Women (Women Join us please)

Women are not objects to "get".

We are people.

-ITL-

I don't "get" why some people can't see past the nuances with the english language. I am fairly certain Vajra never implied ownership or acquiring women as objects.

Moreover...if all we had to go on what his original question (which we don't...it's pretty apparent over the course of the thread that "ownership" or the like is not what he meant. Poor word choice? Sure. Worth being antagonistic over? Not really.

But let's pretend that all we know is that first post...is there actually something inherently "wrong" with simply trying to be that guy who can bed just about any woman he wants? What if this really had been the question he's asking? Are the games played in order to just bed a person any worse than those we play to get into a relationship? So long as a person knows what they're looking for and is ethical about expectations...is there actually anything -wrong- with wanting to "get women"?

So long as they're not misleading to the women, I say no.

So, there you are, having a casual conversation with a female friend of yours. She introduces you to her female friend; not bad looking, kinda cute. You say something (small talk) in a charismatic, somewhat charming way. Then, you immediately turn back to your friend to talk about whatever interesting thing you may have to say at the moment.

Next, you turn back to the girl you've been introduced to; you start chitchatting, say something a bit witty to get a smile. Just a little smile: something to ease whatever tension that might be in the air (remember, she is a stranger), but you dare not stumble-you dare not fall, for you need to be sturdy and quick as you redirect the conversation back to your friend so that mid-stream you can stop talking to your friend so that you can look back to the girl you've been introduced to-- to say these words exactly: "What happened to your hair? It looks like it's been run over by a truck!"

Then as her mouth begins to open in smiling shock, you turn your head back to your friend smirking all the while; then only for a brief moment, you look back to the girl you've insulted to make eye-contact, but remember, when you do so, the eye contact needs to be brief.

This is where things begin to get interesting (as you are now talking about practically nothing at this point with your friend) as you and she smiles about what you have just done, but more importantly, this is where the door begins to open in your favor.

The girl may say any number of things, but this is your opportunity to interrupt her as she begins to say whatever she might have to say. See, you need to explain that you're currently single and about how you think it may have something to do with the fact you're still learning the art of thinking before you speak. You need to have a bit of a grin, yet it needs to be mixed with a fake serious look.

This is now your opportunity to make up for what you have done, and you should not rest until you have been successful. Who knows, it might include treating her to lunch.

Oh, and over lunch, don't forget to learn her favorite color. After all, you can recall from elementary school that no puppy love has ever blossomed between people that did not know each others favorite color.

So, fast, you're basically trying to say you're one of those guys who gets the vast majority of women?

I am fast, and fast I am.

Asking someone not to be misogynistic is "being antagonistic"?

The word "get" is relevant. Either of you two ever heard of semantics? It's something often used in philosophy. Too bad we're not on a philosophy forum...

The original question made women out to be objects to acquire. It's one thing to ask, "What is the nature of attraction?" and quite another to ask, "How can I get women?"

If neither of you two can see the difference, hey, good luck to you.

What makes you think when one asks, "How can I get women?", they are necessarily objectifying women?

Can not I say to my friend, "Get over here!" in a playful and non-derogatory manner? I've even said to women friends who were hesitant about going out with a guy, "Go get him!". The colloquial use of "to get" is simply not always offensive.

To say "to get" a woman, does not necessitate that there is implied hatred for the women, nor does it imply there is disrespect of any kind being displayed.

Perhaps not hatred, but certainly it infers a kind of dominance or even ownership which doesn't need to exist.

In that very sentence "How can I get women?" there is a subject, a verb, and a direct object. In other words, women are the direct object of the verb "to get".

Is there not more than a bit of dehumanization if women are a thing to be gotten?

I feel a little under attack here, so I don't really feel *too* terrible that this is as long as it is...



If we're going to argue semantics, then it's worth noting that you didn't actually ask anyone anything. You made two statements. Had you actually written something like, "Hey, Vaj, what are the chances you could edit your initial post to not seem so misogynistic? People might get the wrong impression of what you're asking otherwise!" then you'd have asked "someone" to not be so misogynistic. As it stands, you did no such thing.

So to answer your question: In this case you were not antagonistic because you "asked someone not to be misogynistic", but because you did not ask anyone anything (ie, were passive-aggressive, which is antagonistic) and instead typed two potentially inflammatory statements (and the time inflammatory statements are not antagonistic will be the time I'll proclaim myself a rockstar).

Perhaps it's worth stating here that by antagonistic I did not necessarily mean you were stepping out of bounds (this *is* after all a philosophy forum...antagonism is practically sustenance for most of us!). I simply meant to point out that perhaps the level of reaction was not warranted by evidence found in the thread.


As to this...I don't think anyone claimed "get" wasn't relevant. That little word is in fact what all this hubbub is about...Semantics in fact appears to be the very angle being used by all sides. But good job on the pointless sarcasm thrown in there anyway.

This is truly the meat of the debate here and to this I respond with the same thing I stated before: It's pretty apparent over the course of the thread that "ownership" or the like is not what he meant by "get". Poor word choice? Sure. Worth being antagonistic over? Not really.

I'll add this, as well: Worth tossing out baseless insults over? Certainly not.

And to respond to this more directly: had the original poster asked "What is the nature of attraction" rather than any variation, preferably non-potentially-misogynistic variants, of what he *did* post, then the answers would not have been likely to contain the information he was looking for.

Next...this is something that just bugs the crap out of me about some feminists: Taking something out of context and/or trying to make an argument out of the wrong portion of an issue (especially when the person in question comes oh-so-close to hitting the nail on the head).

Honestly, would the question truly have been different, at its foundation, if the OP had asked "how can I attract women?" ?

Let's look at the original post again as though this one thing had been changed...
Consider, first, that the OP never actually asked (and this is important in a semantics discussion, I'd think) how he can "get" women. He only asked how he can move into the category of men which can - it was an assumption *others* made that he meant, "how can I "get" women?"
Given that, and given this new wording, does it look like the issue of "misogyny" has been fixed? If it does, then your feminist side isn't working hard enough.

Doesn't it appear that making an entire argument out of the single word "get" is far too shallow, when there is a larger fish to fry here?

Speaking of bigger fish...


Relationships are a mutual, (usually)consenting manipulation of emotions. In a relationship, a man "gets" a woman as much as she "gets" him. We can insert any verb we want, but the end result is the same: In a monogamous relationship, each partner "gets" the other...to imply anything more than that is to look too far into the word without further context.

I could agree that "get" does often imply a sense of ownership, but this ownership is not necessarily negative because to get something is to feel a sense of ownership of it; to have a sense of ownership inherently implies responsibility to that thing to some degree or another. In this case, the "things" in question are humans - and not just women. So in this case...we can safely assume (based on other postings in this thread) that Vaj is not attempting to be a womanizer: He is interested in "getting" a woman in a relationship sense. She would thus be "getting" him as well.

If "getting" another person inherently indicates dehumanization, then people probably should avoid "getting" relationships all together, or deal with being dehumanized.

(personally, I think this is just simply the wrong way to be looking at the word "get" in this context).

I'd also like to point out once more that Vaj did -not- actually ask, "How can I get women?" For a bunch of philosophers we're a bit sketchy on our facts at times...

You might want to reconsider that interpretation. The word "get" is highly ambiguous, and though it can infer that, that's not to say it does infer that. Sometimes people interpret what others say in the worst light possible, but I think it wouldn't be unwise to be a tad bit more charitable in our interpretion--at least until we've leaned a bit more.

get - definition of get by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Just sayin'.

I think you're aware that we're not referring to grammatical direct objects.



Have you taken into consideration that women also use this phrase? It's not uncommon for Cosmopolitan to have articles to the effect, "How to get a good man".

It's common that when a respectful gentlemen says he'd like to get a particular woman, he is saying that he hopes to win the woman's affection and have her enter into a monogamous relationship. I've often said, "You're mine, and only mine" to my girlfriends, and none of them have ever taken offense. They did not conclude that I was announcing some sort of slave-esque ownership over them, and they shouldn't have. Because we both knew that I was simply expressing my affinity for them.

"Get" offensive? In itself? I can't agree.

I am sure it is too late to join in on this thread - but I will leave my pittance for pity's sake anyways.

If you want sex, and only sex, as a purely physical desire, then you can get that really easy. You would know if you were the type to only want sex as well, because you would have low standards for yourself and for women.

So, if you aren't out there hitting on the drunk, one eyed pirate chicks then you are not as superficial as you could be.

In which case, I recommend that you stop worrying about the whole women thing, love thing, or relationship thing. If you do, then it will eat at you. You will constantly think about it and it will manifest in your actions. It will chip away at your confidence. Women will pick up on it, and unless they are the Florence Nightingale type they will turn away.

Once you become happy with yourself, alone, and you let love come to you, and you have discerning tastes when it does, you will be happy.

That, so far, has been what happened to me. I talk about the deepest touching human issues with my girlfriend, and we never get sick of each other, and if we ever have a problem it is immediately discussed and solved within 30 seconds or so - no huge fights, no mistrust, no leashes, etc.

Just be happy, and let it happen. Unlike intellectual issues, it is best not to dwell on the lack of companionship as if it was a problem needing a solution.

I am not a woman, but women often like me very much. This was not always the case, though, so I can tell you what has worked for me. I should, however, give a disclaimer, as the advice I will provide is not designed to get you sex with a lot of different women, but to build a solid relationship. If you just want sex, you probably will want to stop reading now.


First of all, do not be too shy. If you do not ever participate in a conversation with women, they cannot get to know you, and consequently will not be very likely to come to like you.

Second, treat women like real people. They are individuals, just like men, and what they each want differs from what others want. And, of course, this means that there is a good chance that a particular individual will not be interested in you, or that you will not be interested in her, and that should not bother you. You are not trying to get every woman to like you, are you? (If so, you will surely fail anyway.) You might want to think about how you would want to be treated if you were a woman.

I suspect, however, that virtually everyone who needs this second piece of advice will not benefit from it. When I have given this advice to men in person, it has been like empty sounds in their ears. If you imagine that women are not human, you are doomed from the start to make all sorts of errors. This one, by the way, is the most important point.

Third, don't rush things too much. There is a reason why most women run away from a guy who speaks of marriage the second time they meet, and that is because most women do not want to be with a total lunatic. You cannot possibly know someone well enough for it to be a good idea to get married in such a time, so you must be crazy if you are planning on getting married at that point. The idea of not rushing things too much applies to more than just marriage, of course.

Fourth, are you the sort of man who would be a good choice for a woman like the one you want? If not, change yourself, or change what you want.

Okay, we are basically done. Obviously, if you want to not be repulsive to most women, you should do things like brush your teeth and bathe occasionally as well, but hopefully you are smart enough to already know such things.






That is a major obstacle. If your condition is serious, get treatment for it:







I remember observing the phenomena you mention in high school, but have not observed so much of it since then. The thing is, the girls who were attracted to the jerks were not the ones who interested me. I like intelligent women, not fools who like guys who treat them like garbage. If you like the same, then you will find that being a jerk will not serve your purposes.

The answer is quite simple. You are either missing some variable(s) or "women", as you say, interpret deficiencies or assets of certain variables differently than you do.