Oh dear.
This is really quite silly.
At first I thought that the preponderence of threads on women was simply because most of our members are male nerds who find the practice of getting some to be quite in need of a theory.
But then I considered culture. Everyone - from Plato to Shakespeare, Nietzsche and Dickens, just has to weigh in on the subject of women. Of course the boundaries of the discussion change from century to century. In the Middle Ages it was feminine evil, in the Victorian period it was feminine good.
Considering that everything you nitwits are gibbering, has been said before, do you not find it silly to continue your discussion?
Of course not. The subject of "women" is apparently unsolvable and endlessly fascinating.
To quote Bertrand Russell:
"For my part I distrust all generalizations about women, favorable and unfavorable, masculine and feminine, ancient and modern; all alike, I should say, result from paucity of experience."
And that, I should think, is the solution.
But I'll ask you why this sort of thing engages attention. Enlighten me.
monkey:
Unfortunately it has a long time since I met a woman like that.
Perhaps if you apprehended women as humans, rather than as faceless cunts who could all be lumped into the category "modern women are", you would not repel non-materialistic women.
Kinda like what the Buddhists call Karma.
Although it is quite amusing to read your long list of the women who dumped you.
Arditezza:
Well, this I take offense to. My family and my children come first, and rarely do I ever have time for myself, or focus on myself.
Go back to Stepford.
cosmictraveler:
Please - the refugees from Manowar concerts belong on UNICEF boards, not sciforums.
