Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

 

You and I truly come from opposite ends of the universe.

Relaxed, easygoing eye contact of the kind I describe is one of the most essential elements of connecting sexually with a woman. Unless one or both partners are visually impaired to the point of blindness, I can't conceive of establishing a sex connection of any meaning, depth or significance without it.

 

A man opening a door for a woman is an act of chivalry, just like his selecting a table inside a restaurant. Both demonstrate masculine competence and leadership, and allow a woman to feel cherished and cared for.

 

 

You're a typical male. Eye contact is irrelevant, but you must put your hands on her!

I'm trying to help men understand the process of romance as a woman experiences it. First connect with her mentally and emotionally, then allow the physical aspects of the relationship to evolve naturally out of that.

 

My motto is: Relax, slow down, and stop being so typical!

 

It's the easygoing eye contact that is asexual. It's friendly, which is all fine. Most of the time you may want to keep it friendly when getting to know her. Sexy eye contact is intense and uncomfortable. That's what you use to spark sexual tension.

 

Selecting tables is taking the lead, but opening a door... only if you physically lead her through the door.

 

No, i'm not a typical male. I say and do things others wouldn't. I'm not afraid to touch her and play with her, and I look at her in ways she's not used to. And the thing is... you don't get that tension by being polite, holding the door, easy talk and easygoing eye contact. Those things are all fine... I prefer to joke and mess around myself, but sooner or later it's time to get serious, and really ignite that spark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 A man opening a door for a woman is an act of chivalry, just like his selecting a table inside a restaurant.

And chivalry blows. :D It's rooted in social views of a time and place that was very oppressive to women among many other severe flaws and I am very glad not to live in that time and place.

 

 

I'm trying to help men understand the process of romance as a woman experiences it.

And paying no heed to what actual females have to tell anybody else about how they experience the process of romance is a big part of why you are failing at your effort.

 

 

"I love you as a human being, darling. Your womanness has nothing to do with it."

I'd like that very much actually. :)

 

 

Sexy eye contact is intense and uncomfortable.

I don't know if it's this way for everybody, but I'd say "uncomfortable" is about as counterproductive as it can get for a goal of creating sexual appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I love you as a human being, darling. Your womanness has nothing to do with it."

I'd like that very much actually. :)

 

What is so terrible about being a woman, that you would prefer that a romantic partner not experience this aspect of you as a personal, pleasurable value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is so terrible about being a woman, that you would prefer that a romantic partner not experience this aspect of you as a personal, pleasurable value?

It's not terrible. It's just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not. It's a psychological visibility issue - I don't enjoy having things about me blown wildly out of proportion, especially when doing so leads to assuming incorrect things about me, over even worse, continuing to believe these incorrect assumptions about me inspite of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't make me enjoy it either just because somebody may claim that they have assumptions that they would say were positive things rather than negative things. It's very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not terrible. It's just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not. It's a psychological visibility issue - I don't enjoy having things about me blown wildly out of proportion, especially when doing so leads to assuming incorrect things about me, over even worse, continuing to believe these incorrect assumptions about me inspite of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't make me enjoy it either just because somebody may claim that they have assumptions that they would say were positive things rather than negative things. It's very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.

 

I appreciate your responses, Bluecherry.

 

I get a chuckle, and think it's rather telling, when I see guys saywhat women want, and then women speak up and say, "Uh ... no. That's not it at all." 

 

Kevin, mind if I ask a few questions?

 

Do you think that a woman can be a "leading woman," and if so, what that would mean to you. Or does her "womanness" preclude her from that?

 

What do you consider "success" to be in terms of romantic/successful relationships? Is marriage the ultimate goal and mark of success? How are you doing yourself in terms of your standard of relationship success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And chivalry blows. :D It's rooted in social views of a time and place that was very oppressive to women among many other severe flaws and I am very glad not to live in that time and place.

 

 

And paying no heed to what actual females have to tell anybody else about how they experience the process of romance is a big part of why you are failing at your effort.

 

 

I'd like that very much actually. :)

 

 

I don't know if it's this way for everybody, but I'd say "uncomfortable" is about as counterproductive as it can get for a goal of creating sexual appeal.

 

No, it's not that way for everybody. It's about creating tension and maintaining it. A look, touch, body language (like standing a wee bit too close), or saying something controversial/uncofortable/argumentative. That tension is uncofortable. Most people like to defuse the situation. Comofortably riding on it is very powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not.

 

It would be nice if people would identify these sorts of things about themselves before they excoriate me.

 

My writings are intended exclusively for men and women who do not regard their maleness or femaleness (or their partner's) to be a negligible element of self. Not in general, and absolutely definitely not in romantic love and sex!

You're entitled to your perspective, bluecherry, but it's little wonder that nothing I say has any value to you.

 

It's very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.

 

Race is not fundamentally relevant to sex or romance. For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one's identity as a man or woman is a "big deal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My writings are intended exclusively for men and women who do not regard their maleness or femaleness (or their partner's) to be a negligible element of self. Not in general, and absolutely definitely not in romantic love and sex!

But why *should* one regard their femaleness or maleness as extremely important? Yes, I get it, if someone wants what you propose, they should follow your advice perhaps. But is it good for one's life? Apparently not. People have asked you before how this advice works for you. Your are posting to an audience that likes evidence, so I don't think that's an unfair question.

 

Actually, I don't think heterosexuality really exists (preferences do, though), more like a cultural thing not based on any particular facts. The concept hasn't existed through most of human history), so you might be right. The conclusions of what that *means* I think is exactly what you propose. But is it any good for life!? Careful though, it sounds like you're insinuating that anyone who disagrees on "maleness" and "femaleness" being very important to romantic love is mentally unhealthy, or evading, or that non-heterosexuality is disordered thinking.

 

It's interesting that I like these posts to the extent it seems like socratic dialogue, except with assertions instead of questions. The assertions are plausible, and opinions that I've seen, so it's as though it's getting me to think about assumptions others may have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 My writings are intended exclusively for men and women who do not regard their maleness or femaleness (or their partner's) to be a negligible element of self. Not in general, and absolutely definitely not in romantic love and sex!

This does not change the fact that you are still making all kinds of assertions without providing backing of any sort for them. I'm also far from the only female whose input you've completely disregarded and forged on ahead in spite of. Other females have posted in your various threads and gotten the same treatment from you. You've also previously stated that you did this to all 5,000 females you asked about one other topic. Even putting aside the question of the benefit or lackthereof to this high emphasizing of people's sex, you've not given cause to believe what you say is true about those people that do think it is a big deal and in fact ignored evidence to the contrary. Not that just a couple people would prove how an entire sex is, but you've not yet been able to find even a single female it seems who regards your claims about female psychology in relation to romance as even close to accurate to how they in particular work.

 

 

You're entitled to your perspective, bluecherry . . .

Really now? Statements you've made here and elsewhere indicate that you intend your writings to apply much more universally and not just be something optional or a matter of perspective. For example:

 

For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one's identity as a man or woman is a "big deal."

or

This type of man embodies respectful, benevolent, romantic dominance, which every (good) heterosexual woman deeply craves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why *should* one regard their femaleness or maleness as extremely important?

 

There is no "should" about it. If you agree, then you might find what I have to say useful. If not, you're on your own.

 

Actually, I don't think heterosexuality really exists (preferences do, though), more like a cultural thing not based on any particular facts.

 

At times, participating in these discussions on Objectivism Online feels like I've wandered into a gender studies class at a leftist university — in some other dimension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At times, participating in these discussions on Objectivism Online feels like I've wandered into a gender studies class at a leftist university — in some other dimension.

Why keep posting at all, then? OO.com is a forum, not a blog.

Given the subject and nature of your posts, I can't imagine why studying gender wouldn't be of interest to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one's identity as a man or woman is a "big deal."

 

Oh goodness. So while you refuse to provide any arguments or evidence for your claims, you have no trouble with denouncing those who disagree with them as not being "mentally healthy" or being evasive. People who have given you the (wholly unearned) courtesy of attempting to take you seriously and engage you. How loathsome. 

 

Given the subject and nature of [Delaney's] posts, I can't imagine why studying gender wouldn't be of interest to [him].

 

Can't you?

If Delaney were to study gender seriously, or even admit that such a study was necessary to come to conclusions such as he does, it would mean that he could not carry on as he has, where he adopts his views on whim and attempts to build a reputation by them. That would be a lot harder, and he would then have the responsibility of trying to get things right according to a strict methodology. Then he would have to hold his ideas up to scrutiny, prepared to answer the hard questions, and he's shown clearly how he feels about that sort of thing. As stands, he can just pontificate out of his ass, post here from his endless blogs, reject the need for argumentation or evidence, and cast aspersions upon the character of all those who disagree. It's all of the glory of appearing to be someone doing something worthwhile with none of the troublesome "work" part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add some more to my reply.

 

It's not terrible. It's just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not. It's a psychological visibility issue - I don't enjoy having things about me blown wildly out of proportion, especially when doing so leads to assuming incorrect things about me, over even worse, continuing to believe these incorrect assumptions about me inspite of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't make me enjoy it either just because somebody may claim that they have assumptions that they would say were positive things rather than negative things. It's very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.

 

 

 Race is not fundamentally relevant to sex or romance. For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one's identity as a man or woman is a "big deal."

 

There's a whole slew of stuff that has been said already about your protestations that there is no parallel to race which can be drawn here, and quite recently at that. This is all just from the last thread you made before this one:

 

 

There is always going to be an insuperable divide between those who insist on treating people according to their supposed "type," and those who treat individuals as individuals.

 

 

Treat individuals as individuals — and relate to a woman as a woman in romance.

 

 

Fair enough. Treat individuals as individuals, and... a Jew as a Jew in business, and a black man as a black man in education, and so on down the line.

Doubleplusgood.

 

 

 
In society, human beings properly are recognized as individuals first, members of a class, group, or sex second. (To reverse this, does indeed result in the kind of bigotry that DonAthos implicitly accuses me of above.)
 
But romance is a personal relationship — specifically, an interpersonal one — and in many respects, it represents a grand exception.
 
In romance, a man must recognize and address himself to a woman's feminine psychological nature. He sees her, relates to her, and above all experiences her, first and foremost, as a woman.
 
If he doesn't, he fails in romance. He might make a fine friend, but he'll be a lousy lover.
 
Femininity does not diminish or contradict a woman's individuality — in fact it enhances it. An individual man is an individual man; he possesses a masculine psychology, yet no two men are "masculine" in exactly the same way.

 
Don't fall prey to the ideas of those who would love to see you made miserable. To be aware that a woman is a woman in romance, and to conduct yourself appropriately as a man in relation to her, isn't sexist — it means that you are cognizant of a basic, inescapable, and overwhelmingly positive aspect of reality.

 

 

"In society"? So pertaining to what, law, work, that sort of thing? But in contrast you think that it's improper for an individual in an "interpersonal relationship" (meaning one-on-one?) to deal with another as an individual first? We rather should deal with each other, first, as "members of a class, group, or sex"? So... maybe the problem I'm having in understanding your arguments is down to the fact that I don't know your ethnicity/nationality, your age, your socioeconomic status, etc...?

 


There is nothing different between what you routinely do and any garden variety bigot. You blend well-worn stereotypes together with some number of observations you've made about some of the people you've known, doubtless accounting to the bias of looking for that very thing to begin with, then pretend like it's some general rule, and dismiss out of hand any supposed "exceptions." You reject calls for evidence or proof or rationale, simply asserting that you know what you know... somehow! And then you call into question the character of anyone who questions your methodology or your conclusions.

So you claim to know what women are really like, despite the protestations of women who say that you're wrong about them, and other men whose experiences do not match your own. Brilliant. It's no better than those who talk in the same sorts of terms about what the homosexuals are like, or the Jews, or any other group you could imagine. You've pulled opinions out of your ass and pretend that you've found truth. The fact that this is bigotry is almost besides the point; it is a crime against reason.

 

 

If no two men are masculine in exactly the same way, and no two women are feminine in exactly the same way, and some men are masculine in such a way as to seem feminine, and some women are feminine in such a way as to appear masculine, then...

Then maybe there isn't one size fits all advice that applies to a gender. Maybe we would need to deal with individuals as individuals.

 

 

And so, now, as to the "content" here? Sex is what makes romantic love an exception to how individuals should deal with one another (i.e. as individuals)? All right. And money is what makes business an exception, and ideas are what make education an exception, per my extrapolation of your argument (in which you found an implication that your ideas are bigoted, which they are.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get a chuckle, and think it's rather telling, when I see guys saywhat women want, and then women speak up and say, "Uh ... no. That's not it at all." 

 

Speaking of which, here's an interesting article on that subject:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/what_women_want_qRO8pvoSKeFcqrPSftoi6N/0

 

And an interesting book on womens sexual fantasies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Secret_Garden

 

The picture that emerges, when you take this and dating actual women into account, is not the sexless egalitarian version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture that emerges, when you take this and dating actual women into account, is not the sexless egalitarian version.

...for some, anyway. And isn't that what's being discussed? Approaching women as individuals vs. making sweeping assumptions about them which aren't actually so sweeping?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo Kevin's generalized advice makes more sense than all these watered down "be yourself, and maybe somewhat sexless" advices others give.

Approaching women as individuals vs. making sweeping assumptions about them which aren't actually so sweeping?

Treating a woman during a romantic relationship like a woman and not like your bud is not a sweeping assumption, if anything that fact that you called it a sweeping assumption is a veiled adhom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo Kevin's generalized advice makes more sense than all these watered down "be yourself, and maybe somewhat sexless" advices others give.

Treating a woman during a romantic relationship like a woman and not like your bud is not a sweeping assumption, if anything that fact that you called it a sweeping assumption is a veiled adhom.

Like Kevin, you need some reasons for those opinions. And your claim of ad hominem makes no sense.

Check out the replies to the other topics Kevin has started. There is a pattern -- Kevin makes claims, people challenge those claims, Kevin withdraws from discussion, gives some sideways insults, or just repeats the claims.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treating a woman during a romantic relationship like a woman and not like your bud is not a sweeping assumption . . .

Again, for now putting aside the question of any value or lack thereof to strongly emphasizing a person's sex in romance or any other context, Kevin hasn't even just said what I've quoted from you here either. He's made specific claims about the nature of women and therefore specifically what treating them "like a woman" would entail. He hasn't given backing for why his specific version of what a woman is accurate as opposed to any of the zillions of other claims one could make about "this is what women are like."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...for some, anyway. And isn't that what's being discussed? Approaching women as individuals vs. making sweeping assumptions about them which aren't actually so sweeping?

I'd say it goes for the great majority of women, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's true for ALL women.

 

A funny thing i've noticed... I've been interested in this subject for many years and debated it over and over. Whenever there's a discussion about it, almost every woman disagrees. With a few exceptions. But, after years of interacting with women and observing them, it's the exact opposite in practice. And, I might add, I happen to know guys who do this for a living and are extremely popular among women. I also do quite well myself, though I don't fancy myself as a playboy.

 

Many times, what women say and what women do are complete opposites. They may say they want a nice caring man, who respects them - which I don't doubt at all - but when you bed them it's a different story. I don't think it's because these women dislike being treated well, it's just that their sexual desires are guite different from the egalitarian view of things.

 

As you may have noticed I disagree with Kevin on many things, and I agree with some of the criticisms, but I do agree with him on one thing- the male/female polarity.

 

What I can offer on that basis is empirical data. I don't know why things work as they do. I'm not a scientist. Maybe a cavewoman found something a caveman did many years ago as attractive, and we evolved from that. There's alot of research on the subject, but all i've seen has been really bad.

 

However, you can look at what actually works. I mean, put a guy out there and observe what kind of actions attract women. Certainly not ALL women, but if you take a guy who couldn't get a date if his life depended on it and teach him the ropes. I Think it's rather telling if you can go from that to be surrounded by women.

 

I used to be one of those guys. Today, I've gotten dates by just going to work.

 

That's the real value of this sort of advice. Most men are Clueless as to how to get women. The few who get "lucky" live i miserable relationships But those who "get it" can pick and choose.

 

This may not be true for ALL relationships. If you're homosexual, bisexual or have any other "deviations" from the norm, I have no idea what works best for you. But for the majority of men and women, understanding the male/female polarity is going to give a much better success.

 

That part of Kevin's advice I do like, he tries to polarize things, but I disagree about the particulars and I think he misses some of  the fundamentals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most men are Clueless as to how to get women.

 

This is part of the problem with not only Delaney's advice, but the "pick-up artist" mentality in general.

In what world does it make sense to approach women as a type, a breed, as though they're uniform in any manner when it comes to character? And why should a rational man want to "get women" as it's phrased above?

Brief anecdote. In my youth, I was close friends with a self-styled pick-up artist who was ultimately very successful on his own terms, in his own way. He developed a system, I'm sure based on his many experiences, that dictated when to make a physical move and etc. He selected targets based on certain pre-qualifying identifiers, and maintained an enormous black book such that a weekend never went by where he didn't have a date, nearly always ending in sex.

My own approach to dating was quite different, of course, and my friend, accounting himself far "more successful" than I (according to how many women he was able to "get"), wanted to "teach me his secrets" several times. But I wasn't interested. In terms of results, he was routinely surrounded by women that I wouldn't have any interest in dating; women who -- as they must be -- were the type to respond to what was essentially a prefabricated, generalized approach. Women who were easily manipulated, and who were unable to see through his facade and put-ons. The women I dated were markedly different, such that my friend openly wondered how I was able to find women of such character and intelligence. Women that he would have liked to date himself, if he could, but "couldn't find." Or, more to the point, women that almost certainly would have not responded to his "one-size-fits-all" approach even if he did run into them at the market or library or bar.

I don't want to bore with every last detail (though I will answer questions if asked), but suffice it to say that things did not work out for my friend romantically in the long run. And so far as I can tell, they have for me. I was right to do things my way and not his, and "my way" was never anything more than treating women as treating anyone else in that they are individuals.

"Getting women" is not a sensible goal, and even if it were, "women" don't exist such that there could be one set of instructions for dealing with them romantically or in any other way.

Rather, people exist as individuals, and this extends to women as well. Contra Exar, this recognition does not mean that one should be "somewhat sexless." I consider myself to be very "masculine" in many ways as that label is traditionally understood, and that's not something I shy away from or make any excuses for romantically, or in other facets of my life. (Nor do I make any excuses for those areas where I am not.) When I date (though having been in a committed relationship for years and years, it's not something I do at present), my partners (or now wife) have to deal with me as an individual, too, and that is part of who I am.

But what it does mean is that if a woman -- an individual -- interests a person romantically or sexually, they must be approached according to who they are as an individual, first, foremost, and always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Kevin, you need some reasons for those opinions. And your claim of ad hominem makes no sense.

Check out the replies to the other topics Kevin has started. There is a pattern -- Kevin makes claims, people challenge those claims, Kevin withdraws from discussion, gives some sideways insults, or just repeats the claims.

I recognized a lot of my personal mistakes I've made during dating when I came across valuable dating advices which I've heard from a few a lot more experienced men than I am, older too. The reason why I consider my previous actions to be flawed is because I've personally analyzed them and saw a clear pattern there. I won't start telling you my life stories though. Those advices aligned well with what Kevin says. I'm not going to check out all of his replies. I'm more than certain that all counter arguments that were made will fall in line with what I saw in this thread. Not a single one of you was capable to properly challenge anything he said, all you do is tell him "nouhh maann just beyourself and liek it'll go well dontcha worry!"

Rather, people exist as individuals, and this extends to women as well.

Did I claim it was any different? Did I claim that Kevin's advice applies to every single one of you and your loved ones? If you want to have it different by all means.

My own approach to dating was quite different, of course, and my friend, accounting himself far "more successful" than I (according to how many women he was able to "get"), wanted to "teach me his secrets" several times. But I wasn't interested. In terms of results, he was routinely surrounded by women that I wouldn't have any interest in dating; women who -- as they must be -- were the type to respond to what was essentially a prefabricated, generalized approach. Women who were easily manipulated, and who were unable to see through his facade and put-ons. The women I dated were markedly different, such that my friend openly wondered how I was able to find women of such character and intelligence. Women that he would have liked to date himself, if he could, but "couldn't find." Or, more to the point, women that almost certainly would have not responded to his "one-size-fits-all" approach even if he did run into them at the market or library or bar.

I don't get why would you call Kevin's little summary as one size fits all be it all universal go get em'. All he did is gave some generic and common sense how to be a gentleman advice. But hey, feel free to share some of your wisdom, maybe I and Kevin will learn something new.

Contra Exar, this recognition does not mean that one should be "somewhat sexless." I consider myself to be very "masculine" in many ways as that label is traditionally understood, and that's not something I shy away from or make any excuses for romantically, or in other facets of my life. (Nor do I make any excuses for those areas where I am not.) When I date (though having been in a committed relationship for years and years, it's not something I do at present), my partners (or now wife) have to deal with me as an individual, too, and that is part of who I am.

Sure, you're an individual and you have your strong preferences and dislikes.

But what it does mean is that if a woman -- an individual -- interests a person romantically or sexually, they must be approached according to who they are as an individual, first, foremost, and always.

See, that's why I'd never take your advice, there is a huge gaping hole in what you just said qua dating. During your first 2 or 3 weeks of dating most people have a very bad idea of who exactly are they dealing with. During that time some certain rules of engagement apply to whole thing, unless of course you don't mind going full Helter-skelter..That's where and why things can get really silly though.

Again, for now putting aside the question of any value or lack thereof to strongly emphasizing a person's sex in romance or any other context, Kevin hasn't even just said what I've quoted from you here either. He's made specific claims about the nature of women and therefore specifically what treating them "like a woman" would entail. He hasn't given backing for why his specific version of what a woman is accurate as opposed to any of the zillions of other claims one could make about "this is what women are like."

He strongly emphasized how male could act in order to make a good impression, and sure thing gender is strongly emphasized for some heterosexual men who look for a feminine woman I suppose. And yes indeed there are zillions of claims on what being a male and female is, I'll stick with the classy version that makes sense, just like I decided to stick with Objectvism.

 

Now, why don't you tell me what you think the nature of femininity is and how should a man treat you.

Edited by Exar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He strongly emphasized how male could act in order to make a good impression, and sure thing gender is strongly emphasized for some heterosexual men who look for a feminine woman I suppose. And yes indeed there are zillions of claims on what being a male and female is, I'll stick with the classy version that makes sense, just like I decided to stick with Objectvism.

 

Now, why don't you tell me what you think the nature of femininity is and how should a man treat you.

 

"Classy" and "makes sense"? I'm not seeing either of these things in what Kevin says. Objectivism has slews of arguments and evidence supporting it, Kevin has yet to provide anything like such things for what he's been saying. Do you have any such things you could provide? If so, great, provide 'em. If not, you've got no more grounds than those zillions of others which you do not presently believe to be as classy or sensible.

 

As for the nature of feminity, I really can't answer that. Frankly, I've never even seen a good definition for the word to know what the hell I'm supposed to be looking for/talking about to begin with. I've occasionally come across some studies that look at the brains and hormones of males versus females on average and found a reasonably plausible sounding hypothesis for an explanation for some trend among one sex or the other, but only for very specific cases, never anything broad and overarching. As for "how a man should treat you" - that depends on who the man is and who the "you" in question is. There's really nothing I can come up with that would be generally adviseable for treating just about any female which wouldn't apply just as well to males and/or non-romantic contexts. I think the best general summation is "treat somebody like exactly, specifically who they are" as opposed to "treat people like just another unit of some category."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'm not going to check out all of his replies. I'm more than certain that all counter arguments that were made will fall in line with what I saw in this thread. Not a single one of you was capable to properly challenge anything he said, all you do is tell him "nouhh maann just beyourself and liek it'll go well dontcha worry!"

Secondhander has asked Kevin how this advice has worked out for him. I asked the same. Other people probably have in other threads. Kevin has never answered. There is no "proper" challenge to make because there is nothing to criticize except Kevin's methods of an utter lack of examples. I mean, Secondhander gave some examples, DonAthos did, while others have just questioned Kevin's methods of analysis that are weak or just don't follow. Alfa gave some examples too. But nothing like that from Kevin. This is human behavior here, with numerous factors, so examples are great, and can only help with context. Sure, there is no refutation per se, but there is nothing to refute - it's just empty of content. That's rationalism (that's not an insult, I mean to say that it leads to an error of thinking or an incorrect conclusion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to check out all of his replies. I'm more than certain that all counter arguments that were made will fall in line with what I saw in this thread. Not a single one of you was capable to properly challenge anything he said, all you do is tell him "nouhh maann just beyourself and liek it'll go well dontcha worry!"

That is not my reading of the two opposing sides in this debate at all. Moreover, if you haven't read the history of the debate (and refuse to) it may be difficult to imagine how you arrived at such a "more than certain" interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Classy" and "makes sense"? I'm not seeing either of these things in what Kevin says. Objectivism has slews of arguments and evidence supporting it, Kevin has yet to provide anything like such things for what he's been saying. Do you have any such things you could provide? If so, great, provide 'em. If not, you've got no more grounds than those zillions of others which you do not presently believe to be as classy or sensible.

What kind of evidence do you need? A social study maybe? If why being a gentlemen is good must be proven with some kind of hard evidence than you're way over your head lady.

As for the nature of feminity, I really can't answer that. Frankly, I've never even seen a good definition for the word to know what the hell I'm supposed to be looking for/talking about to begin with. I've occasionally come across some studies that look at the brains and hormones of males versus females on average and found a reasonably plausible sounding hypothesis for an explanation for some trend among one sex or the other, but only for very specific cases, never anything broad and overarching. As for "how a man should treat you" - that depends on who the man is and who the "you" in question is. There's really nothing I can come up with that would be generally adviseable for treating just about any female which wouldn't apply just as well to males and/or non-romantic contexts. I think the best general summation is "treat somebody like exactly, specifically who they are" as opposed to "treat people like just another unit of some category."

Perhaps you should check out Ayn Rand's take on it then? What I find to be somewhat improper is that you can't tell me your own take on your gender and the nature of it...even a small detail would suffice I suppose.

 

There are thousands of anomaly's nowadays and to my defense, the vast majority of people's philosophical views are either Subjectivist, Mystical or Nihilist. It doesn't make them normal or proper though. Not according to me at least.

Secondhander has asked Kevin how this advice has worked out for him. I asked the same. Other people probably have in other threads. Kevin has never answered. There is no "proper" challenge to make because there is nothing to criticize except Kevin's methods of an utter lack of examples. I mean, Secondhander gave some examples, DonAthos did, while others have just questioned Kevin's methods of analysis that are weak or just don't follow. Alfa gave some examples too. But nothing like that from Kevin. This is human behavior here, with numerous factors, so examples are great, and can only help with context. Sure, there is no refutation per se, but there is nothing to refute - it's just empty of content. That's rationalism (that's not an insult, I mean to say that it leads to an error of thinking or an incorrect conclusion.)

So what if he doesn't answer? If you don't consider Kevin's advices to be valid or legit in any form just because he won't tell you any personal details then so be it. Give your counter advices with well documented advices or don't bother.

That is not my reading of the two opposing sides in this debate at all. Moreover, if you haven't read the history of the debate (and refuse to) it may be difficult to imagine how you arrived at such a "more than certain" interpretation.

I've scrolled down this thread and read all replies, I haven't checked out any other posts made by Kevin though.

Edited by Exar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...