EPTGirl question - Page 3
| Blogs > NickC |
|
Happy.fairytail
United States327 Posts
| ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On October 20 2010 07:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: Being manly means being master of yourself and being able to take the situation in hand without losing nerves or even being unnecessarly rude or hurting. This guy is right. Just tell her that her behavior is unacceptable + Show Spoiler + then smack her right in the mouth!!! Unrelated but lol | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
Yeaaaah Kennigit laying it down. | ||
|
news
892 Posts
On October 20 2010 06:59 seRapH wrote: kennigit is baller. mystery solved. Why so obvious though -_- | ||
|
dRaW
Canada5744 Posts
Arguing is fine, it's part of relationships, you just need to know how to deal with each other after the arguments. | ||
|
Happy.fairytail
United States327 Posts
But, that doesn't mean you have to back down on asking her to apologize for how she made you feel. If she doesn't acknowledge that, you don't have to argue with her or press the issue further -- but don't back down in bringing it up the next time it happens. Also, it sounds like you're very concerned about not "being a pussy", but I think you've got something confused... You want to be confident and strong, not appear to be confident and strong. Where does confidence come from? From having conviction in your beliefs. And conviction comes from knowing, and trusting in yourself. Despite what people may tell you, shouting "GO FUCK YOURSELF" does not stem from inner knowledge and high self-esteem, lol. If you know yourself and trust in yourself, you have nothing to fear when others talk condescendingly towards you -- because no matter what they say, you know you are not what they think you are. | ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
On October 20 2010 07:41 Kennigit wrote: How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution which revolved around females nursing and gathering while males hunted and protected the group. How do you explain this being true in almost all species of apes....600 years vs 100,000 years. Hmm. You can't compare the past 600 years even remotely to the past 100,000 years. There was no major force of society or jobs or anything relevant today 100,000 years ago, or even 2,000 years ago for that matter. Using the terms gathering/hunting/protecting the group (physically) applies to when humans lived in caves, and those traits were very beneficial for survival and success. That's how animals live (edit) today, not humans. Sure some of the main ideas do translate, but you cannot fully apply them to today's society. For your example, imagine the most successful males 100,000 years ago. They were strong and aggressive and fought for food, etc.. Look at the most successful males today, let's take somebody like Bill Gates. I guarantee you that man has never fought for food in his life. The point being, while your ideas have a small amount of prevalence in today's society, they cannot be fully applied. Evolution is in the past, it's a FACTOR as to why we live the way we do today, but one of many others, some others that may be completely contradictory (ex. how sitting on a computer all day can increase one's survival via earning money). | ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
Pro Tip: Don't let your friends fuck your girlfriend. This statement invalid in the case of 1) friends also being girls 2) friends being hot 3) you being present at the time. Also, I find that the best way to deal with any unreasonable behavior is to simply silently treat it as unreasonable. Raised eyebrows and a well cultivated 'are you serious?' or 'really?' expression are perhaps the most valuable tool a civilized gentleman can employ to socially bitchslap the socially or logically inept, since usually they're quite aware they're being unreasonable. | ||
|
Kalingingsong
Canada633 Posts
now this girl has a unique temperment where if something doesnt go her way she is vocal about it. some would say its "picky" and appreciative behaviour, some would say its "bitchy" behaviour. i really admire her for it because its a powerful and commendable attitude, something that most pussy girl-less men would do well to aspire to. yemen, gotta admire people like Hitler and Osama for being such baller shit-talkers. after a little back and forth she said something like "you want me to lick your ass???" and i called her batshit crazy, and hence commences the arguement about who was wrong and who was right. You should've reply "yes", it might have led to something resembling sex. now..........................post ur opinions never ever ever apologize, even if you know you are wrong. Case closed. | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:22 Zapdos_Smithh wrote: You can't compare the past 600 years even remotely to the past 100,000 years. There was no major force of society or jobs or anything relevant today 100,000 years ago, or even 2,000 years ago for that matter. Using the terms gathering/hunting/protecting the group (physically) applies to when humans lived in caves, and those traits were very beneficial for survival and success. That's how animals live (edit) today, not humans. I 100% disagree. These same philosophies still apply. Sure some of the main ideas do translate, but you cannot fully apply them to today's society. For your example, imagine the most successful males 100,000 years ago. They were strong and aggressive and fought for food, etc.. Look at the most successful males today, let's take somebody like Bill Gates. I guarantee you that man has never fought for food in his life. Bill Gates has never fought for food. He has defeated hundreds of competitors, taken over companies. And most importantly, he leads a "pack" of many thousands....You're right that he doesn't protect his group physically, but he does protect them. Microsoft is a great and stable company to work for because of the strong leadership he and guys like steve balmer (who is a fucking monster alpha male) provide. hahahaha | ||
|
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
omg lolololol | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
NickC
233 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:22 Zapdos_Smithh wrote: You can't compare the past 600 years even remotely to the past 100,000 years. There was no major force of society or jobs or anything relevant today 100,000 years ago, or even 2,000 years ago for that matter. Using the terms gathering/hunting/protecting the group (physically) applies to when humans lived in caves, and those traits were very beneficial for survival and success. That's how animals live (edit) today, not humans. Sure some of the main ideas do translate, but you cannot fully apply them to today's society. For your example, imagine the most successful males 100,000 years ago. They were strong and aggressive and fought for food, etc.. Look at the most successful males today, let's take somebody like Bill Gates. I guarantee you that man has never fought for food in his life. The point being, while your ideas have a small amount of prevalence in today's society, they cannot be fully applied. Evolution is in the past, it's a FACTOR as to why we live the way we do today, but one of many others, some others that may be completely contradictory (ex. how sitting on a computer all day can increase one's survival via earning money). traits of sexual attraction and reproductive success (not individual survival, which isnt relevent to anything) is still the same as it was 100,000 years ago. hips, breasts, youth for women; leadership, status, reliability for men. money and a posh suit means nothing next to these. (idk what you're talking about really but i just wanted to type some of the shit ive been learning recently lols) | ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:31 Kennigit wrote: I 100% disagree. These same philosophies still apply. You know this how? edit: Not to mention, I am referring to how the idea of telling a girl to fuck herself is not appropriate/socially acceptable/beneficial for a relationship. You are trying to tell me that this assertive/aggressive response is good, biologically, and it "puts a woman in her place". You veer off-topic slightly and talk about male dominance back when we lived in caves. I respond by saying that a comparison like that is irrelevant since you cannot apply that to today's society. Let's not veer off-topic here. The point is, how he responded was destructive for a relationship. | ||
|
Kalingingsong
Canada633 Posts
traits of sexual attraction and reproductive success (not individual survival, which isnt relevent to anything) is still the same as it was 100,000 years ago. hips, breasts, youth for women; leadership, status, reliability for men. money and a posh suit means nothing next to these. (idk what you're talking about really but i just wanted to type some of the shit ive been learning recently lols) Just remember to take people like d'angelo with some reasonable skepticism. He literally attracts more single men (aka You - no insult intended) than he does actual women. | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:43 Kennigit wrote: Do you not think that the ability for a man to provide for a woman is rooted deep in the back of her head as a qualifier for whether he'd be a good mate? He's not going out and stabbing deers, but either in his life or in his career he is a stable means of support. Thats why its the same. Men are about 70/30 split on physical/emotional attraction. Hips/breasts are both signs of fertility and ability to rear children - same as it was 100,000 years ago. Women are about 30/70 split....which is why you see "ugly" guys married to beautiful women, because they are filling that leader/provider roll - just like he was 100,000 years ago. Nope, I agree with what you are saying. Refer to my edit in my last post to see what I was talking about. | ||
Kinky
United States4126 Posts
| ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
Yeah girls like it when you talk shit back to them, but there are lines for all these beautiful places in life. every admin post in topics like these are always solid gold | ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:54 Divinek wrote: every admin post in topics like these are always solid gold You realize that Kennigit is actually arguing that this OP's response was good right? | ||
| ||
