Hitting a woman

[gendanken]

Tricky server.

Xerxes:

The psychology of a woman is innate and hardcoded.

One

Your response to the whole 'woman is built to be dominated' argument is thus, to be expected in the same way a mimosa plant closes to physical touch.

You say you can't be dominated by the hand, but I smell a hint of denial.

Two.

Xerxes, my impotent friend, what you're smelling is the lip gloss smeared all over your psychology- not denial.
The psychology of a woman is so “innate and hardcoded” it leaves a man's flexible.
That in contrast, men become so unpredictable I am shocked a boy has completely missed the point and gave me the old woman just wants to be dominated diatirbe.
She can't be just brutish or ungraceful in contrast to your feminized standard, huh?
No, she's only provoking another to manage her.

See, this is why Shakespeare can lick me- Kate was only ham-acting, she wasn't indifferent or just didn't care, she secretly wanted the little rat to govern her miserable soul. Pity the shrew!

At any rate, violence on its own gains nothing, you master no one unless you seize it and focus it into a force- a smart slave will serve his "master" while neatly analyzing his demise because the most brutal tyrants have been sloppy, stupid, and just noise that left as soon as it came.

Saying "I'd rather die than let one of those pussies litter me with his seed" is a more concrete position than claiming that they can't. (Serious questions: Do you think if you were drunk enough, you'd let them do you? )

Oh the drama.
Makes it so interesting when it isn’t.

Its a valid argument for someone who sees dominace so simply.
What’s a cruel imbecile but an imbecile?

They know they're out of place in the modern world, that they've lost their full value, so instead of marketing their abilities as men they take the easier route which is to become a women. Kind of like the current trend to outsourcing with these all powerful minds being forced into retail.

*funeral grin*
GOOD.

But I say no one is forced- I mean, my boss is literally shocked to hear me yelling at some person calling me at work when they should not be.

Men shocked at my reviling my own gender.
Shocked that such a pweetty wittle pwincess could be so frank and “selfish” .
Shocked at 9-11, Palestinians, racial slurs, impropriety.
So, shocked they are at simple insolence.

One wonders what they’d do if they truly had something to be shocked about.

The x-chromosome contains a heck of a lot more genetic material than the y. And its a scientific fact that the y chromosome is slowly dying out. I won't bore you with the details, but not only are we becoming more socially feminine, its also a biological phenomenon. Men aren't built like they used to be- that 35% muscle? Its turning into fat.

I know this.
But so?

I have recessive genes for widow’s peaks and no one in my family has one ‘cept 2.
Carlin’s pussificatoin is hardly genetic.

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not a misogynist. Far from. My ethics towards women are a response to how much I trust my judgement when it comes to them. Or maybe I'm not mature enough yet and I'm sugarcoating..who knows.

The point is its an invalid conclusion. A good attempt, but still invalid.

See the way people get all protective and cautious around cripples?
See- they see the crutch and the wheelchair and think this poor soul needs them; never once crosses their mind this person can fucking shoot them in a heartbeat or punch their face out from his wheelchair because he works out and they don’t.

That’s the way your social ethic sounds like.
You assume a handicap in my gender.
GOOD!

Makes it that much easier.

Xev:

Any man claiming to be chivalrous is more than capable of cruelty to a weaker female.

That’s right:
WEAK.

Chivalry is for pathetic fucks and those as pathetic to accept it, with one actually believing what he’s pretending.
A symptom of moron courtship.

Take any weak mind and you can convince it to want what you want it to want- this is easy. Who cares?
Scare him with a stronger mind, now you’re talking.

Roman:

Roman:

Xev, gendanken, when was the last time you hit someone because they were weak and deserved it?

Weak and was asking for it, all the time.

No one here is advocating going around like a toddler.

 

[Xev]

Hey Roman, why don't you directly engage me instead of lurking around like a pussy trying to egg others on?

In answer to your query, late last October.

oscar:

You could have just said that I wasn't clear or that I was being illogical. I'm happy to explain if you didn't get it the first time around.

It's not a matter of "getting it", it's a matter of your inability to correctly utilize the English language.

You say that violent people are violent because they are unused to violence. Jesus brainiac, can't you see the contradiction in terms? Now you've got something else to say - yay.

Now most people are not trained in how to use violence and don't use violence in their lives. So when it happens to them or they have to use violence they're likely to use too much as they're untrained. In the words panic, anger, passion - a lack of mental self control - sees them liable to use too much force. That's what gets people in trouble in situations of what would ordinarily be self-defence when they far more force than is necessary.

Good point.

gendanken:

Chivalry is for pathetic fucks and those as pathetic to accept it, with one actually believing what he’s pretending.
A symptom of moron courtship.

Basically. But....why object to their making my work easier?
Well, because they have the force of numbers and it can piss me off.

 

[Xerxes]

Xerxes, my impotent friend,

haha, you have no idea. I have trouble keeping it down!

The psychology of a woman is so “innate and hardcoded” it leaves a man's flexible.

The psychology of man is just as innate and hardcoded. The interplay between these two psychologies is what's unpredictable. For instance, have you ever seen a couple and wondered what the hell they're doing together?

Its unpredictable in that the reasons for it lie deep beneath the surface.

That in contrast, men become so unpredictable I am shocked a boy has completely missed the point and gave me the old woman just wants to be dominated diatirbe.
She can't be just brutish or ungraceful in contrast to your feminized standard, huh?
No, she's only provoking another to manage her.

No, no! I don't wanna sound too standoffish here, but its you who misses my original point.

Women generally are more brutish and ungraceful than men, but they don't wear it on the surface. Men do.

Getting to the point, its almost always supressed in women; they want to release it and become equal with men, but in the end its exactly like compensation for a small penis. Not one woman in this thread has expressed a desire to not be hit in retaliation. And why? Because women want to erase the boundary. It annoys them and I find that sexy. THIS is the provocation, because the woman has absolutely no control over it-- its completely innate.

Case in point:
I've done a few experiments opening doors for girls. Actually...they weren't planned experiments, but anyways, a lot of times, the girl is beaming in flattery. She might say 'thank you' or giggle, but this is basically the female version of a boner. She has no control, its an innate response. And very a provocative one.

See what I'm getting at? You too, Gendanken, are subject to uncontrollable giggling, and you resent me for it because you secretly envy my penis. D)

ok..just kidding. You resent me because I'm forcing you to be a part of it. You don't like being controlled yet you are forced to enjoy it.

See, this is why Shakespeare can lick me- Kate was only ham-acting, she wasn't indifferent or just didn't care, she secretly wanted the little rat to govern her miserable soul. Pity the shrew!

I don't think you're giving Shakespeare enough credit here. Either that or you're in denial because Shakespeare saw through the human condition. He was a precursor to modern psychology..

At any rate, violence on its own gains nothing, you master no one unless you seize it and focus it into a force- a smart slave will serve his "master" while neatly analyzing his demise because the most brutal tyrants have been sloppy, stupid, and just noise that left as soon as it came.

I agree with that. Sometimes the threat of force is more than enough.

But I say no one is forced- I mean, my boss is literally shocked to hear me yelling at some person calling me at work when they should not be.

oh, no. I agree. My point was that feminization is the easier route to survival, so evolution favours feminization.

One wonders what they’d do if they truly had something to be shocked about.

Nothing at all. 'Nipplegate' got more attention than the tsunamic that killed 0.1 million.

Carlin’s pussificatoin is hardly genetic.

Actually, genetic evolution is disproportionately influenced by social behaviour. How does the peacocks tail or the roosters chin thing help survival in ways other than sexual dimorphism? It doesn't. It can actually be a serious handicap.

See the way people get all protective and cautious around cripples?
See- they see the crutch and the wheelchair and think this poor soul needs them; never once crosses their mind this person can fucking shoot them in a heartbeat or punch their face out from his wheelchair because he works out and they don’t.

That’s the way your social ethic sounds like.
You assume a handicap in my gender.
GOOD!

You undercut my ethics in the same way you undercut 'Taming of the Shrew'. They've been proven pragmatically over the centuries. Maybe someobdy you'll agree with me

 

[gendanken]

Xerxes:

haha, you have no idea. I have trouble keeping it down!

*funeral grin*

Know what I saw?
A fishstick.
Kidding.

Seriously, its interesting the influence on perception that comes with desire. All my life the male organ was something disfigured and ugly, the hairy gash on women- same.

But you harmonize the object with a desire for it and the transformation is eery- for example, that a desire for feces could change its bad smell-
such a tricky thing desire is.

Sartre:
“The first apprehension of the Other’s sexuality insofar as it is lived and suffered can be only desire; it is by desiring the Other or by apprehending his desire for me that I discover his being-sexual. Desire reveals to me simultaneously my being-sexual and his being-sexual, my body as sexual and his body."

Hilarious reading his wanting his body- Sartre’s a man..

The psychology of man is just as innate and hardcoded. The interplay between these two psychologies is what's unpredictable. For instance, have you ever seen a couple and wondered what the hell they're doing together?

Its unpredictable in that the reasons for it lie deep beneath the surface.

Your argument was lopsided, but I get it now.

As far as humans being unpredictable, I certainly don't think so.
Spend enough time observing them and you can make why they do what they do into an arithmetic.
Perky tits marries aging loser for finance, 2+2=4.
Raging lothario marries Olga for family and penance, 2-1=1

Haughty others marry no one for freedom, pride, intellect, straight A.

I've never seen a 'couple' and wondered why they were together.

No, no! I don't wanna sound too standoffish here, but its you who misses my original point.

Women generally are more brutish and ungraceful than men, but they don't wear it on the surface. Men do.

Getting to the point, its almost always supressed in women; they want to release it and become equal with men, but in the end its exactly like compensation for a small penis. Not one woman in this thread has expressed a desire to not be hit in retaliation. And why? Because women want to erase the boundary. It annoys them and I find that sexy. THIS is the provocation, because the woman has absolutely no control over it-- its completely innate.

Case in point:
I've done a few experiments opening doors for girls. Actually...they weren't planned experiments, but anyways, a lot of times, the girl is beaming in flattery. She might say 'thank you' or giggle, but this is basically the female version of a boner. She has no control, its an innate response. And very a provocative one.

See what I'm getting at? You too, Gendanken, are subject to uncontrollable giggling, and you resent me for it because you secretly envy my penis. ()

ok..just kidding. You resent me because I'm forcing you to be a part of it. You don't like being controlled yet you are forced to enjoy it.

Tell you what- I'll admit I went off on your mentions of girls-just-wanna-be-dominated bull.
And that I did not address your major point in the doing- wanting to call you a carping fag tends to distract and fucks up the spelling.
Like, sorry.

In essence:
She’s as vicious as men, yawn, she wants the boundaries erased, ick, she wants equal status, meh, she wants to sport boxers and chug beer and not be ridiculed for doing it, giish! And now she’s secretly enjoying the control per your simple experiment of chivalry.

Occam’s razor: FUCK YOU

Seriously, be kind to anyone and they’re kind back.
Why are you making this a gender issue?
Be hostile with anyone and no matter the civil response you’ve upset them.
You’re making it dramatic because it involves males and females, and your stringent desire to ‘explain’ the problems between them calls for words like ‘control’ and ‘power’ and “ressentiment’ to make both the dialogue and you more interesting.

When it isn’t.
There is no forcing here, no ressentiment- try to think of a person that sees you aesthetically as opposed to sexually.
You’re either visually pleasing or to be looked on as a specimen without a need to animate you into a sexual option.
Would this creature’s anger be a secret joy at being controlled?
If so…..

I don't think you're giving Shakespeare enough credit here. Either that or you're in denial because Shakespeare saw through the human condition. He was a precursor to modern psychology..

Guano.
Or you’re playing some kind of mental game here.

Stick me on a bench- I’ll sit there all alone without smiling and I dare you to count how long it will take before a man shows up to ‘console’ me.
“Because, she needs me.

This sex is only a petition for mine, I mean why else would a woman be on her own if not secretly wanting me to come to her?”
This is William’s skewered thinking.

As yours, unless you’re playing wittle games here.

They've been proven pragmatically over the centuries. Maybe someobdy you'll agree with me

Physically weak, undeniably.

Physical strength is overrated.

 

[Xerxes]

Seriously, its interesting the influence on perception that comes with desire. All my life the male organ was something disfigured and ugly, the hairy gash on women- same.

But you harmonize the object with a desire for it and the transformation is eery- for example, that a desire for feces could change its bad smell-
such a tricky thing desire is.

I can empathize with you on that. The obsession with boobs for example, has always been foreign to me...they're just jiggling globs of fat, a second pair of buttocks designed to get bipeds used to the idea of upright sex. Don't get me wrong, I love boobs, but isn't the obsession just supressed desire?

Part chemical, part cultural perception.

As far as humans being unpredictable, I certainly don't think so.
Spend enough time observing them and you can make why they do what they do into an arithmetic.
Perky tits marries aging loser for finance, 2+2=4.
Raging lothario marries Olga for family and penance, 2-1=1

Haughty others marry no one for freedom, pride, intellect, straight A.

I've never seen a 'couple' and wondered why they were together.

heh, now THIS falls under the category of oversimplification!

Sure, there are 24factorial permutations for archetype couples..but seriously why count? You can divide and combine to infinity and still you'll be off the mark.

Its cable TV logic you're falling victim to, and the only reason it has any accuracy at all is because the majority of couples follow the same logic and mimic the characters on 'friends'. You see a lot less of that in countries which aren't as culturally deprived.

Tell you what- I'll admit I went off on your mentions of girls-just-wanna-be-dominated bull.
And that I did not address your major point in the doing- wanting to call you a carping fag tends to distract and fucks up the spelling.
Like, sorry.

Carping fag, eh? I guess I have to retaliate, you..you..pwetty innocent flower-

She’s as vicious as men, yawn, she wants the boundaries erased, ick, she wants equal status, meh, she wants to sport boxers and chug beer and not be ridiculed for doing it, giish! And now she’s secretly enjoying the control per your simple experiment of chivalry.

Somehow I think you don't fully get it. 'It' is absolutely not about chivalry or beer chugging. A woman can do those things and wear boxer shorts and I'm perfectly happy with them. Its letting these innate desires get out of control because things have changed so much in favour of the chaos. A little is good, but ultimately leads to destruction when taken to the extreme like here in N. America. We need to keep things like not hitting women around in order to keep in touch with our basic instincts.

Seriously, be kind to anyone and they’re kind back.
Why are you making this a gender issue?
Be hostile with anyone and no matter the civil response you’ve upset them.
You’re making it dramatic because it involves males and females, and your stringent desire to ‘explain’ the problems between them calls for words like ‘control’ and ‘power’ and “ressentiment’ to make both the dialogue and you more interesting.

When it isn’t.
There is no forcing here, no ressentiment- try to think of a person that sees you aesthetically as opposed to sexually.
You’re either visually pleasing or to be looked on as a specimen without a need to animate you into a sexual option.
Would this creature’s anger be a secret joy at being controlled?
If so…..

If I held a door open for a guy- and I can't say for sure since I've never done it purposely- I doubt he'd giggle and thank me. Even a gay guy, unless he had some sort of gender issue would probably take offense to it. Why? Because kindness, like reciprocity are social constructs, not arithmetic. They don't follow logic

Behaviour like holding a door open is innate. The power, control and resentment is just an innate part of the ritual. Again, no logic or arithmetic, it just happens.

Guano.
Or you’re playing some kind of mental game here.

No mental games, I promise.

Stick me on a bench- I’ll sit there all alone without smiling and I dare you to count how long it will take before a man shows up to ‘console’ me.
“Because, she needs me.

This sex is only a petition for mine, I mean why else would a woman be on her own if not secretly wanting me to come to her?”
This is William’s skewered thinking.

As yours, unless you’re playing wittle games here.

You know, I once had a girl come and stand 5 inches away from me on an empty LRT station, waiting for ME to intiate the conversation. Williams isn't saying that a woman wants a certain guy to come to her, he's saying that she wants to be pursued because any man worthy of her attention must first be the object of his. It isn't skewered at all, I see it every day. Hardcoded..though I don't necessarily like the logic, or lack thereof

Physically weak, undeniably.

Physical strength is overrated.

Really? I was under the impression that physical strength is underrated. School first, sports second. Going back to your first point with the 'influence on perception that comes with desire'. We desire knowledge more than physical strength nowadays. Thats the skewered perception.

And don't forget, there is a strong positive correlation with muscle building testosterone and creativity. Some of the most intelligent men in history were also 'physically strong'.

 

[Persol]

Because most males, those who deserve to be called that, can take a good slap from a girl and understand what it means:
a) you did something thats beyond words
b) she's crazy and abusive and you need to leave her
c) Its a sign of affection, playfulness (..yes, it happens)

Oh, but guys aren't allowed to use those three reasons?

Don't fool yourself. You've been trained that hitting woman is wrong. You don't have any logical reason that allows you to hit a guy, and not hit a woman.

 

[Xerxes]

Those aren't justifications for hitting a guy. They're a small list of gender unspecific things it

can mean

when it happens

Don't fool yourself. You've been trained that hitting woman is wrong. You don't have any logical reason that allows you to hit a guy, and not hit a woman.

If you're so concerned about logic, why post on an opinions forum? Maybe I've arrived at my conclusions logically and you simply can't fathom them?

Neither of us are creatures of logic. But I object to being called trained.

 

[Persol]

Those aren't justifications for hitting a guy. They're a small list of gender unspecific things it when it happens

I think not. Not one of them is gender specific... you can very easily replace 'she' with 'he', and the reasons are still valid (although the first one is just a stupid reason, regardless of sex)

Maybe I've arrived at my conclusions logically and you simply can't fathom them?

Then please explain why the are one way rules.

Neither of us are creatures of logic. But I object to being called trained.

You may object all you want, but that is the case. Genetically we are programmed to resort to violence when needed. This is seen through other species. In most cases we don't because we
a) realize that a better opion exists
b) realize it will get us in trouble (you've been trained)

If a better option exists dealing with a woman, than a better option exists for dealing with the man. Especially considering that it should be EASIER for you to empahsize and understand someone who is the same sex (unless you are undeserving of being called a male).

You've simply been programmed to accept that 'hitting women is just wrong'.