Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I've also been wondering what sort of evidence is necessary to prove a hypothesis about human sexuality, gender roles, etc. We obviously need SOME kind of evidence in order to accept a hypothesis or assertion, but I don't know exactly what kind of evidence that is or if it can even be gathered in respect to these topics.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

 

It's his claims about the psychology of females that I'm looking for where he's pulling his claims from first and foremost. As for being a gentleman, I don't oppose that word/concept in general, but I do oppose what seems to be Kevin's particular idea of what being a gentleman constitutes. I just don't think that what he calls a gentleman is really a gentleman at all.

 

I've read everything I know of by Rand dealing with what femininity is. There is very little we have records of from her on that topic explicitly and in what is there she seems to give only her own introspection as her source for the claims as far as I recall. Since those things don't match up with my own introspective findings, that leaves basically no basis for me to believe any of the few claims she made about femininity.

 

I'm really not kidding about my inability to tell you anything about what femininity is though. I don't know. I haven't noticed anything reliably consistent among female personalities which is not also reliably consistent among male personalities. This is especially true when taking into account various time periods and people from different cultures. More than a few times I've considered if gender may simply be an anti-concept along the same lines as "ethnicity", something which a coherent, clear definition really cannot be formed for. The question of if gender is an anti-concept or not though I think is getting too far off topic, so I've been avoiding things related to that issue in this thread. So, improper or whatever else you may contend it is or isn't, that's the state of things - I really can't tell you anything at all about femininity since I don't know what it actually is and I'm still not sure if there even is such a thing in the first place.

 

"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."

It's not JUST because of that particular type of information being absent. All forms of grounds for his claims are absent. Asking about his personal experience is actually going fairly easy on him, allowing him to provide a personal anecdote instead of thorough research or sound, compelling logic. His own life experience can't prove anything to be anywhere near as widespread as he claims it is, but hell, it would be a start at least.

 

"Give your counter advices with well documented advices or don't bother."

Shifting the burden of proof? We prove something else which in the process proves Kevin's claims wrong, or else Kevin is to have his claims to be presumed valid and left alone? We have already provided counterexamples aplenty though, which is more than Kevin has provided for his side of things.

 

". . . or don't bother."

This post here from the last thread goes into some of why it is worth bothering to point to flaws in what Kevin has to say even if we don't provide some detailed alternative. ("Be yourself" and "treat people as individuals," which is what most of us generally propose as an alternative, you seem to regard as somehow deficient.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't edit my other post, but I wanted to add something:

 

The only 'evidence' I've seen about gender roles is from participant studies. From these, generalizations are made with respect to people's personal anecdotes, feelings, experiences, etc. I don't know if this form of evidence is valid- wiki says "it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence (regardless of the veracity of individual claims)" and "the process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation."

 

So IF these studies are the only 'evidence' available right now, there's not much we can do except to say "that generalization is false in these specific situations" and leave it at that.

 

What Delaney and other romance bloggers/radio-hosts do (see tom leykis) is try to help people along in their relationships and/or make a living. Where do they get their info? Cherry-picked anecdotes, their own experiences, and maybe a few studies or articles on google. Obviously their advice is not going to work for everyone or even be appealing to everyone, because their info is based (at best!) on generalizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's his claims about the psychology of females that I'm looking for where he's pulling his claims from first and foremost. As for being a gentleman, I don't oppose that word/concept in general, but I do oppose what seems to be Kevin's particular idea of what being a gentleman constitutes. I just don't think that what he calls a gentleman is really a gentleman at all.

"refers to any man of good, courteous conduct." Virtues man. The way Kevin describes seems to be pretty courteous and anti new age swagger type. Works for me.

I've read everything I know of by Rand dealing with what femininity is. There is very little we have records of from her on that topic explicitly and in what is there she seems to give only her own introspection as her source for the claims as far as I recall. Since those things don't match up with my own introspective findings, that leaves basically no basis for me to believe any of the few claims she made about femininity.

So you do have a few ideas about femininity. If you didn't have any you wouldn't disagree with her.

I'm really not kidding about my inability to tell you anything about what femininity is though. I don't know. I haven't noticed anything reliably consistent among female personalities which is not also reliably consistent among male personalities. This is especially true when taking into account various time periods and people from different cultures. More than a few times I've considered if gender may simply be an anti-concept along the same lines as "ethnicity", something which a coherent, clear definition really cannot be formed for. The question of if gender is an anti-concept or not though I think is getting too far off topic, so I've been avoiding things related to that issue in this thread. So, improper or whatever else you may contend it is or isn't, that's the state of things - I really can't tell you anything at all about femininity since I don't know what it actually is and I'm still not sure if there even is such a thing in the first place.

We have different sets of hormones. The Nature and Evolution shaped us differently, wouldn't you agree? Moreover, I did see a trend as a Ukrainian immigrant who lives in The Netherlands. I've seen that the most non-feminist girls prefer to have a confident, masculine and yet gentle male on their side who doesn't do any dumb stuff..and the more "civilized" and (intelligent/fashionable, it depends..) he is the better.

"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."

It's not JUST because of that particular type of information being absent. All forms of grounds for his claims are absent. Asking about his personal experience is actually going fairly easy on him, allowing him to provide a personal anecdote instead of thorough research or sound, compelling logic. His own life experience can't prove anything to be anywhere near as widespread as he claims it is, but hell, it would be a start at least.

What if I posted a ytube vid which proves my point? would it suffice? Or a social study? Or maybe you'd counter it with another study? Can you tell me what you expect from men and why?

Shifting the burden of proof? We prove something else which in the process proves Kevin's claims wrong, or else Kevin is to have his claims to be presumed valid and left alone? We have already provided counterexamples aplenty though, which is more than Kevin has provided for his side of things.

Kevin gave a few self evident advices on how men should act as well as understand why they should act this way, there is nothing mind boggling about them. Btw, if I don't want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that's my problem.  As far as I'm concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.

". . . or don't bother."

This post here from the last thread goes into some of why it is worth bothering to point to flaws in what Kevin has to say even if we don't provide some detailed alternative. ("Be yourself" and "treat people as individuals," which is what most of us generally propose as an alternative, you seem to regard as somehow deficient.)

Okay, let me break it for you really quick, if I were full throttle myself with my "I desire to be my future gf" she'd run away screaming "what a morally heavy, intense, overly passionate, radioactive and nit picking snob this guy is, NUUU". It applies to a lot of men..Well, some of it. What's your take on the nature of masculinity btw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"refers to any man of good, courteous conduct." Virtues man. The way Kevin describes seems to be pretty courteous and anti new age swagger type. Works for me.

So you do have a few ideas about femininity. If you didn't have any you wouldn't disagree with her.

We have different sets of hormones. The Nature and Evolution shaped us differently, wouldn't you agree? Moreover, I did see a trend as a Ukrainian immigrant who lives in The Netherlands. I've seen that the most non-feminist girls prefer to have a confident, masculine and yet gentle male on their side who doesn't do any dumb stuff..and the more "civilized" and (intelligent/fashionable, it depends..) he is the better.

What if I posted a ytube vid which proves my point? would it suffice? Or a social study? Or maybe you'd counter it with another study? Can you tell me what you expect from men and why?

Kevin gave a few self evident advices on how men should act as well as understand why they should act this way, there is nothing mind boggling about them. Btw, if I don't want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that's my problem.  As far as I'm concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.

Okay, let me break it for you really quick, if I were full throttle myself with my "I desire to be my future gf" she'd run away screaming "what a morally heavy, intense, overly passionate, radioactive and nit picking snob this guy is, NUUU". It applies to a lot of men..Well, some of it. What's your take on the nature of masculinity btw?

 

Doesn't work for me. I don't find what Kevin describes to be courteous at all. Quite the opposite.

 

I only have "ideas about feminity" in the sense that any of them I've heard never sync up with my own observations of myself and others and they have a very strong tendency toward being groundlessly asserted and/or extremely hastily over-generalized. I can't tell you what femininity is, but I can tell you that none of the various candidates for what it is that I've heard proposed check out against reason and reality.

 

Never been to the Ukraine and/or Netherlands personally, but I've never seen any such pattern anywhere I've been before.

 

Depends what is in the video or the study. I don't think I've got any expectations from men in general that wouldn't apply just as easily to women in general. I've never been able to come up with something that would be clearly beneficial when done by males, but not when done by females. Well, aside from obvious things like that it would be stupid and futile for a female to try to give to a sperm bank.

 

"Kevin gave a few self evident advices . . . As far as I'm concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists."

"It's obvious" is not an argument. I really want this one added as an official, explicit rule to this forum because it comes up all too often.

 

". . . as well as understand why they should act this way, . . . "

His claims for why men should act a certain way are said to be because of something about women. He's never proven any of his claims about women. He hasn't even given any backing to them at all. It's about as good as me saying that "everybody should wear bomb squad gear when holding babies because babies are highly explosive" with no evidence of explosive babies, but still expecting people to use those bomb squad suits when holding them.

 

"Btw, if I don't want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that's my problem."

The only time somebody has said anything in support of not holding the door was one suggestion which was intended to be done humorously. Otherwise, the sentiment hasn't been "don't hold the door," it's been "done insist on holding the door because she's a female." Somebody earlier in this thread gave a good account of why insisting on holding the door because somebody is female is not some great thing.

 

Nit picking snob? Anyway, different pacing works with different people. A night or two is generally never enough, but otherwise with some people getting serious fairly early works, it doesn't send them running for the hills. But, anyway, there's a difference between being yourself and spewing every impulse that hits you. You aren't "not being yourself" by thinking and considering what you say before you speak rather than just saying everything that crosses your mind as a comparison of what I'm talking about. I say that trying to stick to a cookie cutter formula with what to do with every female is as bad as giving all of them the same pick up lines. You tailor conversation with different people in response to who they are and you can do the same basic idea with actions.

 

Masculinity? Same story as femininity, except I don't qualify to examine that one introspectively and thus have only observation of others to go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's obvious" is not an argument. I really want this one added as an official, explicit rule to this forum because it comes up all too often.

 

I disagree that this should be a rule. When someone has nothing apart from "it's obvious" to back up their claims, it is a good demonstration of their respect for knowledge, for discussion, and a strong warning to not waste one's time in further argument.

BTW, I think your exploding babies comparison is killer! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin gave a few self evident advices on how men should act as well as understand why they should act this way, there is nothing mind boggling about them. Btw, if I don't want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that's my problem.  As far as I'm concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.

Whilst to you Kevin's pronouncements about relationships and gender may seem directly justified on the perceptual level without the need for intermediating elements like "reasons" and "evidence," however, those of us who have not imbied the Delaneyan gospel may differ with this. Generally speaking, we require actual argumentation for claims.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't work for me. I don't find what Kevin describes to be courteous at all. Quite the opposite.

 

I only have "ideas about feminity" in the sense that any of them I've heard never sync up with my own observations of myself and others and they have a very strong tendency toward being groundlessly asserted and/or extremely hastily over-generalized. I can't tell you what femininity is, but I can tell you that none of the various candidates for what it is that I've heard proposed check out against reason and reality.

When you describe the nature of femininity you are not making an in depth characterization of every single female on this planet. There is a difference between those two.

Never been to the Ukraine and/or Netherlands personally, but I've never seen any such pattern anywhere I've been before.

 

Depends what is in the video or the study. I don't think I've got any expectations from men in general that wouldn't apply just as easily to women in general. I've never been able to come up with something that would be clearly beneficial when done by males, but not when done by females. Well, aside from obvious things like that it would be stupid and futile for a female to try to give to a sperm bank.

Well, say thank you to the 3rd wave of Feminism I suppose. Talking to you about something you have practically no idea whatsoever...or even worse, you actually think it's all the same.

"Kevin gave a few self evident advices . . . As far as I'm concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists."

"It's obvious" is not an argument. I really want this one added as an official, explicit rule to this forum because it comes up all too often.

 

". . . as well as understand why they should act this way, . . . "

His claims for why men should act a certain way are said to be because of something about women. He's never proven any of his claims about women. He hasn't even given any backing to them at all. It's about as good as me saying that "everybody should wear bomb squad gear when holding babies because babies are highly explosive" with no evidence of explosive babies, but still expecting people to use those bomb squad suits when holding them.

And about men too. You can take it any way you want but you've been mentally desexed or unsexed or whatever. If you can't see the difference behind mentality of most men vs most women than you even trying to understand Kevin's points is hopeless.

"Btw, if I don't want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that's my problem."

The only time somebody has said anything in support of not holding the door was one suggestion which was intended to be done humorously. Otherwise, the sentiment hasn't been "don't hold the door," it's been "done insist on holding the door because she's a female." Somebody earlier in this thread gave a good account of why insisting on holding the door because somebody is female is not some great thing.

The issue isn't the opening of the door but acting toward like the way your and her nature demand.

Nit picking snob? Anyway, different pacing works with different people. A night or two is generally never enough, but otherwise with some people getting serious fairly early works, it doesn't send them running for the hills. But, anyway, there's a difference between being yourself and spewing every impulse that hits you. You aren't "not being yourself" by thinking and considering what you say before you speak rather than just saying everything that crosses your mind as a comparison of what I'm talking about. I say that trying to stick to a cookie cutter formula with what to do with every female is as bad as giving all of them the same pick up lines. You tailor conversation with different people in response to who they are and you can do the same basic idea with actions.

 

Masculinity? Same story as femininity, except I don't qualify to examine that one introspectively and thus have only observation of others to go on.

Considering what to say will result in not saying as well as not showing a lot of different aspect of my personality. Some would call it considering, I'd call it almost lying. Again, what Kevin outlined are extremely generalized advises, Not A Cooking cutting Formula, Formula demands a lot more detail, he'd have to write at least 5 long pages on how to act, move, what to say, when to say etc.

Whilst to you Kevin's pronouncements about relationships and gender may seem directly justified on the perceptual level without the need for intermediating elements like "reasons" and "evidence," however, those of us who have not imbied the Delaneyan gospel may differ with this. Generally speaking, we require actual argumentation for claims.

Perhaps a few videos made by girlwriteswhat would suffice? She does back up her claims with facts. Or maybe you'll counter her by saying it's all a hearsay and everything is subjective, even your sex?

Edited by Exar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There's no issue between quality versus quantity. Having an abundance of women around you gives you much more choice and it increases the chances of meeting the right one. That way you can also enjoy the company of many good women.

This puts you in a much stronger position. If things don't work out you recover alot faster. Experience also teaches you which ones to avoid and which ones are worth puruing. And speaking of experience, having experience sure helps if you want her to stay and she's going to be thankfull for it in bed.

 

Getting women is something every man should learn. And it is just that, getting them. Go out, talk to that pretty stranger, work your charm, get to know her and bed her if you like her. This also means you will crash and burn hundreds of times. Learn to face fear and rejection. Once you get the dynamic both you and the women will be much happier for it.

 

This is not to say that women are not individuals. However, there are some fundamentals the majority of women respond to. Just as men respond to feminine traits, so do women respond to masculine traits. That does not mean there's one secret formula or trick that works on everyone. These traits can manifest themselves in different ways, and different people like to be approached in different ways. The important thing is the dynamic.

 

It's like a dance. I suppose you can break every dance down to some fundamentals, like you're following a certain beat and the man leads. That doesn't mean every dance is the same. The same is true in the dance of romance. It's important to know how to dance, but instead of debating wether tango or salsa is the best dance I suggest making it your own.

 

That was sort of the point with my first post here. Kevin suggests one way of doing it, and I pointed out the opposite. Yet still, there are some fundamentals in common.

 

Lastly, you're making straw men. I'm not talking about manipulation or anything of that sort. I think honesty and authenticity are the best afrodisiacs. Neither am I talking about PUA-tricks. I have certainly learned a thing or two from that community, but it's so diverse that I wouldn't label anything I say as coming from there.

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfa, you didn't specify much in that post. In your prior posts which did offer specifics to counter Kevin's, the same criticisms could have been aimed at you which were aimed at him. You're saying there are no universal laws, and these things only work on the majority of women, but you disagree about what they are, yet you don't offer examples of these laws... isn't this approaching nonsense? At this foggy level of knowledge, wouldn't a more sensible approach be to just throw the "laws" out and focus on the person of interest instead, as an individual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every now and then, someone will ask: "The Objectivist ethics says that in order to survive and thrive as man, you must adopt certain values, and conduct yourself in certain ways. But why should I want to live in the first place?"

 

This sort of person is asking that you provide them with evidence of the value of life — of their life, no less — and to demonstrate to their satisfaction why being alive is preferable to a state of nonexistence.

 

No one can do this, of course, which is exactly the point.

 

Some things you have to discover for yourself. The value and meaning of your own life is one; the emotional meaning of sex and love is another.

 

My writings assume that a person accepts certain basic premises, and has acquired a certain level of sophistication in this area.

 

If my ideas about men, women and romance seem bizarre to you, then please understand that I am not addressing you.

 

If, like me, you find Ayn Rand's views on masculinity and femininity (as expressed in her novels) to be intriguing, then you might enjoy some of what I have to say on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no issue between quality versus quantity. Having an abundance of women around you gives you much more choice and it increases the chances of meeting the right one. That way you can also enjoy the company of many good women.

 

Says you. I think you're completely wrong when it comes to Delaney and his advice. An "abundance of women" doesn't mean a thing if these women are approached in a way that makes it more likely that you will draw -- and be drawn to -- the worst of the gender/sex.

And when I examine Delaney's beliefs and advice, I believe that's exactly what happens and will happen. It helps to explain his description of women, for instance, in the post where he says:

 

At some point in a romantic relationship, you can be certain that a woman will:

  • Raise a bizarre accusation, with the purpose of seeing if she can get you to defend yourself against it.
  • Attempt to incite an argument, to find out whether you can be suckered into fighting with her.
  • Try to change plans initiated and created by you, often at the last minute, effectively assuming control and placing herself into the dominant position in the relationship.
A woman's task in these moments is to try to make things complicated — to confound and agitate you, with the goal being to provoke you into reacting to her out of fear.

 

In giving Delaney the best benefit of the doubt I'm able at this late date, I'd say that he believes that women are like this because...

...the women that Delaney is around are like this! I think that his "methods" attract this sort of woman, or perhaps require Delaney to seek this kind of woman out. And that's really unfortunate, in my opinion, and nothing I'd like to have in my own life.

If I'd taken his advice earlier in my life, I have to believe that I wouldn't have wound up with my wife, but that I'd be stuck in relationships with the sorts of women that Delaney describes above. That'd be like trading in filet mignon for a bunch of rancid McDonald's patties. "[N]o issue between quality versus quantity" indeed!

 

This puts you in a much stronger position. If things don't work out you recover alot faster. Experience also teaches you which ones to avoid and which ones are worth puruing. And speaking of experience, having experience sure helps if you want her to stay and she's going to be thankfull for it in bed.

 

And speaking of speaking of experience, the experience I've had in observing men do the very thing you recommend says that you are wrong in the conclusions you draw. They do not know "which ones to avoid and which ones are worth pursuing," but rather typically pursue those that will most easily succumb to their "game," whatever it is, and however they otherwise justify it to themselves. These are not high-quality human beings.

 

Getting women is something every man should learn. And it is just that, getting them.

 

Well... no. I mean, I'm sure you can restate this a hundred times going forward, thinking that you're "arguing your case," but each of my responses will continue to be that "this isn't true."

The relationship I've developed with my wife was not a matter of "getting a woman," and neither has any relationship I've ever had. It is not like going to the market to pick up some steaks. A woman -- any woman -- is a unique property, an individual. There is nothing satisfactory about "getting women," but everything depends utterly on the actual relationships you have with specific individuals, and your reasons for having those relationships, and what they provide you in real life.

 

Go out, talk to that pretty stranger, work your charm, get to know her and bed her if you like her. This also means you will crash and burn hundreds of times. Learn to face fear and rejection. Once you get the dynamic both you and the women will be much happier for it.

 

Oh, I'm glad you're not talking about "PUA-tricks"; I was worried there for a minute! You're just talking about approaching strangers and "working your charm" so that you can "bed her," learning to get through the rejections like a salesman, knowing that every "no" brings you a step closer to a "yes." Doing this "hundreds of times."

This is garbage.

While there's nothing wrong with approaching someone who interests/attracts you, and while a person needs to develop a healthy understanding of rejection (not just for romance, but for life), neither is there any good in approaching women in this way, where every pretty girl is regarded as a potential sale/score, and one must "always be closing." I find this utterly degrading to the experiences I've actually had in my life and continue to have.

 

This is not to say that women are not individuals. However, there are some fundamentals the majority of women respond to. Just as men respond to feminine traits, so do women respond to masculine traits.

 

Except for the men who respond to "masculine traits" (whatever that ultimately means to you) and for the women who respond to "feminine traits."

Or yes, if you'd like to speak about whatever you believe "the majority" happens to be -- on the basis of culture, or wherever these supposed preferences might come from -- that's fine. But then, I've never been interested in the "majority of women," and I cannot say that I'd recommend them, either. The women I've always responded to, and pursued on my own terms (i.e. according to my own nature, and the nature of the particular woman as an individual; not according to advice I've found in a pick-up book or on a "romance blog"), have always been rare and utterly unlike the norm. In a word, special.

 

That does not mean there's one secret formula or trick that works on everyone. These traits can manifest themselves in different ways, and different people like to be approached in different ways. The important thing is the dynamic.

 

It's like a dance. I suppose you can break every dance down to some fundamentals, like you're following a certain beat and the man leads. That doesn't mean every dance is the same. The same is true in the dance of romance. It's important to know how to dance, but instead of debating wether tango or salsa is the best dance I suggest making it your own.

 

That was sort of the point with my first post here. Kevin suggests one way of doing it, and I pointed out the opposite. Yet still, there are some fundamentals in common.

 

...primarily that you're both mistaken.

 

Lastly, you're making straw men. I'm not talking about manipulation or anything of that sort. I think honesty and authenticity are the best afrodisiacs. Neither am I talking about PUA-tricks. I have certainly learned a thing or two from that community...

 

LOL, I'm sure you think that you have! :)

No, I'm equally sure you're not talking about "manipulation or anything of that sort." You're just talking about dancing a particular dance -- acting in certain prescribed ways -- in an attempt to bed hundreds of women ("What?! Me manipulate?!"). Or something like that. I don't know. The fringe details aren't very interesting to me, to be frank, because I find you to be mistaken at your core.

But whatever. If you think "honesty and authenticity" are where it's at, then there's no need for further squabbling. A man who has "feminine traits" ought to be true to that (and perhaps seek out a woman who responds to his character) rather than act as though he is other-than-who-he-is for the purpose of attracting some other woman or group of women -- yes? A man who would rather solicit his date's advice on which table to choose at a restaurant, rather than supposedly assert his dominance by choosing it himself, should feel comfortable in his approach -- yes?

If we're agreed on points such as these, then we're both contra Delaney, and I don't have much interest in further trying to assess whether there's something to this "masculinity/femininity" business that just somehow doesn't translate into any generalized real world advice. The point remains to deal with people as individuals, first and foremost, and if people's further beliefs on "masculinity/femininity" doesn't interfere with that, then I guess I am sufficiently happy with that, at present, howsoever wrong they remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sort of person is asking that you provide them with evidence of the value of life — of their life, no less — and to demonstrate to their satisfaction why being alive is preferable to a state of nonexistence.

You didn't phrase it as though there are multiple valid options. I wouldn't ask anyone for evidence why they want to be a fiction writer over being a dentist. There are numerous factors where if you gave advice on which one to choose, you really should be talking to people who already find dentistry as appealing. Someone deciding between an opera singer or chef wouldn't have a reason to read that advice. This would be fine, even it was about a preference.

 

"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." "

 

The way I read this is that this is an explicit statement that finding gender non-essential is anti-life, not just a different choice than you. So, it's not saying why existence is preferable to nonexistence. It's saying one viewpoint equivalent to preferring a state of nonexistence. That *does* need a satisfactory demonstration.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you describe the nature of femininity you are not making an in depth characterization of every single female on this planet. There is a difference between those two.

Well, say thank you to the 3rd wave of Feminism I suppose. Talking to you about something you have practically no idea whatsoever...or even worse, you actually think it's all the same.

And about men too. You can take it any way you want but you've been mentally desexed or unsexed or whatever. If you can't see the difference behind mentality of most men vs most women than you even trying to understand Kevin's points is hopeless.

The issue isn't the opening of the door but acting toward like the way your and her nature demand.

Considering what to say will result in not saying as well as not showing a lot of different aspect of my personality. Some would call it considering, I'd call it almost lying. Again, what Kevin outlined are extremely generalized advises, Not A Cooking cutting Formula, Formula demands a lot more detail, he'd have to write at least 5 long pages on how to act, move, what to say, when to say etc.

 

"When you describe the nature of femininity you are not making an in depth characterization of every single female on this planet."

I never suggested it was in depth. I earlier mentioned though that I have not found any more general, overarching stuff consistently in common among females which is not so in males.

 

"Well, say thank you to the 3rd wave of Feminism I suppose."

Guilt by association? :glare:

 

"Talking to you about something you have practically no idea whatsoever...or even worse, you actually think it's all the same."

"I can't tell you what femininity is, but I can tell you that none of the various candidates for what it is that I've heard proposed check out against reason and reality." You're the one that brought up trying to get me to talk about this topic of the nature and value or lack thereof of gender though. I told you that I had been avoiding it, that I think it is getting too far off topic, and that I don't think addressing it is immediately necessary to addressing what Kevin is saying in particular.

 

Also, you could try to come up with some examples then of things that would be clearly beneficial when done by males, but not when done by females.

 

"And about men too."

Such as?

 

". . . you've been mentally desexed or unsexed or whatever."

I think this is assuming the point which is under debate presently. The assumption you have implied in that statement is that I had some mental type that comes with what sex I am from the start, by default, and that I only later then lost it. It's sort of like, (for one type of example of similar lines of reasoning being applied which I think you're probably familiar with,) how many religious people treat belief in a deity as something one is born with and only later may lose rather than vice versa when debating the merits of religion.

 

As for "hopeless" - go on, I'm listening, I'm willing to keep giving it a try if you are. I'm interested in reality and I don't give up easily. If there's something I'm missing, then I'd like to know. Because I'm interested in reality though, information must go through checking against the rest of reality before being accepted or rejected.

 

"The issue isn't the opening of the door but acting toward like the way your and her nature demand."

And what about somebody being female and somebody else being male determines who should open a door?

 

As for considering things, your judgment - your own, not just swallowing whatever somebody else's judgment is unquestioningly - *is* part of who you are. I'm just going to note that I disagree on how detailed something has to be to constitute a formula since "how elaborate must a formula be?" really is not an important enough issue to keep debating here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfa, you didn't specify much in that post. In your prior posts which did offer specifics to counter Kevin's, the same criticisms could have been aimed at you which were aimed at him. You're saying there are no universal laws, and these things only work on the majority of women, but you disagree about what they are, yet you don't offer examples of these laws... isn't this approaching nonsense? At this foggy level of knowledge, wouldn't a more sensible approach be to just throw the "laws" out and focus on the person of interest instead, as an individual?

It's true that I didn't go into any specifics. I could write an essay about it and still not cover the whole subject. In the end you'd still have to go out and test the ideas  Much of it is also very difficult to cover in text. For example, in the post where I offered specifics it's difficult to see the humor and dynamic. Things easily get misunderstood and misinterpreted.

 

However, I'll do my best to briefly cover my position.

 

The typical feminine sexual response is submissiveness. When women actually are the sexual agressors it usually happens in a much more subtle way (take for example when Ayn Rand tripped Frank O'Connor).

 

That response means letting go. She's giving up control to fully experience being along for the ride, or following in that dance. To do that she needs to put alot of trust in him (though i'm sure an element of danger can be exciting as well). If she's going to be comfortable and fully "in that moment", she'll want to be sure he wont step on her toes or dress; that he won't trip her, drop her or otherwise embarass her.

 

So the most fundamental thing for a man is to know how to lead. To be in control, of himself and everything around him.

 

Women often test that, which is oh so controversial... quite often subconciously, and with warying degrees of subtelty. To pass one must always be honest and authentic. She's not going to trust you if she notices incongruencies.

 

On the other hand, if she knows you are who you say you are, and you display strength, competence and leadership...

 

Now, that's a brief overview of the fundamentals. It could be expanded upon but I Think it'll get the point across.

 

From there you can elaborate on certain specifics. Do this or do that. The thing is they can all "work" to the extent that they adhere to the fundamentals. I mean, strength is an important characteristic, but how many displays of strength can you think of?

 

That's the thing with all this pick-up artistry stuff. There are a wide variety of approaches, and they all work to a certain extent. What they tend to have in common are the fundamentals.

 

If you go about life as James Bond you are going to pretty darn popular among the ladies. Especially those who like guys in nice suits (and who doesn't? ;) ). You can also be a Don Juan, or maybe one of Ayn Rands heroes.

 

Take my example of telling her to pay the bill because i'm broke. What does that subcommunicate? First of all that i'm not afraid to upset her, and that I don't need to seek her approval (being broke is bad, right?). Then when I tell her; "Nah, just messing with you. I got a few pennies left. Of course i'll pay - you've been good!", that's because I want to pay - as an exchange for the value I got. I think that's a compliment to her, and she's probably going to laugh about it.

 

You could also go about the opposite way. Be a perfect, configdent, gentleman. When you lead her through the door you give a her gentle shove in the back, pull out the chair for her etc. When she offers to pay her way you respond with a; "Nonsense! I'll take the check!", with a voice that tells her there's no room for debate.

 

I think both ways demonstrate very similar characteristics. On the other hand, if you offer to pay with a "No, I insist...no, I really really do insist...", and otherwise act clumsy and nervous, that's a different story (and yes, the same thing goes for my example - I posted that to give perspective, not as a formula every man should adopt).

 

The thing with these do's and don't's is what's being subcommunicated. And of course, the best way to subcommunicate the right things is to actually be that guy. Pick-up routines can help you fake it (some say til you make it, but I don't share that philosophy). What you say in one context can get you slapped in the face, while in another context it may end in glory times.

 

So, the universal thing is to step up and take the lead. Understand the subcommunication and dynamic, and demonstrate your character. That can in turn happen in many different ways. People are different and you may have different relationships with different people. That's all fine as long as you don't comprimise yourself.

 

If, on the other hand, you don't take the lead, you're clueless as to whats being subcommunicated and the dynamic of the relationship you're going to drive women nuts in frustration. That's a bit like stepping on her toes all the time when you dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it has to be in depth. I did say though that I haven't found anything more general and overarching that is consistent among females, but which is not also consistent among males.

Here is a small example. Throughout the existence of our Homo sapiens species Males used to hunt and craft tools  and females used to service the game and craft various tools as well as make babies. There is a clear historical distinction between male and female abilities, bodies, hormones. There are plenty of anomalies that are observable in our spoiled brave new world which otherwise would've died out but the distinction is still here.

She puts it quite nicely in this vid as well as many others:

"Well, say thank you to the 3rd wave of Feminism I suppose."

Guilt by association?

Guilt? No. I have no idea why you sound so ehh..subjective when it comes to boys and girls but..

This seems to be assuming some of the point which is under debate right now. It implies that I had started off with a particular mental type in connection with my sex by default and only then later lost it. It's kind of like (for an example of a similar line of reasoning that I expect you'll be familiar with) how many people seem to posit that people are born believing in a deity and then only later lose that belief rather than vice versa when discussing the merits of religion.

Femininity does not definitively shape your personalty and character, Femininity is a certain type of crude mold which gives you certain basic traits, from those basic traits a lot of various outcomes will be obviously possible. You haven't lost anything, you might've not been able to discover it or maybe you already did and that's what you are, I got no idea cuz I do not know you. People are not born believing in anything, Most of them are however born with different sex traits.

As for "hopeless" - try me. I'm interested in reality, so if there's something about reality that I'm missing, I want to know, I don't give up easily. Because I'm interested in reality though, any new info has to go through checking against the rest of reality before being accepted or rejected.

 

"The issue isn't the opening of the door but acting toward like the way your and her nature demand."

What about the nature of males and females determines who of the two must be the one to open a door?

 

As for consideration, you're judgment - your own, not somebody else's that you swallow with little to no questioning - *is* part of who you are. I'll just note that I disagree on how detailed a formula has to be since it's really not important enough of an issue to keep quibbling over.

It's a form of sexual selection and competition between males during the dating period, if you fail because you're a failure that lacks manners and has a weak mental character she'll ditch you and go for someone else. A thing is what it is, and it also acts according to what it is. If a an adult male behaves like a whiny teen he deserves a crappy GF which lacks the standards or no one. Something like that, I think.

Edited by Exar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says you. I think you're completely wrong when it comes to Delaney and his advice. An "abundance of women" doesn't mean a thing if these women are approached in a way that makes it more likely that you will draw -- and be drawn to -- the worst of the gender/sex.

And when I examine Delaney's beliefs and advice, I believe that's exactly what happens and will happen. It helps to explain his description of women, for instance, in the post where he says:

 

 

In giving Delaney the best benefit of the doubt I'm able at this late date, I'd say that he believes that women are like this because...

...the women that Delaney is around are like this! I think that his "methods" attract this sort of woman, or perhaps require Delaney to seek this kind of woman out. And that's really unfortunate, in my opinion, and nothing I'd like to have in my own life.

If I'd taken his advice earlier in my life, I have to believe that I wouldn't have wound up with my wife, but that I'd be stuck in relationships with the sorts of women that Delaney describes above. That'd be like trading in filet mignon for a bunch of rancid McDonald's patties. "[N]o issue between quality versus quantity" indeed!

Yes, it is quite possible to meet many good women. And the fact is that many good women do test men. Ayn Rand even provided a few examples herself, albeit fictional. Another fact is that if you never meet them you have no chance of knowing their character. And when you meet many women chances are higher that you'll come across the really good ones.

 

And speaking of speaking of experience, the experience I've had in observing men do the very thing you recommend says that you are wrong in the conclusions you draw. They do not know "which ones to avoid and which ones are worth pursuing," but rather typically pursue those that will most easily succumb to their "game," whatever it is, and however they otherwise justify it to themselves. These are not high-quality human beings.

If they don't learn then that's their problem. The fact is that you actually have to meet women and get to know them in order to learn how to judge them. Otherwise the whole process will be rationalistic. You learn by interacting with women, or people, and draw conclusions based on that.

 

]Well... no. I mean, I'm sure you can restate this a hundred times going forward, thinking that you're "arguing your case," but each of my responses will continue to be that "this isn't true."

The relationship I've developed with my wife was not a matter of "getting a woman," and neither has any relationship I've ever had. It is not like going to the market to pick up some steaks. A woman -- any woman -- is a unique property, an individual. There is nothing satisfactory about "getting women," but everything depends utterly on the actual relationships you have with specific individuals, and your reasons for having those relationships, and what they provide you in real life.

 

 

Oh, I'm glad you're not talking about "PUA-tricks"; I was worried there for a minute! You're just talking about approaching strangers and "working your charm" so that you can "bed her," learning to get through the rejections like a salesman, knowing that every "no" brings you a step closer to a "yes." Doing this "hundreds of times."

This is garbage.

It's no different from developing social skills.

 

You need to learn how to get to know people so you can make friends, handle a job interview, holding presentations, communicate your ideas, tell jokes etc.

 

In the same way a boy learns that girls are pretty, and when he comes of age he'll want to get closer to them. That's usually scary. What does he say or do? What if she doesn't like him? And why do girls act so different from boys?

 

To learn that the boy can't sit at home and play World of Warcraft. He needs to get out there. To approach girls. Talk and interact with them. If he wants to get close to a girl he'll find it's different from playing football with his buddies. If he wants to have sex with her he'll soon learn that she doesn't work quite the same way as he does - heck, at that age just about anything will get him going!

 

Yes, it's about "getting women". As in, taking action to get what you want. It requires development of character, skill and knowledge.

 

I do prefer to be witty and charming instead of a stiff oaf. I also enjoy sex, so that's where i'll lead things if I like her. And certainly every rejection brings me closer to what I want. You may try and twist that all you want.

 

While there's nothing wrong with approaching someone who interests/attracts you, and while a person needs to develop a healthy understanding of rejection (not just for romance, but for life), neither is there any good in approaching women in this way, where every pretty girl is regarded as a potential sale/score, and one must "always be closing." I find this utterly degrading to the experiences I've actually had in my life and continue to have.

I never said I approached things this way. I approach women who interests/attracts me to find out more about them. I only try to "close" those I want to "close". It's not a chase to bed as many women as possible. I have yet to meet a mentally healthy individual who chases numbers on his bedpost.

 

What counts for me are the wonderful moments I can spend with her. Maybe just a quick chat/flirt on the street or in the grocery store. If she still interests me maybe i'll take her on a date, and we can share a moment or two with interesting and fun conversations and little games. Maybe i'll notice little things about her; the way she talks, smiles and grooms her hair. Just maybe I like her so much I want to pull her in, look her deep in the éyes and kiss her. Maybe wishing that moment could last a little bit longer. Maybe I even want to take her home to spend the night and trash the whole apartment. Maybe we'll spend the whole weekend in bed. Possibly, maybe, we'll have wonderful conversations laying exhausted in bed. Maybe i'll see her again, or maybe not. Maybe i'll marry her and spend many more precious moments with her. What counts are those moments with a person of my choice.

 

Except for the men who respond to "masculine traits" (whatever that ultimately means to you) and for the women who respond to "feminine traits."

Or yes, if you'd like to speak about whatever you believe "the majority" happens to be -- on the basis of culture, or wherever these supposed preferences might come from -- that's fine. But then, I've never been interested in the "majority of women," and I cannot say that I'd recommend them, either. The women I've always responded to, and pursued on my own terms (i.e. according to my own nature, and the nature of the particular woman as an individual; not according to advice I've found in a pick-up book or on a "romance blog"), have always been rare and utterly unlike the norm. In a word, special.

Yes, and I talk about men who respond to feminine traits, and women who respond to masculine traits. That happens to be the majority of mankind. It may or may not interest you, but it's not bad because it happens to be the majority.

 

For the record I prefer strong, intelligent, independent and exquisitley feminine women. Very few indeed live up to my standrads, which is why i'm still unmarried. I reckon though that the pursuit of my future wife will be quite enjoyable.

 

And see, here's the advantage of experience and having many women to choose from. I have a farily good idea of what i'm looking for. My biggest problem is figuring out where i'll have the best chance of meeting the right woman, since I don't have the time to run around at random. I have many female friends and women i've dated that'll vouch for me. They know me and can set up dates with their friends. That sure helps. And when I find the right one i'm not a helpless pup, so things are more likely to work out just fine.

 

LOL, I'm sure you think that you have! :)

No, I'm equally sure you're not talking about "manipulation or anything of that sort." You're just talking about dancing a particular dance -- acting in certain prescribed ways -- in an attempt to bed hundreds of women ("What?! Me manipulate?!"). Or something like that. I don't know. The fringe details aren't very interesting to me, to be frank, because I find you to be mistaken at your core.

You're reading things into the dancing metaphor which are not there. There's nothing manipulative about it, just as there's  nothing manipulative to ask a girl to dance and actually knowing how to do it.

 

And yet again, my goal is not to bed hundreds of women. I find sex to be more or less wasted when it's just grinding of flesh. It only serves a physical need, while sex with someone you really like can be the greatest pleasure.

 

But whatever. If you think "honesty and authenticity" are where it's at, then there's no need for further squabbling. A man who has "feminine traits" ought to be true to that (and perhaps seek out a woman who responds to his character) rather than act as though he is other-than-who-he-is for the purpose of attracting some other woman or group of women -- yes? A man who would rather solicit his date's advice on which table to choose at a restaurant, rather than supposedly assert his dominance by choosing it himself, should feel comfortable in his approach -- yes?

If we're agreed on points such as these, then we're both contra Delaney, and I don't have much interest in further trying to assess whether there's something to this "masculinity/femininity" business that just somehow doesn't translate into any generalized real world advice. The point remains to deal with people as individuals, first and foremost, and if people's further beliefs on "masculinity/femininity" doesn't interfere with that, then I guess I am sufficiently happy with that, at present, howsoever wrong they remain.

Being authentic does not mean being set in your old ways. Fundamentally you have to ask yourself what kind of character you want to develop, and what your values are. What kind of man do you want to be and what traits do you find important? Is this going to help you find happiness or misery?

 

To take a personal example. I used to be shy and introverted, and at times it felt rather miserable. I could have accepted that as my fate, like a loser, and felt sorry for myself. Instead I did all those things I found difficult. I recognized it as being difficult, at times feeling unnatural, but made no pretense of being the most confident guy around. And now I don't find those things difficult anymore, i'm much happier for it, and i'm just as authentic as I was before.

 

If, on the other hand, you find no good reason to try another approach, you're happy with yourself and what life brings you, then it would be a bad idea to try it.

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a small example. Throughout the existence of our Homo sapiens species Males used to hunt and craft tools  and females used to service the game and craft various tools as well as make babies. There is a clear historical distinction between male and female abilities, bodies, hormones. There are plenty of anomalies that are observable in our spoiled brave new world which otherwise would've died out but the distinction is still here.

These type of distinctions usually stem from the "separate spheres" idea of the Enlightenment when notions of masculinity and femininity first came around. I don't want to get into the reasons for now, but no, there hasn't been a really clear historical distinction until around the 1800s. Before then, the only distinction people made was that women were *inferior* to men in every way, depending on the culture. After that, men and women were treated as very different types of people altogether. If you want to go really far back to tribal cultures, men and women weren't as distinct as you portray. Literally, people were tribes, they hunted together, or men sometimes would also service the game, etc. Of course, women had babies and I think that has a big impact early on about taking care of their kids, after a little bit of time, raising a kid was a tribal endeavor. I could theorize a lot about why this is, but my point is the historical distinction you mention is not really there.

And any research I know that would support you says there are indeed some cognitive differences, but not enough to make an impact on how one leads their life. There is more difference between me and you than between males and females in general. A difference for example is that females can make better distinctions for red colors than males, but really it's not a big deal on the level how concepts of femininity/masculinity suggests differences should be strong.

If you want to keep talking about this, I'd suggest starting a new thread to keep this separate.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These type of distinctions usually stem from the "separate spheres" idea of the Enlightenment when notions of masculinity and femininity first came around. I don't want to get into the reasons for now, but no, there hasn't been a really clear historical distinction until around the 1800s. Before then, the only distinction people made was that women were *inferior* to men in every way, depending on the culture.

I am not talking about inferiority or superiority of genders but about evolution and physiological differences between males and females, they had to be a result of something, so I pointed out where they originally came from. Don't put filth into my mouth by claiming that you know what I'm talking about.

After that, men and women were treated as very different types of people altogether. If you want to go really far back to tribal cultures, men and women weren't as distinct as you portray. Literally, people were tribes, they hunted together, or men sometimes would also service the game, etc. Of course, women had babies and I think that has a big impact early on about taking care of their kids, after a little bit of time, raising a kid was a tribal endeavor. I could theorize a lot about why this is, but my point is the historical distinction you mention is not really there.

That is most likely incorrect because the gender roles in those tribes were extremely prevalent. You say it's not, I say it is.

http://articles.philly.com/2007-04-02/news/25241506_1_neanderthals-anthropologists-gatherer

And any research I know that would support you says there are indeed some cognitive differences, but not enough to make an impact on how one leads their life. There is more difference between me and you than between males and females in general. A difference for example is that females can make better distinctions for red colors than males, but really it's not a big deal on the level how concepts of femininity/masculinity suggests differences should be strong.

Both cognitive, hormonal and physiological. Males and Females are indeed different. Mentioning the color distinction as a primal example is really pathetic...You can name at least 10 major differences in every department I've mentioned.

If you want to keep talking about this, I'd suggest starting a new thread to keep this separate.

This subject is directly related with Men and Women. I'm not planning on keeping it separate even one bit. Are you going to take measures if I won't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a small example. Throughout the existence of our Homo sapiens species Males used to hunt and craft tools  and females used to service the game and craft various tools as well as make babies. There is a clear historical distinction between male and female abilities, bodies, hormones. There are plenty of anomalies that are observable in our spoiled brave new world which otherwise would've died out but the distinction is still here.

She puts it quite nicely in this vid as well as many others: EDIT: removing huge youtube video box from the quote to save space

Guilt? No. I have no idea why you sound so ehh..subjective when it comes to boys and girls but..

Femininity does not definitively shape your personalty and character, Femininity is a certain type of crude mold which gives you certain basic traits, from those basic traits a lot of various outcomes will be obviously possible. You haven't lost anything, you might've not been able to discover it or maybe you already did and that's what you are, I got no idea cuz I do not know you. People are not born believing in anything, Most of them are however born with different sex traits.

It's a form of sexual selection and competition between males during the dating period, if you fail because you're a failure that lacks manners and has a weak mental character she'll ditch you and go for someone else. A thing is what it is, and it also acts according to what it is. If a an adult male behaves like a whiny teen he deserves a crappy GF which lacks the standards or no one. Something like that, I think.

 

40 minute video? D: Crap, can I get back to you on that one? Eiuol's post I think is good already for responding to the basic idea in your text there before the video. Eiuol wasn't saying you meant that women were inferior. He's saying that the idea of women and men as two very distinct, different "types" of people beyond just physically came about as a replacement for former ideas that women were just inferior. Basically, the old idea was women were an inferior type of apple to men and then the newer idea came about in the 1800's that women are oranges and men are apples, different things to be judged on seperate scales, not judged compared to each other. He's suggesting your current notions have their roots back in those newer "apples and oranges" ideas that started in the 1800s.

 

"I have no idea why you sound so ehh..subjective when it comes to boys and girls . . ."

I don't think "subjective" is the right word for it. It's more like I just have no compelling reason to separate males and females into two distinct types mentally. Physically, yes, but mentally, nope.

 

". . . femininity is a certain type of crude mold which gives you certain basic traits . . ."

I haven't found any such consistent basic traits in one sex versus another though.

 

"It's a form of sexual selection and competition between males during the dating period, if you fail because you're a failure that lacks manners and has a weak mental character she'll ditch you and go for someone else"

Couldn't this apply just as well in reverse? Manners apply to both sexes and both males and females can and will often dump people who they think lack them. Why is it that the male must be the one to open the door and not the female? The whole thing about manners and door opening/holding is about 1) not letting a door slam in the face of somebody who is right behind you and 2) helping out somebody for whom opening the door would currently be much more difficult for due to some kind of physical disability or full hands or something. Nothing about being male or female dictates who will get to a door first or who will have a physical challenge to opening a door.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minute video? D: Crap, can I get back to you on that one? Eiuol's post I think is good already for responding to the basic idea in your text there before the video. Eiuol wasn't saying you meant that women were inferior. He's saying that the idea of women and men as two very distinct, different "types" of people beyond just physically came about as a replacement for former ideas that women were just inferior. Basically, the old idea was women were an inferior type of apple to men and then the newer idea came about in the 1800's that women are oranges and men are apples, different things to be judged on seperate scales, not judged compared to each other. He's suggesting your current notions have their roots back in those newer "apples and oranges" ideas that started in the 1800s.

I'd watch the video and google "gender roles in prehistoric times"  or something like that before going any further. And no, his post is no good at all. The idea of woman and men as two distinct types of human kind must've come around well before 1800s, heck even Aristotle had his ideas about how and why, he was wrong many accounts though. so no, not "since 1800s" that's flat out false. What he is suggesting is that my take on them in indeed no different from two separate spheres idea, but it is very different and it's grounded in the history of homo sapiens as well as my own observations. His claim is false, it's the second time I have to repeat myself..Gosh I thought I'd come to an Objectivists and people won't sound like mild feminists.

I don't think "subjective" is the right word for it. It's more like I just have no compelling reason to separate males and females into two distinct types mentally. Physically, yes, but mentally, nope.

Mentally nope..okay, Watch that video. From what i remember female and male brains are even wired differently..Gosh I'm too lazy too google all this stuff.. Here is a classic wiki link!Can't you do yourself a favor and stop re posting the same "it all differs from individual to individual" argument?

I haven't found any such consistent basic traits in one sex versus another though.

Great.

Couldn't this apply just as well in reverse? Manners apply to both sexes and both males and females can and will often dump people who they think lack them. Why is it that the male must be the one to open the door and not the female? The whole thing about manners and door opening/holding is about 1) not letting a door slam in the face of somebody who is right behind you and 2) helping out somebody for whom opening the door would currently be much more difficult for due to some kind of physical disability or full hands or something. Nothing about being male or female dictates who will get to a door first or who will have a physical challenge to opening a door.

Because male is the one that naturally and also usually even to this has time to initiate a relationship and then play a more pro active role in which he will be selling the product, himself, and female will be buying it (By that time the male has already bought it). Drop the whole door thing, to hell with that door, it's way bigger than that. I've seen so much evidence for gender roles and reasons behind them, both through my eyes and countless material on net..Watch that vid. She's a smart woman.

Edited by Exar
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.

 

Funny. I do very well in the sex category. i must be doing something that's not "sexless" and not just treating women like they're my "bud." ;)

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny. I do very well in the sex category. i must be doing something that's not "sexless" and just treating women like they're my "bud." ;)

Well, if those females see you as a "Fuck bud" and you're satisfied with that than you're doing everything in a very correct way qua yourself and your mates/mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if those females see you as a "Fuck bud" and you're satisfied with that than you're doing everything in a very correct way qua yourself and your mates/mate.

 

Sorry, I had to correct my comment because it wasn't clear. It now reads ... "and not just treating them like my "bud."

 

However, I detect a hint of personal attack in your comment, and some assumptions that you are making about me, whether they are right or wrong. But you wouldn't really know, would you. I'll have to respond more later when I have time.

 

I will say this however. Kevin's way is MUCH more sexless than my perspective and view and life, judging by what he's states in this forum.

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I had to correct my comment because it wasn't clear. It now reads ... "and not just treating them like my "bud."

 

However, I detect a hint of personal attack in your comment, and some assumptions that you are making about me, whether they are right or wrong. But you wouldn't really know, would you. I'll have to respond more later when I have time.

 

I will say this however. Kevin's way is MUCH more sexless than my perspective and view and life, judging by what he's states in this forum.

You don't make any sense to me. Your freshly edited post makes even less sense to me, you could try to explain yourself in a lot more clear and logical way..or leave it as it is. And yes, there is a personal attack, your unedited post deserved far worse though. There is no Kevins way, No Kevin's formula or Kevin's Cult. He gave a very short advice on how to not make a bad impression. The door thing might be a cliche, sure. The rest however is indeed Golden.

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...