198 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

I love the fact that people have assumed I have trouble with women or lack confidence, because I don't think highly of societal relationships today.

 

Even though my first post was this:

 

 

Well what helped me with women was hypnosis. Find a hypnosis, or create one yourself, that focuses on confidence with women and not being hung up on one girl. Hypnosis can do magic for creating a different outlook on life and situations. It requires practice going into trance, but just stick to it by listening before bed every night (as you're going to sleep anyway). And eventually your personality can shift in a huge way, where something that has been a big deal for you for a long time, doesn't seems like a problem at all anymore.

 

 

Yet some how I've been portrayed as a bitter envious man who never gets laid or get girls, even though I've actually been in a committed relationship with my girlfriend for the last 6 years.

 

But even if I wasn't any good at getting women, or I didn't have a long term girlfiend, or I was still a virgin. My opinions on the decline of relationships in today's society would still be the same. I don't think it's right men and women sleeping around like no other, and divorce being at an all time high (42%).

 

Call me a stuck in the mud, call me conservative, call me traditional, but from what I see around me, men and women aren't happier, they're sadder, more frustrated, more vain, and more selfish. Neither are their children happier when they have to grow up with their mother and father being seperated or not around.

 

But then again I don't really give your opinions much credence when you talk to people the way you do. I expressed my opinion in the most neutral way possible, and one the first things you say is:

 

 

Shut the fuck up about women being happier in marriage in past generations.

 

Not very professional is it, telling someone to "shut the fuck up".

 

Or.

 

 

Derp.

 

If you are going to be so rude in your posts, then don't be so surprised when you get a sarcastic reply back. If you dish it, you better be ready to take it, because not everyone bends over backwards because you're a woman.

 

 

I'm sorry you seem to think I have a low opinion of men or whatever because evolutionary biology is my general go-to perspective in all things involving living organisms. It may be because that's my career focus, or because I'm just nerdy-retarded that way I suppose. I'm as flawed as any other person.

 

Well you guessed right here, even though I never mentioned what I thought about you personally, I agree with you, I do think you have a low opinion of men. But not because evolutionary biology is your go-to perspective, I think that's just an excuse. I actually think you're somewhat of a misandrist. Plus you're generally an angry and rude person who lashes out if anyone has an opinion contrary to yours.

 

In the future, if you want to have a professional debate on your points with people, you should probably speak to other people in a more professional matter.

 

I think it's funny you believe I was whining about your "rudeness" and blah blah blah because I'm a woman.  Where did that come from, why did my gender come into it at all?  I never said anything that should even vaguely imply such a thing.  You came up with that all by yourself.  And you wonder why someone might get the impression you have a problem with women.

 

I actually don't think you were rude.  Just snarky, but I believe it was in your right.  Not to mention, I fully expected an irrational knee-jerk reaction from at least one person here.  You want to see people be rude to each other?  Get into religion debates, that's where the real fun is.

 

But who here starting bitching about "rude" posts?  You did.

 

Who made sweeping, disparaging remarks about the opposite sex?  You did.

 

You do not represent all men, having a low opinion of you does not extend to the rest of your sex.  How ridiculously narcissistic of you to think so.  Men are awesome, I see a few right here in this thread, and there is nothing you can do that would impact my general view of men.

 

 

You also said:  "even though I never mentioned what I thought about you personally"

 

After saying with obvious sarcasm:  "You sound absolutely charming, I'm sure any man would love to be your husband. The best in luck in finding him."

 

Yeah, I'm sure everyone here still thinks you're a credible, reasonable person.  Do you even pay attention to the things you post?

 

 

I wasn't the only nor even the first person here to get the impression you have some issues in the romance department.  That's exactly how your little rant about slutty, shallow women and poor deprived lonely men (60% of men, lol, remember that bullshit statistic?) came off to the people reading this thread.  That's also exactly when this thread started getting ugly.  Again, you seriously need to give your statements more thought before posting.

 

 

And what's all this nonsense about professionalism?  Where are you pulling all this from?  We were supposed to be having a "professional debate"?  Lmao!   Is that what you think that was?  That's cute.  

 

Sincerely.

[Duchykins]

Someone close just sent me a text right this moment as I was typing this. It's from Louise Erdrich:

"Life will break you. Nobody can protect you from that, and living alone won't either, for solitude will also break you with its yearning. You have to love. You have to feel. It is the reason you are here on earth. You are here to risk your heart. You are here to be swallowed up. And when it happens that you are broken, or betrayed, or left, or hurt, or death brushes near, let yourself sit by an apple tree and listen to the apples falling all around you in heaps, wasting their sweetness. Tell yourself you tasted as many as you could."

Louise Erdrich, The Painted Drum LP

 

 

Thank you for posting this quote, it's very appropriate and well timed in this thread.

 

I never understood why acknowledging what we are, learning more about what we are, can be so offensive to some people.  I'm not talking about just this silly arguing about men and women, but I have a lot of experience with religious conservatives being genuinely offended when presented with our species' history and makeup.  How can we possibly make each other happy if we don't understand each other a little more?  That is the first step to identifying and empathizing with someone who is not part of your in-group.  We really need this as a species.

 

We have got to stop demonizing people who try to bridge this gap in knowledge.  It's completely counterproductive to progress.  I see this kind of thing all time.  A perfect example is the public reaction to Christopher Hitchens' article "Why Women Aren't Funny."  It's almost exactly the same response I would get when talking about exactly the same thing on the internet.  "That's sexist" "you hate women" blah blah blah (or in this particular case, "you hate men").  Completely unthinking reactions.  Why should things like this be upsetting people?   IT'S GENERALLY TRUE.  Culture may be playing a role in this but biology definitely is the star here.  Since women are the limiting sex, they are the primary driving force in sexual selection.  Being funny is a good indicator of intelligence, and therefore an indicator of good genes; it follows that this should be an extremely sexy trait.  Women have been selecting funny men for generations and at the same time, women don't really have to be funny to attract men (but she should have a sense of humor, this is not the same thing as being funny).  Several independent studies on what people view as attractive in the opposite sex have found that "he makes me laugh" is in the top ten for women and "she laughs at my jokes" is in the top ten for men.  There is a reason for this pattern, a reason that transcends culture, and acknowledging it does not diminish either sex.

 

There is something else.  Women drive women's fashion.  Period.  Always have.  I always piss off women when I say that, when they complain about how they are expected to dress up sexy all the time.  But it's still true; women are the ones most critical of other women.  Women dress to impress other women more than to attract men.   Women spend more time checking out other women than men.  We are so busted on that one!  Isn't that hilarious?  It's just a side effect of how analytical women are wired to be.  Men are wired to desire women in a way that women aren't wired to desire men.  Eg, studies keep showing that most men aren't really as concerned with hairlessness, thinness, makeup, high heels, showing skin, cleavage etc as society thinks they are.  Sure, these kinds of things can vary with culture, and in cultures where these things are considered sexy, it usually doesn't hurt to jazz up a little.  But it's nowhere near as necessary as people think it is.  I think if more women were aware of this fact, we would see fewer problems with self-image, a little less friction between the sexes, and perhaps a change in fashion trends (I would hope).

 

It's good to know these kinds of things.  This is the stuff of life and it's amazing.  Pair-bonding, parenting styles, sexual attraction, love, and all the rest.  The less bullshit and misconceptions going around, the better for all.  

Edited by Duchykins, 02 July 2015 - 01:21 AM.

[sthira]

Yall listen up to my wise sistah Duchykins. She's pointing that finely manicured finger toward the moon. Yall want the lady? Make her laugh. You'll eventually make her cry, too. But start with being funny. Be funny in your own way, too. No need to modify your funny to adapt to what you think might be funny to her. Do your thing, man, just make sure she laughs. Make her laugh til she wets herself.

The relationship will eventually turn to shit, though. They all do. Every last beautiful soul mate reunion dissolves to endless sorrow and regret. But meanwhile, make her laugh. And see, if you're making her laugh, then at least you're having some fun, too. I mean, before it ends, and the whole damned relationship is suddenly no fun at all anymore and we just want the fuck out of this awful mess we've become, ugh poor sad people, all of us, and we need nootropics to help attempt to convince ourselves to never love again. Which is completely impossible, by the way. We've evolved to love. The love won't last, but love you shall, painfully, joyfully, again and again, and some of the love won't even be very conscious on your part or mine.

[Mr Serendipity]

 

I think it's funny you believe I was whining about your "rudeness" and blah blah blah because I'm a woman.  Where did that come from, why did my gender come into it at all?  I never said anything that should even vaguely imply such a thing.  You came up with that all by yourself.  And you wonder why someone might get the impression you have a problem with women.

 

No I don't believe it's because you're a woman, I believe you're one of them certain types of women. The one who's somewhat of a misandrist. I have no problem with women in general, just the ones who think they're better than men, and that's what you come off as. Since you've made plenty of presumptions, I may as well explain mine of yours.

 

 

I actually don't think you were rude.  Just snarky, but I believe it was in your right.  Not to mention, I fully expected an irrational knee-jerk reaction from at least one person here.  You want to see people be rude to each other?  Get into religion debates, that's where the real fun is.

 

I'm not too sure how I was being knee jerking. I posted my post as neutral as possible, and even wrote at the end "Anyway that's my opinion, so don't take it as fact. And I'm not really blaming women either, men are just as bad, and this is what a lot of men wanted (girls to be less prude, sexually uninhibited),".

 

I think you are the one who had the knee jerking reaction when you replied to my post. And for the fact that you mention about getting into religious debates as that's where the real fun is, just comes off to me that you like to stir up strife with people whenever you can, because you find it fun.

 

 

But who here starting bitching about "rude" posts?  You did.

 

Who made sweeping, disparaging remarks about the opposite sex?  You did.

 

I did did I? Well why would you find my post disparaging exactly, when you look at everything from a bilogical point of view rather than a moral one. The post was a subjective opinion based on personal held beliefs and morals, not biology.

 

In your view there's no such thing as a slut. A woman can sleep with 20, 100, 1000 men, and it's all biology to you.

 

Yet when I have an opinion that doesn't solely rely on a biological stance, but comes from a moral stance, you think I'm being disparaging to all women.

 

Well 'm not being disparaging to all women, I'm being disparaging to a certain type of woman. And that's through what I think is right and wrong in life, my moral stance, not biology.

 

People can live the life the way they want to, as long as they're not hurting anyone and it's consensual, because that's what freedom is. But don't expect everyone else to accept what they do with their freedom as morally good or right, because people also have the freedom to judge other people the way they like.

 

A man could go down the street saying "fuck you" to everybody he passes and that's his freedom. But I will still judge that man as a vile person, which will probably be regarded as disparaging to some people. And a woman could sleep with the whole town because that's her freedom. But I'm still going to judge that woman as a slut, and it's going to come off as disparaging.

 

But obviously we've gone out of biology now and into morals, which are different person to person. So neither of them are fact, they're just personal help beliefs.

 

And I found a lot of your remarks disparaging to men, but any outsider can easily see how our moral stances differ.

 

Lastly whether I think a woman is a slut or not, I would never tell them personally or spread it around as I think that's a horrible thing to do. But that doesn't mean I don't have that opinion of her.

 

 

You do not represent all men, having a low opinion of you does not extend to the rest of your sex.  How ridiculously narcissistic of you to think so.  Men are awesome, I see a few right here in this thread, and there is nothing you can do that would impact my general view of men.

 

I never said I represent all men. Neither do you represent all women. I know plenty of women who would take my views over yours, and you probably know the same. You're largly offended because we don't share the same beliefs, which is understandable, but you could have kept the debate on a professional level.

 

For example, you just called me ridiculously narcissistic because you accuse me of representing all men. This is something you've just made up out of thin air, and then insulted me for it. I'll requote myself to prove it.

 

 

Anyway that's my opinion, so don't take it as fact. And I'm not really blaming women either, men are just as bad, and this is what a lot of men wanted (girls to be less prude, sexually uninhibited),

 

"My opinion." "Don't take it as fact." These don't really sound like a man trying to represent all men does it. It sounds to me like a man expressing his personal beliefs on the matter. It's written plainly, "my opinion".

 

And since you've accused me of representing all men, you've then accused me of trying to lower your general view of men.

 

What you're really saying is, I don't like your opinions so I'll start making stuff up to win people on my side.

 

 

You also said:  "even though I never mentioned what I thought about you personally"

 

After saying with obvious sarcasm:  "You sound absolutely charming, I'm sure any man would love to be your husband. The best in luck in finding him."

 

Yeah, I'm sure everyone here still thinks you're a credible, reasonable person.  Do you even pay attention to the things you post?

 

Well if you're going to tell someone to "shut the fuck up", then don't be surprised when you get a sarcastic reply like that one, because it's evident here the you're the one who brought the conversation down from a professional debate.

 

 

I wasn't the only nor even the first person here to get the impression you have some issues in the romance department.  That's exactly how your little rant about slutty, shallow women and poor deprived lonely men (60% of men, lol, remember that bullshit statistic?) came off to the people reading this thread.  That's also exactly when this thread started getting ugly.  Again, you seriously need to give your statements more thought before posting.

 

So you're calling my 60% statistic a fact are you. Even though it's pretty obvious I use it as a generalization, and I said "Anyway that's my opinion, so don't take it as fact" at the end of my post.

 

I also think you're reading into things and coming out with wrong conclusions. Just because I have an opinion on the matter of how the dating game works today, doesn't collerate to me having problems in the romance department. You also give off a very big impression of the type of person you are, which I haven't even expounded on fully as I think it's unnecessary. I've said a few things and may say some more because there is good reason behind why I'm saying them, but I don't think there's any point continually attacking a person's character just because we differ in opinions and beliefs.

 

 

And what's all this nonsense about professionalism?  Where are you pulling all this from?  We were supposed to be having a "professional debate"?  Lmao!   Is that what you think that was?  That's cute.

 

Well there you have it, straight from your own mouth. You had no intention of keeping our debate on a professional level. Rather when you don't like other people's opinions, you attack and mock them mercilessly in your posts. This just backs up what you said earlier, about the "real fun" being in religious debates, you definitely give off the impression of a manipulative woman who just loves to cause strife.

[OneScrewLoose]

@manny. You're whole philosophy seems to stem from a lack of confidence and self-worth. Perhaps with these improved, you would be less angry at whatever 'types' of women. Have you experimented with meditation?

I sincerely hope you find the person you are looking for inside yourself one day.

[eon]

I like your point of views. Maybe I wanted to become a robot so I don't have to fall in love and if I do I can easily get out of it with no hurt feelings? Which is why at the start of the thread I was looking for "compounds" to avoid falling in love and or something that lets me get back on my feet unscathed instead of taking years to get over it like most of the population? I wasn't trying to offend at all.

 

I was reading a book called Life Extension and there talks of a compound called beta-phenylethylamine (PEA) about its use for depression and people who are just falling out of love to lessen the depression. It is said to be naturally found in chocolates as well. Maybe its actions are clearly different than an amphetamine but PEA was said to be similar to an amphetamine. 

 

Precious few animal species are monogamous, and I doubt humans are, either. Our closest relative -- pan bonobo -- certainly isn't. We form pair bonds, copulate, have offspring, hopefully raise that child in a village (ha -- we wish :-( ... and then after the child is more or less raised, the pair bond breaks. Settled societies, the nuclear family is mostly a recent, artificial, and "unnatural" situation we were pretty much helplessly born into, expected to uphold, shamed upon if we fail. Yet nearly everyone fails. Especially today.

Maybe my great grandparents stuck it out and stayed together. But that's probably because -- as Duchykins maintains -- women had few rights to do anything otherwise. Today? Haha... Does anyone anywhere know of one happy, longterm human relationship? That's such an unrealistic dream, I think. An unfair fantasy. The truth is -- unless you're both very, very special and uniquely suited in ways far beyond the blunt simplistic act of sex -- most human relationships are doomed to end. Usually sadly, in heartbreak, in tears, usually everyone loses. Then we bounce back again, so do it (eg, attempt "to love") all over again.

Someone close just sent me a text right this moment as I was typing this. It's from Louise Erdrich:

"Life will break you. Nobody can protect you from that, and living alone won't either, for solitude will also break you with its yearning. You have to love. You have to feel. It is the reason you are here on earth. You are here to risk your heart. You are here to be swallowed up. And when it happens that you are broken, or betrayed, or left, or hurt, or death brushes near, let yourself sit by an apple tree and listen to the apples falling all around you in heaps, wasting their sweetness. Tell yourself you tasted as many as you could."

Louise Erdrich, The Painted Drum LP

 

Edited by eon, 02 July 2015 - 07:15 AM.

[Duchykins]

 

 

I think it's funny you believe I was whining about your "rudeness" and blah blah blah because I'm a woman.  Where did that come from, why did my gender come into it at all?  I never said anything that should even vaguely imply such a thing.  You came up with that all by yourself.  And you wonder why someone might get the impression you have a problem with women.

 

No I don't believe it's because you're a woman, I believe you're one of them certain types of women. The one who's somewhat of a misandrist. I have no problem with women in general, just the ones who think they're better than men, and that's what you come off as. Since you've made plenty of presumptions, I may as well explain mine of yours.

 

 

I actually don't think you were rude.  Just snarky, but I believe it was in your right.  Not to mention, I fully expected an irrational knee-jerk reaction from at least one person here.  You want to see people be rude to each other?  Get into religion debates, that's where the real fun is.

 

I'm not too sure how I was being knee jerking. I posted my post as neutral as possible, and even wrote at the end "Anyway that's my opinion, so don't take it as fact. And I'm not really blaming women either, men are just as bad, and this is what a lot of men wanted (girls to be less prude, sexually uninhibited),".

 

I think you are the one who had the knee jerking reaction when you replied to my post. And for the fact that you mention about getting into religious debates as that's where the real fun is, just comes off to me that you like to stir up strife with people whenever you can, because you find it fun.

 

 

But who here starting bitching about "rude" posts?  You did.

 

Who made sweeping, disparaging remarks about the opposite sex?  You did.

 

I did did I? Well why would you find my post disparaging exactly, when you look at everything from a bilogical point of view rather than a moral one. The post was a subjective opinion based on personal held beliefs and morals, not biology.

 

In your view there's no such thing as a slut. A woman can sleep with 20, 100, 1000 men, and it's all biology to you.

 

Yet when I have an opinion that doesn't solely rely on a biological stance, but comes from a moral stance, you think I'm being disparaging to all women.

 

Well 'm not being disparaging to all women, I'm being disparaging to a certain type of woman. And that's through what I think is right and wrong in life, my moral stance, not biology.

 

People can live the life the way they want to, as long as they're not hurting anyone and it's consensual, because that's what freedom is. But don't expect everyone else to accept what they do with their freedom as morally good or right, because people also have the freedom to judge other people the way they like.

 

A man could go down the street saying "fuck you" to everybody he passes and that's his freedom. But I will still judge that man as a vile person, which will probably be regarded as disparaging to some people. And a woman could sleep with the whole town because that's her freedom. But I'm still going to judge that woman as a slut, and it's going to come off as disparaging.

 

But obviously we've gone out of biology now and into morals, which are different person to person. So neither of them are fact, they're just personal help beliefs.

 

And I found a lot of your remarks disparaging to men, but any outsider can easily see how our moral stances differ.

 

Lastly whether I think a woman is a slut or not, I would never tell them personally or spread it around as I think that's a horrible thing to do. But that doesn't mean I don't have that opinion of her.

 

 

You do not represent all men, having a low opinion of you does not extend to the rest of your sex.  How ridiculously narcissistic of you to think so.  Men are awesome, I see a few right here in this thread, and there is nothing you can do that would impact my general view of men.

 

I never said I represent all men. Neither do you represent all women. I know plenty of women who would take my views over yours, and you probably know the same. You're largly offended because we don't share the same beliefs, which is understandable, but you could have kept the debate on a professional level.

 

For example, you just called me ridiculously narcissistic because you accuse me of representing all men. This is something you've just made up out of thin air, and then insulted me for it. I'll requote myself to prove it.

 

 

Anyway that's my opinion, so don't take it as fact. And I'm not really blaming women either, men are just as bad, and this is what a lot of men wanted (girls to be less prude, sexually uninhibited),

 

"My opinion." "Don't take it as fact." These don't really sound like a man trying to represent all men does it. It sounds to me like a man expressing his personal beliefs on the matter. It's written plainly, "my opinion".

 

And since you've accused me of representing all men, you've then accused me of trying to lower your general view of men.

 

What you're really saying is, I don't like your opinions so I'll start making stuff up to win people on my side.

 

 

You also said:  "even though I never mentioned what I thought about you personally"

 

After saying with obvious sarcasm:  "You sound absolutely charming, I'm sure any man would love to be your husband. The best in luck in finding him."

 

Yeah, I'm sure everyone here still thinks you're a credible, reasonable person.  Do you even pay attention to the things you post?

 

Well if you're going to tell someone to "shut the fuck up", then don't be surprised when you get a sarcastic reply like that one, because it's evident here the you're the one who brought the conversation down from a professional debate.

 

 

I wasn't the only nor even the first person here to get the impression you have some issues in the romance department.  That's exactly how your little rant about slutty, shallow women and poor deprived lonely men (60% of men, lol, remember that bullshit statistic?) came off to the people reading this thread.  That's also exactly when this thread started getting ugly.  Again, you seriously need to give your statements more thought before posting.

 

So you're calling my 60% statistic a fact are you. Even though it's pretty obvious I use it as a generalization, and I said "Anyway that's my opinion, so don't take it as fact" at the end of my post.

 

I also think you're reading into things and coming out with wrong conclusions. Just because I have an opinion on the matter of how the dating game works today, doesn't collerate to me having problems in the romance department. You also give off a very big impression of the type of person you are, which I haven't even expounded on fully as I think it's unnecessary. I've said a few things and may say some more because there is good reason behind why I'm saying them, but I don't think there's any point continually attacking a person's character just because we differ in opinions and beliefs.

 

 

And what's all this nonsense about professionalism?  Where are you pulling all this from?  We were supposed to be having a "professional debate"?  Lmao!   Is that what you think that was?  That's cute.

 

Well there you have it, straight from your own mouth. You had no intention of keeping our debate on a professional level. Rather when you don't like other people's opinions, you attack and mock them mercilessly in your posts. This just backs up what you said earlier, about the "real fun" being in religious debates, you definitely give off the impression of a manipulative woman who just loves to cause strife.

 

 

 

For the record, a misandrist would never say men are awesome, wonderful or magificent, nor would they ever acknowledge that men are funnier than women, or the host of other positive things I have to say about men that run along those same lines.  You're way off there.  I also never said some sweeping nasty remark about men that I would need to backpedal with a statement like "that's just my opinion though."  I hate people that do that, I would never do it myself.

 

With you, however, it's different; you say something you know is a little fucked up, and then you put a qualifier on it like "it's just my opinion" as if that makes everything you said acceptable and that people shouldn't dispute it since it's just your opinion.  Also "I'm just going to put this bullshit out here, but don't take it as fact."  Why did you post in the first place?  

 

My view of humanity through the lens of evolutionary biology is not amoral.  Morality is founded in social mammalian structures.  A set of behaviors that are considered bad or good by the group, what's fair or unfair, are encouraged or discouraged in a variety of ways. It is a necessary trait because it is needed to preserve a semblance of order in the group.  The group's survival, or it's capacity to thrive rather than merely survive, relies on order and things like reciprocal altruism.  Morality, and our sense of fairness, is necessary and instinctive.  However, before you misinterpret that like you did everything else, having this innate sense of morality and fairness is not the same as knowing what is moral or fair. 

 

And more with this professional debate garbage?  The reason I laughed at it the first time is because that kind of debate was never happening here in the first place.  You didn't challenge anything I said.  You didn't point at some particular thing I said and say "well you're wrong about this, and here's why..."    All you basically did was point at the whole damn thing and said  "I don't like what you said" and "you're just saying that because you're a woman who hates men," argued against things I never said and grossly misrepresented my position.    If you actually want to submit these as counterarguments, good luck with that because they are logical fallacies.  Then all I would have to do is identify which fallacy you committed in each "argument."  Then we dismiss everything fallacious and start back at square one with my original statements unscathed and ready for a proper counterargument.  Easy cheesey.    

 

Until then, we are not in a formalized "debate," professional or otherwise.  And honestly even if you want to try one, it's pretty obvious you don't have the knowledge set of evolutionary biology (and perhaps formal logic to boot) that would empower you to take on this task.  Now that is not to say that you are stupid because you are not stupid.  But none of us can be expected to know everything, so it's not really your fault.    However, I don't relish debates with people in this position because there is no contest, it would be like an NBA player taking on a fourth grader on the blacktop.  It's not fair to you, it's not fair to me (that I would be expending much more time and effort on my arguments than you would) and it's not sportsmanlike.

 

Have a nice day.

[Major Legend]

 

 

 

We have got to stop demonizing people who try to bridge this gap in knowledge.  It's completely counterproductive to progress.  I see this kind of thing all time.  A perfect example is the public reaction to Christopher Hitchens' article "Why Women Aren't Funny."  It's almost exactly the same response I would get when talking about exactly the same thing on the internet.  "That's sexist" "you hate women" blah blah blah (or in this particular case, "you hate men").  Completely unthinking reactions.  Why should things like this be upsetting people?   IT'S GENERALLY TRUE.  Culture may be playing a role in this but biology definitely is the star here.  Since women are the limiting sex, they are the primary driving force in sexual selection.  Being funny is a good indicator of intelligence, and therefore an indicator of good genes; it follows that this should be an extremely sexy trait.  Women have been selecting funny men for generations and at the same time, women don't really have to be funny to attract men (but she should have a sense of humor, this is not the same thing as being funny).  Several independent studies on what people view as attractive in the opposite sex have found that "he makes me laugh" is in the top ten for women and "she laughs at my jokes" is in the top ten for men.  There is a reason for this pattern, a reason that transcends culture, and acknowledging it does not diminish either sex.

 

 

 

 

Some great insight there, thought I would say there are many different kinds of "funny" and women tend to be attracted to a very specific type of humour, but yeah the underlying concept is sound, being witty is a sign of cognitive flexibility.

 

Also a very interesting thing here to consider is that fear tends to remove the ability of men to be funny, and fear often exists when men feel they are in a position of low value or under perceived threat (e.g. an overwhelming environment). 

 

Unfortunately you have a rather "realistic" view of genders that doesn't really go down well with both sides. What I mean is, you are trying to get people to understand a multi-layered view, when what they are saying here generally means that they don't see it that way.

[eon]

Although since most female comedian are lesbians and they are funny, I think it has something to do with them having a man's brain stuck in a woman's body. off topic and so are the rest of the rants here other than my own. LOL.

 

 

 

 

 

We have got to stop demonizing people who try to bridge this gap in knowledge.  It's completely counterproductive to progress.  I see this kind of thing all time.  A perfect example is the public reaction to Christopher Hitchens' article "Why Women Aren't Funny."  It's almost exactly the same response I would get when talking about exactly the same thing on the internet.  "That's sexist" "you hate women" blah blah blah (or in this particular case, "you hate men").  Completely unthinking reactions.  Why should things like this be upsetting people?   IT'S GENERALLY TRUE.  Culture may be playing a role in this but biology definitely is the star here.  Since women are the limiting sex, they are the primary driving force in sexual selection.  Being funny is a good indicator of intelligence, and therefore an indicator of good genes; it follows that this should be an extremely sexy trait.  Women have been selecting funny men for generations and at the same time, women don't really have to be funny to attract men (but she should have a sense of humor, this is not the same thing as being funny).  Several independent studies on what people view as attractive in the opposite sex have found that "he makes me laugh" is in the top ten for women and "she laughs at my jokes" is in the top ten for men.  There is a reason for this pattern, a reason that transcends culture, and acknowledging it does not diminish either sex.

 

 

 

 

Some great insight there, thought I would say there are many different kinds of "funny" and women tend to be attracted to a very specific type of humour, but yeah the underlying concept is sound, being witty is a sign of cognitive flexibility.

 

Also a very interesting thing here to consider is that fear tends to remove the ability of men to be funny, and fear often exists when men feel they are in a position of low value or under perceived threat (e.g. an overwhelming environment). 

 

Unfortunately you have a rather "realistic" view of genders that doesn't really go down well with both sides. What I mean is, you are trying to get people to understand a multi-layered view, when what they are saying here generally means that they don't see it that way.

 

 

[Duchykins]

 

I like your point of views. Maybe I wanted to become a robot so I don't have to fall in love and if I do I can easily get out of it with no hurt feelings? Which is why at the start of the thread I was looking for "compounds" to avoid falling in love and or something that lets me get back on my feet unscathed instead of taking years to get over it like most of the population? I wasn't trying to offend at all.

 

I was reading a book called Life Extension and there talks of a compound called beta-phenylethylamine (PEA) about its use for depression and people who are just falling out of love to lessen the depression. It is said to be naturally found in chocolates as well. Maybe its actions are clearly different than an amphetamine but PEA was said to be similar to an amphetamine. 

 

 

 

 

Don't do the PEA.  Please don't.  Not for this kind of purpose.  You'll just be wasting your money, it wears off way too fast, nasty comedowns, and you can easily quickly become addicted to it.  I still have a 100 gram bag of that shit (well it's more like 99 grams now) sitting in a cabinet above the sink, been there for months and I'm too lazy to toss it out.

 

I'm sorry we don't have the answers you want.  I actually feel bad that I don't know anything that could help you other than what I already said, or the nuggets of wisdom that have been dropped by a few others here, because it sounds like this is causing you real distress in your life.  Hell, I can't even give you advice for coming out of relationships since the man I'm married to now was my first everything, so I don't have that experience of break-up depression from which to draw out some advice for you.  I'm really sorry.

[eon]

It's ok. I'm not distress now. I may have been at the start of the thread. Curious what happened to the oxytocin spray you spoke about? Some people have mixed feelings about it but I just bought some mixed with pheromone. Not sure what I'm getting my self into. Don't want to fall in love, but want others to fall for me...I must be selfish?

[Duchykins]

 

 

 

 

 

Some great insight there, thought I would say there are many different kinds of "funny" and women tend to be attracted to a very specific type of humour, but yeah the underlying concept is sound, being witty is a sign of cognitive flexibility.

 

Also a very interesting thing here to consider is that fear tends to remove the ability of men to be funny, and fear often exists when men feel they are in a position of low value or under perceived threat (e.g. an overwhelming environment). 

 

Unfortunately you have a rather "realistic" view of genders that doesn't really go down well with both sides. What I mean is, you are trying to get people to understand a multi-layered view, when what they are saying here generally means that they don't see it that way.

 

 

I had not considered that before!   What an excellent point to think about.

 

I think you're also right about our different perspectives, how alien we are to each other in that regard.  I wish I could find a way to help others relate but I don't know if that's within my abilities as an Aspie.  I'm pretty pathetic sometimes, lol.  I think other times, people are just put off by my optimism which they may see as naive.

 

I'd say you have some great insight yourself.  Thanks.

It's ok. I'm not distress now. I may have been at the start of the thread. Curious what happened to the oxytocin spray you spoke about? Some people have mixed feelings about it but I just bought some mixed with pheromone. Not sure what I'm getting my self into. Don't want to fall in love, but want others to fall for me...I must be selfish?

 

The doc was not comfortable prescribing it because he didn't know very much about it.  So I never tried it.  Sorry.

[Mr Serendipity]

@manny. You're whole philosophy seems to stem from a lack of confidence and self-worth. Perhaps with these improved, you would be less angry at whatever 'types' of women. Have you experimented with meditation?

I sincerely hope you find the person you are looking for inside yourself one day.

 

Well I think you're wrong there.

 

The fact that I judge people on their actions using my own morals and beliefs, does not equate to me having low confidence or self esteem.

 

I think certain things are wrong in this life, and if you do these things, especially without remorse, than you're less of a person.

 

I don't think highly of murderers who take the live's of others, does that mean I have low confidence or self esteem? I don't think so.

 

So for the fact that I don't think highly of men and women sleeping around like no other, doesn't equate to me having low confidence or self esteem does it. I just think it's plain wrong. Not as wrong as murder, but still wrong.

 

Obviously people are more liberal on their morals for sexuality these days, hence why you think just because anyone else has an opinion contrary to the norm, it must be a problem with that person.

 

I'm pretty sure if we had this debate 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago, people would think the men and women who go sleeping around as much as they can was wrong, and are the real people with low confidence and self esteem. 

Edited by manny, 02 July 2015 - 08:08 AM.

[drg]

Lesbians are males stuck in female bodies? omg this thread, everything is simply genius I swear! : D 

 

 

Although since most female comedian are lesbians and they are funny, I think it has something to do with them having a man's brain stuck in a woman's body. off topic and so are the rest of the rants here other than my own. LOL.

[Flex]

 

Lesbians are males stuck in female bodies? omg this thread, everything is simply genius I swear! : D 

 

 

Although since most female comedian are lesbians and they are funny, I think it has something to do with them having a man's brain stuck in a woman's body. off topic and so are the rest of the rants here other than my own. LOL.

 

 

Yes, that quote from Eon can be taken literally and Yes,  You can lift Yourself up in a higher position by just beeing critical to others posts.

No need to prove anything

Edited by Flex, 02 July 2015 - 11:55 PM.

[drg]

I couldn't resist responding, I was laughing so hard 

[Anthropositor]

I got a message in my Email that Flex had posted something about gloryful guidance being on this thread.  What wonderful news!  I rushed back to experience it, perhaps even bask in it.  Alas, it has already disappeared.  Glory is ephemeral I guess.

[Valor5]

Safety, comfort, love women
Storm and tempest are the mans domain to obtain that which above is claimed,
She cries and is in despair amidst the storms for which her strength is not equipped to bear, a man being a dictator
And overbearing, stoops her down to wither even more, and so the petrel is the man who calmly in the storm contends while the little land bird in that storm is overwhelmed

[eon]

No offense, Ellen!

 

 

Lesbians are males stuck in female bodies? omg this thread, everything is simply genius I swear! : D 

 

 

Although since most female comedian are lesbians and they are funny, I think it has something to do with them having a man's brain stuck in a woman's body. off topic and so are the rest of the rants here other than my own. LOL.

 

 

[eon]

I'm a bit confused here due to lack of research, so both sexes have "pheromones"? I know women's is called "copulin", I'm not sure what men's is. Both sexes have oxytocin, right? I received some free samples of pheromones and some of them are for "her" but I am a guy so I'm assuming if I put this on, the same sex would like me then? LOL. If they were gay, huh?

 

The oxytocin sprays I bought are to be applied only to clothes near the chest and neck area. I'm not sure why it wasn't stated to apply on skin, it may get absorbed and turn me into an animal?

[drg]

I don't think the online oxytocin market is particularly trustworthy. But if you want for the oxytocin spray to be absorbed into the blood it would at least need to be on your skin, though nasal spray, subcutaneous, iv would be superior.

 

Also "pheromones" is like a voodoo bullshit word most of the time. Oxytocin is a hormone, present in males and females. Just like estrogen, The best "pheromone" human males can possess is a 6 pack abs, confidence, and money.

[Anthropositor]

Pheromones are aromatic molecules which help creatures find their mates.  The sensing apparatus is the vomeronasal organ.  It was thought, early in the twentieth century that humans, being at the apex of life forms, either did not have this organ, or that even if we did, it was vestigial and inoperative form.  We were not animals, we were Human Beings.  

 

The signals from this organ are directed to a different part of the brain than the other array of olfactory signals, a matter of some significance.

[Duchykins]

Pheromones are aromatic molecules which help creatures find their mates.  The sensing apparatus is the vomeronasal organ.  It was thought, early in the twentieth century that humans, being at the apex of life forms, either did not have this organ, or that even if we did, it was vestigial and inoperative form.  We were not animals, we were Human Beings.  

 

The signals from this organ are directed to a different part of the brain than the other array of olfactory signals, a matter of some significance.

 

Exactly.

 

We know there is something special about scent and sex because we have had such an interest in scent products for generations.  What is bullshit though, is all the recent marketing around certain perfumes and colognes claiming to have pheromones that will attract someone, and trying to impress customers by being sciencey.  This is nonsense for the most part; we (both sexes, but women are more strongly so) are attracted by scent to people who have genes that are most compatible with our own, and we are repulsed by scent by people whose genes are most incompatible  (this doesn't mean they have to smell bad to us, but simply not arouse us).  This is pretty interesting since it tends to inhibit inbreeding in sexually reproducing species.  There is no company that can manufacture a "pheromone" product that is universally (or anything close to universal) attractive to a gender because all of that crap relies on each individual's genetic makeup.

 

The exception here might be healthy vaginal secretions.  It's been documented that women can be sometimes titillated even by their own scent because it makes them think of sex.  But of course, any scents we exude would be determined by our genetic makeup first, health second, lifestyle third.  So that first general rule of genetic compatibility can still apply.

Edited by Duchykins, 06 July 2015 - 11:05 PM.

[Duchykins]

And yes, some chemists are trying to find a way to manufacture a generic vagina scent so that they can sell it.   If anyone actually manages to do this I suspect whatever company holds the patent will make billions of dollars.

[Anthropositor]

I suspect that most women are extremely sensitive to the scent of vaginal secretions, not because they want to use that scent to attract men, but because the detection of that scent on a man is indicative of recent activities of an unfaithful nature with an interloper.  No woman I have known has engaged in the practice of dabbing her own vaginal secretions behind her ear lobes or on her wrists or other pulse points.  I would have noticed.

 

The emphasis of the perfume industry is more likely the isolation of pheromonal molecules from the less appealing odors of the body with which they can be and so often are mixed, and in the artificial synthesis in mass production.  There may be no scent at all consciously detectable by our normal olfaction.  A stealthy odorless non-scent whose only outward indicators are attraction to the wearer accompanied by an inexplicable urge and tumescence in the affected male.  Fortunes might be made by the developers.

 

The actual genetic makeup is not likely to be able to predominate in this competition.

[eon]

Why not sell yours to perfumeries and make billions? 

 

 

And yes, some chemists are trying to find a way to manufacture a generic vagina scent so that they can sell it.   If anyone actually manages to do this I suspect whatever company holds the patent will make billions of dollars.

 

[Duchykins]

I suspect that most women are extremely sensitive to the scent of vaginal secretions, not because they want to use that scent to attract men, but because the detection of that scent on a man is indicative of recent activities of an unfaithful nature with an interloper.  No woman I have known has engaged in the practice of dabbing her own vaginal secretions behind her ear lobes or on her wrists or other pulse points.  I would have noticed.

 

The emphasis of the perfume industry is more likely the isolation of pheromonal molecules from the less appealing odors of the body with which they can be and so often are mixed, and in the artificial synthesis in mass production.  There may be no scent at all consciously detectable by our normal olfaction.  A stealthy odorless non-scent whose only outward indicators are attraction to the wearer accompanied by an inexplicable urge and tumescence in the affected male.  Fortunes might be made by the developers.

 

The actual genetic makeup is not likely to be able to predominate in this competition.

 

 

You misunderstood me.

[Major Legend]

this thread has gone down a very strange route...i am glad to see everyone keeping a straight face whilst talking serious about vaginal secretion perfumes.

[Duchykins]

this thread has gone down a very strange route...i am glad to see everyone keeping a straight face whilst talking serious about vaginal secretion perfumes.

 

 

[OneScrewLoose]

this thread has gone down a very strange route...i am glad to see everyone keeping a straight face whilst talking serious about vaginal secretion perfumes.

 

I would say it's more of a rabbit hole than a route.