Friendzone

Post Reply New Topic

Troubles?

No it's not. I said
"you think all guys want is sex" not
"you think all guys want sex"

The difference is which noun "all" refers to. To paraphrase I meant,
"you think the only thing guys want is sex" not
"you think think every guy wants sex"

I won't blame you because it was probably an honest mistake on your part. You said I said not every guy wants sex, the truth is, something like 99% of people want sex and I don't blame them but that's not the only thing they want. Perhaps they want sex and many other things as part of a complete relationship.

This strange characterization of guys who want to be in a complete relationship as being fiends who only want sex is the thing I find questionable, not the part about all guys wanting sex. Just the part about all guys wanting only sex.

What an original observation. If I didn't know any better I'd think you were implying there are people here who didn't already know that.

That's exactly what they said. They also didn't date me because of money and my lacking it. Real men have high paying jobs and I don't so I'm not good enoug. It wasn't out of compatible issues. Well besides the money compatibility.

Are we really arguing semantics. Anyways I said:
"all" men just want sex = "you think the only thing guys want is sex" not
Notice the "just" which does make what I said equate exactly with what you said as you've explained

Anyways, she never made that characterization in the first place. She only put a meme which was addressed at people who think they deserve a relationship just because they've become friends with someone of the opposite sex. You got triggered by something that wasn't even addressed at you. I don't care about anything else that was argued in this thread. What person doesn't want sex besides some asexuals. I think there has been quite a few misunderstandings in this thread.

Sly, I hate to agree with you in this instance but unfortunately you're right. This past week I've been chatting to a girl on OKC and I'm going out with her on Sunday. Her profile said that she didn't want to date any unemployed guys.

As we chatted I she was impressed when I told her about my possessions (I've bought most of them back after the robbery). She was particularly impressed that I have three big TVs in a row.

It's an unfortunate reality but girls like guys with money. Girls don't expect guys to be millionaires, just to be edging into middle class. I know this is unfair because wealth is less of a meritocracy than it seems but we can't expect girls to go out with guys they're not attracted to and much of the time they're not attracted to poor people.

Like the saying goes, the heart wants what the heart wants and that's what they want. It's not your fault that you're poor but we can't make women change their preferences.

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 20 Jan 2016, 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

^ The amount of quotes in that post makes me feel dizzy.
I've forgotten what I was going to say now.
Probably not important anyway.

^ For some reason L&D threads often turn into flamewars. Not that I'm saying I'm blameless in this.

Exactly, so you said the thing I said you said which was the same thing I said was wrong.

My real argument is that most people want sex but not just sex. Most people want to be in a complete relationship, of which sex is only a component.I'll start by assuming AuroraBorealisGazer agrees with the meme she posted. The meme doesn't mention the term "relationship". It says sex.

I suppose it could mean relationship by extension if we say that sex and relationship and synonymes. If they're actually synonymes than I think it's a pretty sick sad world. I view that synonyme as the product of a certain group of men and women who are strangely obsessed with sex because they talk about it a lot. They then proceed to project their strange views onto other people so they can accuse them of saying stuff they didn't.

Anyway, if we assume the intended meaning of the meme is "no one deserves a relationship it implies that someone thought someone else thought people have a right to have a relationship. Did they?

As has been said, there's nothing wrong with desiring a relationship, only demanding one. Did anyone demand to be in a relationship?

There's nothing wrong with being disappointed that one isn't in a relationship. Any entitlement in therein in inferred, not implied.

Although some people think other people think they have a right to be in a relationship (for reasons I can't quite fathom), I think the only people who actually think people have a right to be in a relationship are people who make fun of single people. Not that anyone's done that here but there's a lot of that on the internet (and in meatspace).

You're only 19 . I'm 27 and never had a relationship. It'll just get worse.

Problem lies in that they aren't doing what hero heart wants, but what there brainwashed mind thinks it wants. Better to be together with a well off man who has nothing in common and hates everything about you then a poor guy who loves you and shares most of your interests. Most the population is brainwashed by the super wealthy into this made up ideal world that solely exists so people spend their money on the stuff the super wealthy make. Think about it? If you paid just a bit above what it actually cost to make stuff you'd need less money, which means you could work at a job you love, work less, enjoy life more, etc. nope we are all suppose to be cogs in the giant capitalism machine so th Welty get more wealthy. At least back in the day people like we were used for manufacturing and dying in the wealthy so wars. sadly not even good enough to die anymore.

Only if I'm not pro-active about it I guess.

I was and still kinda am proactive .

Sometimes things just aren't meant to ever be.
Like aspies joining the military

You're right that we're being brainwashed by the super wealthy. Then again I really enjoy buying stuff.But I do love my job.They're not using me. Or else they wouldn't have given me a $2,000 Christmas bonus. Anyway, some of my favourite products were made by capitalism. Like video games. Not very many video games were made under Communism. Not very many good ones anyway.Be glad. Dying in a war would be such a waste of your intelligence and individuality. The same is true for manufacturing. True you don't die in manufacturing (usually) but to take something as sophisticated as the human brain and use it for a repetitive task such as putting iPhones in iPhone boxes is such a sad waste when that person could be using his or her brain to do something creative or inventive.

Okay, I have to call bullsh1t here.

Firstly, very few women are going to get with a man that hates everything about them, and even fewer men would be willing to be with a woman they aren't interested in, especially if they're financially well-off and able to do better.

Women aren't being brainwashed any more than men when it comes to relationship standards, except for maybe some whose dating value is inflated in their mind because they talk to high-value males on the internet who are only after sex, whilst they assume they want more.

Furthermore, not all women base a prospective partner's worth purely on his wealth, and not all women have unreasonable or unrealistic standards where it relates to a partner's wealth. Especially since pre-WWI and pre-feminism, men were pretty much the only ones who were able to work, so women had to rely on the man's resources and capital to live off of. Even now, men work more often than not whilst women stay home with the kids, and more money means more resources, which was traditionally a higher selling point for men, and clearly has powered on.

I'm sure you've met girls in the past that you weren't interested in dating for one reason or another. If I tell you that you're being brainwashed into not finding those women attractive, what are you going to say? You're probably going to be insulted, and I'm almost certain you wouldn't just agree with me.

You also touched base with capitalism, and the uneven distribution of wealth it creates. That's all true, but it doesn't have very much to do with girls finding guys attractive.

Yeah, there's no poor or working class couples. Heaven knows where all those poor kids come from. /sarcasm

A lot of problems/BS on this board could be solved if people looked at the world around them and simply observed, and then looked at themselves and observed again, and then thought about what they were going to say.

We live in a world where, to get by, it's the norm and a necessity to have a job. Most people want to 'get by' in that sense. We can discuss the sociological etc apsects over in PPR, but within that paradigm, its completely legit. There are a lot of people, men and women, who reject those norms. Not just of wealth or consumerism, but of the 9-5 life. They can be found in any number of subcultures.

I think what we have here is y'all are attracted to women who are attracted to social norms, perhaps even wealth and consumerism (lucky for me, that would be a huge turn off). There will be a lot of such women around - it's how norms become norms and the machine keeps humming along - but ultimately you're taking your experience and projecting onto the world at large. There's other women out there.

(Edited to add some words and change others.)

Last edited by Hopper on 20 Jan 2016, 6:36 am, edited 2 times in total.