Jump to content

Question to the "I love him for his personality" crowd

SteveC80

By SteveC80
in Dating

 Share
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Sphere Established Member

Sphere

Posted
Posted
And I wonder how long her R's last... ;)

 

I wouldn't know, ask her?!

 

MeganDoll, if you give good head and make a mean sandwich, call me, we'll hook up for some sex and sandwiches.

donnamaybe Established Member

donnamaybe

Posted
Posted
we'll hook up for some sex and sandwiches.
That should take all of 5 minutes. :p

 

J/K!

Sphere Established Member

Sphere

Posted
Posted
That should take all of 5 minutes. :p

 

J/K!

 

Hey, that will be the best five minutes of my life. :love:

Anela Established Member

Anela

Posted
Posted
Megandoll is probably the most truthful woman in this thread.

 

I doubt it. She can speak for herself, like the rest of us.

meerkat stew Established Member

meerkat stew

Posted
Posted
No it isn't. I read that site very carefully. This is a code clear.

 

Good on you for reading the site, but actually it is an example of code brown, "fanaticism" ("more antifeminist zaniness").

 

And the point is I asked him to cite these supposed places. Meerkat, weren't you paying attention? I'm shocked at you. You would never accuse others of something you yourself do.

 

You asked him to cite, yet offered no cites of your own when characterizing him as "doing lots of calling women out for being shallow." Why should your assessment of his posting habits be accepted wholesale, yet he is obligated to prove the legitimacy of his OP issue?

 

Oh and sure, I'll bite, what exactly have I accused others of doing that I actually do myself? No need to cite, as will know immediately if you are right or wrong... or are you just engaging in more good old fashioned shaming?

GorillaTheater Established Member

GorillaTheater

Posted
Posted
MeganDoll, if you give good head and make a mean sandwich, call me, we'll hook up for some sex and sandwiches.

 

I hope we can all at least agree on the merits of a post-coital pizza.

Sphere Established Member

Sphere

Posted
Posted
I hope we can all at least agree on the merits of a post-coital pizza.

 

:laugh:

 

We certainly can mate!

Mme. Chaucer Established Member

Mme. Chaucer

Posted
Posted

Meerkat Stew, it seems that you have a preoccupation with the concept of "shaming."

 

Honestly, no matter what anyone says to me, I don't bother to categorize what they say as calculated "shaming," though for all I know that might be the person's intent.

 

Since you evidently feel "shamed" by most things people (probably all women) say to you, or to another man that are not in support of whatever your position is, I believe that is an issue you might want to look at. Do you have something to be ashamed of?

 

It must hinder your ability to listen and to understand other points of view from your own. They disagree with you - maybe with feeling; they are using "shaming techniques" and that's the end of it, according to you.

 

Anyway, MY post did not include ANY shaming language, I'm sure even the "shame police" would concur.

flying Established Member

flying

Posted
Posted
Good on you for reading the site, but actually it is an example of code brown, "fanaticism" ("more antifeminist zaniness").

 

 

 

You asked him to cite, yet offered no cites of your own when characterizing him as "doing lots of calling women out for being shallow." Why should your assessment of his posting habits be accepted wholesale, yet he is obligated to prove the legitimacy of his OP issue?

 

Oh and sure, I'll bite, what exactly have I accused others of doing that I actually do myself? No need to cite, as will know immediately if you are right or wrong... or are you just engaging in more good old fashioned shaming?

 

And I'm sure there's no shaming language in this very post to me, or in any of your others to me or other posters on these boards. It's not like we're blind, Meerkat.

 

Anyway, nah. I could do all that, but I just don't think I care that much after all. I made my point, I think. Enjoy the sandbox.

meerkat stew Established Member

meerkat stew

Posted
Posted
Honestly, no matter what anyone says to me, I don't bother to categorize what they say as calculated "shaming," though for all I know that might be the person's intent.

 

That's probably because you aren't married to or dating women.

 

I believe that is an issue you might want to look at. Do you have something to be ashamed of?

 

It must hinder your ability to listen and to understand other points of view from your own.

 

Anyway, MY post did not include ANY shaming language, I'm sure even the "shame police" would concur.

 

Q...E...D... (leans in and whispers)... folks, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. :laugh:

tami-chan Established Member

tami-chan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Damn...Busted! Mme. Chaucer?

 

Anyway, I have to say that I developed a crush on someone in LS and didn't even know how he looked like.... then I saw a pic of him :love:. Thank GOD he is good looking!!!!! I guess if he wasn't, I would've probably still enjoyed his posts but would not have a teenage-like crush on him!

Edited by a LoveShack.org Moderator
meerkat stew Established Member

meerkat stew

Posted
Posted
Anyway, I have to say that I developed a crush on someone in LS

 

I got a crush on a woman on a site like this once. She showed up at my house with a pair of those head choppers like they had in Exorcist 3, shrieking "heeeere kitty, kitty!" as she ran around trying to find a weak window to get in.

 

We ended up dating for a year and a half, she ran off with the goth dude at the Waffle House because he told her she had a purty mouth. She sends me postcards from Panama City and Tijuana sometimes.

tami-chan Established Member

tami-chan

Posted
Posted
I got a crush on a woman on a site like this once. She showed up at my house with a pair of those head choppers like they had in Exorcist 3, shrieking "heeeere kitty, kitty!" as she ran around trying to find a weak window to get in.

 

We ended up dating for a year and a half, she ran off with the goth dude at the Waffle House because he told her she had a purty mouth. She sends me postcards from Panama City and Tijuana sometimes.

 

What a lovely, romantic story, stew! :lmao:

Mme. Chaucer Established Member

Mme. Chaucer

Posted
Posted

Q...E...D... (leans in and whispers)... folks, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. :laugh:

 

Would this be an example of "femspeak shaming technique"?

 

I'm confused. If I call someone out on their BS, employ sarcasm or irony, disagree with them, get snarky, retort in anger or annoyance, whatever, that's now called "femspeak shaming technique"?

 

I guess I missed that memo.

 

The idea of "shaming" Meerkat Stew or anyone else has not even occurred to me.

 

I was not completely joking, though my tongue was slightly in my cheek, when I asked MS if he had something to be ashamed of. It honestly does seem to be a preoccupation of his. Really, today is the very first day in my significantly long life that I've been made aware that I need to watch out for "femspeak shaming technique."

 

And now I'm in danger of being branded a liar or forgetful? Don't get it.

 

Carry on, shame gestapo.

Woggle Established Member

Woggle

Posted
Posted
Megandoll is probably the most truthful woman in this thread.

 

I don't care why a woman is with me as long as he gives good head and makes a fine sandwich she is a keeper in my book.

 

I agree and I respect a woman who just comes right and says it and lays her cards on the table. I bet her relationships don't last long but ask yourself how many women these days have long lasting relationships anyway? At least a man knows what he is getting with her instead of marrying a woman who thinks you are a great man but just doesn't feel some magical chemistry and that in love feeling anymore.

MrNate Established Member

MrNate

Posted
Posted
Damn...Busted! Mme. Chaucer? Please respond, I would not want you to be branded as a liar...okay, that's probably too harsh....maybe just forgetful?

 

Anyway, I have to say that I developed a crush on someone in LS and didn't even know how he looked like.... then I saw a pic of him :love:. Thank GOD he is good looking!!!!! I guess if he wasn't, I would've probably still enjoyed his posts but would not have a teenage-like crush on him!

 

And the plot thickens....

 

Hokie, are you juggling women over there? lol

impz Established Member

impz

Posted
Posted

Ok, I am not sure why the men in this forum are particularly bitter toward the other sex. I am a married man, and there are times that I have difficulties grasping the anger of all things against the opposite gender. Let me try to give my own personal perspective, rather than trying to explain a whole group of men with very differing views about women.

 

Let's split the bunch of women into two overly simplistic groups

1. The ones who love the guy for the looks

2. The ones who love the guy for the personality

 

Group 1 is usually more likely to those looking for a fun time. Whether they are married or not does not matter. To the guys in this forum, these are the women that they classify as the "real women". You usually find these women more likely to have male friends, engage in more social activities and more attuned toward having short-term/physical relationships. These are likely to be shallow, and more likely to be encountered in social settings.

 

Group 2 still cares about looks, but they are more likely to be looking for long-term relationships. They are less likely to be openly approachable by men (they don't deny a hot guy, of course!) but look for qualities that they presume to be long-term relationship material.

 

Yes, tons of stereotypes, so holes of logic are expected.

 

The problem is that the guys are more likely to see group 1, rather than group 2, simply because group 2 women are not in their radar. Selective preference of women = biased sample of women = generalization of biased sample = all women are shallow. Just my two cents.

D-Lish Established Member

D-Lish

Posted
Posted

It's not all black and white all the time.

I am initially attracted by looks (but my ideal of what is attractive to me is subjective). It's the personality that will keep me around or perhaps repel me.

 

If I don't enjoy someone's personality, I'll find them way less attractive physically- that's just the way it works.

 

I'd never ever date a guy based on something like status, power, money, etc. I have my own earning potential. I wouldn't sacrifice attraction and compatibility for power or money.

meerkat stew Established Member

meerkat stew

Posted
Posted
I'm confused.

 

Allow me to unconfuse you. Stick to the topics at hand, whether you agree with what someone says or not and why, rather than what the mere fact that they said it may or may not indicate about their personality, character or defects. In other words, cut out the statements that start with, "you are" in favor of those that start with "you say." Not all that complicated really.

tami-chan Established Member

tami-chan

Posted
Posted
And the plot thickens....

 

Hokie, are you juggling women over there? lol

 

Hokie????? ahm...:lmao:!! you couldn't be more wrong!

MrNate Established Member

MrNate

Posted
Posted
Hokie????? ahm...:lmao:!! you couldn't be more wrong!

 

Woah there tiger! My bad lol

donnamaybe Established Member

donnamaybe

Posted
Posted
Would this be an example of "femspeak shaming technique"?

 

I'm confused. If I call someone out on their BS, employ sarcasm or irony, disagree with them, get snarky, retort in anger or annoyance, whatever, that's now called "femspeak shaming technique"?

 

I guess I missed that memo.

 

The idea of "shaming" Meerkat Stew or anyone else has not even occurred to me.

 

I was not completely joking, though my tongue was slightly in my cheek, when I asked MS if he had something to be ashamed of. It honestly does seem to be a preoccupation of his. Really, today is the very first day in my significantly long life that I've been made aware that I need to watch out for "femspeak shaming technique."

 

And now I'm in danger of being branded a liar or forgetful? Don't get it.

 

Carry on, shame gestapo.

I know, huh?! There DOES seem to be some sort of fixation on the whole "shame" concept. I wonder where that comes from... :confused:
theBrokenMuse Established Member

theBrokenMuse

Posted
Posted
I know, huh?! There DOES seem to be some sort of fixation on the whole "shame" concept. I wonder where that comes from... :confused:

 

The 'shaming' concept is just a tactic to stifle opposition, really, nothing more.

meerkat stew Established Member

meerkat stew

Posted
Posted (edited)
I know, huh?! There DOES seem to be some sort of fixation on the whole "shame" concept. I wonder where that comes from... :confused:

 

The 'shaming' concept is just a tactic to stifle opposition, really, nothing more.

 

It came from the tendency of gender feminists (as opposed to equity feminists) to refuse to discuss topics rationally, and instead either "shout down" or "shame" opposing POVs into silence by attributing character traits such as bitterness or misogyny to men who take issue with anything at all that any woman at all, or any group of women, ever says or does.

 

It is so ingrained in our culture as women's prerogative as "victims" to childishly revert to such tactics that I don't doubt at all that it shocks you to be called out for such here on the internet, where you can't shout men down so facilely as you can in public, and you WILL be called out for attempts to shame men. Get... used... to... it. :laugh:

 

Hilariously ironic that you consider drawing attention to these feminist "discussion" tactics as being an attempt to stifle discussion, as by resorting to them, you declare very clearly that you refuse to even come to the discussion table at all.

 

Further irony results from the characterization of any man who draws attention to such illegitimate tactics (me for instance) as having "something to be ashamed of." QED.

 

Feel free to use shaming techniques to get children to behave and to get what you want from henpecked husbands and SOs. Won't work here though, sorry.

 

And here's some constructive advice that I've already posted in this thread that has been ignored, you can avoid such "shamer" stigma entirely and easily by merely discussing the topic at hand, by starting more sentences with "I agree with, and here's why" or "I disagree with, and here's why," and none with "What you posted shows that you are," or "You must be..." It's even fair to call people out for generalizing, and if they say "I'm bitter," completely fair to include that admission in your replies. But if the entire substance of your opinion is merely, "you are bitter," "you shouldn't be allowed to say that," "you hate women," then YOU are, as a matter of fact, worse than THEY are.

Edited by meerkat stew
theBrokenMuse Established Member

theBrokenMuse

Posted
Posted (edited)
It came from the tendency of gender feminists (as opposed to equity feminists) to refuse to discuss topics rationally, and instead either "shout down" or "shame" opposing POVs into silence by attributing character traits such as bitterness or misogyny to men who take issue with anything at all that any woman at all, or any group of women, ever says or does.

 

Honestly, I think it came from the fact that political correctness is rampant and if PC culture has taught us anything it is if you declare, "Help, Help, I am being attacked for my race, sex, religion, or culture and I am OFFENDED!!" loud enough you can get the opposition to backtrack, back off, shut up, even apologize for offending delicate sensibilities (even if they didn't do a single thing to warrant such an apology) in order to not appear to be 'intolerant'. It's the norm as far as tactics go these days.

Edited by theBrokenMuse
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...