Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

choo's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. The evidence is from being alive and interacting with men and women everyday. If you disagree with these observations, why not bring up your own which do not fit with the pattern detailed in the OP? So you've chosen women who don't challenge you? Personally, I have never met any woman who does not find it exciting to challenge a man she is interested in. By the way, challenge does not always mean make unneccesary drama... it can mean asking a man difficult questions that make him uncomfortable, then measuring his reactions and how he deals with the discomfort. It's a process of getting to know someone by reading between the lines. The drama can act like litmus test. For example, when I openly disagree with him, how does he react? Does he get angry? Hurl insults? Appease me? Debate? or does he have a reasoned discussion with me? What kind of man is he? That's fine, but can you explain how it is bullshit? I can understand that it may not apply to every woman in the world, but I think it rings true for 99% of the heterosexual women I know. Women learn about men by interacting with not just words, but through action and measuring a mans REaction. Some of the most effective actions are the ones which cause drama, tension, complexity, or confusion.. because those are a challenges to a man and his ability to deal with her. Again, those challenges do not neccessarily mean making irrational accusations, stating falsehoods, or behaving in an unjustified hostile manner. Why not just discuss it here? I think everyone is curious to know why you are so hostile to this viewpoint.
  2. Good - I'm glad you are using your brain! That's fine to reject it. There are still many things unknown about psychology - it is not at the level of other subjects like physics or math. But I think you owe an apology to Kevin and others in this thread of whom you've irresponsibly accused of mysticism... this is an honest discussion about the nature of men and women. No one here has asked anyone to take something on faith.
  3. Strawman. I explained why these people might not “get it”, and I did not say it is beyond argument. It is only beyond argument when they dogmatically deny psychological differences between men and women, specifically the differences in how they come to experience sexual attraction/feelings of romance. I know this BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT!!! Just look at the way men and women dress differently, what the focus is on, how they accentuate certain features… this is across all cultures. No, that doesn’t mean every woman wants the exact same thing concretely, since we can all choose our own values. However, the way in which we discover those values is the same – through testing via "dominance" games (call it whatever makes you feel comfortable) such as the way described by the OP. In my opinion (no, I do not have a scientific study), the dominance game played between the sexes are typically played in the beginning, when the two people involved are just getting to know each other. I know this through general observation, discussion with female friends, and my own personal experience. There is no official study that I know of. This is just something you know from observation, which involves trusting the evidence of the senses.. AKA common sense. No one here is a certified psychologist/scientist (correct me if I’m wrong). But that doesn’t mean any conversation or thoughts on the subject are straight up mysticism. NO! That is completely lazy, use your brain independently. Honestly think about the claims, then test against your own experiences (not your preconceived idea of romance) and then decide for yourself if it’s true or not. By the way, people can be wrong - that does not make their thoughts mysticism. It means that they are trying to make sense of the big picture, using what they know from personal experience and observation. A mistake means that they have missed or misjudged certain data - but the process of trying to find a pattern, finding “the one in the many” vast observations and interactions they’ve had with other people... is completely legitimate… it is not mysticism.
  4. For anyone who missed the debate, you can watch it here: Also lots of hilarious/interesting discussion on both of these pages McKibben supporter discussion Alex Epstein supporter discussion
  5. I have to take issue with this... Psychology is not mysticism. Kevin is talking about the psychological dynamics and differences between the sexes - in particular, the dynamics of romance and how to create it. It's 100% true that some people just don't "get it". It's because they are unaware of the differences between the male and female mind, or they choose to ignore it because it contradicts their platonic concept of romance which is divorced from/denies these psychological differences. If you want to talk about it rationally, you need to acknowledge the fact that there are psychological differences between men and women. And that these differences mean there is a particular dynamic and process by which they interact and get to know eachother, including how a woman comes to experience romantic feelings. A great example of how a woman can "confound and agitate" men is Dominique Francon. What did she do when she felt powerfully attracted to Roark? She smacked his face with a tree branch...(worked like a charm). If a man wants to create a romantic dynamic with a woman, he should learn about how a women experiences romance... Which is exactly what Kevin is trying to teach I believe. Kudos for having the courage to call it like it is.
  6. Sorry you can't catch it! Should be available by next week the latest... I'll post the link once it's up.
  7. Less than two hours till the LIVE debate! www.fossilfueldebate.com

  8. Debate is being broadcasted live in less than two hours for anyone who wants to check it out: Starts 4PM PST / 7PM EST www.fossilfueldebate.com
  9. Debate on "Fossil fuels: are they a risk to the planet or do they improve it? Thoughts? I'm interested to see how Alex will handle someone at this level... I've seen him debate people from OWS - but most of those people were complete door knobs. Here's the article which triggered this whole thing (referred to in the video) Global Warming's Terrifying New Math Alex's original challenge video: For anyone who's interested you can get DVDs, T-shirts, background info, etc here: McKibben vs Epstein Campaign
  10. Roark. I picture him as having the face and build of a stern Lee Marvin. I don't really think of Roark with bright orange hair though, maybe more like dirty brown with a hint of orange. I fell in love with his character more anything though, rather than his physical description. <3
  11. Hi Boris, I'm also from Vancouver. I don't think there are many of us in the area, but I would also be interested in meeting others. Anyone else here?
  12. Hilarious and to the point!! Shared this with others and had a good laugh.. Nice find.
  13. Full Story For those in Canada... I'm very sorry to report this horrendous slap at free speech. Apparently being insulted at a comedy club by a comedian is illegal. This case has set a new precedent, guaranteed to be used again by the next person whose feelings have been hurt (but only if they are gay/female/trans-gender/Mormon/circumcised/other...)
  • Create New...