|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/d416c99fe1d49a23ef7ce06cf105fd30/tumblr_n63x05ASLl1rith1uo1_500.png)
I found this on yt comments. This guy is truly a maniac.
|
On May 26 2014 09:29 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:27 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:22 barbsq wrote:
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right? Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them". well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people.
Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one.
I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic of young men mass-killing people because they don't get enough sex anytime in the near future. Not withstanding of course that I still think there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately.
|
On May 26 2014 09:40 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:29 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:27 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:22 barbsq wrote:
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right? Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them". well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people. Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one. I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately.
And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents.
|
On May 26 2014 09:42 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:40 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:29 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:27 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:22 barbsq wrote:
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right? Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them". well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people. Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one. I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately. And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents.
But isn't that part of male biology and totally outside of society's control? I mean men, believe it or not, were responsible for most killings, wars, etc.. in human history... because men are naturally more aggressive and prone to violence than women.
The reasons can be anything, sex, power, religious bigotry... anything.
|
On May 26 2014 09:45 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:42 The KY wrote:On May 26 2014 09:40 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:29 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:27 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:22 barbsq wrote:
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right? Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them". well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people. Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one. I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately. And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents. But isn't that part of male biology and totally outside of society's control? I mean men, believe it or not, were responsible for most killings, wars, etc... because men are naturally more aggressive and prone to violence than women. The reasons can be anything, sex, power, religious bigotry... anything.
I agree but I do believe that the two stats are linked.
|
On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:34 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:32 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit. No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap. I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be. I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious. My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison. But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
|
On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:34 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious. My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison. But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
|
Some of the recent posts in this thread are really disturbing...
|
On May 26 2014 09:36 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:34 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 The KY wrote:On May 26 2014 09:30 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:29 The KY wrote:On May 26 2014 09:22 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:17 Anggroth wrote:On May 26 2014 09:10 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:03 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:53 The KY wrote:
[quote]
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking.
How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me. "men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex" So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known. What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit. well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post  problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of.... I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause. but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault? edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right? At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to. yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now 'This isn't to say that women are to blame.' - Me, in my first post Hm. you left part of that quote out. Maybe try finishing it. 'At least not individually.' Next post 'When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility.' Man it's so hard to type this when I'm actively repressing the urge to go rape someone because they owe me it, amirite.
"They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them."
"And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter."
so, from what i'm reading, your premise is that because women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want, they are creating victims of men. How are you not blaming women here exactly? You're also completely ignoring the social stigmatization of 'sluts' in our culture, and the sexual value of purity and chastity.
but, when you have to justify something by saying "I don't dislike women", it usually means you're saying something sexist.
|
On May 26 2014 09:46 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:45 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:42 The KY wrote:On May 26 2014 09:40 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:29 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:27 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:22 barbsq wrote:
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right? Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them". well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people. Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one. I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately. And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents. But isn't that part of male biology and totally outside of society's control? I mean men, believe it or not, were responsible for most killings, wars, etc... because men are naturally more aggressive and prone to violence than women. The reasons can be anything, sex, power, religious bigotry... anything. I agree but I do believe that the two stats are linked.
Yeah, maybe. But then the problem is that there really isn't much we as a society can do about it. Because men have always found reasons to kill other people, sex is just one of many and I think it's practically impossible to satisfy all men in a way to make them not commit these crimes because there is such a huge variety of possible reasons that could cause them to go "insane".
I mean I agree with you to the extent that society puts unrealistic expectations on men just in the same way it puts unrealistic expectations on women and I think we both agree that this is a more severe problem for men because they are naturally more aggressive than women, so in this particular case our "ressources" are better spent helping men because they are more likely to pose a real threat to other people under the wrong circumstances than women are.
I don't know if this is what you were getting at, but that's at least my take on things.
|
On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? T hen why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
You're right it doesn't, even from the moronic point of view which inspires this thinking.
|
On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
where on earth did you get that statistic.
|
On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
You do realise that 20/80 thing is do with sexual partners not quantity of sex:
For example High School sweethearts only ever sleep with each other, get married and live together till they die, but have sex everyday, that man fits into the 20% according to the way the stats are arranged.
|
On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
What has men facing pressures got to do with make up? Let's not shift the goal posts. Your claim is that make up is an easy tool for women to be attractive but I just told you that make up is not easy, cheap, and in any event is just a small part of society's expectations of female beauty. I am not sure why you want to talk about men's social pressures.
But since you want to. What about them? They are different from those of women's so it's obviously a fools errand to try and compare makeup and gym.
|
On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:34 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:32 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit. No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap. I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be. I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious. My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison. But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
You don't even understand the cause because you're failing to acknowledge some basic differences (inherent and societal) between the sexes. And it's not just in this post. It's in pretty much in all of them.
|
On May 26 2014 09:52 barbsq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:36 The KY wrote:On May 26 2014 09:34 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 The KY wrote:On May 26 2014 09:30 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:29 The KY wrote:On May 26 2014 09:22 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:17 Anggroth wrote:On May 26 2014 09:10 barbsq wrote:On May 26 2014 09:03 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
"men are entitled to sex"
"I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit. well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of.... I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause. but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault? edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right? At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to. yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now 'This isn't to say that women are to blame.' - Me, in my first post Hm. you left part of that quote out. Maybe try finishing it. 'At least not individually.' Next post 'When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility.' Man it's so hard to type this when I'm actively repressing the urge to go rape someone because they owe me it, amirite. "They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them." "And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter." so, from what i'm reading, your premise is that because women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want, they are creating victims of men. How are you not blaming women here exactly? You're also completely ignoring the social stigmatization of 'sluts' in our culture, and the sexual value of purity and chastity.
And yet in the following post I made it clear that I don't blame women for such behavior, and would do exactly the same in their shoes.
My premise is that there is a clear problem and we as a society need to look at it's causes and solutions. What those are I won't venture to say, not at the moment anyway.
Social stigmatization of sluts does still exist but I'd it is increasingly less prevalent, with modern day feminism campaigning vigorously to end slut-shaming. As for the value of purity and chastity...haha, well anything so very rare is indeed valuable.
but, when you have to justify something by saying "I don't dislike women", it usually means you're saying something sexist.
Does it? How convenient.
Perhaps it means I'm saying something potentially contentious that I know could be misconstrued.
|
On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:34 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious. My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison. But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
Yeah, this is on the money. I worry far less about what my son might go through than I do about my daughter coping with all of the bullshit societal pressures that are piled on young women.
|
On May 26 2014 09:54 Anggroth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all. You do realise that 20/80 thing is do with sexual partners not quantity of sex: For example High School sweethearts only ever sleep with each other, get married and live together till they die, but have sex everyday, that man fits into the 20% according to the way the stats are arranged.
I don't understand, so what you're saying is 20% of the male population has sex with 80% of the female population? How is that any different to what I'm suggesting?
On May 26 2014 09:55 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all. What has men facing pressures got to do with make up? Let's not shift the goal posts. Your claim is that make up is an easy tool for women to be attractive but I just told you that make up is not easy, cheap, and in any event is just a small part of society's expectations of female beauty. I am not sure why you want to talk about men's social pressures. But since you want to. What about them? They are different from those of women's so it's obviously a fools errand to try and compare makeup and gym.
Are you dense? So you want me to substantiate my argument of women having it easier (comparatively) than men in the "dating-game" without being able to actually compare women and men?
I will admit that is actually an impossible task. I cannot make a relative argument without taking into account the relative differences between the two groups im comparing.
On May 26 2014 10:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:34 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious. My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison. But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. You don't even understand the cause because you're failing to acknowledge some basic differences (inherent and societal) between the sexes. And it's not just in this post. It's in pretty much in all of them.
When have I ever denied societal or inherent biological differences between men and women? I just don't think it's quite as simple as "men evolved to fuck mud". I'm sorry I just don't buy that.
|
Pardon me, but could any of you kindly direct me to the thread that is discussing the recent shooting in Isla Vista ...
|
On May 26 2014 10:08 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:54 Anggroth wrote:On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all. You do realise that 20/80 thing is do with sexual partners not quantity of sex: For example High School sweethearts only ever sleep with each other, get married and live together till they die, but have sex everyday, that man fits into the 20% according to the way the stats are arranged. I don't understand, so what you're saying is 20% of the male population has sex with 80% of the female population? How is that any different to what I'm suggesting? Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 09:55 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned... If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits... Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well. And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all. What has men facing pressures got to do with make up? Let's not shift the goal posts. Your claim is that make up is an easy tool for women to be attractive but I just told you that make up is not easy, cheap, and in any event is just a small part of society's expectations of female beauty. I am not sure why you want to talk about men's social pressures. But since you want to. What about them? They are different from those of women's so it's obviously a fools errand to try and compare makeup and gym. Are you dense? So you want me to substantiate my argument of women having it easier (comparatively) than men in the "dating-game" without being able to actually compare women and men? I will admit that is actually an impossible task. I cannot make a relative argument without taking into account the relative differences between the two groups im comparing. Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 10:00 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different. So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this. I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining. But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other). I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes. This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have. And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery). And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said). It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this. What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology. I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it? They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men. Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness. That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause. You don't even understand the cause because you're failing to acknowledge some basic differences (inherent and societal) between the sexes. And it's not just in this post. It's in pretty much in all of them. When have I ever denied societal or inherent biological differences between men and women? I just don't think it's quite as simple as "men evolved to fuck mud". I'm sorry I just don't buy that.
I'm not asking you to substantiate anything. I'm just pointing out that your comparison of male and female dating by looking at make up is hopelessly flawed.
It is also rich that you call me dense but in the very next paragraph admit that what you are trying to achieve is impossible.
I think a big problem with your anlaysis is this: you are not comparing like to like. You're just making broad generalisations about the genders. What you should be doing is comparing attractice people with attractive people, and non-attractive people with non-attractivepeoplep. So, if you are an attractive girl you should have no problems with sex. If you are an attrative guy, you should have no problems with sex. If you're not attractive (guy or girl), you compensate with make up, or an expensive watch. Guys have the further option of being witty or smart (girls can kind of do that, but within weird limits set by society. Too smart and you'll scare him off). If you're ugly, well you're probably out of luck either way - though personally I'd say that a fat rich man could be attractive to some still, but a fat rich women is probably going to be lonely.
Of course, if you're not attractive and you're only looking at attractive girls, it would seem like woah they get all the sex they want! But that's just a myopic view because you aren't looking at all girls, just the very attractive ones. Just think - do you honestly say that it's super easy for a fat chick to have sex?
Consider the above, and rethink your idea that there's this huge discrepency in the dating scene where men are unfairly prejudiced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
