PDA

View Full Version : Women Don't Necessarily Prefer Gentlemen



Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 07:56 AM
In the battle of the sexes, the odds favor the rogue.

"Blondes Don't Necessarily Prefer Gentlemen"
by Ronnie Lake
from
Escapade
Vol. 2, No. 2, November 1956

http://www.javabachelor.100megs4.com/blonde.html

http://www.javabachelor.100megs4.com/blonde.jpg

We might as well face it, fellows. The truth is now and for a long time past has been that blondes (or brunettes or redheads) do not necessarily prefer gentlemen.

The gentlest, frailest, loveliest and best-bred of women as often as not fall in love with an ape-type who hasn't climbed very far up the ladder of evolution.

Against such a specimen, who is apt these days to hide his hairy chest under a loud, hand-painted necktie and who makes up in bellicosity for what he lacks in finesse, the gentleman hasn't a chance. And a massive physique is not a requirement. The non-gentleman may be a pimple-faced, long-sideburned misfit; he'll still make it tough on the gentleman.

Need proof? How about Marlon Brando? How about Elvis Presley? How about--oh, well, this could go on forever.

This is not a situation peculiar to our times; it has been going on for centuries and the Casanovas and the Rubirosas have always had it good, whereas the Abelards and Lancelots have always had it bad, propaganda to the contrary.

The truth of the matter is that there exists in the peculiar psyche of the average female a perverse inclination to find the clean-cut gentleman somewhat dull, and to discover excitement and titillation in the rogue.

The case of the housewife who permits herself to be supported in comfort by a well-regarded husband who is kind to her, and surreptitiously lends her body to the ministrations of a burly iceman who beats his wife and children, is typical. The iceman is apt to be stupid, sweaty, crude, loud and completely inconsiderate, but he excites the frail little housewife in a way her "nice" husband never can.

This also goes for tender young girls in their selection of boyfriends. How many fathers have been dismayed and puzzled to see their demure daughters scorn the attentions of the high school honor student and captain of the football team in order to ride around all night with a skinny delinquent in a broken- down jalopy. Or even on the buddy seat of a motorcycle.

There must be a reason, or reasons, for this state of affairs. An obvious point is that the clean-cut youth, be cause of his scruples, is inclined in most cases to stop short of the point where he seriously compromises a girl of what he regards as the "decent" classes, whereas old Pimple Puss doesn't give a damn. If she will, he will; and if she won't, he'll make, at least, a hell of a try at forcing the issue. In this regard, the percentages are with him.

Security is important to a woman, but she perversely delights in placing her security in jeopardy. She craves this thrill as speed-mad motorists delight in scaring themselves to death on the highway at eighty miles an hour. In most instances, the woman is smarter than the speed-mad driver, however; she'll try to make certain that her security is secure, no matter what, before she risks it. It's when she miscalculates that the trouble starts.

Some psychologists, in trying to explain this perversity of taste in wo men, hold that all women are born with a feeling of inferiority; they feel inferior, sometimes, simply because they are women instead of men; some times, they feel inferior to their fathers, specifically; sometimes, they feel inferior to their environment and, sometimes, they feel inferior to other women. This feeling of inferiority, say these psychologists, demands compensatory acts of abasement. By this reasoning, they explain the tendency of women to debase themselves (in the social sense) by falling in love or having affairs with the kind of male who is not approved by men of higher standards.

But other psychologists take a simpler and more direct view. The non-gentlemanly male, they contend, often exudes a primal sex appeal that is irresistible to women, whereas the gentleman, subjected from boyhood to stern repressive training, simply has lost, or never has possessed, this primal appeal.

Women find the gentleman dull, say these pundits, simply because, in the sexual sense, he is dull.

The pathetic figure of the hopeful, shy, polite, well-clad and overly considerate suitor is a familiar one in the literature of American humor. In cartoons, he is usually pictured standing outside his beloved's door, bearing a huge bouquet of flowers. The girl, in filmy negligee, may be seen through the open door and, in the background, reclines a coarse, leering and obviously successful seducer. In these cartoons, the laugh is always on the gentleman.

These cartoons are funny precisely because they hold up to light a ridiculous truth, namely that gentlemen of ten find themselves, to their bewilderment, in exactly the position illustrated by the cartoon. And, conversely, so do the heels.

Let us make our own position clear at this point. We're on the gentleman's side. We wish things were going better for him in the Battle of the Sexes. Our intent, until now, has been merely to report the facts of the situation as accurately as possible.

But now it is tune to examine the facts and to see if there are factors that can be used to enhance the position of our standard bearer, the gentle man, vis a vis that of the heel. We think the situation is not hopeless, at least in theory, although generations of malpractice on the part of all concerned may create difficulty in turning the tide.

Assuming, by and large, that the typical gentleman is at least as physically attractive and competent as the rogue, and also bathes regularly, we are forced to the conclusion that his difficulties must stem from other qualifications, or the lack of them. What makes him "dull" to women, in the sexual sense?

Obviously, it is something in his approach or attitude toward the so-called fair sex, and his approach, or attitude, in turn stems from his training--the things he's been brought up to believe in.

The gentleman,. because he has been schooled to do so, is inclined to idealize Woman, which is another way of saying that he lacks a basic under standing of her. Men who really know women--and most of them are rogues who are successful with women--never make this mistake. To them, a woman is a functional creature with two arms, two legs, an assortment of muscles and what passes for a brain. The male of the species, they recognize, also possesses these fundamentals. The difference between them, while biological, is not primarily functional. Women eat, sleep, walk, talk, get hungry, have hangovers, often work for a living, develop skills, suffer disappointment and face problems of everyday living. just as men do. They have strengths and weaknesses as human beings, just as men have. They are uplifted by success and frustrated by failure just as men are.

How is it then, that such a great proportion of the male population persists in maintaining Woman on a pedestal?

Any sensible man (and we use the term "sensible" here in its animal connotation, not requiring the brains of an Einstein) can answer this.

Most men with old-school ties, while superior mentally to non-gentlemen, do not possess this kind of sense. They may possess sensitivity, but not sense. Their usual approach to women is through a maze of symbols, imposed upon them by the dicta of their class:

Honor, Virtue, Sportsmanship. Manners, Taste, Quality, Breeding, Gentility. When stricken by an uncontrollable sexual drive, they are inclined to open their wallets and seek professional solace because, traditionally, their ethics are not compromised by traffic with prostitutes, who ostensibly would not be prostitutes if they had been properly brought up and went with the right people.

Toward women of their own class, gentlemen present a facade of decorum.

But the women of their own class are women, too. The rogues are well aware of this. The rogue, instinctively if not precisely, is also aware that the mores of the gentleman leave him (the rogue) a wide-open field with the choicer females, who, as we've tried to demonstrate, are properly just as functional as their less socially acceptable confreres.

Thus, the rogue starts out with an advantage over the gentleman. The simple fact that he can look at a women, estimate the degree of her necessity and act, without a single scruple, to satisfy her need, puts him way out in front. The gentleman, on the other hand, is inclined to stall. His sense of "honor" or "chivalry" leads him to endeavor to "protect the woman from herself." If, however, the urge should prove to be "bigger than both of them," he feels himself involved; his integrity demands that he offer the girl a more permanent association, meaning, generally, marriage.

These compulsions toward responsibility are, in reality, only symbols, symbols of an outmoded (it has, actually, always been outmoded) code.

The rogue, the heel, the brute, the non-gentleman has a simpler and more effective code. It is generally stated thusly: "Love 'em and leave em."

While a lot of women, possessing as they do a single-minded determination to win security for themselves, profess to admire and even love gentle men, and often marry one, they're thinking about two different things when they succumb to a gentleman and to a non-gentleman.

The gentleman offers security, both financial and social; kindness, consideration, an acceptable moral environment, comfort and sometimes luxury; association with cultured and intelligent and responsible people, and, often, a reasonably pleasing person.

But the non-gentleman offers some thing more basic; stimulation (often perverse) and gratification (often ephemeral). With the non-gentleman, the woman is no goddess on a pedestal. She's a physically functioning member of the human species. Often, this has nothing to do with love in any high er emotional sense, although she'll try to rationalize herself by calling her urge "love." Her actions with a heel-of-the-moment, despite majority male opinion to the contrary, do not necessarily jeopardize the affection she feels for the man-in-her-life.

The peculiar intelligence of the rogue and that of every woman, for whom rules are made only to be broken, tells them with devastating logic that there is no necessary connection between sex and love; sex is one thing and love is another, al though they may go together, like ham and eggs.

Women are aware that they're not goddesses, and rogues possess the same awareness. The gentleman pathetically insists on maintaining this myth, even though all the evidence is to the contrary, and is loaded with self-pity over what he describes as "unfaithfulness' on the part of his beloved.

The gentleman has got to learn that women are not goddesses, but human beings; he's got to start thinking in terms of biology and function, rather than in terms of poetic idealization. Most important, he has to develop a new code, devoid of hypocrisy. In other words, he's got to start acting the rogue. When he does, he'll discover that all of the advantages in the Battle of the Sexes favor him. And, if there remains in his mind some lingering scruple, he has only to face up to the simple truth: Women don't want to be goddesses. They want to be women.

As we said at the start of this essay, we might as well face it, fellows. The truth is now and for a long time past has been that blondes (or brunettes or redheads) do not necessarily prefer gentlemen.

Awar
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 02:32 PM
Everything said here is absolutely right.
Although it can't apply to ALL women, because they're not
exactly clones. There are women who actually like 'nice' guys, but usually they're far more mature than the average woman of any class or background.

I rented my appartment to a really beautiful girl who for the last 4-5 years has been off and on in a relationship with a really obnoxious guy who sometimes beats her.
When they broke up the last time, he came by and punched her in the face.
I was extremely pissed off when the neighbours called me about the yelling and screaming, so I threatened him a little.
He stopped appearing for some time. This lasted a couple of months until they got together again. I learned not to interfere anymore because there's no use... she simply likes being abused, and this can be applied to most women. She will probably stay with this psycho even if he hurts her seriously.

The most ridiculous was her behaviour to other guys who helped her out. She was acting very unpleasant to them, even though any one of these guys were much better to her. A guy I know used to drive her around for months and help her with moving etc. He used to send her gifts. I felt guilty for introducing him to her. But, actually, it's his own fault... it's the man's own fault if he wants something but doesn't know how to get it.

Triglav
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 03:56 PM
The most ridiculous was her behaviour to other guys who helped her out. She was acting very unpleasant to them, even though any one of these guys were much better to her. A guy I know used to drive her around for months and help her with moving etc. He used to send her gifts. I felt guilty for introducing him to her. But, actually, it's his own fault... it's the man's own fault if he wants something but doesn't know how to get it.

Biiiiiig mistake... Actually, the pattern is simple. Buying loads of gifts and doing favours is another way of indicating "I want to buy you (and your sexual favours)". Women aren't that dumb. ;)

Awar
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 04:21 PM
Well... getting smacked in the face daily doesn't take a genius either. :D

I think women consider the gifts as a sort of symbol of submission.
When a man gives a gift to a woman, she perceives it as: ' Now I own him '.
When a woman owns something, it stops being interesting to her. She doesn't
find a guy who does anything she asks as particularly interesting.

Women like things they think are 'hard to get'. They like to be unable to acquire something easily.

When I meet some new girl, I always make sure she knows I have a girlfriend. If she's attractive enough, I'm prepared to lie and say that I do have a gf, even if it's not the truth. It's a win-win situation, because, if/when she realizes you are lying, she'll be even more into you, because women like mystery and uncertainty ( depending on the situation, of course ).

The problem with me is, that I really hate lying, and the more I decypher some girl's behaviour patterns, the less I respect her, the sooner I dump her :)

I also realized one funny thing. I think it's typical behaviour of guys to feel the urge to leave just as soon as the sex is over. I know I do.
Women on the other hand often say they hate this, and they would like to cuddle with the man, after sex, and lay around and talk etc.
In reality, it's much better if you act on your urges and just RUN AWAY :D

I'm talking from experience: just leave when you feel like it, don't press yourself to stay if you don't want to. Women often say what they think they want. A woman will want you much more if you DO NOT fulfill her desires.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard a girl say the exact opposite of what she really wants, I'd have a lot of dollars now. :P

I've been with girls who say to like the fragile, sensitive type, girls who want a man without body hair, I've had one night stands with girls who claim to only want a steady relationship etc.

Usually the opposite works, but the more a girl/woman is mentally mature, the more she'll know what's good for her, and the less stupid games she'll play.

Triglav
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 04:35 PM
You mean you do other things in life than up your post count on fora? :tongue

Awar
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 04:52 PM
I used to... :D when the weather was better, it freakin' rains every day the last 3 months. :) There's also the minor detail that now I'm going steady with a certain Dinaric/Baltic girl ;)

Awar
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 05:03 PM
Wow, only now I see this article is from 1956. It's truly a wonder how once they used to write truth :) The only articles in modern newspaper I see are typical product placement.

Telperion
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 05:17 PM
This article is sadly accurate, and I suppose proof that some things never change very much. I think women might stop playing these games when they're older, but then they're less appealing on a physical level too. I've never met a young, good-looking woman who didn't play head games, and generally the better-looking they are, the more manipulative they are. As I've gotten older, I've found this sort of game-playing to be increasingly irritating. Most young women don't even cook or clean properly any more, so if it wasn't for the fact that they are useful for sex, I wouldn't waste my time speaking to them at all.

Triglav
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 05:17 PM
I used to... :D when the weather was better, it freakin' rains every day the last 3 months. :) There's also the minor detail that now I'm going steady with a certain Dinaric/Baltic girl ;)

Don't forget to dis and beat her, not bathe, and never ever buy her gifts. :D

Mistress Klaus
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 05:49 PM
:) I find this thread quite interesting & yes (sorry girls) very TRUE. I am rather a gender traitor..being female & not thinking much of my own sex. Alot of females (especially the younger ones) are... well frankly dimwits. Selfish, foolish, dumb, can't cook, weak in mind & bodily strength, objectives & desires in all the wrong places.
Another thing about women that annoys me somewhat...is their non functioning listening skills. They yak & nag & gossip, yet when it comes to actually sitting and listening to serious subjects they seem to turn off....(maybe this is necessary..as women are definitely 'programmed' differently for the obvious reasons. A womans brain has been proven to sift/process various information/data and quickly access what is important to store & what must be discarded.. :D)....So...that said are ALL women deep down quite intelligent...but have yet to discard the frivolous trimmings that so many display?....

Now I am confused... :D :P

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 05:50 PM
Biiiiiig mistake... Actually, the pattern is simple. Buying loads of gifts and doing favours is another way of indicating "I want to buy you (and your sexual favours)". Women aren't that dumb. ;)

Not necessarily. Gifts are expressions of affection and friendship. Usually it's a waste of time to give anyone anything unless they are lifelong friends or family. Most women I find will take advantage of men as much as they can. Not all women though, there are some truly very sweet and empathetic women in the world, but in my experience they are a small minority, very rarely found (most of them already in relationships).

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 05:53 PM
This article is sadly accurate, and I suppose proof that some things never change very much. I think women might stop playing these games when they're older, but then they're less appealing on a physical level too. I've never met a young, good-looking woman who didn't play head games, and generally the better-looking they are, the more manipulative they are. As I've gotten older, I've found this sort of game-playing to be increasingly irritating. Most young women don't even cook or clean properly any more, so if it wasn't for the fact that they are useful for sex, I wouldn't waste my time speaking to them at all.

There's a saying that if women didn't have sex appeal, there'd be a bounty on'em.

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 06:01 PM
:) I find this thread quite interesting & yes (sorry girls) very TRUE. I am rather a gender traitor..being female & not thinking much of my own sex. Alot of females (especially the younger ones) are... well frankly dimwits. Selfish, foolish, dumb, can't cook, weak in mind & bodily strength, objectives & desires in all the wrong places.
Another thing about women that annoys me somewhat...is their non functioning listening skills. They yak & nag & gossip, yet when it comes to actually sitting and listening to serious subjects they seem to turn off....(maybe this is necessary..as women are definitely 'programmed' differently for the obvious reasons. A womans brain has been proven to sift/process various information/data and quickly access what is important to store & what must be discarded.. :D)....So...that said are ALL women deep down quite intelligent...but have yet to discard the frivolous trimmings that so many display?....

But you're a gender traitor for all the right reasons. ;) Girls like you rock! That's why I called and talked to you for 3 hours. :) You're a special lady, SKADI, I'm glad I know you.

As they say, women are by nature not rational but emotive. Partly how their brain is wired and partly from hormones. The hormones lessen later in life so women do improve with age in that way. Too bad by then they have already had all of their sexual adventures, their bodies are less attractive, and have had children or won't.

Another good article - http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=13561

Triglav
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 06:28 PM
Not necessarily.

As you said - not necessarily. From the context I gleaned that Awar's acquaintance was actually trying to buy her attention. Other than that, I agr.. umm..., sorry, Rusalka ;), concur with you.

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 06:47 PM
As you said - not necessarily. From the context I gleaned that Awar's acquaintance was actually trying to buy her attention. Other than that, I agr.. umm..., sorry, Rusalka ;), concur with you.

"The most ridiculous was her behaviour to other guys who helped her out. She was acting very unpleasant to them, even though any one of these guys were much better to her. A guy I know used to drive her around for months and help her with moving etc. He used to send her gifts. I felt guilty for introducing him to her."

Doesn't sound like it to me. Seems like he was just trying to genuinely help her and show that he cared about her. Maybe he just wanted her attention and affection. Not every man is a sexual predator you know.

Triglav
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 07:06 PM
"The most ridiculous was her behaviour to other guys who helped her out. She was acting very unpleasant to them, even though any one of these guys were much better to her. A guy I know used to drive her around for months and help her with moving etc. He used to send her gifts. I felt guilty for introducing him to her."

Doesn't sound like it to me. Seems like he was just trying to genuinely help her and show that he cared about her. Maybe he just wanted her attention and affection.

You might be right, s I don't know the guy and will refrain from commenting.


Not every man is a sexual predator you know.

I know. :D

Tryggvi
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 07:17 PM
It appears that you people are confused (at least SKADI admits it. ;))

On the one hand, you don't want women that are "dumb", "goofy" and "irresponsible", yet you are afraid of women who are your intellectual and moral superiors. You want women to be beautiful, but not selfish -- hello! You want women you can dominate, but then you hate them for being weak. You don't want a boring woman but you don't want her to "play games" either.

Most women are actually far less puerile and more consistent than men. There can be no spirituality, no sanctity, no truth without females.

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 07:58 PM
It appears that you people are confused (at least SKADI admits it. ;))

As in who?


On the one hand, you don't want women that are "dumb", "goofy" and "irresponsible", yet you are afraid of women who are your intellectual and moral superiors.

Not true.


You want women to be beautiful, but not selfish -- hello!

A woman who is beautiful has to be selfish in the immoral sense? Not true.


You want women you can dominate, but then you hate them for being weak.

I dislike women who let themselves be dominated by the wrong kind of men.


You don't want a boring woman but you don't want her to "play games" either.

That's right. Entertainment comes in many forms. Manipulation, deception, and betrayal are not on my list of interesting activities.


Most women are actually far less puerile and more consistent than men.

Not in my experience. Unless you mean consistently inconsistent.


There can be no spirituality, no sanctity, no truth without females.

More importantly there can be no furthering of the race.

Tryggvi
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 08:04 PM
As in who? As in 'people.' ;)


Not true. Why not?


A woman who is beautiful has to be selfish in the immoral sense? Not true. Define immoral? To which morals are you referring?


I dislike women who let themselves be dominated by the wrong kind of man. Who are the wrong kind of men?


That's right. Entertainment comes in many forms. Manipulation, deception, and betrayal are not on my list of interesting activities. Who manipulates, deceives and betrays? Women as such? Sure, so do men.


Not in my experience. Your personal experience is also not representative for reality as a whole. ;)


More importantly there can be no furthering of the race. Agreed.

Mistress Klaus
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 08:05 PM
I think Tryggvi's statement was valid in regards to the past comments (to this Thread subject matter). Although I stand by my past statements about the female sex...I do find it rather demeaning how men pass off women who have 'finally' obtained some sense...but are usually old(er) and no longer 'sexy' in the average males eyes....What about older/mature men?....alot of young females in their early 20's wouldn't give a man in his 30's a second look.

Tryggvi
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 08:07 PM
I think Njord's statement was valid in regards to the past comments (to this Thread subject matter). Although I stand by my past statements about the female sex...I do find it rather demeaning how men pass off women who have 'finally' obtained some sense...but are usually old(er) and no longer 'sexy' in the average males eyes....What about older/mature men?....alot of young females in their early 20's wouldn't give a man in his 30's a second look.
Men are like wine; they get better as they age. Women, however, are like grapes. ;) :jk

Mistress Klaus
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 08:13 PM
Men are like wine; they get better as they age. Women, however, are like grapes. ;) :jk

:P Some men do...(get better...definitely Better in all ways).....alot don't.

But really who wants a complete inexperienced woman/girl?...Like what has already been discussed..... immaturity (in both sexes) is trying!. :D

Tryggvi
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 08:17 PM
:P Some men do...(get better...definitely Better in all ways).....alot don't.

But really who wants a complete inexperienced woman/girl?...Like what has already been discussed..... immaturity (in both sexes) is trying!. :D
Women always improve with age. :)

Mistress Klaus
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 09:06 PM
Women always improve with age. :)

;) Yes you are a smooth one..... :D (or perhaps a 'smart one')

"A man who doth flatters the Maidens, picks the fullest bloom" (quote unknown) :P

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 09:09 PM
As in 'people.' ;)

You said "you people", as in the people posting in this thread. I assume you are addressing the men, including me.

BTW, I think SKADI is thinking very clearly. :)


On the one hand, you don't want women that are "dumb", "goofy" and "irresponsible", yet you are afraid of women who are your intellectual and moral superiors.

Not true.

Why not?

Since I'm included in "you people", then I am speaking for myself.

I'm not afraid of women who may be deemed superior to myself in certain positive qualities. I've never had a relationship with someone who was morally superior to myself, in the sense of our relationship. I've always been the one to give more and get less, be more truthful, etc, and it will probably always be that way. I am not intimidated by a woman who may have a higher IQ than I do, although I think naturally the man should be superior.


Define immoral? To which morals are you referring?

You presume that a woman who is beautiful must be selfish. I addressed specifically selfishness in an immoral sense, such as egomania. I don't think it has to be the case. Beauty is a form of power and control over others though, so it is a corrupting force.


Who are the wrong kind of men?

The kind who are racially/subracially incompatible. Within racial/subracial compatibility, those who are not able to carry on a healthy and loving relationship.


Who manipulates, deceives and betrays? Women as such? Sure, so do men.

That's not the original argument. You said, "You don't want a boring woman but you don't want her to "play games" either." Women can be interesting without playing "games" as in deception, lies, betrayal, etc. I doubt women view those qualities as positive in men either.


Your personal experience is also not representative for reality as a whole. ;)

How's that? And yours is?

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 09:13 PM
I do find it rather demeaning how men pass off women who have 'finally' obtained some sense...but are usually old(er) and no longer 'sexy' in the average males eyes....What about older/mature men?....alot of young females in their early 20's wouldn't give a man in his 30's a second look.

I do too, especially the men who take an oath before God and their people to love her til the end, and then run off with a younger woman. Although this has been exaggerating according to studies, and actually a higher percentage of women want a divorce when they become middle-aged.

Nordhammer
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 09:19 PM
But really who wants a complete inexperienced woman/girl?...Like what has already been discussed..... immaturity (in both sexes) is trying!. :D

Some things are better left unexperienced. :) What man do you know that doesn't find a virginal girl appealing? Problem is a lot of women are too experienced.

Marius
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 10:00 PM
Interesting starting post, Nordhammer.
I think it is true in the sense that even if a woman wants to feel safe, she must not be too self assured in the relationship with a man. Too much security concerning the actions and the feelings of her partner may prove counterproductive for the said relationship.

Concerning women who get punched by their partners and still keep hanging out with them, I think this has other reasons and can be applied only to a restricted number of women. But these reasons differ a lot of the previously presented one, imo.

Tryggvi
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 10:05 PM
You said "you people", as in the people posting in this thread. I assume you are addressing the men, including me. Assumptions are fair, and can be right or wrong. ;)


BTW, I think SKADI is thinking very clearly. :) Fair value judgment. :)


Since I'm included in "you people", then I am speaking for myself. The step from an assumption to an assertion is fallacious. ;)


I'm not afraid of women who may be deemed superior to myself in certain positive qualities. I've never had a relationship with someone who was morally superior to myself, in the sense of our relationship. I've always been the one to give more and get less, be more truthful, etc, and it will probably always be that way. :thumbsup


I am not intimidated by a woman who may have a higher IQ than I do, although I think naturally the man should be superior. Agreed.


You presume that a woman who is beautiful must be selfish. What I wished to express was that a woman needs a certain amount of selfishness to make her beauty potential shine. :)


I addressed specifically selfishness in an immoral sense, such as egomania. I don't think it has to be the case. Right. Excess is not necessarily good.


Beauty is a form of power and control over others though, so it is a corrupting force. I disagree. Beauty has positive value as such. I like to surround myself with beautiful things.


The kind who are racially/subracially incompatible. Within racial/subracial compatibility, those who are not able to carry on a healthy and loving relationship. "Healthy relationship" is too vague for me, as people have different concepts about "healthy relationships."


That's not the original argument. You said, "You don't want a boring woman but you don't want her to "play games" either." Women can be interesting without playing "games" as in deception, lies, betrayal, etc. Too judgmental and absolute for me. Lies can be an expression of love and care.


How's that? And yours is? Pretty much the opposite. Women are typically less puerile than men. Less offensive. Less judgmental. More easy-going. With a higher degree of social intelligence that keeps society from breaking apart. Not great thinkers maybe but great doers. In general, all over history, the anonymous hero was female.

Mistress Klaus
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 10:08 PM
I do too, especially the men who take an oath before God and their people to love her til the end, and then run off with a younger woman. Although this has been exaggerating according to studies, and actually a higher percentage of women want a divorce when they become middle-aged.

Women really pull the ropes..if truth be known. If men really woke up to the control females have over them..(hell!!...they know.... :D )... Men deep down like being 'pussy whipped' (even better when they deep down respect her...that is the recipe for a long relationship/marriage) ....

I will say something here...I do think women have confused the male role with the feminist movement. I mean.."I want to work"!..."I want children"! "I want a MAN..but also a man who is sensitive to my feelings & be a LOVER"( but how dare you use me just for sex)......"Don't treat me like an idiot!"..."I am woman!!"..."A free Woman"!........but the sad fact though..these 'liberated' women still want men to nurture & protect them....How are Men of today supposed to act?!!!

Women have really fucked themselves up (excuse the language) with this modern theory of making a stand of being 'equal', bread-winners, warrior women...mothers.....Good theory..but not practical...MEN are mean't to get out & earn the living...fight the wars...protect the honour & race....while the females nurture life...all things living & prolong well-being. Female is softness & warmth. Male is strength & security.

Maybe we should stop pondering & fighting the conflict of the differences of the sexes & just appreciate each other. :)

Triglav
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 10:50 PM
Maybe we should stop pondering & fighting the conflict of the differences of the sexes & just appreciate each other. :)

Amen to that! :) (that, or something along those lines, is also my first and only reply when feminists and metrosexuals confront me with their rabid demagoguery)

Telperion
Monday, June 21st, 2004, 11:18 PM
Most women are actually far less puerile and more consistent than men. I used to think this. But, some years ago in university, I ended up in a situation where I had to rent a house, and my housemates were four women. This was enlightening to say the least. Women often tend to appear to behave one way around men, and another with each other (the same is true for men, of course - they behave differently toward women than they do with the guys). These women couldn't be in their 'around men' mode with me 24 hours a day, so eventually they just started acting the way they ordinarily would, without any male witnesses. And frankly, I was shocked at some of what I saw. My romantic idea that women are inherently kinder and gentler than men was blown completely out of the water by the end of that year. I can't say the women I lived with were necessarily representative of women generally, but I can say the ones I lived with were in no way more pleasant, mature, or consistent than men.

That's not to say that men are great either. A lot of men are loud-mouthed idiots. But one can spot these types instantly, and avoid them, while associating with men who make decent friends. Women, by contrast, when in game-playing mode, have a way of appearing to be one thing, but actually being something quite different. That's just my own experience, and perhaps I shouldn't extrapolate too much from it, but it's a valid observation based on what I've seen.


There can be no spirituality, no sanctity, no truth without females.This is a very good expression of the feminine ideal. Unfortunately, the reality is often divergent from this ideal.

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 02:17 AM
Pretty much the opposite. Women are typically less puerile than men. Less offensive. Less judgmental. More easy-going. With a higher degree of social intelligence that keeps society from breaking apart. Not great thinkers maybe but great doers. In general, all over history, the anonymous hero was female.

Thats certainly true. They play their role, for the survival even bigger role because men, at least a certain percentage, are always dispensable, women are not.

Men dont get and usually dont raise the children, or at least dont do as much for what is the most important thing for a society, to raise new generations and giving them the help and security they need.

But all their strength has a shady side. They are better in certain areas, but for sure not in all. Neither physically nor mentally.

And this areas should be always dominated by the best men. Today they are not dominated in the West by men as in the past, and by the best neither, which are two of the biggest problems we have, especially if speaking about policy.

F.e. it is good to have patience and compassion, to be empathic, especially in the personal environment, but it every time good if we go outside.
The female emotionality is not the same as that of men, and maybe men made many mistakes, but they were more often as hard and risk taking as it was necessary, what women arent at all.

Those which are, are it usually for different reasons, have a different inner motivation or are inwardly crippled in their female soul.

I just thought about certain female politicians and what they did, and the result was, those which were idealistic were usually to soft and lenient, those which were hard enough were usually just hungry for power and corrupt.
The ideal combination of a hard idealist is something not very typical for women, it might be not typical for most men either, but at least you can find more...

Therefore I have not just because of my propagated role-model the impression that certain areas, policy and military in special are nothing for which women can be good for.

Not only that they should be protected and do their primary duty in the family, they just do the wrong things more often in certain areas because of their different emotionality, at least if its about things which are necessary on the long run.

To be hard and idealistic, rational and motivated, to risk and still dont lose the vision is something I dont find in women too often.
They search more often for a "nice world", without taking the risks to get it and being consequent and hard enough ideologically. Of course they are in the day-to-day work, if its about learning etc. but not at the bigger scale things.

They are lost too fast in personal, emotional and small things, more often than men.

Thats just natural for their specialization, but not good for the leadership, or a society in which such views dominate.

The female view is the natural view for the small group, not for the collective as a whole, for this women should be lead by men.

bocian
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 02:27 AM
It appears that you people are confused (at least SKADI admits it. ;))

On the one hand, you don't want women that are "dumb", "goofy" and "irresponsible", yet you are afraid of women who are your intellectual and moral superiors. You want women to be beautiful, but not selfish -- hello! You want women you can dominate, but then you hate them for being weak. You don't want a boring woman but you don't want her to "play games" either.

Most women are actually far less puerile and more consistent than men. There can be no spirituality, no sanctity, no truth without females.

I get the feeling that most of the people here haven't been in a long term relationship. A long relationship is also just the tip of the iceberg, moving in with the 'significant other' is another thing, let alone marriage. :D

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 02:50 AM
I get the feeling that most of the people here haven't been in a long term relationship. A long relationship is also just the tip of the iceberg, moving in with the 'significant other' is another thing, let alone marriage. :D

Long term relationships can be defined differently, what would you say?
6 months, 1, 2, 5, 10 years?

Nordhammer
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 04:39 AM
Assumptions are fair, and can be right or wrong. ;)

Please list the people you are talking to or referring to with your "you people" statement, to avoid any future inaccurate assumptions and "fallacies." :)


What I wished to express was that a woman needs a certain amount of selfishness to make her beauty potential shine. :)

No, what she needs is your credit card to buy her the latest cosmetics, perfumes, clothes and to pay for trips to the stylist. ;) All justifiable as long as she isn't being too selfish with herself when it comes to you.


I disagree. Beauty has positive value as such. I like to surround myself with beautiful things.

You made this your original statement, so I don't see how you can now disagree. My statement was in reference to physical beauty making a woman more selfish, self-centered (and being a corrupting force over her personality in a negative way because of its power and control over others, as they say "power corrupts"). A woman's beauty is more than just her exterior, this is where selfishness is a negative.


"Healthy relationship" is too vague for me, as people have different concepts about "healthy relationships."

Mutual respect, appreciation, kindness, affection, love, and without violence and excessive verbal/emotional abuses.



Too judgmental and absolute for me. Lies can be an expression of love and care.

Too vague and manipulative for me. In the context of the statement it was with a negative connotation. Maybe you like a woman to deceive you, lie to you and betray you, I don't.


Pretty much the opposite. Women are typically less puerile than men. Less offensive. Less judgmental. More easy-going. With a higher degree of social intelligence that keeps society from breaking apart. Not great thinkers maybe but great doers. In general, all over history, the anonymous hero was female.

And what gives you the right to declare your opinion to be unquestionable truth, representative of reality, while mine is not?

"Less offensive, Less judgmental, More easy-going" - ha. If social intelligence means social manipulation, sure. Jewish women are probably the highest (founders of the "socially intelligent" feminist movement). More women are responsible for keeping our current multicultural and feminist society from breaking apart, isn't that wonderful. You must then agree that feminized men are a good thing, progressive, since such qualities are looked upon so highly by you?

Nordhammer
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 04:41 AM
Amen to that! :) (that, or something along those lines, is also my first and only reply when feminists and metrosexuals confront me with their rabid demagoguery)

Are Slovenian women as feminist as American women?

Nordhammer
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 04:53 AM
I used to think this. But, some years ago in university, I ended up in a situation where I had to rent a house, and my housemates were four women. This was enlightening to say the least. Women often tend to appear to behave one way around men, and another with each other (the same is true for men, of course - they behave differently toward women than they do with the guys). These women couldn't be in their 'around men' mode with me 24 hours a day, so eventually they just started acting the way they ordinarily would, without any male witnesses. And frankly, I was shocked at some of what I saw. My romantic idea that women are inherently kinder and gentler than men was blown completely out of the water by the end of that year. I can't say the women I lived with were necessarily representative of women generally, but I can say the ones I lived with were in no way more pleasant, mature, or consistent than men.

Absolutely. Viewing women when they are not wearing their social veils is an eye-opening experience. I've witnessed this many times from my sister's friends, when I worked as a temp in my younger years (I was the only male there, surrounded by women... not bad really, but you constantly hear them talking about how bad their boyfriends are), and things I'm told about women from other women. The most vulgar language I've ever heard was from my sister's friends... I had no idea. :-O


That's not to say that men are great either. A lot of men are loud-mouthed idiots. But one can spot these types instantly, and avoid them, while associating with men who make decent friends. Women, by contrast, when in game-playing mode, have a way of appearing to be one thing, but actually being something quite different. That's just my own experience, and perhaps I shouldn't extrapolate too much from it, but it's a valid observation based on what I've seen.

"Men are pigs" right? :) Well, at least men are usually more honest.



This is a very good expression of the feminine ideal. Unfortunately, the reality is often divergent from this ideal.

Right, this is more applicable to tradition women of yore, not of modern women. There is a huge difference between women of 2 generations ago and women of today.

Awar
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 05:18 AM
Actually, I think that all the dishonesty, complexity and viciousness of women is wonderful.:) Their behaviour fuels men. Women don't only give birth to life, they are also a catalyst.

I just disagree with the way modern civilization molds women into being obedient little slaves to the consumerist society, molding them into freaks without a valid goal in life.

In any case, one cannot use the same rules for both men and women. A dishonest man is one thing, a dishonest woman is another. An ignorant man is not to be judged in the same way an ignorant woman is.

Of course, this doesn't mean that one shouldn't be harsh towards a woman.

Telperion
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 05:26 AM
you constantly hear them talking about how bad their boyfriends are), and things I'm told about women from other women. The most vulgar language I've ever heard was from my sister's friends... I had no idea. :-O Yes, that's exactly what it was like! The worst part was hearing them go on and on about their boyfriends - far, far more than I wanted to know about them, that's for certain. :|



"Men are pigs" right? :) Well, at least men are usually more honest.Yes and yes. :)



There is a huge difference between women of 2 generations ago and women of today.That does appear to be the case in their behaviour, unfortunately, even if their basic psychology perhaps hasn't changed as much. Sometimes, my Dad talks about his old girlfriends, and from his experiences you would think he grew up on another planet. I don't think he or other men of his age understand at all what the situation is like today.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 06:10 AM
That does appear to be the case in their behaviour, unfortunately, even if their basic psychology perhaps hasn't changed as much. Sometimes, my Dad talks about his old girlfriends, and from his experiences you would think he grew up on another planet. I don't think he or other men of his age understand at all what the situation is like today.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the older generations of women. My grandmother and great grandmother were superb women. It was truly a different world then.

StrÝbog
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 06:47 AM
This article is utterly and completely true. In fact its truth has caused me to change my social approach from "go out and get 'em" to "if they are worth dating, they'll be drawn to me." I don't separate women or men on an intellectual or moral level. They are smart/stupid in different ways, but the strengths and weaknesses balance out. Men are generally crude pigs, yes, and women are generally shallow, capricious bitches. Ideally, I guess they are supposed to complement each other. :P
I don't like feminism but I don't believe women should be subject to men. I like women with spirit and would be glad to meet a woman who is my intellectual superior. Good for the offspring, you know. :)
There are very few people of EITHER gender who I would consider worthwhile to vote, so I'm not going to say "women shouldn't vote." A select few women are capable of sensible voting, as are a select few men. I don't believe in democracy anyway. Here endeth the rant.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 07:52 AM
Actually, I think that all the dishonesty, complexity and viciousness of women is wonderful.:) Their behaviour fuels men. Women don't only give birth to life, they are also a catalyst.

Ultimately it comes down to beauty with women. Would you really get off on a woman who is "dishonest, complex and vicious" if she was fat and ugly? :D I doubt it. I think one of the reasons Europeans have progressed so much is because our women are the most beautiful in the world, a great motivation and stimulation for the men. Just think if all we had to choose from was Negrids or Mongolids... ugh. Especially Negrids. No wonder they never bothered to create a civilization.

Triglav
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2004, 12:51 PM
Are Slovenian women as feminist as American women?

Yes. :| It was imported along with the overblown Capitalism. We can basically talk about the same phenomenon.

Anyway, every comment I made in this thread was a sobering realisation and not my opinion on what is right and what is wrong as it was implied - and deleted. :|

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, 09:56 PM
Women dont like gentlemen huh? Tell me something I dont know! :eyes

bocian
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, 10:47 PM
Long term relationships can be defined differently, what would you say?
6 months, 1, 2, 5, 10 years?

Imo, anything over a year. This of course would vary by the actual amount of time that is spent together. By that I mean, once a week or everyday, etc.

Awar
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004, 11:09 PM
Ultimately it comes down to beauty with women. Would you really get off on a woman who is "dishonest, complex and vicious" if she was fat and ugly? :D

Yes, of course I agree with that. The search for a beautiful woman is imprinted in every man's DNA. Except Elton John's :D

Agrippa
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 01:13 AM
Many women lose respect if a man is too gentle and soft I would say, at least on the long run.

I have just certain examples out of my personal social environments in mind were certain man heard even at crazy and stupid acting women, respected them and were to weak, would have never beaten them, not even shout at.

But they earned no respect at all...

On the other hand there are women which want to have a subdominant men, they dont just say so, they want a men which is easy to control like a dog and which they can command and shout at.

Of course I always wonder how a man can stand such a behaviour, just idiotical how weak some behaved. Of course society was behind the offending female behaviour.

Sure such women are a, still growing, minority.

Scoob
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 02:47 AM
I think Nordhammer is right that in the end, beauty/sex appeal trumps everything. I'm not sure whether beautiful face or well-developed secondary sex characteristics is more important - but these supersede anything about personality. A beautiful woman will fill a man's brain with sex hormones that will make him appreciate her quirks - which he explains as "she has a good personality." Of course all his friends might disagree.

I think dominance/submission in relationships can be somewhat illusory. There's much more to social dominance than physical violence and shouting. Many women achieve dominance through passive aggressiveness, or sweetness.

I think that men must usually find a fine balance and mix should be found between being an assertive bully and a sweet gentleman to win a woman.

Agrippa
Thursday, June 24th, 2004, 03:12 AM
Many women achieve dominance through passive aggressiveness, or sweetness.

Most do it that way, or better they influence man at all like this.

But thats their way, a way which is acceptable, but if they act like I described it, it isnt.

Its even more conspicuous if women dont act like they usually do and "act like men" (even aggressive men), and the men react like a woman.

I mean that kind of dominance, not getting influenced in a civilized and usually female manner, thats ok.

There should be always a constant communication and respect, but in the end the man should have the last word.