I believe I've had this thread coming for a while now

[Joe Wordsworth]

Luc, this must be a subcultural perspective of some sort that I can't comprehend.

You say that you throw all this bile against a gender in a reaction to what you've experienced and chonicled, or something like that. You talk of a norm of misgonist asshole floatsam, a vast majority of monsters. Believe me, I have searched, combed my memory of thousands of encounters, men from all levels of society and all cultures. I have so far found three, three that seems to match your criteria. And maybe another ten to twenty who did a good acting job hiding their true, ugly values, where it took some serious probing to expose them as the pricks they are.

They are turds, and yes, they stink up the pool. But they are not the water. Most men that I have gotten close enough to scan their motives just want one thing. To love and be loved, to find a kind, patient girl who smells nice and can tell them who the fuck they are. Because that is imperative to every male's psyche, I believe. We desperately need someone else to define us.

Thoughtful and ringing true, yet again, Liar.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Liar]

Mismused, I'm with you on all history points, except this one:

Anyone wishing to do a study of history need only look at how many wars there have been, and who started just about all of them.

That's just an illogical conclusion. People with the means to start wars (power, armies, money) have started all the wars. Historically, women have had very little means to start wars. If women had had equal opportunity, would they have started less wars than men? Or more? Or just as many? This we do not know and can only guess.

 

[rgraham666]

No nuclear strike from me Luc.

You stated your opinon, I stated mine.

And I still maintain that niceness is a secondary consideration. A man's financial standing, his ease with social endeavours and his 'normalcy' will be the deciding factors.

 

[TheEarl]

Appears I started a conversation with my perspective on 'nice guys' and will agree with Shanglan that as a rule, they actually tend to finish up in the good positions, once women have worked out where they are.

However, from my point of view, there is a large proportion of women around my age, who look for one thing and go and get another. It wasn't a whinge on my behalf (as I'm quite happy with my situation as it is), but more on the part of being the friend who has watched girls go out with some truly appalling people. I know one girl who was adored by a really nice guy, who she liked, but couldn't fancy. She ended up going out with someone who messed her about and screwed with her head for a while. I don't know if it's a Darwinistic imperative to seek out the fuckwits, but in the early 20s, it appears to be the rule.

I worry more for my female friends (most of whom are now with nice people thank god), than for myself.

The Earl

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[AppleBiter]

I don't know if it's a Darwinistic imperative to seek out the fuckwits, but in the early 20s, it appears to be the rule.

The Earl

Let me explain this to you as best I can, having dated some fuckwits before finding my husband. Here is a newsflash, in case no one has ever pointed it out: Fuckwits are good at manipulation!!! They don't come right out and tell the girl, "Hey, I'm a total bastard who plans to cheat on you and beat you. Wanna go out?" NO! It doesn't work that way. They are suave, charming, and they say all the right things. It may be obvious TO YOU that this guy is a dick, but he's not that way to her when they're alone.

(In the beginning) Some people think that the guy's an asshole, but the woman says to herself, "They don't know him like I do. I know the real him." It's not until he's got her hooked that he shows his true colors and by then, she already cares for him too much to want to let him go because she's still convinced that who he is being is not who he actually is deep, deep down. She thinks that if she would just stand by her man and stick it out, he would start showing her that "true him" that never existed in the first place.

And so, she holds on, indefinitely, while everyone around her says, "Leave him, honey!" That's why you'll see women on talk shows saying that classic line, "But I love him!" They're waiting for the return of the nice guy that they know he can be. So, you see, women are actually looking for decent men. It's not that we have a sign on our foreheads saying, "Beat me, rape me, cheat on me, take advantage of me and I'll love you for it all" and I guarantee you NO WOMAN sits up at night and dreams about Prince Fuckwit.

The women who seem to choose the asshole over the nice guy are doing so because the asshole has presented himself as a dick in geek's clothing, so to speak. (I'm partial to geeks. It's been my experience that they're almost always the true nice guys. I married one -- they're fabulous in bed! But, I digress.)

My point is, before you go around judging these women and talking about how heartless they are for never choosing the nice guy, I hope I've given you an alternate side to consider.

Best of Luck,

Apple

 

[cloudy]

I think you hit it pretty much on the head, Apple.

In my own situation, I've found that like the running joke that women change completely after they get married, the same happens with men.

They no longer have to do those little things for a woman that they did during the courtship. There's no need, they have her now. I could post a list a mile long of the little things my husband did before we were married, things that every woman loves to see/have/do. It stopped almost immediately after we got married.

Another nasty surprise that I didn't see until the ink was on the marriage certificate was his jealousy that grew out of his insecurity. Never even saw a hint of it.

It's not just women that change after marriage.

 

[Liar]

You just helped make some points for Luc on a part of what he says. To answer my own question as to why women haven't started more wars, or would they start less wars than men, well, we'll just never know, will we? And that reason is that all the gold, the swords (oops! rifles, etc.), and men to start armies . . ., Uh, men? You mean men WON'T fight at a woman's behest? Hmm! Well, they fight OVER women, don't they? Why not for them in war? Very strange. Yes, very!

Okay, this was light-hearted, and meant to be a bit funny. I hope you took it well, as it was intended/hoped to be taken well, but mercy, you led me right to it. Thanks.

Taken well indeed. "Well never know" was exactly what I meant too. Then I lost you gramatically in the second half of that paragraph, so if it was there your main point was then it passed me by. Wassat?

BTW, wouldn't have answered this if it had been someone else.

Color me honored.

 

[raphy]

Hi, Liar,

You just helped make some points for Luc on a part of what he says. To answer my own question as to why women haven't started more wars, or would they start less wars than men, well, we'll just never know, will we? And that reason is that all the gold, the swords (oops! rifles, etc.), and men to start armies . . ., Uh, men? You mean men WON'T fight at a woman's behest? Hmm! Well, they fight OVER women, don't they? Why not for them in war? Very strange. Yes, very!

People went to war for Maggie!!

hehe

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[BlackShanglan]

... and I guarantee you NO WOMAN sits up at night and dreams about Prince Fuckwit.

Howling with laughter over here, and that's hard to do when one is a horse.