For most people that statement creates a positive and absolute emotional response as it should, but does applying logic to womanbeating mean betraying yourself and human protocol?

Here's what it's like. I was at my ex-girlfriend's (we'll call her Karen) birthday party yesterday. She had been my ex for about 4 years. There was me, her, her boyfriend (Mark) whom she'd been dating for 3 years or so, and a bunch of friends.

Everyone was having a blast until about 11:00. Out of the corner of my eye I saw Mark and Karen fighting and I got a vague impression that he hit her (I was drunk and a bit high). Then all the guy witnesses, myself included, went over and broke it up. Mark's cousin mentioned, "I lost all respect for him now. You just don't hit a woman"

Mark was pissed off. "You've never seen all the times she had been smacking me around."

After taking everything into consideration, I find myself in an uncomfortable place. From what I know, they'd been fighting for a while now. And I know Mark, despite his upbringing, is not a guy who hits women. They'd been in many fights and if anybody did the hitting, it was her hitting him.

After that, she was a basketcase, crying, saying, "It's not his fault, I provoked him."

This time, he open-handed her and people saw it. Didn't even leave a mark. If he actually wanted to hurt her, he could have. That doesn't justify anything. Personally, I would never hit a woman unless I had to.

The point is, looking and understanding the situation in a completely logical way sort of dissolves the cognitive dissonance created out of what Mark did. If a woman hits a man in the face and then that man hits the woman back with an equal amount of pressure and intensity, it's a huge deal. It's emotions. It's just something we have to live with. I'm not a bad person.

It's a huge deal. There's no reason to hit a girl, ever.

does applying logic to womanbeating mean betraying yourself and human protocol?

I don't think you can apply logic to it.

It is a huge deal. There's no reason to hit a girl, ever.


Sure there is - like when she deserves it.

Seriously, when a woman needs hit, you hit her, just like when a child needs hit. It's good for the woman.

It's a huge deal. There's no reason to hit a girl, ever.

El Wrongo.

What about self-defense?

It's a huge deal. There's no reason to hit a girl, ever.Not to burst your bubble, but why should your logic apply to females and not males?

:confused:
What if she refuses to have sex with you?

oh then you have to slap the bitch

I'm wondering how I should deal with this. This is a good friend on mine who was hit by another good friend on mine. Should I encourage her to break up with him? It abhors me to see someone I care about engaged in an abusive relationship. I'm.. uh. Don't know.

If your relationship is resorting to physical violence on either side I think it's time you sat down and reevaluated the situation. Violence has never helped a situation, and if your with someone who isn't smart enough to understand that, man or women, I'd start looking for someone new.

We're not dealing with rational people. They know violence doesn't help anything, but both of them are very high-strung reactive types. Very prone to getting caught up in the heat of situations. They should get new partners, but they still love each other a lot and share a lot of history.

Let's hear it from the women. Wo sind sie?

when I broke up with my last long term girlfriend (relationship of 11 months) because we were arguing too much (and I realised she was bitter and nasty), she got upset and whipped me on the shoulder with her metal watch (band).
It hurt, and I said "your going to have to leave" (my house). I never hit her.

Just goes to show its not always the guys who do the bad shit.

It's a huge deal. There's no reason to hit a girl, ever.

What the hell is that? We are in the intelligence forums.

The following are not allowed:

- Argumentum ad misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
- Argumentum ad numerum (Appealing to the Majority)
- Argumentum ad populum (Appealing to the Gallery)
- Audiatur et altera pars (Arguing from unstated assumptions)
- Circulus in demonstrando (circular reasoning)
- Petitio principii (Begging the question)

What about self-defense?

I consider self-defense blocking a right hook with your forearm. Why would you ever need to hit her?

Not to burst your bubble, but why should your logic apply to females and not males?

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)

Hitting a girl is almost always the opposite of love and affection. For a girl, it can sometimes be the only way to show her teeth, as guys are generally stronger and louder and more capable of dominating(edit to add: physically). It keeps them on a level playing field with mutual respect; the guy never does it, the girl does it as little as possible kind of like an extra consitutional right and they keep eachother in line this way.

The following are not allowed

And I suppose threads like this one: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35201 belong on 'intelligence forums'.

Don't fool yourself.

Weezer - Getchoo::

This is beginning to hurt
This is beginning to be serious
It used to be a game
Now it's a crying shame
Cos you don't wanna play around no more

Sometimes I push too hard
Sometimes you fall and skin your knee
I never meant to do
All that I've done to you
Please baby say it's not too late

Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, getchoo, getchoo, uh-huh

You know this is breaking me up
You think that I'm some kind of freak, uh-huh
But if you'd come back to me
Then you would surely see
That I'm just fooling around

Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, getchoo, getchoo, uh-huh

I can't believe (I can't believe)
What you've done to me
What I did do them (What I did do them)
You've done to me

Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, uh-huh
Getchoo, getchoo, getchoo, uh-huh

This is beginning to hurt
This is beginning to hurt
This is beginning to hurt
This is beginning to hurt
Yup he crossed the line, realizes it and now he's screwed. Words of experience from a talented songwriter

A woman's perspective.
I do not believe anyone has the right to hit someone else because they are angry.
In the past I have hit my husband and while he may have really pissed me off, disrespected me and breached our trust I still should not have hit him. When the dust settled and I had time to think about it, I realized that had he hit me back the first time I hit him, I probably would never have done it again. Unfortunately for him, he didn't. (I don't do that anymore)
I honestly believe if a woman hits you first, you have the right to hit her back as long as it's not a full on, with all your strength hit. I know two wrongs don't make a right but it may send a message. I think women in general have learned via the woman's lib movement that they have the right to do what they want and I disagree. Being a woman does not make you entitled to anything, if you want respect, earn it.

Lesa :cool:

And I suppose threads like this one: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35201 belong on 'intelligence forums'.

Don't fool yourself.

Free Thoughts, the title says.

Nice try though. Almost worked.

Doesn't matter. Its still a dumbass thread.

Its funny how you're resorting to argumentum ad hominem(the no-no you forgot to include), which I wouldn't mind so much had you actually disagreed with me.

You just don't hit a woman ever, no matter what. If they attack you i think its ok to block them, or hold down their arms, but i don't think i could live with myself if i ever hit a female. Its just not on.

I don't think it's a dumbass thread at all. I think it is an important issue around the world. I also think that if someone hits you (regardless of gender), you should just try to walk away from the situation and if the person comes after you, then only hit back in self-defense. Both your ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend (before he gets on the wrong track and starts to think hitting is okay no matter what) should get some sort of counseling for anger management. My nephew had quite a temper and went to see a counselor, and boy did that do wonders. The counselor taught him many ways to control himself before has anger got out of control. It does not work for everyone, but your ex and her boyfriend seem younger and I think the younger you are, the better your chances are at breaking a potentially-future-threatening cycle.

argumentum ad hominem(the no-no you forgot to include)
Actually, it's not ad hominem, it's a categorical argument. Besides, you're using a red herring, AND making an ad hominem, Xerxes. SouthStar made a call on your logic (or lack of), then you retorted with an et tu mofo on a thread that hadn't anything to do with SouthStar's invalid logic.
Just my 2c.

Analbeads:
Xerxes wasn't calling this a dumbass thread, he was calling SouthStar's dumb.


On topic:
I don't think hitting a woman out of anger is ever a good idea. She may deserve it, she may be asking for it, but the courts and contemporary society won't see it that way.

Besides, what kind of man knocks around a woman?

Actually, it's not ad hominem, it's a categorical argument. Besides, you're using a red herring, AND making an ad hominem, Xerxes. SouthStar made a call on your logic (or lack of), then you retorted with an et tu mofo on a thread that hadn't anything to do with SouthStar's invalid logic.
Just my 2c.

Analbeads:
Xerxes wasn't calling this a dumbass thread, he was calling SouthStar's dumb.

Thanks man but I think I'll just drop it - no use.

Besides, what kind of man knocks around a woman?

Mike Tyson?

I wonder though, if you were raised up in a world where no one told you hitting a woman was bad you would probably not think twice if some woman provoked you well enough.

One of my earliest memories, maybe my earliest, certainly the most vivid of my early memories, is of being reprimanded by my grandmother for kicking my female cousin in the face after she bit me on the leg.
I was 5 or under at the time, hadn't been to school or even preschool.
I remember it so clearly because it was the first time in my life I was completely shocked by the way things were. Before this adults seemed to just inherently be correct about everything. But this time I knew they were wrong and I was right.
I was there, I had experienced a situation where the "never hit a girl no matter what" rule exhibitted its flaws.
I had every right to kick my cousin in the face, she was biting me, there was no alternative.

I've somewhat mellowed on my staunch "hitting girls is a-ok" stance since then. I can now see how it is bad for all involved if husbands beat on their wives, and how big men shouldn't go picking fights with women at bars.
However, I think the beating of strippers and prostitutes must be accepted by society if we are to flourish, and boys and girls should definately be on equal terms untill they are over 12.

Fair comment Lou. Kids belting each other at 8 years old i can live with that. Come to think, my older sister used to kick the crap out of me when i was a kid. The revenge i took on her was sweet though ;)

I've no problems with hitting/kicking a girl.
They can be just as mean and disgusting as men, thus I treat them like every other human being.
Having boobs don't make you divine-untouchable, at least in my company.

Actually, it's not ad hominem, it's a categorical argument. Besides, you're using a red herring, AND making an ad hominem, Xerxes. SouthStar made a call on your logic (or lack of), then you retorted with an et tu mofo on a thread that hadn't anything to do with SouthStar's invalid logic.
Just my 2c.

If it were an attack on my logic, I would've liked to know the logical flaws in my opinion. Or, while we're at it, lets dispose of all opinion on EM&J and write out our arguments with truth trees and hypothetical syllogism...

Seriously


I was there, I had experienced a situation where the "never hit a girl no matter what" rule exhibitted its flaws.
I had every right to kick my cousin in the face, she was biting me, there was no alternative.

Well, gender isn't really defined until puberty...so maybe you were right, but I guess they were just trying to help you form a natural inhibition against doing it. When you're older and pissed, its easy to forget that she isn't one of the guys...


I wonder though, if you were raised up in a world where no one told you hitting a woman was bad you would probably not think twice if some woman provoked you well enough.

Attacking someone weaker than yourself has always been considered disgraceful. Everywhere.

What about the Romans?
And I only use them as an example because I'm a fan.
What about every government thats ever existed? The police that go and arrest the wifebeater are technically attacking someone weaker than themselves.
In any interaction one party is bound to be weaker than the other.

The Romans?

So they built a few aqueducts, but it doesn't change the fact that they were disgraceful savages. Same with any authority that doesn't operate strictly on honour, but out of control. (any government really) The Roman empire was too spread out and suffered corruption

And technically, the police are acting out of defense for the wife.

And what you do if the woman turns out to be a martial artist and beats the crap out of you? Still won't fight her?
And it's more ok to fight with a weak man than with a weak woman?
Or is it still something to do with gender?

And what you do if the woman turns out to be a martial artist and beats the crap out of you? Still won't fight her?
And it's more ok to fight with a weak man than with a weak woman?
Or is it still something to do with gender?

You'll just have to take it like a man if she's a martial artist.

If you let the woman beat you, society scoffs at you.

If you beat the woman, society scoffs at you.

It's a win-win situation.

Good, because I don't give a damn about society. :m:
I'm not taking anything from anyone if I'm able to,
no matter what gender or what age the opponent is.

Again: As a rule, no.

I'd try to block her attack, or subdue her, but I wouldn't hit her.

And it's more ok to fight with a weak man than with a weak woman?

There are some guys I'd never fight. Retards for one. The elderly..

But I love wrestling and I'd never turn down a challenge from anyone, ANYONE as long as they consented, woman or man. One of the best people I ever wrestled was a girl. She had great technique. I could pull any move on her as long as it wasn't open handed groping and we had a mutual respect going.

This is the difference between fighting a woman and a man. When I wrestled her, it was nothing personal. I didn't even see her as a girl. But when a woman comes up to you and kicks you in the balls, you have to make the painful distinction that the respect between adversaries doesn't exist. You're playing into the womans hands and disgracing youself, so you have to walk away from it.

If a weak guy attacks me, unlike the girl, its almost always a territorial thing, or something of dominance so it becomes an attack on my manhood. I'll show him a some pain, but do my best not to hurt him. An example:

Once, I was in a situation where this guys friends were egging him to fight me. I told them I wasn't interested. I could see he didn't want to fight either, but eventually he cracked under the peer pressure. In a way, it was his friends attacking me. I did my best not to hurt him. But it was just one of those situations where I had to. This kind of thing hardly every happens across the genders because the differences between a girl and a guy are too apparent. And theres that whole sexual thing going too

In a funny way, the fact that he had testicles neccesitated it, even though he was as weak as a girl. As males, we had a bit of that 'respect between adversaries' that wouldn't have been possible with a girl of his same strength. I had to do it out of respect for him, and out of respect for myself. Its as old as humanity itself. Female wolves don't fight for dominance because they don't need to. Neither do humans

anyways, I'm off for the night, but I'll be pondering :m:

pfft, morals :rolleyes:
they just make one weaker (not physically of course)

What if chyna is wailing on your petite girlfriend really visciously and you simply can't restrain her without a degree of force which would be classed as kicking the shit out of her. Is that acceptable?
Also, what if you see a really ugly dirty homeless woman in the gutter and you laugh and then she spits on you and her spit has a foul odour and no one is around but you and her, surely stomping her deeper into the gutter is the only course of action?

Dr. Lou,

You forget: Chyna is and was never a woman or a member of any female species. :eek:

:) What the hell is that? We are in the intelligence forums.
The following are not allowed:
- Argumentum ad misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
- Argumentum ad numerum (Appealing to the Majority)
- Argumentum ad populum (Appealing to the Gallery)
- Audiatur et altera pars (Arguing from unstated assumptions)
- Circulus in demonstrando (circular reasoning)
- Petitio principii (Begging the question)
Did you miss your own approach, argumentum as nauseum? :)

Or, while we're at it, lets dispose of all opinion on EM&J and write out our arguments with truth trees and hypothetical syllogism.

Touche.

hey, why do we need to hit women, its not as if it hurts. i had a friend of mine punch me in the arm for 5 minutes until she was exhausted and gave up, i guess she didnt find my joke funny :p

hey, why do we need to hit women, its not as if it hurts
I'd like to see you retry that with one of the girls from our Taekwondo association.

I don't think it's a case of gender - it's a case of size and strength. Most girls are considerably weaker, but if some heffer decided to mug me she'd definatly get it. The same applies to men, if some 11 year old boy attacked me I wouldn't smack him up, just restrain him like a bitch.

On the whole though, I'm not very violent towards people and I think it very unlikely I'm ever going to be put in such a situation with a hefty bird mugging me.

I'd like to see you retry that with one of the girls from our Taekwondo association.

I was taking my yellow belt, I was a little ill at the time and my reactions were slow. The girl (equal grade) who was sparring with me kicked me right in the face. Not very hard, but just to show me up. Bitch. She was a top class ballet dancer though, quite quick and flexable. That's my excuse!

lol true, it's just the principle of not hitting a woman because she's a woman that makes me doubt human logic and sanity.
I agree, it is and should be about the size and strenght not gender.

i practise my martial arts with a chick in my class, shes only a green belt in taekwondo luckily :p, but it does hurt quite a bit when she hits me

Xerxes:

How you choose to defend yourself is irrelevant.

Me? I wouldn't hit a woman unless there was no other option.

Your stance: You refuse to accept that there may be no other option. You'd rather let a 200lb female kickboxer beat the living shit out of you before you throw in a punch or two.

Accept it. Your argument sucks. It's okay. We're all guilty of this. Repeat after me. "In some situations it's okay to hit a woman"

BlueUK:

I don't think it's a case of gender - it's a case of size and strength. Most girls are considerably weaker, but if some heffer decided to mug me she'd definatly get it. The same applies to men, if some 11 year old boy attacked me I wouldn't smack him up, just restrain him like a bitch.

Ideally, it should be a case of size and strength. But in the real world it absolutely is a case of gender.

There's something too familiar about a man hitting a woman. This is how it is and this is how it has always been. Now that it's considered uncouth to hit women, hitting a woman isn't just hitting a woman. It taps into the female body of pain caused by millions of years of mistreatment and discrimination.

Just ~15 thousand years ago it was matriarchy. Please don't overexaggerate.
p.s. previous abuse is not an excuse. just as it's not ok for jews to kill germans now.

Just ~15 thousand years ago it was matriarchy. Please don't overexaggerate.

There are always exceptions. Especially exceptionally tiny ones.

p.s. previous abuse is not an excuse. just as it's not ok for jews to kill germans now.

Did anyone say it was?

What if chyna is wailing on your petite girlfriend really visciously and you simply can't restrain her without a degree of force which would be classed as kicking the shit out of her. Is that acceptable?
Also, what if you see a really ugly dirty homeless woman in the gutter and you laugh and then she spits on you and her spit has a foul odour and no one is around but you and her, surely stomping her deeper into the gutter is the only course of action?

Chyna is a nice girl, she'd never try something like that. Assuming the one in a billion chance that she did, I would jump in, maybe throw a punch or two, divert the attack to myself and do my best to defend without hitting more than that. No reason to fuel her aggression.

For #2, I'd get as far away from gutterslut as possible.

On a side note, I would love to wrestle Chyna formally.

pfft, morals
Dude, it has nothing to do with morality

it's just the principle of not hitting a woman because she's a woman that makes me doubt human logic and sanity.

The only situation I'd consider going on the attack is a life and death one. If Chyna were on drugs and wanted to see me dead (miles away from help,) I'd have to.


Your stance: You refuse to accept that there may be no other option. You'd rather let a 200lb female kickboxer beat the living shit out of you before you throw in a punch or two.

Subduing works pretty well against anyone, and there are always people around to jump in and break it apart. But there are a few isolated situations when you have to defend by attacking, I'll give you that.

There are always exceptions. Especially exceptionally tiny ones.

Yup, I completely agree, but most of these exceptions are so tiny they don't even deserve acknowledgement. I mean.... what are the odds that my girlfriend* and I are going to run into a drugged up Chyna in some isolated forest?


You forget: Chyna is and was never a woman or a member of any female species.

Female species? You could say that to her face and she still wouldn't be offended cause it's so god damn stupid. If she has a vagina, she's a woman. More so than a guy with underdeveloped testicles is a male


(* I'm not with anyone at the time of this post... but it depends on the girl. If she were strong -as some girls are- I'd let her duke it out seeing as how I wouldn't want her interfering in my own fights)

Just like in any other situation there is a line between hitting someone and abusing them. Sure as a child i got smacked back in line a few times.. never abused. If a woman hits a man, he has every right to hit back. with the same rules applied. A child is punished by a good smack sometimes but a good parent doesnt hit their child to cause pain. they hit their child to stun them, and shut them up so they will listen. lol. Sometimes a good stun is necessary. Hitting simply for injury is not.

But there are a few isolated situations when you have to defend by attacking, I'll give you that.

And so there are also situations when it's necessary to attack women.

And so there are also situations when it's necessary to attack women.

Like when they don't stop screaming.

firstly i asume we are not taking about play fighting or sexual choices? after all what happens in bed is the choice of the people taking part. My GF likes to bite and get her hair pulled. thats not abuse thats just what turns her on


apart from that is it ok to push her if she came at you with a knife?

how about a club?

what if she was choking you?

what if she was beating the crap out of you?

what if she kept squeasing or kicking your balls?

i might be wrong but i take the same aproach to EVERYONE, guys AND girls. If they hit me with the intention of causing pain i will aply an equal oposite on them or at least enough to stop them (doubt i would ever go as far as killing someone unless i really had no choice)

is that not fair?
after all i am not a tank of a person who can just take whatever i get all day. Especaially not if its aimed at the nuts

i doubt my nuts work :(, they have taken so many beatings its not funny :p

The rules for biffing people make no distinction between male and female. Having said that a man who biffs a woman and who is not in defence of himself from a gun, a knife, a large piece of very heavy furniture being used to hit him over the head, is a prick and it not worthy of the term "man". He is a thoroughgoing arsehole. I have been on the receiving end of biffage from an ex-wife who at that time was a black belt (1st Dan) in tae-kwon-do and I can tell you it hurt, but even then I only used sufficient force to defend myself from major damage (and she was quite capable of doing so). But the thought of retalitation beyond defence was and is abhorrent.

oscarmitre : i have a question for you. If you recived the same from a guy what would you have done? I am asuming if she is a black belt she could do conciderable if not leathal harm and im asuming you didnt start it so in the same situation what would have done to a guy?

It's easy to say "proportional response" and in many jurisdictions that is the maximum response allowed. But that would be deliberately avoiding the intent of your question I suspect. Truthfully I would have used sufficient force to defend myself. Defending myself from a woman who was/is smaller than me but a skilled exponent of a martial art obviously needs more force than if she was smaller than me and had no martial arts skills. If it had been a man with the same martial arts skills then I would have had to use more force than if I were defending from a man who didn't have such skills but who was unarmed. Sounds a bit tricky I know but that's how it works in my mind. I had no qualms about defending myself, I was just conscious of the need for a proportionate response.

my view is as soon as ANYONE hits you they lose the right not to be asulted, i dont mean that cause someone hits me i beat them into a pulp but i will do anything needed to stop them. Gender isnt and shouldnt really be an issue. the fact that they are smaller just means they are probably faster. As a point of fact tho a women is probably more likly to cause more injury than a man is because guys "fight fair" where its ok for a girl to bite, kick you in the balls ect so you have more to fear from a girl. In the end it boils down to doing whatever is needed to stop the threat. I seriously doubt that you could calculate how hard to punch to take down each oponante in the heat of the moment, i am asuming what you mean is you go all out at the guy untill he is on the ground but why would you treat the women any differently?

Fair point - you should use sufficient force until you can either get away or you neutralise the force being used against you. You don't pummel them into a bloody mess on the ground (not that I'm suggesting you implied that). Gender is irrelevant because you should defend against whatever you are faced with (I have had a grandmother try and stick a knife in my guts for example) but gender obviously has a bearing on the person's physique, strength, ability to harm you and so on. Again proportionate response.

I've never hit a woman or girl in my life. I found that by just leaving a situation that could erupt in violence is much better to do than start hitting someone. If another woman were to hit me, i'd turn around and walk away or run, for the police usually think the guy is at fault in many instances and therefore I'd be in deep shit if I were to stick around and beat the attacking lady up.

i am highly suspiouse of people who say they have NEVER been in a situation where they had to fight. i grew up with 2 sisters and they had no quarms about fighting when the occasion suited them and were quite capable of causing as much pain as i am.

Xerxes:
It's a huge deal. There's no reason to hit a girl, ever.

I consider self-defense blocking a right hook with your forearm. Why would you ever need to hit her?

*Blah and blah*

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)

Hitting a girl is almost always the opposite of love and affection. For a girl, it can sometimes be the only way to show her teeth, as guys are generally stronger and louder and more capable of dominating(edit to add: physically). It keeps them on a level playing field with mutual respect; the guy never does it, the girl does it as little as possible kind of like an extra consitutional right and they keep eachother in line this way.

Puhfucking please, who does your thinking? Dr. Joyce or Miss Abby?

Most guys I know are pussies, bred by pussies and none of them can 'dominate' me.
Better- survey the male populace in these forums, they come off as Olson twins.

Men have beomce pussies, no matter the difference in physiology.
Yeah, so you're sitting there with 35% muscle to my 36% fat, say- this says nothing about being powerful as most of you are weaklings easily dominated by children.

For that matter, you're a worse mysogyhist than I am. You're only admitting how weak you find her by sugar coating your ethics towards her.

She slaps you, slap her the fuck back.
Wouldn't you if it was a male who slapped you ?
Here's the part where you will bring up the difference in strength or body structure between a male and a female- I won't hit her back because she was only showing me her teeth, her “extra constitutional right 'poor thing!

But you would retaliate against a scrawny male without thinking.
Empty logic, asshole.

Matrix:
Violence has never helped a situation, and if your with someone who isn't smart enough to understand that, man or women, I'd start looking for someone new.


All of you so .....bland, manicured, afraid, exhausted.
Violence never solves anything, my ass.

Coordinate peace and you get patronized and put up with, Ghandi style breeding nothing but spiritual weaklings.

Coordinate violence and build empires.

Cosmictraveler:
I've never hit a woman or girl in my life. I found that by just leaving a situation that could erupt in violence is much better to do than start hitting someone.
Would love to assault you endlessly and see what you'd do.
Run right?

I think it's time you sat down and reevaluated the situation. Violence has never helped a situation,

That's what they said during the Anschluss.
Kept saying that when Hitler invaded Czeckeslovakia, then Poland...

They were right about that, weren't they?

Weak fool.

gendanken:
Most guys I know are pussies, bred by pussies and none of them can 'dominate' me.
Better- survey the male populace in these forums, they come off as Olson twins.

They'd say differently.
Never say that they couldn't, just that they're too moral to try.
Won't ever risk failure, since they're good people, they don't want to hurt women, they respect women.

Love how that works out.

She slaps you, slap her the fuck back.

That's foreplay, not dominence.

Wouldn't you if it was a male who slapped you ?

No...no see I disagree here, they probably wouldn't.
They'd call the cops. They'd step back and be shocked, shocked!

They'd question the intellectual abilities of someone who needed to resort to violence. They'd pity his obviously abusive childhood. They might get him to seek help.

Last thing on their minds would be hitting back.

you know something

i would actually be shocked if a guy slaped me:p

now if he punched me thats different

oh and bye the bye living with sisters slaping is the last thing that ever came to there minds. GOD i wish i could have taken a pair of sisors to that girls nails.

Xev:
They'd say differently.
Never say that they couldn't, just that they're too moral to try.
Won't ever risk failure, since they're good people, they don't want to hurt women, they respect women.

"Try", an excellent qualifier and good point.

But dominance has less to do with the physical than the mental- and considering what we have here even those morally comatose would fail.
Terribly.

Which leads me back to axioms- none of them can dominate.
That's foreplay, not dominence
Hardly.

Sloppy sadists are foreplay.
No...no see I disagree here, they probably wouldn't.
They'd call the cops. They'd step back and be shocked, shocked!

They'd question the intellectual abilities of someone who needed to resort to violence. They'd pity his obviously abusive childhood. They might get him to seek help.

Last thing on their minds would be hitting back
True.

My point stands though- given a scrawny male and a female, their cute agruments of female physical inferiourity underlying their twisted misogyiny is fucky.

Asguard:
i would actually be shocked if a guy slaped me

now if he punched me thats different
How does either one depussify you?
Would you punch or slap back?

Or just posting here to get noticed?

nither actually. i was just saying that i would be shocked if a guy slaped as that is more the provance of girls. That wouldnt stop me punching him in the diaphram tho (i like punching there when i have to fight, one good punch and they are winded and they hickup at the same time which makes it had for them to get back up and fight)

Asguard:
nither actually. i was just saying that i would be shocked if a guy slaped as that is more the provance of girls. That wouldnt stop me punching him in the diaphram tho (i like punching there when i have to fight, one good punch and they are winded and they hickup at the same time which makes it had for them to get back up and fight)
Good point.

Which leads to a difference in experience- from your dribble, I take it you're young so not yet bled into that middle-aged mentality that makes living some kind of nursery.
The one punching back impulsively is usually the one ostracized for not having ‘matured’.

Anyway, given a little more time I think you might also end up like these office men, with their sentimental feelings and nuance and impotence.
Get back to me in 5 years.

gendanken:
But dominance has less to do with the physical than the mental- and considering what we have here even those morally comatose would fail.
Terribly.

Any man claiming to be chivalrous is more than capable of cruelty to a weaker female. More than capable, he is almost certain to be, if he can justify so being and if she is not capable of defending herself.

Tell any of the weaker sex's fearless defenders that a female is an outcast and a slut and they'll be more vicious than any misogynist would dream of being.

Hardly.

So I left out biting and hair pulling.

Sloppy sadists are foreplay

"Damned degenerates!" growled Conan
"It is all in the point of view," smiled Thalis lazily
-Robert Howard, "Xuthal of the Dusk"


My point stands though- given a scrawny male and a female, their cute agruments of female physical inferiourity underlying their twisted misogyiny is fucky.

Agreed, but funny as hell.

Most adults have little experience with violence and when they find themselves either as victims of it or as perpetrators of it are quite stunned when they realise what is actually happening. That's an empirical observation by the way, not a sweeping generalisation or a second-hand observation. And those who have little experience with violence frequently find they use far too much.

Wow! That makes so much sense, both grammatically and logically!

And those who have little experience with violence frequently find they use far too much.

Those who have little experience with violence are logically precluded from using too much violence, as using much violence would cause them to have much experience with violence.

It may hurt your cubic femtometers of brain tissue, but please do try to think these things out before typing them.

Asguard,
apart from that is it ok to push her if she came at you with a knife?

how about a club?

what if she was choking you?

what if she was beating the crap out of you?

what if she kept squeasing or kicking your balls?
If she came at you with a knife, its life and death. Don't hurt her any more than necessary to protect yourself from life threatening harm...or harm to the genetilia of course :) You don't have to let her beat the shit out of you, just don't piledrive her if even if you consider it 'equal or greater force'.

i might be wrong but i take the same aproach to EVERYONE, guys AND girls. If they hit me with the intention of causing pain i will aply an equal oposite on them or at least enough to stop them (doubt i would ever go as far as killing someone unless i really had no choice)

is that not fair?
after all i am not a tank of a person who can just take whatever i get all day. Especaially not if its aimed at the nuts
I disagree, but I could be just as wrong. You have to use your own judgement depending on the situation and what you can take, but the eye for an eye mentality? Come on man. There is no such thing as 'fair' unless you and your opponent have mutual respect for eachother (hate to use a cliche, but 'all's fair in love and war' eh?)

Gendanken,
Most guys I know are pussies, bred by pussies and none of them can 'dominate' me.
Better- survey the male populace in these forums, they come off as Olson twins.
Some women are like that. It has less to do with a womans personal strength, and more to do with her willingness. Maybe your guy friends are pussies, but your willingness to be dominated changes a whole lot during ovulation. (if you want, you can eat them alive afterwards ;).)

The psychology of a woman is innate and hardcoded. 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.

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? )

Men have beomce pussies, no matter the difference in physiology.
Yeah, so you're sitting there with 35% muscle to my 36% fat, say- this says nothing about being powerful as most of you are weaklings easily dominated by children.
Generally, yes. Thanks to modern medicine, babies that shouldn't have survived long after birth are now doing so. But I want you to know its the same mentality which causes so many guys to be pussies nowadays: 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.

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.

For that matter, you're a worse mysogyhist than I am. You're only admitting how weak you find her by sugar coating your ethics towards her.
You think? 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.

She slaps you, slap her the fuck back.
Wouldn't you if it was a male who slapped you ?
Like I said above, its a matter of judgement. With a guy I can usually tell right away what his reason was and if we have enough mutual respect to fight it out. They tend to be less capable of concealing their motives. (Like in ice hockey as an example)

Women on the other hand..damn. Takes a while longer to figure out not necessarily why she slapped me, but what it meant. Does she hate me? Is she turned on? A combination of reasons? And they're physiologically wired to keep it hidden. I can't relate. We're hardly ever on the same level to decide if the understanding is there enough for a physical fight to resolve the conflict even if she is capable of putting up a decent fight. Physical fights across the genders aren't natural. I hope that makes a little more sense.

Here's the part where you will bring up the difference in strength or body structure between a male and a female- I won't hit her back because she was only showing me her teeth, her “extra constitutional right 'poor thing!

I said it was like an extra constitutional right, which is a little different than asking them to ammend the consitution. To be more clear: Women shouldn't have any more rights than men. A man should control his urge to retaliate against a woman because its what makes him a man. A reaffirmation between the two of you of an invisible boundary. 9 times out of ten she won't go for a second hit unless she's a real dyke.

Xev,
That's what they said during the Anschluss.
Kept saying that when Hitler invaded Czeckeslovakia, then Poland...

They were right about that, weren't they?
yuk..rhetoric. It wasn't that 'they' actually believed the Nazi's had peaceful intentions--not all of them were that stupid. They were ill-prepared to take any action and didn't want to admit it to the people. If 'they' had the resources they would've crushed the Nazi's in a heartbeat.

do you have sisters?

i ask because its more likly that you would have gotten into more physical fights with siblings than people you are dating

have you ever had a girl dig her nails into the sensitive parts of you? not just the balls but things like the neck, arm pits under the arm ect are sensitive and i can tell you after that happens frequently the rule "no hittting girls" stops making sense. My sister can hurt more than my brother can (he genrally goes for headlocks when he fights and they dont cause pain). So yes i strike back and i do it probably more than the pain she causes so that she will think twice about doing it again. After all you cant just leave your family like you can a partener and you cant disarm someones nails but boy can they hurt when they are used as a weapon

If you can't hit a woman can you hit a child instead?

Wow! That makes so much sense, both grammatically and logically!



Those who have little experience with violence are logically precluded from using too much violence, as using much violence would cause them to have much experience with violence.

It may hurt your cubic femtometers of brain tissue, but please do try to think these things out before typing them.

Does it make you feel superior to use an insulting tone rather than just making your point?

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.

The use of violence is natural. We're all capable of doing it. We don't need to be taught to do it. Watch toddlers playing with each other. If one grabs a particulary treasured toy or item that another wants then it's on for young and old - well in this example it's mainly on for the young. They will use such violence that an adult has to intervene.

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.

oscarmitre ........

You'll get use to Xev sooner or later, she likes to irritate people to get a rise out of them, don't ya Xev.

And its a scientific fact that the y chromosome is slowly dying out.

Give me a link

Men aren't built like they used to be- that 35% muscle? Its turning into fat.

Environment and society. I know it's not as interesting as the notion that men are becoming women, but the reason we're so fat is because of lack of exercise and good diet (myself excluded).

Everything has changed except ourselves.

Oscarmitre,
I understood what you were saying, and it made much sense. Too bad Xev can't be as bright as us, huh?


To the Rest,
Equality between gender and logic tells us that we should hit women without making an exception based upon their gender, right?
But ideology's a shit poor way to live life. First, encourages consistancy, which is never fun. Second, if I hit every bitch that deserved it, I'd be in serious trouble. If I hit everyone who deserved it, I'd be in trouble.

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

[QUOTE=Roman]
Second, if I hit every bitch that deserved it, I'd be in serious trouble. If I hit everyone who deserved it, I'd be in trouble.
QUOTE]

theres the point i have been trying to make the whole time
it shouldnt be about gender at all, wether they are male, female or an hamaphradite is iralivent. You just dont atack people at ALL because they "deserve it" but if they atack you then fighting back is perfectly acceptable

Nobody deserves to get hit ! Man, women, child or an Alien from Ork
.....unless it is a threat, then there could be justification

P.S - Why does every thread end with some ridiculous comment like, this thread is stupid ? or ridiculing the point of the thread Why bother making a comment
(oh crap, I just did the same thing)

Thanks for the heads up cosmictraveler - I'm not usually so thin-skinned but I admit it gave me the shits.

Gambit Star I'm using one of the officially approved alternatives for ending a thread. Despite that I have no doubt that someone will feel compelled to comment :D

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.
[quote]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:
[quote]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.

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, my impotent friend,
haha, you have no idea. I have trouble keeping it down! :D

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 :)

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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