Do you think the statement, "All guys are inherantly psychos" is true or false? I define psycho as: A quality of the persons being which cannot be gotten rid of. A quality of the person which stresses madness.
I think it's misspelt. That makes annoying kid sisters psychos - ah, you could be onto something there. Define madness. A psycho (assuming we're not talking clinically) is someone that you can never tell which way they're going jump at any given time: but know that when they do nothing good will come of it.
Hmm. Yeah thats really the point of this thread.... I can't find much a reason to dismiss the idea. Other than that all males are psychos, which would mean all females are bitches which reverses the whole bitch and jerk/[insert insulting remark] commentary. If in point of fact, all females are bitches (said mockingly), all males are just as worse. It makes the name of the game at that point in time "why"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... Inherently. Better? Define madness. Ok. Madness is a quailty of the person being stressed. If it is being stressed then it is......... Well, mad. All males having quality of madness would mean that all males project a quality of being mad (it is a gender concer/issue). For example... A female, quite simply if refered to as a bitch (referenced last post), it is a concern of the gender. Perhaps all females are "insert remark". My opinion of what a psycho is is someone who would stop at nothing to continue his pursuit of what he believes is right and just in the name of god amen. In other words, a person who believes what he is doing is right even though it is. It is only not right, when the psycho with good intent (male) is projecting dishonesty. (ie. bitch/jerk).
Much. Being different from the norm? But is all madness a result of stress? Everyone has some stress in their lives. Everyone has some quality of madness. It's how much that counts. [quoteFor example... A female, quite simply if refered to as a bitch (referenced last post), it is a concern of the gender. Perhaps all females are "insert remark".[/quote] All females are female? And even that's not true. That's merely(?) someone who is extremely driven. In my view a psycho is someone not as stable as that. Oh, I just ate the last one. Sorry.
Ok. Perhaps irrational action? Irrational thought? Indeed... "everyone" does. We're refering more to gender characteristics I suppose. All females are female? And even that's not true.[/quote] Nah. I was meaning all females are (bitch, slut whatever you refer to them asPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Psycho would be someone unable to care for a non gender. Say that we are refering to a male subjected to a non gender sterotype. Clearly a male would know without doubt that his psychotic tendencies are being projected and would be forced to consider them. He would take his emotions thoughts well being and sex into consideration and knowing that he cannot preform is left without much of a choice [knowing that he is "mad"]. Nah. It's simply a matter of ideation.
Irrational by who's standards? Again: what standard? Are there any studies on gender/ "madness"? People, usually. Mostly when I use the word "bitch" is when with my lesbian friends -it's a term of endearment as often as not. And except for very rare occasions the only time I use the word slut is upon (implicit or explicit) request under *cough* certain circumstances. A non-gender? Psycho is a good word for a particular type of someone who doesn't care for anyone but themselves. I disagree: surely being a psych means that are incapable of knowing (or seeing) that you have tendencies. And definitely incapable of considering others. Then have five cookies and a coffee while I think some more.
Very defination of madness is irrational behavior. Very defination of madness is irrational behavior. Sure. I am conducting one now. It is wherein the individual expresses hatred for a race or sect or particular concept of individual(s) that desire to sexually fraud someone. IMO psych is one who cannot express the tendancies inherant in the masses. Then have five cookies and a coffee while I think some more.[/QUOTE] Surely. A toast.
Yep: but what is rational? To me drinking whiskey is irrational. To me preferring cars to motorcycles is irrational. There isn't a "standard" for rational. So you're mad if like Man U instead of Man City? Oh okay. "sexually fraud"? Yeah I can see that, but in that case I'm a psycho. Salut, mon brave! Confusion to our enemies!
I agree. But one would always repeate. The standard for madness is a behavior that is irrational. To put it plainly madness consists of an action or behavior that is non-norm, or not expected of the term norm. In which case the term norm becomes a qualifier for what constitutes mad behavior...:shrug: Yeah. I reckon..... All I mean here is that in the sense of psychotic, or a psychotic individual, being able to express the need to function sexually is inherently important.... It is for your own well being. Although, I reckon it is improper to qualify someone as having an improper quality of being. My point is only that if it is a male that is psychotic by nature having an essense to his very being which permiates his soul it would be difficult assessing how to approach the issue. Don't believe thatPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But the norm varies: therefore everyone can be considered mad from certain perspective. So celibates are psychos? Approach is always "risky". On any thing to do with people. But true nevertheless. Roughly: Cheers mate!
I guess. And yet I cannot see that perspective. All I am aware of of course is that for madness to exist... there must be a norm, otherwise all are mad. To justify a mad behavior take the issue underconsideration: Male is by nature psychotic. Has mad tendancies. If this is not true, that male is by nature psychotic, it is because it is mis worded. And yet clearly by nature male can be psychotic, and the reason is that it is steeped in his sexuality. His sexuality (I guess this is now a thread about genders)... is psychotic in that to preform with another gender or nother person he must have a quality that is considered here as "psychotic." Hmmmm...:shrug: Not true. We're all psychoticPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cheers.
No, there is no "norm": the social sciences (ha! I love saying that, always makes me laugh) now use the term "normative" because there is "norm" and no "normal". It depends entirely upon the view taken. Drinking coffee is a norm - in some places. Supporting Man U is a norm, etc etc. I could agree that males generally tend to relate less to people than women do: which is a feature of being a psycho. But "by nature psychotic"? Nah. QED. But I wasn't being that general Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
GAH. So there is no "normal"? I couldn't disagree more. Both sexes are similar. Males typically relate just as well, and yet they start to get really anxious around the females. It's a quid pro-quo, in that the "independant" male relates well with all.... see my point? OK.
No. There is no definable absolute "normal" for human beings. Similar, for some things. No, males don't relate to people the way women do. Male conversation (even between males only) is about things, female conversation is about people (speaking very generally).
I feel I have got the issue across that the male sexuality is psychotic and stuff. In essense male sexuality despite the fact that relational psychology tells us that male and female have seperate interests, i am speaking of an independance. Surely not impossible to have qualities of being independant. In such independance or without such independance male sexuality similar to female sexuality is psychotic (just in differing ways).
There's a tendency for males to see sex in terms of "things" i.e. the act itself and women to see it in terms of people i.e. who they're doing it with. But again, that's a generalisation.
Nope that was it for sex. Hope it was as good for you as it was for me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
