Why don't women make the first move?
- Thread starter muir
- Start date
Posting what. The link? What would be the problem with posting that? I must be missing something.
Because i'm assuming that's lucyjr's country. You've called him a lot of names, and you're dismising someone else's opinion by his social background. You've just proven yourself to have a double speech.
I have no investment into siding with lucyjr, he can take care of himself, i just thought you where being inconcistent.
I never dismissed anything over his social background. His "culture" wasn't even on my radar until it was suggested to me that this played a part in the way he thought. I took it into consideration. As Muir said, he (lucyjr) was the one to bring up his conservative background. I looked it up to get a better understanding of his views. After reading about his 'conservative culture' I did see why he could think the way he did and said so. Lucyjr then proceeded to let me know that his views had nothing to do with his background and everything to do with the way he feels. This is what I originally thought. Muir then pointed out that lucyjr was the one to reference his background, not him (Muir), for the record I suppose. Muir just repeated it because he thought it would help others understand Lucy better. I agreed with Muir that it seemed relevant, I googled it, and...wait, why am I writing all of this? It's all there, you just have to read it. I never double spoke.
Yes, it was about his country. I posted the link because it's relevant to what I'm saying.
And yes, I wasn't nice to him. B.d.
I think it would be wise to read the whole thread before commenting. This really is a friendly suggestion.
Last edited:
You're the one who called him names and then posted an article about how "patriarchal" his country is, not muir, nor anyone else around. So yeah, i don't know why are you justificating yourself now, i've been following this thread.
That's what happens... and muir made a VERY good point. Why our "progressive" views must be the best around? It's like we, western people think we're the "shit" , and everyone should see how inclusive, free thinking and evolved we are... This also happens to muslim cultures and how "oppresive" they are supposed to be. People talk and judge a lot about things they don't even know.
You may be following it, but you're not really following it.
It's an article. Out there for everyone to read. It is not a secret document hidden from the world. That is how things are in Romania supposedly. There was nothing wrong with me posting that link. It wasn't negative, it was facts. I was showing what I found when I looked up information on this subject.
I am having a really hard time seeing what your problem is. I didn't post it to put down his country. I posted it to show my findings. If you viewed it as a bad thing then that's your problem, no one else's.
Also, I could care less about how other westerners think. I am my own person. If you think you are "the shit" then good for you. I don't refer to myself or the way I think in that manner. I also never referred to myself as inclusive, free thinking, evolved, or whatever else you want to throw out there. I am who I am. I like who I am. But that doesn't make me better than anyone else. This was never said. Yes, when I see someone's way of thinking as flawed, I say so. I'm aloud. Sometimes something is so flawed that I view it as stupid. And I say so. I'm aloud. I am not judging his culture. I am judging him as a person.
I do, that's why i said that regarding your exchange, you do have a double speech.
Because you keep on dismising someone because of their cultural background. So you don't care about his background, but you do care enough to post an article about it? You're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Read above and you'll see why i'm calling you a double speech.
That's the typical westener mindset "i am my own person", you don't even seem like you are, given how invested you seem to give me your picture on what happened on this thread, stand tall when you're being questioned, grow up and think before you post.
I NEVER DISMISSED HIM BECAUSE OF HIS CULTURAL BACKGROUND. I POSTED THE ARTICLE FOR MUIR TO READ. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Shooting myself in the foot? How? No, I do not care about his background AT ALL. I looked up the info to try and understand. This article helped me understand how someone could think this way. I showed Muir what helped me with this but NO I do not care about his background. I'm not shooting myself in the foot at all.
Typical? Way to judge. I AM my own person. I don't give a shit what you think about that. Invested? I'm answering your questions. Grow up? What the hell are you talking about?
Pull it together and work on your comprehension skills.
What really pissed me off, is that by the end, is that, it is double standard when you say that you're open minded individual, and then going around insulting and judging someone else for offering a different view. It is an attitude that really pisses me off. I'm not here to explain it to you again, take it or leave it.
Now, you gave me the answer to my original question, i do think it's an incredibly patronizing one but, then again, take it or leave it, i don't care.
Oh, and ftr, regarding a past post of mine, i'm not an american, nor an european, although my country is pretty much infused with western culture, specially after the internet came along.
Last edited:
It is hard to understand because I think on a case by case basis. I just don't see how you can say a woman is still physically weak if she can physically over power most men. And a man who can't even, say, push a wheel barrow is strong. True, she is not the typical woman and he is not the typical man, but her measure of physical ability would be high and his low. You would still say the man is strong and the woman is weak, even if there were quantitative data that showed just the opposite to be true. This would mean that the woman is stronger than the man, that cannot be denied. By your logic though, the results don't say anything about her body's constitution, about her body's structure. So say a man is a diamond, and a woman a sapphire. The diamond is naturally the harder stone, and the sapphire a close second. Even if, by some miracle the sapphire cuts the diamond, it is still the weaker stone because of it's constitution. That is what you're saying? This is not the best example because I don't think it's physically possible, but if a sapphire were to yield such results I would say there are weak diamonds and strong sapphires. You would say diamonds are strong and sapphires are weak based on their chemical composition. So a difference in the perception of strength and what we perceive as the truth is the real issue here.
I'm not saying the reproductive system is the ONLY difference between men and women, but that is the only one that is absolutely a definite. There are obviously many other differences, but there is no other single difference that is only shared between men and women. Your genitalia is what legally defines your sex. It can't be denied that women tend to think a certain way, and men tend to think a certain way, but it is not an absolute. It is not true on a case by case basis that every man thinks a certain way or every woman thinks a certain way. Each individual has different desires, motives, perceptions... There is nothing that all men want and nothing that all women want because there is nothing that all people want. There are things almost everybody wants (money, happiness, sex) but not everyone does. Even our most basic biological instinct, to reproduce (or to engage in the acts that would normally result in reproduction,) something that should be ingrained in our DNA, is still not true for everybody. Some people truly have no sexual desire. They truly are lacking this biological instinct/function. And the sexual desire of some would not result in reproduction... If you can tell me how every man thinks and how every woman thinks then feel free and I'm sure I can find an exception to your explanations. Or even if there is just one thing you can think of, or some conclusive scientific proof that all people of a certain sex want a certain thing I am curious to hear. What we believe we know about men and women and their differences are only generalizations, characteristics common to one sex or the other, but not strictly limited to one or the other, not strictly found in all. "Physical constitution" is at least something we can see, something we can measure. Mental constitution is an entirely different animal. It is even more difficult to understand, to make observations objectively, and to draw completely unbiased conclusions about another person's mental state. I don't think you can measure "mental strength," it's such a subjective thing.
Someone's sex shouldn't be what determines who makes the first move. I mean, there are just situations where it makes more sense for one person to make the first move over the other... A woman is recently widowed. She meets a man and they begin to develop feelings for one another... But the man knows she is a widow. She is in a vulnerable state, and to make the first move could easily be perceived as situationist, advantageous. If the woman makes the first move, then there is no worry that she is taking advantage of the man, because he is not in a vulnerable state like she is. (Not because a woman isn't capable of taking advantage of a man.) If you really believe women shouldn't make the first move ever, and that men should, how do you determine who should make the first move in same sex relationships? It is "not natural" but it happens, and what are your thoughts on that?
Well, at least you said probably this time. A person who you are interested in, physically attracted to, and want to be with makes a move on you, and this is a turn off? Until now, I have never heard of that specifically being a turn off before, but I can see some men being uncomfortable with it, sure. It does not mean that only those who are uncomfortable with it are mature. Maturity though has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the importance one places on gender roles. Determining what exactly is the first move is also a pretty grey area.
Also, everything I said in the second paragraph of my last post actually wasn't directed at you, it was just my two cents on the thread topic but I figured I'd go ahead and respond to what you said.
I personally don't like coming across too strong as I know it surprises and offends.. With men it's more confusing rather, I'm so assertive I either can look desperate or dominant.. And those are not attractive qualities.
Men categorically want to be the strong one.. Society even deems it so.. As women we are supposed to be dainty and clueless we are supposed to be the ones who need saving.. Because men need to be needed... And if we don't have a need, they don't have a purpose..
Which is exactly why the whole need thing has never worked for me.. I WANT someone.. I don't need them.. That is far less complimentary.. My strength comes in that I will get an intense feeling and know I need to take a chance... I've found it best if someone will take a strong chance too.
Men categorically want to be the strong one.. Society even deems it so.. As women we are supposed to be dainty and clueless we are supposed to be the ones who need saving.. Because men need to be needed... And if we don't have a need, they don't have a purpose..
Which is exactly why the whole need thing has never worked for me.. I WANT someone.. I don't need them.. That is far less complimentary.. My strength comes in that I will get an intense feeling and know I need to take a chance... I've found it best if someone will take a strong chance too.
Men could equally say that women crave being desired
You might have struck on something there with the whole 'needing' thing though
before the service economy men absolutely WERE needed for their labour
Now it seems they are less needed at least by the average woman in her day to day life; there are still many job roles where men carry the burden but these are out of sight and mind of the average woman (who then fails to realise the societal contribution being made by men)
But i would raise the point regarding this that the service economy is built on nothing but thin air......it is propped up by a money printing ponzi scheme which is teetering on collapse
When it collapses and we realise that life is not sustained on frivolous consumerist items but rather on essentials like shelter, food and clean water as well as security from dangerous people then men will seem more vital again
In the meantime some women are going to climb up onto the dung heap and crow like a cockeral until the reality train hits our society...which it is now doing (watch the stock market to get an idea of how much confidence there now is in the economy)
here's how i see it...men and women need each other and they shouldn't delude themselves otherwise
Oh no. This is too precious.
I think you are a joke.
How assertive you can be if you are a INFJ...not really. Even ESTJ women are not that scary like you supposedly are.
And like all self-declared strong women, you don't understand that you are even more weaker than the "weak woman", because you step over your natural attributes, and that can only mean you always try to prove something. You are on the defensive before you even start.
I'm so sorry I pissed you off for claiming to be openminded and the not delivering for you. I should have considered your feelings and needs before writing anything.
Now you say I finally gave you the answer to your original question? Okay, but I wrote the same thing in my first (or second? Or third) response to you. You finally read it. Good.
And you used the word "we" when referring to Americans. That means you consider yourself American, no? Using the word "we" makes you part of the group of people you are referring to. My country is infused with many different cultures, one in particular in my current environment. But I do not use the word "we" when I am referring to people of this country. I would say "they". I don't see how a mistake like that could even be made. Something isn't adding up. You either are an American in denial or you want to be an American. Either way I don't care. But it's very bizarre. And thanks for being sooo clear.
Sorry for the rant, it just really pisses me off when a person claims to be American by using the word "we" when referring to them and then turns out not to be one. What would you call that? Maybe DOUBLE SPEAK? Look at that. You should make a post to yourself on how pissed off you get when you double speak. I get it.
Anyway, back to the point. Women and men should throw gender roles out the window and do whatever makes them feel comfortable. If a man can't handle a woman coming on to him, then I think it could be a deeper sign of insecurity. He might be intimidated by a woman that can make her own choices. That means she may want him but she doesn't need him. And that scares him. Not being needed.
Last edited:
"All women are weak, and those who think they are not are super weak."
You're basing it all on personal experience, and you don't even have the decency to accept others opinions. It amazes me how much shitposting you do, and still I'm only reading a fraction of what you write here.
Is this really the epitome of Ni-dom?
I wanted to point out something to you
Western society does not equal USA regardless of how predominant it has been for the last years. Also lots of people take issue by the fact that often the U.S. gets reffered as America, because technically it's a continent not a country. You're making pretty forced and vague assumptions about me now. What you've said now proves more about what kind of person YOU are, than anything about me.
Last edited:
