This "nice guys vs jerks" nonsense has to stop.

Post Reply New Topic

sorry "whorled peas" (which inspired Gregor Mendel's research of genetic transmision) is pronounced almost the same as "world peace" and violence begets violence.

^Oh, it was a pun.

That post was not there when I started posting. I was multitasking so apparently it took me over 20 minutes to get my post down.

So let's answer it now.



Who would shoot down a suggestion that NVC is important? Or why? Is it because NVC is a difficult fix so they want to feel helpful by addressing something less important?

I think my mother has a book by Jeanette McAfee somewhere. I'm pretty sure I read it at some point when I still lived at home, I forgot what it was about but I tend to remember author's names even if I remember nothing about the book.



Problem is I don't know if I am evaluating myself well because I don't really know what I am doing. I also don't know anyone who would help with it. Acting classes might be a go after I finish college and have some money.

It takes forever to communicate an idea the way I mean it to be expressed



Hey check this out!

"Yeah, in dealing with actors as a director or producer, I would say a great deal of the actors are on the spectrum, you know, and they looked to acting because nothing else excites them, nothing else, you know. they don't want to play a team sports, they don't want to do other things but there's something about acting that is very attractive, you know, and it's just - it fills so many voids for people, but as far as people in the spectrum in this business I think there's quite a few."
http://www.wrongplanet.net/article328.html

Funny they single that out particularly. Considering I'm the one who posted this. http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt101294.html I wonder if I'll get along with actors.



"Well, basically, it's to scholarship kids into our programs, they can't afford it, into our camps, we do film making camps in the summer, so we just started this non-profit too, to further the education in the film and acting field."

"in the summer we run these two week, ten-minute-short-film camps, where we take them through the whole process of making a film and then we make a film, together, it's like a two, two and a half day shoot, and with a professionally written, professionally shot, and then along side the pros, the kids make the short film. They are in it, they help produce it, they help direct it, and we do it over a two week period. We're doing one in Michigan, one at Oakland University, they got a grant to do one so we're going in to run it for them. We're doing one in San Francisco and San Jose, and then we work three here during the summer"

Sounds like admission would be competitive. Maybe worth a look, though.

You can read a book on body language, that always helps. I found I learned a lot on my own by reading a book and observation, and also watching soapies/series (I know they're not representative of real life as they're over-dramatized but all the normal body language is there in an exaggerated form (so it's easier to pick up on) plus as you're effectively God and you know everything that's going on, it's easier to link the different body language with hidden thoughts, motivations, feelings, and communications (because they're not hidden on a televised drama, the viewer finds out everything).

Why is this so repulsive? I hope it doesn't repel ALL women!

Even if I just want to be friends with a woman for the time being, I don't want to do that if it means there is no chance of us being physically involved in the future. Maybe once I get some of my sexual curiosity out of my system this will change, but for now I don't want to spend time with a woman if I get a sense that her body will be entirely off limits to me forever.

I shouldn't say "all" because there are always exceptions. But I will say many,many,many,many women are repulsed by this. Why? Because it's dehumanizing. The way it feels from the woman's side is that she is being told she has no value except as something to boink. If you won't interact with her without some possibility of sex, that shows that you have zero interest in her as a person. And that is a horrible feeling. A horrible feeling that is reacted agauinst with repulsion.

(My everlasting gratitude to JanetFP's generation of women for being the ones to put this horrible feeling into words and bring it out into the open.)

Janissy, I understand on many levels what you are saying, though I have some things to say about how it comes across on the man's side. In particular, I want to say something about the following sentence:



This is not necessarily true, given the tremendous skew in the sexual "market". As an analogy, imagine that very few stores sold apples to anyone but a small elite group of customers. Now let's assume I'm a person who has about the same desire for apples as for any other fruit, but that they don't substitute for each other. In this situation, I will always have much more of a shortage of apples than of anything else, and when I pick stores I will be swayed very much by whether I think they might sell apples. I might not even waste my time going in a store if there was a sign on the door saying "apples not sold here".

The point of my analogy is this: Getting any sort of physical intimacy is very difficult for men in this world. We could spend all our free time socializing with various women who send "maybe" signals with regards to sex and still not be guaranteed to get anywhere. So it sometimes feels like a waste of time to hang out at all with those with whom we don't seem to stand a chance. Plus it just seems awkward that someone who seems to want to have a good time with us is often totally closed off to what seems like such a natural and enjoyable activity.

Friends will often do things for each other to satisfy various needs, but satisfying sexual curiosity or attraction is very often the exception. I mean, there is sex as an expression of love at one end of the spectrum, and at the other end there are "pity f**ks", but it would be so great to once in a while hear something like "I don't want a relationship with you, but you seem like an interesting guy, so if you want to we can experiment in bed".
Women are repeatedly told by the more traditional elements of our society to "not give it up too easily", and it seems too few of them even think to question the idea that being open to physical intimacy amounts to giving anything up at all.

Women have far more to lose from casual sex than men. In this and related threads other people have spelled out the evolutionary biology reasons why this is so. I am sure you would be a happy man if you could convince women that casual sex is in their best interests, but it isn't. Even if there were no social sanctions against it (if the word "slut" didn't exist amnd there was no concept of it), women would STILL have more to lose than men. Even if birth control were perfected to the point that accidental pregnancy were impossible, women would STILL have more to lose than men. Even if there were no social sanctions and no pregnancy risk (or STD risk, which applies to both), there is the matter of the hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin, the bonding hormone, is secreted in great quantities by women during orgasm and childbearing. This causes the woman to "fall for" a man who is good in bed and her own baby. I suppose you could use this as an argument for why a man should ignore a woman's needs and you probably will. But you have been asking why woman find certain things repellent and now you know.

Your veiws lack insight and put bluntly, are offensive. Vasopressin in males has the same function as oxytocin does in females. Vasopressin is also released during sexual intercourse, men also undergo hormonal changec when their partner is pregnant. Having casual sex with just "anyone", can lead to a situation where you do not have access to your own child. I've also seen the term "whore" thrown at men by other men. Just as i've seen women act positively towards other women who like to sleep about. To suggest men have less to lose, or even to suggest pair-bonding is deficient in men somehow is sexist.


I don't understand your veiwpoint, surely you can't be friends with men either who do not wish to have sexual contact with you? You can't be friends with ugly people? I'm getting the impression that you are unable to form real friendships, and that you only care what you can get out of relationships.

Michjo, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Janissy, I find your argument that women have more to lose rather sexist as well. It presumes that children, health, and general wellbeing are not important to men, which is inaccurate and rather off-putting. It doesn't change the risks that unprotected sex creates - for both genders - but it does not necessarily correlate that casual sex = unprotected sex = absolute risks.

Biostructure... your approach concerns me. So long as your priority is sex and not interpersonal interaction and connection, then you will likely only attract potential partners who have the same goal. Sex is natural, enjoyable, and NOT a ride at the amusement park. Not everyone gets to ride first, some people don't meet the requirements for certain rides, and riders can be tossed from the park without explanation - and this applies to both men and women. There are -no- guarantees, Bio. So you can "waste" your time spending it in the company of friends and learning more about yourself and how to interact, or you can waste your time alone and shaking your fist at the confounding behavior of the other gender.


M.

This is a near perfect analogy, biostructure...

But it is exactly this perspective that results in that "no apples sold here" sign being prominantly displayed. You can buy "apples" in any city near your home. Most of us give the "apples" freely and lovingly to those we think will appreciate them. We need time to figure out if they will be appreciated.

When we meet a man with a "I don't care who you are, just boink me" sign flashing on his forehead, we just might not feel he would have the capacity to appreciate our apples.

Regarding the 2nd paragraph, Janissy's argument may be *sexist* , but it is nonetheless accurate . You see Mukuranoshi, nature itself is sexist in the sense that men and women have major biological differences in terms of both their brains and bodies. Pregnancy risks a womans life, whereas men really dont have much to lose from sleeping with the wrong woman other than emotional baggage(which women have too-in addition). The risk of unprotected sex for women is double: BOTH STDs AND pregnancy/childbirth. Its also my understanding that for diseases like AIDS, while women can give it to men the risk for contracting AIDS is higher for a woman sleeping with an man who's HIV+ than vice versa.

One will not get pregnant when sleeping with multiple partners, if they take the neccesary procautions. Pregnancy is only a risk to those who allow it to be. Whereas all the emotional risks are equal and the only protection from them is abstinence. Using an increased risk in one STD hardly proves a point either. There is no accuracy to the claims that women have more to lose.

Actually, contraceptives are not 100% effective. So a woman with multiple partners certainly is at a higher risk of getting pregnant and if she does there's no way to tell who the father is without a paternity test.

Women have more to lose. Yes, that's a sexist claim but like zornslemma said, nature itself is sexist. Nature has saddled women with more to lose. But I won't just blame nature. There is also society, which came up with the concept of "slut". This concept is alive and well and no condoms can protect a woman from it. Thuis a woman has more to lose both because of the dictates of nature and because of the dictates of society.