[Locked] 'You're very sweet'

Actually, it's reality. I'm sorry that you don't live in reality but a relationship is often between two people and two people can yes, in fact abuse each other. Acknowledging the other's abusive tendencies will at least make for open and clear dialogue.

And what's chauvinistic about acknowledging a female's advantages? Uh, Hello?

I acknowledged the female's superiority, not the other way around. You've proven the American Education system is now so terrible that basic comprehension is out of the reach of many.



I feel pity about our future prospects

lol and the question is conveniently dodged

Not american, and even if I might have used the word chauvinistic wrong in this case I have had discussions about gender with you before, so I'll stand by it.

You build up this victimizing image of where a (needy, since you claimed that most women want men either as financial or emotional support.**) woman manipulates men, as if women "collected" men and put them in their "friendzone" to bring them out when they want to "wine and dine". You essentialy claim that a woman who enjoys the company of, but don't want to sleep with, a man is "abusing" them. You also seem to claim that only men suffer from unrequited love, aka. the "firendzone".

Do you realize how retarded that sounds?

I also expected you to put up more of an argument than go directly to bickering about semantics.

**Cutting it close here, but seeing as "emotional support" can mean a lot of things I will assume that you mean that the woman wants to rely on the man to help her with her problems.

You're wrong to claim that it's a victimizing image. You're also wrong when you(Yes, YOU were the one that made the claim, I never insofar as wrote) claimed that I ever held the position that only men suffer from unrequited love.

The only two things you got correct was the emotional support and that yes Most women would monopolize "guy friends"

To the contrary, it is the woman(and I'll even assume you are one) who cannot acknowledge the 21st century reality of her position, because to do so would be to fundamentally change the discussion from the age old social inequality that is no longer there, or more aptly the shift that has occurred to the other side of the spectrum.

A guy, on the other hand does not ask for favors from the unrequited women. They may be co workers, etc or whatever their situation implies but if a man is not interested he is flatly not interested.

If you are a woman, and you ask a guy. You'll know the answer fairly quickly, the "friend zone" does not exist for a woman. Or rather, its drawbacks don't exist for women.

The guy on the other hand, he is compelled by both his natural urges to continue to court the woman(as well as a woman's own initiatives by giving such soft praise) to continue to keep the pathetic chump in her corner.

If I'm being chauvinistic, I'm doing so against my own gender(or the pathetic half of it anyway) who lets themselves get caught up in the "friend zone", instead of simply and utterly moving on.

I've given you plenty to debate on, you've just chosen not to engage in it. I can lead a donkey to water but whether or not you drink it is a whole another manner entirely.

You did claim that the "friendzone" exists only as a way for women to keep men on the reel, and that men are not even capable of doing the same. The "friendzone" usually means being regarded as a friend, without any romantic feelings directed towards you. You were the one that claimed that the "firendzone" is used by females and females alone.

You must know that "if a man is not interested he is flatly no interested" is utter bull. Have you not even once been interested in a woman without being head over heels? Ready for marriage?

There is very much a gray area when it comes to relationships.

Calling me out on missuisng a word and complaining about an educational system I'm not even part of is hardly what I call "plenty to debate on" if we don't want to stray off this topic completely.

I've explained my philosophy on romantic interactions very clearly, and is that not what we're debating? You accused me of being chauvinistic against females, when I never have. From defending the position of the Sacred Feminine, to even stating a female's 21st century advantages in the dating realm. I've argued for a woman's superiority.

And all I ever argued, was for the feminine to remain feminine. Instead of its current self destructive behavior that IMO is partially to blame for the increasing divorce rates across the country.

If we're to be real specific, it is of course natural for a guy to be friends with a female with non sexual intentions. However, does the guy use this to his monetary or social advantage? Hell, he can't for that very usage is what would be defined as chauvinistic.

Of course I have been interested in women, but I am saying in the hypothetical that if a female were to ask a male, and if the male were to say 'no', that no is a very flat no.

For a male, in society a girl friend is a girl he is dating. There's no versatility involved for the guy. Unlike the girl who can access a male's social, psychological and economic power as long as she makes herself even slightly available.

TLDR, in a nut shell is that versatility exists for females in the dating game. It does not for men. The 'versatility' for men is called cheating.

It's not victimization for me to non objectively observe the dating field and recognizing that men can and in fact do get screwed.(Hey, so too can women if that makes you feel better)

Men are just gonna have to recognize what situations to get themselves in and out of. Recognizing they deal with more land mines than women do.

Sorry, reported. I'm not letting this "sacred feminine" bullshit go on again. It's your own belief LA, not fact. btw I'm not responding.

Clearly and clearly, now that's for me to decide, right? I did accuse you of being chauvinistic and I've also admitted to being wrong. You're sexist, not chauvinistic. My bad, I'll blame the language barrier. (Even if I would argue that your "Sacred Feminine" is chauvinism as well as sexism at its core, but that's a discussion for another time. It would also be about semantics more than anything else.)

The notion that a man can't(or rather, wouldn't) use his sexuality and string the ladies along for social or monetary advantage baffles me. Ever heard of Casanova?
This probably stems from some kind of male-dominance idea that a man is almost always more capable of bringing home the dough than a woman, and this has only been true because of the social patriarchy in society.

The versatility that exists for women absolutely exists for men, even if it might not be as "commonly used"(as exposed in media),

A "no" from a man is no more absolute than a "no" from a woman. It is victimization to claim that a woman can manipulate men more than men can manipulate women and that women will "put men in the friendzone" in a way that men don't.

Edit: aws, reported. Let's see how this pans out. I was hoping for pointless bickering to pass time.

I pray you're not on your college's debate team. You simply cannot "report" or ignore, or diffuse an opinion that is different from yours. Debate is had entirely through discussion. I can tolerate many things, but I cannot tolerate foolishness.

How can you say "You're not responding", yet post? In addition, I mentioned the words Sacred Feminine all of ONCE. Once, it was a part of a larger post.

Your own hubris and pride in your ineptitude is wholly laughable if not frustrating.



Actually, a "no" from a man is more absolute than a "no" from a woman. Men are egocentric, they view the world from a first person perspective and from that perspective alone. When a man rejects a female, he is rejecting not only the woman,he rejects the very basis of the possibility of their being together.

A male, in his ego and in the confidence of himself is like a director who organizes the actors along the lines he would want to for a play. A male who is socially upright looks at the female as the most important component.

Not any old female would do, perhaps the same can be said for a female but as I said earlier: The versatility doesn't exist for a male, the only advantage a male has, is in his own self awareness of himself and his own self value.

Perhaps for a time, in the older ages it was possible to be a womanizer. And there certainly are men who do cheat in today's day and age but there's a stigma against it(and there was an even harsher stigma in the early 20th century. Along with the Sacred Feminine, there was also the gentlemanly concept and a male who couldn't
fit along those lines were shunned by both genders)

If I were to try to court a woman via money, sexual favors, etc. You'd call me sexist or chauvinistic. It is NOT sexist or chauvinistic to uphold a woman's utmost and her greatest values.

The proof of the social degeneration of both males and females is that I'm sure 30 or so years ago, my desire for the utmost elevation of the feminine female would've been praised. Not scorned.

Okay I hate myself for letting you win but I can't pass up this opportunity to show how stupid you are.

Firstly, I'm not in college. I live in the real world with my own apartment and everything. Something you can't comprehend because you are in college. You've stated as much. Goes to show how much you assume things.

Secondly, when I said "I'm not responding," I meant that anything further you had to say, I wasn't going to respond to. I know I'm a hypocrite for writing this reply. If I had added "to anything further" we wouldn't be having this discussion. But I guess it was wishful thinking to think you could read into context. So, now I won't be replying to anything further. Clear enough for you, Einstein?

I didn't know getting a degree doesn't correlate to the "real world", but I regress this is pure semantics at best. As proof: How can I read into 'context' that's clearly not there?

I'm tired of this though, it gets annoying arguing when a point can't come across. As you say, let's put an end to it.

Do you see how deviated this thread has become now? Of course it's grounds enough to report it. Hell, every thread you post bullshit in should get reported immediately.

You don't even know the meaning of 'deviation'. "The act of turning away"

I haven't deviated from the topic at hand, the OP posted about his problem and I went into great detail regarding his problem and why it occurred. You disagree, so you call it deviation on that basis alone, it isn't even a 'basis'.

The reason the school system exists, grades 1-12 and college is that all subject matter is subject to improvement and new knowledge is formed with each passing grade.

Science itself is an evolutionary process, life itself is an evolutionary process.

Those who support a linear discussion, and opposes those who disagree with you because they diverge from the linear discussion are insects to me.

You can barely comprehend even the linear discussion, attempting to engage in a high level discussion would no doubt lead to confrontation. Nevertheless, it angers me like nothing else could anger me.

Our difference in knowledge is not what angers me, what angers me is that knowing that you in your ignorance still have the gall to talk back to me.

Not that you're "right", if it were a matter of that I could accept it. But I've refuted everything your crowd has said towards me but somehow you still cannot listen. I'm beating my head against the proverbial brick wall.

Even now, you'll still somehow justify that I've "diverged" from the topic when I haven't. Can you understand how that angers me?

Now we're starting to get completely off-topic.




However, I will simply repeat myself with the fact that a mans "no" means no more than a womans "no". Men are not stone-faced statues that are never subject to change. Any man can easily turn down a woman one second and pursue her the next. It might not be the social (1920's standard) convention that a man can change his mind about anything, but I would argue that he can.

It is very much possible to be a womanizer in todays society. It's not even that hard, I do not know what the name of the female equivalent would be, but that is also obviously possible. The problem with the cheating-stigma from the early 20's century is that at that point in time the woman could not be held responsible for cheating since she was nothing more than property. And men who slept with someone elses wife would be accused of stealing the property of the husband rather than any act of infidelity, if he wasn't married himself ofc. I think we might have already had this conversation once, it feels like it.

Why would I call you anything for courting a woman the way you'd like? But I do call you sexist when you say that men can't court a woman for material gain and at the same time claim that most women are only interested in men for monetary or emotional gain.

It's not a "1920's standard", it is a basic social eco feature of the male species(not only in Humanity but in all animals, you see the male counterpart take a first person oriented approach to life). Most men, in dating will see a woman that they like, target that woman and pursue her. The mentally healthy guy, when a woman refuses is quite capable of(and very easily) will forgo the vision of that female and move on as he searches for that perfect picture fit.

I find it interesting that you argue against the early 20th century stigma on the account that the female isn't held to the same stigma. Shouldn't that make you happy? And in this era of open sexuality, if there's one thing you would've wanted to carry over wouldn't it be that? It's called a double standard(and once again a positive outcome for females. Hey, I'm not complaining. I'm pointing it out)

Or, is your argument that said stigma focused on the idea of women being 'property' and not on the account of infidelity? Well, let's see here: Between the marriage licence, between sharing a home. Between sharing parental responsibilities(do you really want me to go on here?)

What do you think the romantic term 'item' came from? Romance, in it's purest form is a merger of two consensual beings. The act of infidelity is to separate a bond between two people, so believe me in that someone who commits constant acts of infidelity would probably be looked down upon.

And interestingly enough, we're not all that different

Men have went through hoops in the 21st century and we will continue to do so. That's just the kind of guys we are.

This college essay notes in its study that men are more likely to report instances of cheating than women

It's generally split, but at least half of men wouldn't look at their EX.

It's a theological debate, I will admit that my testimony comes from the perspective of an Alpha Male(myself). If I turned you down, you can be rest assured I wouldn't look at you again. If I did, it would be perhaps because I missed something. But a woman is a part of the grand scheming plan called "my life".

It's not an easy choice to make. And I despise the world we live in, which has trivialized love, sex, relationships to be something you can throw away. This mindset has allowed Infidelity to go on the rise

There've been times where this trivial mindset has infested itself into my mind. I'm 21 years old after all, and I'd like that same experience as everyone else. But if that experience is just with anyone, that would diminish it.

Why would I like women being elevated above blame for cheating? Or by these old standards, being deemed so inferior they can't be held responsible for their own actions? Both of these scenarios are completely retarded.
You think that in this "era of open sexuality" I would like for women to be unblamable for infidelity? You really think I'm some militant feminist don't you?

I might not have a problem with sleeping around when not in a relationship, or if sleeping around is something that has been established as a go from both parts of the relationship, but "infidelity" does mean breaking someone elses trust, and that's obv. not ok.

You talk about trivializing love, sex and relationship as if any of these are something sacred, and I guess I'll have to respect your opinion on this. I don't agree though, "love" (as it now exists) is not a criteria for sex or being in a relationship, and sex is not a product of love. Sex is a product of lust, which is something completely different.

I will also just take this moment to mention that I'm 100% straight male, as I'm getting the vibe that you're thinking something different.

I thought you were a female based on your insistence on defending your position, and that's a fault on my end, my apologies. However, in the end you've come to recognize what I'm saying(in your own way). By saying "Love, as it now exists." means that Love at one point actually had value.

Don't you realize what we're missing as males? What humanity itself is missing.....
You're supposed to lust over the one person you love the most. Love is the embodiment of desire and love is the fulfillment of desire.

Sure, I can be platonic and I could with a prospective partner take strolls across the beach, honeymoon's, dates, etc. But all of that is irrelevant without true genuine passion for the other person.

We live in a society that makes that genuine passion impossible

The chain reaction is if love is seen as Chauvinistic, then as males our only option is to assimilate and embrace open sexuality. Yet, we're crucified for even doing that.

So how does a male fit into a feminist's viewpoint? We don't. We're weakened and the only difference between the radical and the "normal" or "conservative" feminist is the willingness to admit the end game: Subjugation of males.

I merely contend this self destructive behavior will consume females and thereby the entirety of humanity.