Cheating
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
Glad we're on the same page then. I wasn't trying to flame you, I was just looking for clarification. Thanks toots.
Hmmmm. Interesting. I can think of two possible reasons.Orleander said:
1. He could have just assumed that you did and never worried about it. Did he ever tell you that he loved you?
2. He just saw you as a friend with benefits, long term style.
Sniffy/Oli:
Sure, and notice I said "most" women.
If I'm wrong, and Oli's "buy her shit and treat her like a lady" tactic is widely considered undesireable, then I'm wrong and yay! I have one less reason to be a misanthrope.
But I don't think I am.
Informal poll/show of hands?
Sure, and notice I said "most" women.
If I'm wrong, and Oli's "buy her shit and treat her like a lady" tactic is widely considered undesireable, then I'm wrong and yay! I have one less reason to be a misanthrope.
But I don't think I am.
Informal poll/show of hands?
Ah, it's not a "tactic", I don't do it (ever) to get someone into bed - I do it because I can.
You know, spread a little happiness, or whatever.
No, I don't think you are either.
Treating women like they're people, instead of sex objects to be leapt upon, usually gets me little more than very confused looks and the perennial question "Oh, are you gay?".
This is getting boring.
Look, "chivalrous" behaviour is supposed to reinforce the purported difference between the sexes, to emphasize female delicacy and narcissism, i.e to remind the woman of her role as a reproductive (sex) object.
IF you prefer women who prefer such treatment, which you claim to, of course you end up with women who wish to be treated as sex objects.
Luckily for you, most people prefer to enact such roles -- Sartre identified it as the second concrete relation between people.
It's like if I decided to date only punk boys, and then went around complaining that my boyfriends never have lots of money. It'd be self-contradictory.
*Shrug* It's best that way, but I've always liked techno.
Look, "chivalrous" behaviour is supposed to reinforce the purported difference between the sexes, to emphasize female delicacy and narcissism, i.e to remind the woman of her role as a reproductive (sex) object.
IF you prefer women who prefer such treatment, which you claim to, of course you end up with women who wish to be treated as sex objects.
Luckily for you, most people prefer to enact such roles -- Sartre identified it as the second concrete relation between people.
It's like if I decided to date only punk boys, and then went around complaining that my boyfriends never have lots of money. It'd be self-contradictory.
*Shrug* It's best that way, but I've always liked techno.
Then you're using words outside their social context. It usually denotes a wider and more specific set of behaviors. I don't particularly care how you relate to women, I'm simply saying that it's self-defeating to select for one thing if you desire another.
Whatever, this isn't as fun as the dinosaur thread.
Girls ARE sexual just as soon as they identify with the label female, just as a male accepts his sexuality, his procreative role - besides the odd mutations and sexual dysfunctions - just by identifying with the label 'male'.
That this sexuality can, and does, become an object of desire by the opposite sex, is a matter of genetic predispositions and millennia of evolution.
Sex evolved for a reason and the sexual types also evolved to serve this reason.
If self-awareness and modern day artificial environments, as well as a general cleansing of nature from human environments using technology and ideals, create a questioning of the past and its determined effects, as well as a need to overcome them, this is another matter.
“Chivalry” is a specific social exaggeration of natural sexual behaviors and a cultural norm, of behaving sexually.
It is based on the idealization of femininity and the mythology of purity, which seeks to repress female natural urges and sexual practices so as to control feminine sexual choice and create the premises of civilization and the monogamous edifice it is based upon.
Chivalry, like all social interactions, also depends on a hefty amount of self-repression and duplicity, as both sides play the parts intended for them by a social standard while the underlying true motives and drives are only expressed indirectly and through metaphor and insinuation.
That this sexuality can, and does, become an object of desire by the opposite sex, is a matter of genetic predispositions and millennia of evolution.
Sex evolved for a reason and the sexual types also evolved to serve this reason.
If self-awareness and modern day artificial environments, as well as a general cleansing of nature from human environments using technology and ideals, create a questioning of the past and its determined effects, as well as a need to overcome them, this is another matter.
“Chivalry” is a specific social exaggeration of natural sexual behaviors and a cultural norm, of behaving sexually.
It is based on the idealization of femininity and the mythology of purity, which seeks to repress female natural urges and sexual practices so as to control feminine sexual choice and create the premises of civilization and the monogamous edifice it is based upon.
Chivalry, like all social interactions, also depends on a hefty amount of self-repression and duplicity, as both sides play the parts intended for them by a social standard while the underlying true motives and drives are only expressed indirectly and through metaphor and insinuation.
Two definitions:
Wherein lies the duplicity?
Or, for that matter, the self-repression?
Or anyone else having to play a part?
my little cousin who is 3 years old knows she is a female and the difference between male and female.
she is not sexual atall. she is a little kid and desires nothing of a sexual nature. it only applies when children hit puberty.
peace.
