doorik

This is followed immediately by three vast generalizations... First then, finally,

I just read this again and see that Corvidae is basically saying this: the burden of seduction, which is instinctual, has been placed on man by "nature" ( evolution) and the same goes for the woman's instinctual reaction which is to "play hard to get"... .....so that must mean that although we may want to try and change this behavior, our instincts will kick in and not allow us to change because this is not a behavior that can be altered...it is beyond our control. This however, has nothing to do with women wanting an equitable role as in this case there is no equality to be had. Men and women will respond differently to a situation ( dating, asking out) because of our instincts. No equality there, we are "wired" very differently. Our roles are very different.. period. So in a sense we can argue that nature is not fair--because it is nature ( not women) that has placed this burden on men. We can try to change our behavior (both men and women), but we are screwed because more than likely this is something that will not change as it is based on instinct. Be very careful about this line of argument Muneca, it is an extremely slippery slope you are treading on. Think about it, through millennia upon millennia we evolved in a way where males were the hunters/protectors/bread winners, while women gathered and tended to the family. If what you say is true, then women should instinctlively want to stay home while the men go out to work This is no longer applicable to modern society. Women stood up for and demanded equality. Now in no way am I comparing the huge leaps made for gender equality in the past century with Corvidae's post. However, I think Corvidae point is clear when he writes,

Great topic Corvidae 1-25 2-Male 3-Hmmm, asked out/approached 25-30ish 4-been asked out/approached 3 times

Pregnancy and all the other stuff isn't a red herring. Corvidae brought this all up in his original post. Hello Annie - Pleasure debating you - good mental exercise It is a Red Hearing in the context that you and Muneca used it. I believe that you wrote something about how women are at a disadvantage in the child rearing department because the ladies have to carry the child for 9 months, have back probs etc - Note that I completely agree with you about this and the other things you wrote about where women have a disadvantage. The problem is that it does not invalidate corvidae's post, where he states,

Something just clicked in head as I was writing my previous post. I remember reading that you are a PHD candidate in biochem? I believe it's biochem Annie?Alright I'll try using a biochem example (please forgive my rudimentary knowledge of Biochem-lol). So let's say Annie that you are arguing in your dissertation that a certain biological/chemical process is initiated by the formation of a, um, amino acid chain, protein or something. Let's say a colleague of yours disagrees because he or she believes an alternative Amino Acid or protein is the causal mechanism. You begin to debate and present your case/facts. So your colleague tries to demonsrate how your examples prove his or her mechanism while at tthe same time disproving yours. Would your case be made any stronger by saying that "well you went to Monkey's Eyebrow University, so your points are invalid (Argumentum ad hominem) or if you stated your amino acid chain, protein, or whatever is involed in a totally unrelated reaction/biological process (Red herring) - would that disprove your colleague's points?

Instead of writing a point that invalidates what I wrote you use logical fallicies that actually strengthen Corvidae's point of view. For example, The posts on Pregnancy, women in the middle east, work/earning disparity, and those loser frat boys are examples of Red herrings. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. Not That I am saying your points/observations are not true, they are, however, irrelevant to the topic/debate. The posts about " If you don't like it ,go get a sex change", and the "Why would anyone ask you out" are Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. They don't convince an impartial reader because the are, by definition, logical fallicies.

I enjoy debating this issue with you precisely because we disagree. What it all boils down to is my post where I wrote, All things being equal - let's say 1 guy and 1 girl are at the same class/education/career level, and are attractive to the same proportion of the opposite sex, and both decide not to ask anyone out, who do you think will have more dating opportunities?

Um, I know that you won't be happy with me for doing this again, but I will try to use your example to prove Corvidae's original post - again. If you apply your analogy/scenario to Corvidae's post, you are actually admitting that the ladies have the advantage. If what you wrote is true, then the fellas in your scenario would not have the opportunity to go to college at all because NO colleges are recruiting them. The ladies in your example will have a college education from, at the very least, Monkey's Eyebrow University (They specialize in Biology, anthropology, and evolution?), or City Dump College (umm, Urban Planning/Public Administration majors?), While the fellas will only have a highschool diploma - So yes, that gives the ladies an advantage. The "fellas" in this case are the college institutions. They are choosing who they send applications to. I'm not trying to suggest that men only get high school educations... I understand what you meant Annie. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not so I'll try to explain my analogy. In order for your example to be applicable, the colleges recruiting are the people asking out while the students are those being asked out. As Corvidae points out, very few ladies do the asking, hence the the fellas can't go to college(analogy is getting a date) because they have fewer opportunities/ no recruiters? Get it? Is my example too obtuse? I didn't think so because I used Annie's as the basis and it appears that Muneca got it.

I think you got it Muneca. This is exactly what Corvidae is writing about when he wrote,

@ Corvidae remember when I wrote Erm, Told. You. So

Um, I know that you won't be happy with me for doing this again, but I will try to use your example to prove Corvidae's original post - again. If you apply your analogy/scenario to Corvidae's post, you are actually admitting that the ladies have the advantage. If what you wrote is true, then the fellas in your scenario would not have the opportunity to go to college at all because NO colleges are recruiting them. The ladies in your example will have a college education from, at the very least, Monkey's Eyebrow University (They specialize in Biology, anthropology, and evolution?), or City Dump College (umm, Urban Planning/Public Administration majors?), While the fellas will only have a highschool diploma - So yes, that gives the ladies an advantage.

The controversy began with the post where I wrote: I'll try to use an example to demonstrate this point. When Annie24 wrote: I responded with, To which Annie24 responded with, - Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:40 pm One may come to the conclusion that Annie24 really felt this way on a consistant basis whenever fellas like Corvidae bring up points like he did with his original post. However, in another tread, Kyoshiro Ogari wrote in his "SICK OF IT ALL" post: Did Annie24 respond with - "I'm sick with this "WOE is me attitude" - go get a sex change!!!!? - Nope She responded with, - Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:12 pm Note the date and time this was posted. It was posted after the "I'm tired of the WOE is me attitude" post. Now using logic and reason, the sudden change in attitude is either one, a total reversal of point/stance/opinion on this subject or two, the "I'm tired of the WOE is me attitude" post was a reactionary one not based on logic and reason because I used Annie24's statements to prove Corvidae's point. I'll let you all decide....

wow looks like I messed up the quote function.....

Hmmm, Looks like I offended some people - for that I apologize. I meant when arguing about relationships/dating/the sexes etc. and not in general conversations etc, where logic and reason are used often. Let me put it this way. If Corvidae stated Men have it WAY easier when it comes to pregnancy/child rearing. Women have to carry the child for 9 months, have back problems, morning sickness, mood swings, risk of surgery etc. Do you think I would not agree? I would absolutely agree with what you wrote about pregnancy. Again, if corvidae wrote in his original post that women are at a disadvantage in the middle east as they are treated like second rate citizens who can't vote,have no rights etc... Do you think I would disagree? Moreover, if Corvidae wrote in his original post men have the advantage in the work place as they receive more pay for the same work. Do you think I would disagree? Of course not. The issue is that we are not talking about the disadvantages that women have when it comes to the issues you cited. I do not think there are many members here that would disagree with what you wrote above. The problem is that we are/were discussing Corvidae's double standard post and an almost absolute failure to acknowledge this one advantage the ladies have in the dating/relationship game.

@Corvidae No matter how well you articulate your thoughts, no matter how well thought out your arguments are, no matter how well you refute counter arguments, you will not get the ladies on this board or anywhere else for that matter, to admit they have an advantage in any aspect/facet of the dating game. Using logic and reason to argue with the ladies tend to get them angry.

Haha - so, so True

Your analogy makes no sense. What corvidae is writing about is a societal construct that CAN be changed. For example, Annie24 was thinking of chatting up a fella a a StarBucks. If you want to make a more proper analogy it would be "Men lose their hair, don't live as long etc. Women have to be pregnant for 9 months, get PMS etc. (I'm leaving out back pains because EVERYONE gets back pains). Also, Annie 24 you should give yourself a Barry Horowitz for considering chatting up that dood at your local StarBucks - Well done!!! Break down those societal contructs (a "Barry Horowitz" is when an individual pats himself or herself on the back. Named after a Wrestler in the 80s-90s who did it often).

Like I said, Eqaulity in some aspects of life, status quo for others...

Cordivae, Here's a quote from Andrew Sullivan's Blog that you may find interesting, "It takes one's breath away to watch feminist women at work. At the same time that they denounce traditional stereotypes they conform to them. If at the back of your sexist mind you think that women are emotional, you listen agape as professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT comes out with the threat that she will be sick if she has to hear too much of what she doesn't agree with. If you think women are suggestible, you hear it said that the mere suggestion of an innate inequality in women will keep them from stirring themselves to excel. While denouncing the feminine mystique, feminists behave as if they were devoted to it. They are women who assert their independence but still depend on men to keep women secure and comfortable while admiring their independence. Even in the gender-neutral society, men are expected by feminists to open doors for women. If men do not, they are intimidating women." - the inimitable Harvey Mansfield, in the Weekly Standard. The article can be found here, link removed Equality in some aspect of life (which I support), status quo for others...

Your statement proves Corvidae's point. No matter how many times we get rejected we are expected to go in for more. We simply do not have the luxary of the "oh well, asking girls out doesn't work for me so I'll stop doing it" mentallity - Well, unless our steady girlfriend is handrea or palmala... That said, many fellas feel that after asking countless girl after countless girl out on dates they have come to the conclusion that they have been brow-beaten into silence by constant rejection. Doh well.....

Best. Analogy. Ever

Be careful corvidae, you are inviting cliche responses with your post(love will come when you're not looking for it, don't take rejection personally, keep on trying, etc...)

Um, I don't want to say this but it sounds like a line to get more oral... It works because you will feel that you were the only one to be able to get him off (which of course, makes you feel good about yourself), and, more importantly to the guy, it get him more oral. He may have said this to girls in the past and is going with what works. Then again he may be completely honest, and you are a rockstar in the sack

If he's shy, probably nothing, no signs... If he is a close guy friend of yours, who you turn to for advise, comfort, companionship (non BF). If you complain incessantly about how bad guys are with the exception of him "of course", if he's always there for you when you need him, if you go out on date like activities that are not dates, then yeah I would say he likes you.

Well, a wise man once said "...confidence is a gift given by others. You can't be treated badly and feel good about yourself."