The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Relationships / Single Fools
|Subject: Re: Whafa's CraigsList Brain Dump for Erik||Date: 11/29/2006 6:57 PM|
|Author: LovesChocolate||Number: 29553 of 32850|
Actually, it was someone else's post, so how would Chaconne know who, if anyone, the OP was assuming would pay for dinner?
We all know that the man has to pay for the dinner. Or he at least has to offer to pay for the dinner.
How often do you invite a man out to dinner, your treat? Women want the man to invite you out, and offer to pay for the dinner. In all the dating you have ever done, which I assume is a lot, how many times have you invited out a man in whom you had a romantic interest, and paid for the dinner? What percentage of times do you think it happens with respect to the general population of women?
Note: If you agreed to pay for the dinner, or split the check, because you had decided you were NOT romantically interested in the man, then it doesn't count. That's just the woman's way of signaling to the man not to expect any quid pro quo.
Really, are you trying to say that women should not be able to choose when and with whom they have sex? Is that your point here?
Not at all. My point is that you females should admit that it is your choice, only your choice, you know full well it is your choice, and you women constantly use that prerogative to your advantage in the battle of the sexes. But you also pretend it is NOT your choice, when it suits you. When you get drunk and screw, and do the walk of shame the next morning, is that ever the woman's fault? No, it's always the man's fault. The man got the woman drunk. The man seduced the woman.
Also, if it's always the woman's choice, then please don't pretend that a man who expects sex in exchange for buying a woman dinner is at fault. This situation is set up by the woman. It's her choice. You said so, didn't you?
If the choice of whether to have sex is the woman's, and I agree with you that it is, then obviously the woman is the one with the power in the relationship.
You say that women are dishonest, stupid, illogical, untrustworthy and inconsistent, that they are incapable of providing for themselves ("marriage is a social imperative") and that their bodies are yours for the taking. Is there anything, besides orifices, that you like or respect about women?
Let's evaluate what you're saying here.
Are women dishonest? Yes, frequently, especially in relationship situations. [So are men, by the way.]
Are women stupid? Again--when it comes to relationships, many women frequently act stupidly. [Men can be quite stupid, too.]
Are women illogical? Totally. All the time. Name a single woman that you know who is at all logical, particularly when it comes to relationships. [Men are usually much more logical than women. Overtly logical men are "nerds" and don't do well with women, comparatively speaking, because women don't like logic.]
Are women untrustworthy? Well, next time you go to the ladies' room, tell me if you hear any women cattily gossiping about their "friends."
If it is the woman's choice to have sex or not, then please tell me, whose responsibility is it when someone has an extramarital affair? It can't be the man's responsibility, because the choice to have sex was the woman's. So I guess there must be at least some women out there who are untrustworthy. Of course this conclusion would require the application of logic, from your stated premise. And since you are a woman, hence illogical, you will not agree that the woman bears the fault for an extramarital affair. Despite the fact that this conclusion derives directly from your premise that it is the woman who makes the choice to have sex.
Inconsistent? Well--aren't you? Do you think yourself to be different from the average woman?
I do not think women's bodies are "for the taking" because I agree with your premise that I have no choice in the matter. I have consistently maintained that there is no point in my playing various games because of the very fact that I have no choice in the matter. If a woman were to meet me and find me sexually attractive, I could act like a complete moron or "bad boy" and still get into her pants, because she wants me to. On the other hand, if the woman is not attracted to me, I could be the nicest guy in the world and it won't make a difference. We have all seen that happen many times: a jerk with physical charisma doesn't have to worry about getting women. If the woman is attracted to the man, she will overlook all flaws, however obvious. Because she is illogical.
You are being confronted with a man who is being totally honest with you, and you don't like it one bit, do you? That's because you are used to game-playing and dishonesty in your relationships with men. Your internet persona is somewhat flirtatious and you are accustomed to getting a positive response to that persona.
You are shocked when a man criticizes your viewpoint. The flirtiness isn't working. Men aren't supposed to do that. I disagree with you, therefore, I must hate all women. Gee, that's very logical. How does the premise that I disagree with you, or anyone else for that matter, lead to the conclusion that I hate all women?
Admit that you are irritated that I am not agreeing with you, that your reputation of being "sofaking 6" does not matter to me, only the quality of your ideas and thoughts. You're upset because you're playing a game and I'm not playing your game.
My own "game" is simple: what do you really want? Tell me the truth, otherwise, why are you wasting everyone's time?
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|