As Njord said, we love them.
I love them while realizing that women are profoundly different from men. Our brains are wired differently, our bodies are different, and our behavior is different.
Generally speaking, neither men nor women like men who act like women, and men don’t like women who behave like men.
Saying women are incapable of logic and are irrational is no different than saying they are morons who relate to the world on the same level as animals.
Well, I don’t think that.
After I posted that I thought it might seem I was accusing you of that. I was referring to comments that have been made on this thread although, to be fair, I’m not sure how much posters are exaggerating or joking.
I do agree that generally men and women think and reason differently and it’s probably due to biology more than culture. But there are plenty of men who are irrational and are governed by their emotions.
And this is why we love them. I already have myself.
No, it suggests they interact with the world differently. Usually from an emotional approach as the lead.
Animals, however, are more intelligent and emotionally involved than you’re likely giving them credit for. Domesticated animals anyways.
Not as intelligent as humans though. A dog can be about as intelligent as a 3-4 y/o.
Girls have cooties! @zecarlo
That is why as MEN… we must stay away from WOMEN!
Cooties are contagious, cooties can KILL!
Plenty of men do as well.
I think you’ll find an obvious tilt between genders.
As an aside, this is such an interesting thread for me juxtaposed to the bud light discussion. It appears many of you are much more open to gender fluidity than it would seem when theres an obvious trans bow buttoning things up. Reminds me of The Scarlet Letter.
Yeah. In human terms. Lose a microchipped 3-4 year old out in a forest and they won’t be showing up alive in a vets office years later after a country tour, however.
In any case, they’re also not the purely instinctual, non-feeling, ritually impure creatures Grool likely sees them as while comparing them to sexually liberated women based on his shared background insights.
Neither belong in a kennel or six feet behind their masters under the guise of purity and conservatism.
I don’t think you know what gender fluidity means. You also appear to be like a teenage girl with your attempt to instigate.
I know exactly what means and find it interesting you’re willing to make allowances along a spectrum, but only to a certain personal point where it’s too much. More observation across multiple conversations than instigation.
The problem with your thinking is that people - women, men - fall in various places on a variety of spectrums. These include intelligence and masculinity/femininity, as well traits less interesting for the purposes of this conversation, e.g. tidiness or humor.
You seem, for example, more rousable than me. Your first post to me was meant to degrade, though you walked back in closing. Rousable = emotional.
Not every girl is pretty and feminine. Not every man is a strong, benevolent ruler. I’m in a relationship with a masculine man and am a feminine woman, but our relationship is egalitarian. Why not? We each have strengths and weaknesses. Do I love that he can flip me around in bed? Yes. But I also love that my work and life satisfaction are prioritized along with his. I believe we see each other as strong and capable mates, to the benefit of us both. We also see each other as funny and enjoyable to be around. He’s my best friend, and I know I’m his.
Ugly or masculine girls and wimpy, femme men are people deserving of all the happiness they are capable of building. Why do you care? Find a girl who feels as you do and who isn’t very bright and dominate away. Why would anyone care?
I do realize that people fall on a variety of spectrums, hence my post to Zecarlo while he waffles between affirmed gender and flexible interpretation depending on the topic thread. Another spectrum, or inconsistency in belief/thought?
My post to you was similar. You have directly stated that “overly sexed” people are damaged, and having sex due to emotional damage was the implication. Yet, you also expressed disdain for sexual purity with an equal accusatory tone. A spectrum of sexual permissiveness exists, my question to you was what and how do you define health given the strong opinions presented almost as objective fact from a counselor?
In both cases I was being purely objective in reconciling observations, but I also recognize your attempt to spin, manipulate and illogically accuse me of emotional reaction. All traits I would suggest belong predominantly on the female side of the spectrum. With the added suggestion I find a dumb, unmotivated woman.
Can you please reconcile sex and intelligence? Submissiveness or dominance and intelligence? Mutually exclusive or can there be overlapping spectrums?
Oh boy!
It’ll have to wait - I’m on the way to vacation, where we’ll be traveling by bicycle, so there won’t be car time for messing with posts and I’m not willing to spend “us” time online.
@Njord I’ll return to this later.
Editing to add that I’ve reviewed what each of us have said, and maybe so should you. Cheers!
I don’t think you know much of anything.
You really don’t know what gender fluidity means. It’s not about the spectrum of a particular gender but fluidity between genders. No one used the term when terms like tomboy were used. Nobody thought a tomboy believed she was a boy. Self described tomboys didn’t think they were boys.
Were you and I discussing spectrums or was that Emily?
Just keeping context here, don’t melt.