Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Nice Guys and Love, what's your take on the issue

Page 75 of 78 [ 1243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

15 Aug 2012, 2:24 pm

LKL wrote:
If your only criterion for what makes a woman attractive is that she looks like a supermodel, then you're not nice. You might, however, be a Nice Guy.


But that's not the *only* criterion!

~cue faux outrage at implied shallowness~


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

15 Aug 2012, 2:29 pm

id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

15 Aug 2012, 2:31 pm

LKL wrote:
If your only criterion for what makes a woman attractive is that she looks like a supermodel, then you're not nice. You might, however, be a Nice Guy.

you just won the thread with this comment.

the idea that there are such untouchable women based on their own own subjective criteria points to a bunch of NOT-nice. it's one thing to not be attracted to a woman, and it is another to consider a woman so hideous that he thinks nobody could possible ever want them. *most* women (including the ones who are not labelled in such a way) who sense a man to be that judgemental will not be impressed. women like when men behave decently and are not nasty to other women who didn't do anything worse than look ugly in the man's personal estimation.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

15 Aug 2012, 2:31 pm

MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.


Pft. "Attacking" ridiculous, woe-is-me caterwauling isn't attacking a person,
and since most men seem mature enough to not engage in said caterwauling,
it's certainly not attacking men.

You silly.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

15 Aug 2012, 2:34 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.


Pft. "Attacking" ridiculous, woe-is-me caterwauling isn't attacking a person,
and since most men seem mature enough to not engage in said caterwauling,
it's certainly not attacking men.

You silly.


no, its silly that you and others are able to so happily categorize men into some happy named "nice guy" box, then because they arent going to defend themselves go out and attack them. If this were done genders reversed the thread wouldnt go past page 1 before being locked. hows that for equality :roll:



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

15 Aug 2012, 2:35 pm

MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

15 Aug 2012, 2:39 pm

MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.


Pft. "Attacking" ridiculous, woe-is-me caterwauling isn't attacking a person,
and since most men seem mature enough to not engage in said caterwauling,
it's certainly not attacking men.

You silly.


no, its silly that you and others are able to so happily categorize men into some happy named "nice guy" box, then because they arent going to defend themselves go out and attack them. If this were done genders reversed the thread wouldnt go past page 1 before being locked. hows that for equality :roll:


Sweetheart, I've seen NO women categorize men like that.

Men, usually who are unsuccessful in romance, categorize THEMSELVES that way in order to avoid at all costs any critical self-examination which might lead to actual improvement in their odds. It also has the added (if laughably-irrational) benefit of simultaneously implying women are somehow novel creatures in all of the animal kingdom who enjoy being treated badly.

And everyone else comes here day after day in an attempt to reach them in their bitterness, and get shouted down for saying the sky is blue.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

15 Aug 2012, 2:41 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV. Now any thread which has females manipulating men seems to not die out as soon as men manipulating women.

But back to the point, why miss attacks on ugly women? Because its irrelevant to everything and is done to men too. Why keep bringing up the same point that its more openly acceptable to attack men than women? Because someone has to.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

15 Aug 2012, 2:42 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


Pft. Who cares about ugly chicks? There are NICE GUYS™ not getting any!


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

15 Aug 2012, 2:45 pm

MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV.


As opposed to women, who DON'T EXIST after 35, and not at all if they're fat or plain, let alone "ugly".
Wanna talk about which "cultural standardization" is more unfair?


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

15 Aug 2012, 2:48 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV.


As opposed to women, who DON'T EXIST after 35, and not at all if they're fat or plain, let alone "ugly".
Wanna talk about which "cultural standardization" is more unfair?


dont exist after 35? Theres entire shows based on women 40-60. Hell just about every major tv show in the past 30 years had a woman over 35 which was the wise barrel of laughs. but its nice to see how thats conveniently forgotten



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

15 Aug 2012, 2:52 pm

MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV. Now any thread which has females manipulating men seems to not die out as soon as men manipulating women.

But back to the point, why miss attacks on ugly women? Because its irrelevant to everything and is done to men too. Why keep bringing up the same point that its more openly acceptable to attack men than women? Because someone has to.

it doesn't matter if it is related to the topic if it is an attack as well. don't bother to try to point out your opinions about a site bias in a way that exposes your own bias, because you will not be taken seriously. you have to be unbiased first of all.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

15 Aug 2012, 2:56 pm

MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV.


As opposed to women, who DON'T EXIST after 35, and not at all if they're fat or plain, let alone "ugly".
Wanna talk about which "cultural standardization" is more unfair?


dont exist after 35? Theres entire shows based on women 40-60.

Right, as opposed to shows with men 40-60. Which is...almost every show.
MXH wrote:
Hell just about every major tv show in the past 30 years had a woman over 35 which was the wise barrel of laughs. but its nice to see how thats conveniently forgotten

*A* woman? My, my. We're gettin' progressive.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

15 Aug 2012, 2:58 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV. Now any thread which has females manipulating men seems to not die out as soon as men manipulating women.

But back to the point, why miss attacks on ugly women? Because its irrelevant to everything and is done to men too. Why keep bringing up the same point that its more openly acceptable to attack men than women? Because someone has to.

it doesn't matter if it is related to the topic if it is an attack as well. don't bother to try to point out your opinions about a site bias in a way that exposes your own bias, because you will not be taken seriously. you have to be unbiased first of all.


lol. It matters completely if its something offtopic, especially as its something done to both. Considering i am unbiased and battle for true equality (you know like telling women to stop playing mind games and ask men out, telling men to actually work toward finding mates, etc) unlike most around here who stride for their own gender or blindly follow the other in hopes of being liked. That is honestly the dumbest standard ive heard. Attacking ugly people is something thats done for BOTH genders OFTEN. Hence no need to even look into it.



MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

15 Aug 2012, 3:00 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV.


As opposed to women, who DON'T EXIST after 35, and not at all if they're fat or plain, let alone "ugly".
Wanna talk about which "cultural standardization" is more unfair?


dont exist after 35? Theres entire shows based on women 40-60.

Right, as opposed to shows with men 40-60. Which is...almost every show.
MXH wrote:
Hell just about every major tv show in the past 30 years had a woman over 35 which was the wise barrel of laughs. but its nice to see how thats conveniently forgotten

*A* woman? My, my. We're gettin' progressive.


And if theres men 40-60 theres also women 40-60. it quite simple actually :lol:

ohh looky there, missing the point in hopes of continuing to bash hopelessly. you go girl :roll:



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

15 Aug 2012, 3:00 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
MXH wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MXH wrote:
id love to see an 82page thread that attacked women as bluntly as is happening here.

very convenient for you to have missed the attacks on "ugly" women on that exact same page. why is one worth commenting on but not the other? if you consider one an attack then you have to consider the other one the same way.


its not convenient because its unrelated. Many men are attacked for being ugly. Hell its almost culturally standardized that men are hairy fat stupid smelly blobs sitting watching TV.


As opposed to women, who DON'T EXIST after 35, and not at all if they're fat or plain, let alone "ugly".
Wanna talk about which "cultural standardization" is more unfair?


Men don't hit menopause.

As far as nice guys not dating ugly women (if they're not ugly themselves): Would you date someone ugly? Good looks denote a good set of genetics.