21
   

am I this naive?

 
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 09:06 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I think guy brains are wired to believe so


Which means you think all men march in lock step.

As for women being considered hot, haven't you heard women talk about their handsome husbands/boyfriends and men talk about their stunning wives/girlfriends, then met the described people and scratched your head? After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 09:07 am
@aidan,
I thought she was mocking sexuality. After all, her top wasn't all that well made. The picture, to me, was a joke.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 03:38 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
osso -- Somehow I recognize nothing of every relationship I have had in hawkeye's commentary. Before I met my ex-husband, I had a pants suit that I loved. It consisted of a tunic and pants. The tunic had a U-neck and short sleeves. What he disliked were the two tiny tucks on the sleeves and on the pants. Whenever I wore the outfit, he spoke constantly of the tucks, telling me that the garment was obviously too long and that is how I shortened it. That was preferred to the way he usually handled things of mine he disliked: he broke them.

I have never encountered a man who didn't feel free to comment negatively and loudly on things he disliked. I wore a pink blouse and maroon skirt to meet a man I encountered through an on-line dating service. We agreed to meet a second time. During the second meeting -- he had changed locations in order to meet at a place he frequented with his late wife -- he made a point of telling me that he could not tolerate maroon and that he hated maroon and pink as a combination.
In my opinion,
that is appropriate only in the most extreme situations;
otherwise, politeness requires reticence.

I 've only done it ONCE, when I took a chick who I knew very well
to dinner at (the late, much lamented) Tavern on the Green.
Said chick, Joan, elected to wear what I think is called "a house dress".
(I don't know much about womens' clothes.)

I thawt that she was conspicuously underdressed (which was out of character for her).
I commented on it (certainly not "loudly") and I suggested
that she resume her former mode of dress for attending good restaurants.

I am 1OO% confident that if the situation had been reversed,
she surely woud have been as candid in her sartorial criticism.

Joan knew how to be critical; she had profuse n abundant practice of it.





David
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2011 05:41 pm
@dyslexia,
Choosing girlfriends based on other than physical beauty and feeling like that's the sensible, reasonable thing - that's not naive.

Expecting us to believe that you are so without guile that you somehow are shocked or don't understand that much of the world worships and lionizes physical beauty to the point that some tv character would make an offhand remark that a pretty girl must have had a boyfriend - yeah, that's naive.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 01:08 am
How about, "she's ugly, she must have been single." Is that better?

BTW i was going to add a few unsavory tags to your thread just to spread the wealth around where a2k thinks it is cool that people leave anonymous hateful defaming tags on my threads.

Are there any particular tags that you might prefer, how about "drugfucked idiot"?

I didn't go the the extreme of voting your thread down (like they and their troupe did to mine [my zero thread] so it would sit in the **** pile below) cuz i do sorta like ya Dys. Now that my threads have had to withstand all the name calling without a single word toward the actual topic...

Oh and what is the topic here?

It is not CERN... just silly semantics over a tv show. Top of the most popular list on "a2k". Are you naive?
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 03:51 am
@RexRed,
Rex, r u sure that its worth getting so upset about??

I 've been called an idiot (i.e., a person of mental age below 3 years)
many, many times both anonymously in tags and openly on this forum,
because of my pro-freedom beliefs.

If I cared what thay thawt, then I 'd not still be here.
As to some of them: I do not respect their ability to reason.
Hence, their insolence ranks like the annoyance of a loud dog.

Is there good reason to take it to heart ?


Water off a duck 's back
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2011 03:58 am
@dyslexia,
Quote:
there were in all cases factors more important than "she's pretty" that enticed me to be their boyfriend.


Pick one of the following factors for sylexadic's girlfriend :

a) A pulse
b) Would tolerate him AND his hats
c) Admired sarcasm
d) Enjoyed short to the point sentences once every two days
e) All of the above
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2011 05:08 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Rex, r u sure that its worth getting so upset about??

I 've been called an idiot (i.e., a person of mental age below 3 years)
many, many times both anonymously in tags and openly on this forum,
because of my pro-freedom beliefs.

If I cared what thay thawt, then I 'd not still be here.
As to some of them: I do not respect their ability to reason.
Hence, their insolence ranks like the annoyance of a loud dog.

Is there good reason to take it to heart ?


Water off a duck 's back


Positive change is always worth it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2011 05:50 am
Yeah, Dys . . . are you navy?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2011 12:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
In my opinion,
that is appropriate only in the most extreme situations;
otherwise, politeness requires reticence.
In certain times in the past it has been rather common for guys to be willing to only tolerate women who are willing to please them visually and sexually, and who are very free with instructions on what pleases them. I dont consider this bad form, but the relationship marketplace has over the last two generations shifted towards empowering women to "be themselves", so this is much less common now. I think that human nature does not change much so there are lots of guys who somewhere deep would like to be able to decide what their women wear, and who would try if they thought thought that they could get away with it, but who keep their mouths shut.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2011 11:35 pm
No explanation has ever been accepted for those little stone age statues of obese women, like the Venus of Willendorf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf


I have wondered if they weren't sexual fetishes, stone age portraits that men took with them on hunting expeditions to remind them of their women at home and keep them on the straight and narrow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » am I this naive?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 11:03:03