfriends and girlfriends who have learned to manipulate weak-minded individuals who don't know how to properly handle words that they don't want to hear.

Even in your original post you said, "Emily was upset by this." There's a part of me that wants to yell at Emily for being a whiny, spoiled brat. What point does it serve for her to get her feelings hurt and whine about it all day long? Get over it, dump the guy if you don't like what he says, and move on. He could have said that he hates Chiguaguas because they have a yappy bark, and come to find out she owns a Chiguagua and "gets her feelings hurt" by his statements. How is that his fault?

To me, "the problem with letting (someone) know you (have an opinion) about (anything at all)" is that the person speaking their mind is likely to find a lot of weak-minded individuals that are going to use emotional manipulation and whinge-tactics to attempt to invalidate their feelings. I guarantee those tactics don't work when trying to get someone to change their mind regarding their preferences. It causes them to go defensive, and by defending their preferences those preferences become deeper ingrained in their psyche.

This is not the kind of people I want around me. Keep the Emily's of the world away from me, because all I'm likely to do is tell them to shut up and suck it up and grow a pair of balls. I am more likely to yell at the whingy person before I am likely to yell at the person who is being a judgmental ass.

On this issue I have no trouble saying I disagree with you. I hear the same from my son all the time, and bless him he usually holds himself to the same tough standards he expects from others, but people can't simply be raised to have tougher hides, that is a fallacy. Unnecessary roughness, even if it is only verbally, is abuse and it destroys people. The line between "just being honest" and being abusive can be very hard to see.

The truth is both sides have to do their best: the one, to not hurt other's feelings. The next, to be a little tougher, more self-confident, less sensitive. Can blame it in all cases on the other.

There are firm social rules on what opinions are OK to express, and which should never be expressed. A lot falls in the middle, but under the social rule it is not OK to say things like "your nose is ugly" because there is nothing that can be gained from telling someone that except to hurt them. It is not OK to tell a young child that a drawing they are proud of is awful because, again, there is nothing constructive in it. If the question is, "do you think I have enough talent to make a living at this", then one can tactfully say, "I don't know, sorry but I personally don't like your artwork that much," but that is about it. At least acknowledge that it is a matter of personal taste. Yes, we have lots of fights over art in our house, and I've told my son to just say "it isn't my taste," and it isn't like we're giving my daughter an inflated sense of her talent, because she just won an art award (and despite that I actually have carefully steered her away from thinking her level of talent is good enough to make it a career; she accepts it probably isn't; her art just makes her happy). In general, constructive criticism, when made with some tact, about something a person needs to know is socially OK; destructive criticism, or criticism that has no place (like being negative about something that simply makes someone else happy) is frowned upon.

I have always tended to just blurt things out myself, but over time I've seen a lot of negative fall out from it and come to realize that one really does need to consider what can come from expressing a thought before expressing it. People shouldn't need to have a thick skin in most situations, especially home life. And isn't dating all about figuring out who you could have a happy home life with?

Now, be clear, I ALSO work with my daughter on not letting stuff get to her, but to say that the burden should be on the recipient of socially unacceptable remarks is seen in society as a cop out, an unacceptable way to justify not wanting to filter your thoughts or to try to understand the social rules. If someone cannot learn the rules and others know it, they might get a pass (awareness of ASD's is helping with that), but it is absolutely unfair, IMHO, to blame victims in most situations for not being tough enough. BOTH SIDES have to work on moving towards the middle.

Sorry if I sound pedantic but I've done a lot of work on abuse issues and your comment struck a nerve. The thing with Emily is different, and I'll say more about that next, but to suggest what we should be focusing on teaching our daughter to be tougher and allowing our son to be hurtful to her - not the right answer. I'd actually like her to have some self-esteem when she grows up and know how to avoid abusive men.

As for Emily, she will reject the guy. She doesn't like the things he expresses, so she won't end up picking him. But that is actually my point: sure, a guy can say what he wants, and think how he wants, but when he says it to a woman he is dating, or is interested in dating, and it happens to be turn-off for her, then he will get dumped or rejected, and probably have no clue that the statements about weight (even if they weren't about HER weight) were what did it. Men are always posting on this board trying to figure out why they got rejected or dumped, and get busy making up reasons for it that don't ring true to me (given that I've heard over the years many, many reasons women have had for dumping men), and it seemed to me like they would want to know when something they might say could hurt their cause with a woman they like.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 07 Jun 2012, 9:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.