What have you learned about women?
- Thread starter zanket
- Start date
I don't think we are.
I think we basically agree that wanting to improve yourself and work towards becoming the person that you want to be is a positive thing, but working towards acting like you are a person that you are not to "get the hot chick" or whatever, is not.
Short of it is...
Yes, you can land any woman you want if you play the right game.
However, keeping that woman happy and being happy with yourself will be impossible if the two of you are not right for each other.
So it is not only fruitless, but stupid and self-destructive to pretend you are someone or something that you are not in order to land that chick.
Also, I think we agree that true self confidence is attractive and comes from being honest with yourself, secure in who you are and proud of that person you are.
I think we basically agree that wanting to improve yourself and work towards becoming the person that you want to be is a positive thing, but working towards acting like you are a person that you are not to "get the hot chick" or whatever, is not.
Short of it is...
Yes, you can land any woman you want if you play the right game.
However, keeping that woman happy and being happy with yourself will be impossible if the two of you are not right for each other.
So it is not only fruitless, but stupid and self-destructive to pretend you are someone or something that you are not in order to land that chick.
Also, I think we agree that true self confidence is attractive and comes from being honest with yourself, secure in who you are and proud of that person you are.
Of course.
I mostly agree. I'm not really thinking about the 'hot chick/bitch' scenario though, since my experiences have taught me better. My list may have sounded more like obsessing over details, but really, I don't follow templates. I only think that one can make conditions more favourable to landing not necessarily the 'hot' one, but the right one. As you said. More opportunities = more probability of success. And if you feel more optimistic about yourself, the honesty and confidence will come. I haven't got a pessimistic bone in my body.
EDIT: Well, actually I have many, but I've been trying to break them
I mostly agree. I'm not really thinking about the 'hot chick/bitch' scenario though, since my experiences have taught me better. My list may have sounded more like obsessing over details, but really, I don't follow templates. I only think that one can make conditions more favourable to landing not necessarily the 'hot' one, but the right one. As you said. More opportunities = more probability of success. And if you feel more optimistic about yourself, the honesty and confidence will come. I haven't got a pessimistic bone in my body.
EDIT: Well, actually I have many, but I've been trying to break them
when 2 or more fight over you.
run.
run far far far away.
when your fighting between 2 or more
choose the one most likly to like you back.
enjoy em while they last, easy come easy go.
its common knowledge that all smart cute guys are gay (im the expeption of course...)
and that any girl whos perfectly your type and likes all the same stuff as you is a lesbian.
run.
run far far far away.
when your fighting between 2 or more
choose the one most likly to like you back.
enjoy em while they last, easy come easy go.
its common knowledge that all smart cute guys are gay (im the expeption of course...)
and that any girl whos perfectly your type and likes all the same stuff as you is a lesbian.
Bells
Staff member
Are you kidding me? We are gay and not all clean of soul? What pray tell would your definition of clean of soul be?
Mucker, I'm sure any woman would be lethal towards you if you told her she needed guidance because she was gay and had an unclean soul. I know if you told me that to my face you'd soon be on the floor begging for an icepack for your nether regions
. Does that mean I have an unclean soul? WOOHOOOOO!! ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
What have you learned about women?
In one sentence please.
women are no different than men in most ways which is illustrated by the two genders forming couple relationships
and is best defined by the nature of the indevidual by outward expresion of inner qualities that are often very similar in many ways that define what is common and what is rare,
i prefer the rare women
go Bells!
P.S
there is a big difference between "girls" and "women"
and a large amount of females never get past the stage of being a girl, just the same as most males do not get past the stage of being boys
In one sentence please.
women are no different than men in most ways which is illustrated by the two genders forming couple relationships
and is best defined by the nature of the indevidual by outward expresion of inner qualities that are often very similar in many ways that define what is common and what is rare,
i prefer the rare women
go Bells!
P.S
there is a big difference between "girls" and "women"
and a large amount of females never get past the stage of being a girl, just the same as most males do not get past the stage of being boys
No, we're different.
Very few women would make a statement as utterly idiotic as yours.
Women will have pathetic discussions like this one, but we also have the sense to keep them to ourselves and not display our pathetic-ness.
How many psychotic mass murderers have been female?
How many military geniuses have been female? Sigrid the Proud, maybe? A few other Viking women?
One can go on and on.
And remember, a true feminist tries to even the score by taking a SV-98 to the nearest clock tower and shooting hundreds of strangers.
The only reason that women have not been anything great is because men have held them down, not allowing them education, good jobs(if work at all) and military advancements (except in nursing) for thousands of years. Women can be and are better than allot of men that I know but are not given the opportunity to get ahead even today in many countries. Given the same education and freedoms that men have they could and would show the men they are just as capable of mass murders, being generals or great thinkers.
Not really...most women, evolutionarily, have the instinct to raise kids, and answer to the man that provides for her(though I don't know if I'd group Xev onto this list). Its the women who cause all wars and the men who fight. Clever and effective extermination.
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
one thing that is often sadly missed is the basic innability of most to look past the nurture aspects of people
once you get past that constrained thinking then you come to new realisations and better understandings
once you get past that constrained thinking then you come to new realisations and better understandings
cosmictraveler:
Doesn't allowing oneself to "be held down" kind of preclude being great?
What an inane statement. So Spartacus would have been a great rebel even if he had not fought against the Romans who enslaved him?
So they can be great warriors, it's just that people fight against them?
How very enlightened. You might "give us" our freedom. Yay!
Name one great general, rebel or warrior who was great because they were given their freedom.
Contrary to Shakespeare, greatness is not thrust upon one. Only the potential for greatness is.
Xerxes:
What the hell sort of Jewish statement is that?
I presume you'll show evidence of this alleged evolutionary instinct.
Really?
WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Finno-Soviet war, the American Civil war, the French and Indian wars, the Neapoleanic Wars - can you name one single female involved in the outbreak of hostilities?
Actually, how many wars were fought over or by women?
Sigrid the Proud's campaign against Christian invaders, Bodaeca's campaign against the Romans and that's about it. Even the Trojan war was a trade dispute, as any serious student (the kind that cites sources and checks facts, you know?) knows.
Doesn't allowing oneself to "be held down" kind of preclude being great?
What an inane statement. So Spartacus would have been a great rebel even if he had not fought against the Romans who enslaved him?
So they can be great warriors, it's just that people fight against them?
How very enlightened. You might "give us" our freedom. Yay!
Name one great general, rebel or warrior who was great because they were given their freedom.
Contrary to Shakespeare, greatness is not thrust upon one. Only the potential for greatness is.
Xerxes:
What the hell sort of Jewish statement is that?
I presume you'll show evidence of this alleged evolutionary instinct.
Really?
WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Finno-Soviet war, the American Civil war, the French and Indian wars, the Neapoleanic Wars - can you name one single female involved in the outbreak of hostilities?
Actually, how many wars were fought over or by women?
Sigrid the Proud's campaign against Christian invaders, Bodaeca's campaign against the Romans and that's about it. Even the Trojan war was a trade dispute, as any serious student (the kind that cites sources and checks facts, you know?) knows.
Last edited:
Its not a Jewish statement. The above example was anecdotal. I don't base everything on Judaism.
<a href="http://www.pinay.com/cgi-bin/forum_spc_Rel-FF.cgi?read=166">how women cause war</a>
not to say that I agree with any of this crap.
<a href="http://www.dukesatire.com/archives/10_21_02/articles/womencausewar.htm">a better link</a>
<a href="http://www.awakenedwoman.com/leslie_opinion.htm">you'll love this one</a>
Its simple: humans lived in tribal villages. Men hunted (etc), while women raised kids, did work around the villages, brought water. Certain 'castes' would want to preserve their genetics above those of neighboring villages, or would fight over hunting grounds so that the women could provide for the kids. If women demanded it, the men would go to war. Otherwise, then, what would they look like? Less than a man? They're pressured into the role of macho-masculinity, behind the scenes, by women. Its systemic extermination of inferior genetics. According to darwin anyways. Of course, its partly the males' fault for being dumb enough to give in, but humans are social. And if they'd rather not live solitary with less 'status,' then there isn't a choice.
When was the last time you saw a war or action movie without a woman involved?? They're fighting over the obvious. It comes down to the influence of women on the male mind...
It still works like this in many parts of Africa and the rest of the world. Football rivalries, pop music and movies.
And,
The trojan war was not a direct result of helen as it was the collective pressure of the women to get the better half of the resources to provide for kids, instead of peacefully resolving and *sharing* which the men could have done just fine with.
Even your beloved Nietzsche stands behind me!
<a href="http://www.pinay.com/cgi-bin/forum_spc_Rel-FF.cgi?read=166">how women cause war</a>
not to say that I agree with any of this crap.
<a href="http://www.dukesatire.com/archives/10_21_02/articles/womencausewar.htm">a better link</a>
<a href="http://www.awakenedwoman.com/leslie_opinion.htm">you'll love this one</a>
Its simple: humans lived in tribal villages. Men hunted (etc), while women raised kids, did work around the villages, brought water. Certain 'castes' would want to preserve their genetics above those of neighboring villages, or would fight over hunting grounds so that the women could provide for the kids. If women demanded it, the men would go to war. Otherwise, then, what would they look like? Less than a man? They're pressured into the role of macho-masculinity, behind the scenes, by women. Its systemic extermination of inferior genetics. According to darwin anyways. Of course, its partly the males' fault for being dumb enough to give in, but humans are social. And if they'd rather not live solitary with less 'status,' then there isn't a choice.
When was the last time you saw a war or action movie without a woman involved?? They're fighting over the obvious. It comes down to the influence of women on the male mind...
It still works like this in many parts of Africa and the rest of the world. Football rivalries, pop music and movies.
And,
The trojan war was not a direct result of helen as it was the collective pressure of the women to get the better half of the resources to provide for kids, instead of peacefully resolving and *sharing* which the men could have done just fine with.
Even your beloved Nietzsche stands behind me!
Xerxes:
Yes, it is.
Women are not naturally subservient or stupid. Well, perhaps for inferiour races they are, but look at (again) the Vikings.
The notion that we should be is a construction primarily Judic. It served them because, being oppressed, they found it cathartic to take their weakness out on their women.
This is of course a natural and common human tendancy, exacerbated only by the especially Jewish instinct for revenge.
Sexual selection favouring the man most adept at fighting is a different thing than causing warfare.
Conflict is necessary for more complex reasons. Of course they all come down to natural selection - what doesn't?
Of course the main motive warfare is to expand territory in order to better preserve one's genetic line. This is a far cry from your absurd, Judic statement about the causes of warfare.
And...Darwin did not write about such things. Sociobiology was not his main concern, so do not cite the man in an attempt to make your pathetic ass look smarter.
Not really. Doest the Bond Girl incite 007 to attack his rivals? No.
*Blinks*
You have no grasp of history. The Trojan war was a dispute between two formidable commercial powers struggling for dominence. The idea of women having a collective political pressure in ancient Greece is so laughable.
In any case, only one who has given up on life - the naturally weak and ready for death - would argue that an avoidence of war is always a good thing. The Greeks had this right, and virtue for them was not a matter of being peaceful and co-operative but a matter of being strong and above. Hence the notion of aret`e, hence the Trojan war itself.
I don't recall reading his analysis of the Trojan war, and indeed since Schlieman didn't excavate Troy until the 1870s, Nietzsche would not have given a very accurate portrait of the origens of that war.
Yes, it is.
Women are not naturally subservient or stupid. Well, perhaps for inferiour races they are, but look at (again) the Vikings.
The notion that we should be is a construction primarily Judic. It served them because, being oppressed, they found it cathartic to take their weakness out on their women.
This is of course a natural and common human tendancy, exacerbated only by the especially Jewish instinct for revenge.
Sexual selection favouring the man most adept at fighting is a different thing than causing warfare.
Conflict is necessary for more complex reasons. Of course they all come down to natural selection - what doesn't?
Of course the main motive warfare is to expand territory in order to better preserve one's genetic line. This is a far cry from your absurd, Judic statement about the causes of warfare.
And...Darwin did not write about such things. Sociobiology was not his main concern, so do not cite the man in an attempt to make your pathetic ass look smarter.
Not really. Doest the Bond Girl incite 007 to attack his rivals? No.
*Blinks*
You have no grasp of history. The Trojan war was a dispute between two formidable commercial powers struggling for dominence. The idea of women having a collective political pressure in ancient Greece is so laughable.
In any case, only one who has given up on life - the naturally weak and ready for death - would argue that an avoidence of war is always a good thing. The Greeks had this right, and virtue for them was not a matter of being peaceful and co-operative but a matter of being strong and above. Hence the notion of aret`e, hence the Trojan war itself.
I don't recall reading his analysis of the Trojan war, and indeed since Schlieman didn't excavate Troy until the 1870s, Nietzsche would not have given a very accurate portrait of the origens of that war.
Last edited:
*Most* women are subservient when their judgement is clouded with 'love.' Its goes hand in hand with the nurturing instinct. They would do anything to protect their offspring, even lower themselves. Also, I suggested the opposite of stupid with the words 'clever and effective.'
I never said I agreed with this. You'll be dissapointed to hear that I'm one of those frustratingly unobservant Jews. Especially when it comes to women. I have no problems containing my urges when I see a hot piece of skin swim by. (unlike my Rabbi
)Maybe. Could you name some?
Its possible that I didn't explain myself clearly, but I still doubt you understand my point that women are inadvertanly responsible for warfare. They're not even aware and, usually end up protesting or urging the men to stop fighting. How can they?
Okay. Keep in mind that I'm being vague to keep this short. I wouldn't want to be quoting lamarck or skinner in free thoughts..
Not exactly..but if you look deeper, you'll find women influencing the higher authorities.
Bond is an example of one of those men that (I was talking about earlier) who thinks for himself and is independant of social customs when it comes to women. We can learn a lot from him (even though he's imaginary
) I never said they had political influence. In fact, political influence one of the lowest and weakest forms that a person can have. Thats why we have political 'figureheads.' Economics, influenced by the pressure of women from all classes of society created enough tension to start a war.
I was not referring to Nietzsches commentary on the war, but the nature and role of women. Not to say that I agree with all of his points, but he does make good generalizations when it comes to the common bleach-blond 'bitch'.
Xerxes:
I'd say all are. And so are men.
Why do you think love is known as a weakness? It leads to accepting things that you normally wouldn't, becoming vulnerable and malleable.
Holy shit, you actually ARE Jewish?
And here I was insulting you by implying that only your worldview is Jewish.
That's funny.
Self-betterment.
One learns ones limits by testing oneself against another, one becomes stronger knowing that you are stronger, able to defeat another.
Why do you think there is so much emphasis in heroic literature on the "fair fight" and "fighting against odds"?
Because the stronger a defeated opponent is, the stronger you are. The Scythians and Samaritans made trophies out of their opponent's scalps and skulls to remind them of this.
"How much" asks Tyler Durden, "can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?"
Not a whole lot.
Because you're afraid to reveal how shallow your knowledge truely is?
Ignorence is not itself dishonourable. Worship of ignorence and pretending to know more than you do is dishonourable.
Your argument becomes more and more vauge. First rule of writing - always prefer the concrete to the vague, the factual to the metaphysical. But then, this way you can be shown to be wrong.
You've even resorted to rephrasing my statements and claiming them as your own. Tsk tsk.
It's amusing that the nature and role of women is being debated by a "man" who can't even argue a simple little thing online without pussying out and simpering.
You do realize you're agreeing with a man who spent most of his life dominated by women and fled in terror from a brothel...right?
*Yawns*
Tackle the one's regarding the origens of Christianity. That'll be some good entertainment.
Quit sounding like a wigger, that's just disgusting.
-Edit-
They do that to look Aryan.
I'd say all are. And so are men.
Why do you think love is known as a weakness? It leads to accepting things that you normally wouldn't, becoming vulnerable and malleable.
Holy shit, you actually ARE Jewish?
And here I was insulting you by implying that only your worldview is Jewish.
That's funny.
Self-betterment.
One learns ones limits by testing oneself against another, one becomes stronger knowing that you are stronger, able to defeat another.
Why do you think there is so much emphasis in heroic literature on the "fair fight" and "fighting against odds"?
Because the stronger a defeated opponent is, the stronger you are. The Scythians and Samaritans made trophies out of their opponent's scalps and skulls to remind them of this.
"How much" asks Tyler Durden, "can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?"
Not a whole lot.
Because you're afraid to reveal how shallow your knowledge truely is?
Ignorence is not itself dishonourable. Worship of ignorence and pretending to know more than you do is dishonourable.
Your argument becomes more and more vauge. First rule of writing - always prefer the concrete to the vague, the factual to the metaphysical. But then, this way you can be shown to be wrong.
You've even resorted to rephrasing my statements and claiming them as your own. Tsk tsk.
It's amusing that the nature and role of women is being debated by a "man" who can't even argue a simple little thing online without pussying out and simpering.
You do realize you're agreeing with a man who spent most of his life dominated by women and fled in terror from a brothel...right?
*Yawns*
Tackle the one's regarding the origens of Christianity. That'll be some good entertainment.
Quit sounding like a wigger, that's just disgusting.
-Edit-
They do that to look Aryan.
Last edited:
Love isn't a weakness. Can you show where you come up with that ?
Love is a feeling that is built on trust, understanding and honesty.
Where do you see that it is a weakness? The only weakness is from those who use love to try and fool others into believing that they are loved while only decieving them and manipulating them to gain control for ones own purposes.
Love is a feeling that is built on trust, understanding and honesty.
Where do you see that it is a weakness? The only weakness is from those who use love to try and fool others into believing that they are loved while only decieving them and manipulating them to gain control for ones own purposes.