Education Over Expulsion At Dalhousie

[Smallc]

I don't know, people like I ised to be are more creepy I guess. I would have thought the perpetual failure would have led to desperation.

[Argus]

Ok, well with THAT kind of experience, plus the fact that you're an expert on women I'd say 'case closed'.

I didn't say that made me an expert on women. There ARE no experts on women. But insofar as one not born with a womb can understand the general female mind I believe I have sufficient experience to do so.

Your answer is again replete with smugness. It is your statement that women of today are not like the women of '1955' and have no interest no in big, tough, swaggering jocks, but instead prefer video game players. It's a ludicrous, preposterous statement. I did not give full vent to the absurdity of it and instead simply pointed out I had spent a lot of time around young women who, as we have already discussed, became friends, and talked a lot about sex and relationships and that you are as wrong as it is possible for you to be.

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't say that made me an expert on women. There ARE no experts on women. But insofar as one not born with a womb can understand the general female mind I believe I have sufficient experience to do so.

"Argus ... the expert on 'what women want' ... ?" "Yes, kinda"

Your answer is again replete with smugness.

Sure, and I have been waiting for a response to retract my submission on this. I know lots and lots of young people, but I realize now that they're not typical so honestly I can't say whether what I posted is true or false.

[Black Dog]

I didn't say that made me an expert on women. There ARE no experts on women. But insofar as one not born with a womb can understand the general female mind I believe I have sufficient experience to do so.

Your answer is again replete with smugness. It is your statement that women of today are not like the women of '1955' and have no interest no in big, tough, swaggering jocks, but instead prefer video game players. It's a ludicrous, preposterous statement. I did not give full vent to the absurdity of it and instead simply pointed out I had spent a lot of time around young women who, as we have already discussed, became friends, and talked a lot about sex and relationships and that you are as wrong as it is possible for you to be.

If I only hung out with women who dated abusive men, it'd be easy to conclude, based on my personal experience, that women prefer men who punch them in the face. I'm pretty sure that would be a mistake.

[Argus]

I'm not sure if you can appreciate how unsettling this was. While I don't believe I was in any physical danger while my co-worker and several other customers were present, there was something frightening about this man-- his absolute certainty that he was getting some Kimmy that night, that he was *entitled* to some Kimmy. And that he apparently thought I was leading him on somehow. It wasn't something I was able to just shrug off and forget about.

-k

I'd apologize for my entire gender but I disassociate myself from that sort of personality entirely.

I think one of the issues about the whole Mars and Venus thing is that even if we try to understand something intellectually, we often can't really understand it on an emotional level. We haven't lived that life. We weren't raised that way. We don't have those instincts.

Give a stupid example. There's these guys on you tube who created a snowman outfit. One of them gets in it, while the other tapes people as they walk by. The guy in the snowman moves a little, and startles the hell out of people because they though it was an inanimate object. The guy who does this observed that the genders behave quite differently when the snowman moves. And you can see that on the videos. Guys will curse a bit, and sometimes react defensively (one guy punched the snowman). Girls, well, their reactions have a tendency to be more energetic, loud screams, jumps, running, falling etc. Maybe it's a thousand generations of instincts, I don't know.

I, as a guy, would have been more irritated rather than freaked out, and probably would have started joking with others about what an obnoxious dick he was. If pressed, I would have gotten angry, and only keeping my job would have kept me from being explicitly and obscenely rude. That's not to say I'm fearless. I confess I definitely am not. But I don't get freaked out in he way you're describing, and my reaction to anyone treating me with less than respect is invariably anger.

So no. While I can appreciate it intellectually, I know that I can't properly appreciate it emotionally. I don't find creeps unsettling, but amusing, or worthy of mockery and jeering. So far as I'm aware all guys I know feel the same way. But then we haven't been the physically weaker target of such people since we hit puberty.

[Black Dog]

So no. While I can appreciate it intellectually, I know that I can't properly appreciate it emotionally. I don't find creeps unsettling, but amusing, or worthy of mockery and jeering. So far as I'm aware all guys I know feel the same way. But then we haven't been the physically weaker target of such people since we hit puberty.

There's also the part where men are socialized at an early age to choose from a limited range of responses to stimuli. Anger, irritation, physical violence are ok, displays of vulnerability or fear are not. They make movies about this.

[Argus]

If I only hung out with women who dated abusive men, it'd be easy to conclude, based on my personal experience, that women prefer men who punch them in the face. I'm pretty sure that would be a mistake.

Sure, but I don't only hang around with young women. And I'm not basing my assessment on simply them. You can see throughout our society and culture the types of men women look for. It's not like this is a secret. And as I said, that tends to be much more towards the jock type than the sensitive and caring math whiz and video gamer.

[Argus]

The cold hard truth about the "friend zone." Nice guys everywhere need to read this.

The problem is that this then gives us the issue of men who are probably completely mixed up in reading signals and queues then coming onto women who will then accuse them of harassment.

[Argus]

You're conflating sexual fantasies with real life here. What women want when it's just them and their Hitachi magic wand is not the same thing as what they want in an actual partner. Those that confuse the two tend to be miserable.

No, I get that. The point I'm making is that womens desires for men, what they think makes a man hot, as Kimmy suggested, start with physically strong, 'masculine', confident men who don't care if a woman cries, who do what they want to do, and who don't take crap. Those characteristics are also men who are least likely to be gentle and sensitive and caring, and most likely to slap a woman around if she gets on their nerves.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

The stereotypical bad-boy shenanigans might dupe young or gullible women as showing masculinity, but most women will grow out of that sooner or later.

Oh sure, but it can take a while. And some never do.

A masculine man displays confidence. He inspires confidence in others. He commands respect. He is unashamed, whether it be of his job, or of his appearance, or his hobbies. He is passionate about the things that are important to him, whether it be his work or his hobbies. He's unafraid to say no and stand his ground. He doesn't cave in if you cry or have a temper-tantrum. He doesn't need to undermine others to build himself up, because he is confident in his status and abilities.

And honestly, does that sound like more the jock type or the chess club type, especially with the 'strong body' thrown in?

As for the "nice guy". What I have learned about the "nice guy" is that he's pretty much the opposite of the man I just described. The man I described above is probably a nice guy in every way that matters.

Really? A guy who doesn't care if you cry? He insists on doing it his way? There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, between 'stand your ground' and 'I don't care about you, I only care about me' and in my experience, a lot of those guys veer back and forth across that line fairly often. The most sexually successful man I know has always treated women as nothing but physical assets. He doesn't respect them because they've always been easy to get. You don't value something that can be had so easily. He's handsome, suave, confident to the point of being cocky and has a good job. He doesn't need to be nice so he's not. I'm not saying he's all men, but the men I know who are most successful with women are least respectful of them.

And even that is more of an observation related to the point of this discussion, that the world has changed, and that women/girls now look for a modern, sensitive, caring, gentle man and not a tough strong man to be their protector.

The "nice guy" is ironically not very nice. The "nice guy" is your devoted friend... he'll listen to all your problems while "those other guys" don't care. He's not like "those other guys". He's always there for you, and he'll do anything to help you. That's because somewhere along the line, "the nice guy" got an unhealthy idea of how to relate to women.

Or more likely he lacks confidence. He's scared, as you say, but not scared to 'relate to her' in any other way but scared of rejection. And again, to return to the point of the discussion, is that more likely to be a big, well-built athlete type or a skinny nerd who thinks (with some justification) that he'd be immediately rejected, perhaps with laughter or ridicule, that his physically unprepossessing self would dare to think such a girl would be interested in him? He might be more sensitive and caring and sharing and gentle and all that modern stuff, but that's not going to get him across the initial make or break "want to go to a movie" decisions on the part of a young woman. Because she's never going to see that caring, sharing, sensitive, good-humored personality if it comes attached to a skinny body that can't beat people up and a shy personality that doesn't want to. You can call it 'masculine' if you want, but your description still does focus on guys who are, if not 'bad boys' certainly tough and physically strong.

[Argus]

Nerds have had an unnatural control over popular culture, since Nerds write movies. They write movies where the Nerd is the real prize and the bully is an unlovable brute. See "Biff" in "Back to the Future".

There's a small amount of truth in that but what the nerds who shape popular culture really write about are guys they wish hey were or had been growing up, ie, tough, strong, handsome guys who get the girl. Thus virtually ALL of our culture's main media heroes over the years have fit into that mold from Humphrey Bogart to Eroll Flynn to John Wayne to Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington, Dwayne Johnson, Tommy Lee Jones, Mickey Rourke, Liam Neeson, Russel Crowe, etc. Popular culture is not full of nerds because those nerds who, as you say, control it, don't want to hear about nerds, don't want to write about them, and know that nobody much likes nerds anyway (they don't themselves). Instead they build imaginary stories and worlds full of tough guys they wish they were, and every one of those guys beats the crap out of bullies and gets a beautiful girl in the end.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

Dichotomies of stereotypes are never very accurate depictions of anything or anyone.

Attraction, relationships and sexual harassment (the topic of this thread) have nothing in common.

.

[Argus]

In this particular study, 1/3 of men would rape women, but only 10% recognized it as rape. This demonstrates a cavalier attitude that forcing someone to have sex with you is part of what "normal" male sexuality. In other words, rape culture is real and people like Smallc and Argus are demonstrating here that there's still people who will work overtime to excuse it and even protect it.

Yeah, that's total bullshit. No one here is excusing rape. You just have no argument to make so you're making shit up, and exaggerating everything. Thre is no 'rape culture', and we're not apologizing for rapists, so screw you.

As to the issue, there is a disconnect between how men and women see sex. Most of the issues we have on that score lies in that disconnection. Guys are raised to basically love sex and want it at any time for any reason with any girl who attracts them, which, luckily for them, melds well with their instincts. There is no appropriate time no restriction on where, there is no need to like the person or respect them or care if they like or respect you. There is no need to get to know them. There is only unconditional lust. And this is admired and supported by their peers. A young guy who manages to seduce a lot of young girls is a much admired hero to his male peers. And that reputation is not likely to dissuade his female peers from dating him either.

A young girl who sleeps around is a slut. Period. End of story. She is disdained by her peers, of both genders, mocked, ridiculed, insulted and treated like crap. Girls are taught from the moment they're small to hide what they have, to not show their bodies, to cross their legs, and to be wary of any touch. They're taught by our culture, that a girl doesn't sleep with guys until there's an emotional relationship in place, and so sex is a 'big step' for most young women. It's an important decision, and one replete with consequences that men, for the most part, do not face. A young guy would have sex half a dozen times a day with half a dozen different women and be delighted with himself. Rare is the young girl who could do the same.

Young guys sort of, kind of get that girls feel differently about sex, and sort of kind of get intellectually why - but not really, not on an emotional level. They understand and abhor violence used against women, but deep in their hearts they sort of feel bewildered as to why those girls won't just have sex with them all the time, and don't think it would hurt them if they did. So yeah, you can do polls and ask people if they'd have sex with an unconscious girls, say, and some of them would be like, hey, how does that harm her in any way? Yes, that's kinda dumb but young people have a tendency towards dumb.

[jacee]

Yeah, that's total bullshit. No one here is excusing rape. You just have no argument to make so you're making shit up, and exaggerating everything. Thre is no 'rape culture', and we're not apologizing for rapists, so screw you.

The data says otherwise and it's pretty disturbing.

.

Edited January 14, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

The data says otherwise and it's pretty disturbing.

.

The data says no such thing. The data says rape on college campuses is lower than it ought to be given all the young people of that age there.

H

Here are the stats from the dept of justice in the US. No reason to believe things are different here.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/

Edited January 14, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

The data says no such thing. The data says rape on college campuses is lower than it ought to be given all the young people of that age there.

H

Here are the stats from the dept of justice in the US. No reason to believe things are different here.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/

You were commenting on the data cybercoma posted here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24151-education-over-expulsion-at-dalhousie/?p=1023117

It displays really disturbing attitudes.

.

[Argus]

You were commenting on the data cybercoma posted here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24151-education-over-expulsion-at-dalhousie/?p=1023117

It displays really disturbing attitudes.

.

I was commenting on REALITY, not on the subjective guestimates of how nasty and insensitive some young men are.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

I was commenting on REALITY, not on the subjective guestimates of how nasty and insensitive some young men are.

Only your own "subjective guesstimates".

.

[jacee]

YES!!!!

/nova-scotia/dalhousie-dentistry-women-in-facebook-scandal-sought-in-police-appeal-

Good.

This should not be handled under the university's code of silence.

Nail the perps!

.

Edited January 14, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

It doesn't say that they have evidence of it at all.

[jacee]

It doesn't say that they have evidence of it at all.

You're right. I already revised the post:

YES!!!!

nova-scotia/dalhousie-dentistry-women-in-facebook-scandal-sought-in-police-appeal-

Good. This should not be handled under the university's code of silence.

Nail the perps!

Edited January 14, 2015 by jacee

[Black Dog]

Sure, but I don't only hang around with young women. And I'm not basing my assessment on simply them. You can see throughout our society and culture the types of men women look for. It's not like this is a secret. And as I said, that tends to be much more towards the jock type than the sensitive and caring math whiz and video gamer.

And for what end? Certainly not for stable relationships.

Your assessment also flies in the face of the usual social wisdom that states men are far more interested in physical appearance than women when it comes to selecting mates (though it should be noted that across genders, the most important traits were things like intelligence, values, and communication skills.)

No, I get that. The point I'm making is that womens desires for men, what they think makes a man hot, as Kimmy suggested, start with physically strong, 'masculine', confident men who don't care if a woman cries, who do what they want to do, and who don't take crap. .

That's the key. What women find "hot" and what they look for in a potential mate aren't the same thing at all. And it's the same with men.

Those characteristics are also men who are least likely to be gentle and sensitive and caring, and most likely to slap a woman around if she gets on their nerves

I'd like to propose an alternative theory here: that these kinds of men are more successful at getting girls isn't necessarily evidence that those are the kinds of men who women are into. It's evidence that these kinds of men derive more of their self-worth and social status from getting girls and thus spend more time and energy on it than others might, which leads to greater sexual success, thus creating the perception they are what women want.

Guys are raised to basically love sex and want it at any time for any reason with any girl who attracts them, which, luckily for them, melds well with their instincts.

...

A young girl who sleeps around is a slut. Period. End of story.

And yet studies show that men and women's actual sexual behaviours aren't that different. Women are certainly conscious of the social restrictions around female sexuality, but their response isn't to not have sex: it's to lie about how much sex they've had. Just like men, aware of the sexual expectations around their gender, respond, not by having more sex, but by lying about how much sex they've had.

Even if there is a huge gap in men and women's sexual behaviours, well, we're in the Tindr age now.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Only your own "subjective guesstimates".

.

You mean your subjective reality.

[Argus]

Your assessment also flies in the face of the usual social wisdom that states men are far more interested in physical appearance than women when it comes to selecting mates (though it should be noted that across genders, the most important traits were things like intelligence, values, and communication skills.)

No, my assessment said nothing about what men look for in women. And men ARE interested in physical appearance. As for traits like intelligence, values and communication skills which people tell surveys they want, well, they DO want them. But they use appearance as a sort of screening tool. The other person has to pass the appearance test before they'll delve deeper for things like intelligence and the gold old 'sense of humor'.

That's the key. What women find "hot" and what they look for in a potential mate aren't the same thing at all. And it's the same with men.

No, you're mistaken. Appearance is the primary focus for both genders. Appearance is what draws them to each other. All other criteria come after that. You don't look across the room and notice how intelligent someone is or what great values they have. You look for someone hot, and then comes sex and getting to know them. A woman can look across a room and see a tall, strong, handsome guy with muscular arms and shoulders and want to meet him. She's rarely going to look across the room and see some skinny guy with glasses and think "I bet he's intelligent. I wish I could meet him!".

I'd like to propose an alternative theory here: that these kinds of men are more successful at getting girls isn't necessarily evidence that those are the kinds of men who women are into. It's evidence that these kinds of men derive more of their self-worth and social status from getting girls and thus spend more time and energy on it than others might, which leads to greater sexual success.

There's some truth in that. Guys who literally do not care if they get rejected, and simply go on to the next target have far and away more opportunities than shy guys who get red faced and stumble away embarrassed after a rejection, then need a few days to recover.

And yet studies show that men and women's actual sexual behaviours aren't that different.

Only in that most guys simply do not have the opportunities most girls have. When they do, you get the likes of Gene Simmons and Wilt Chamberlain, who claim to have slept with thousands (or tens of thousands) of women. Is there a female equivalent of Chamberlain out there other than sex workers? I've never heard of one. And the thing is you don't need to be rich and famous to have sex with thousands of guys if you're a reasonably attractive woman. Just about any good looking woman can do it.

Let me pose this theoretical situation. After a party, three guys are left behind with one girl, and they have consensual sex together. What do people think of the three guys? Nothing much. No damage to their reputations. The girl? She's a total slut. Now reverse the genders. What do they think of the guy who has sex with three girls? He's a hero. Them? They're sluts.

[Black Dog]

No, my assessment said nothing about what men look for in women. And men ARE interested in physical appearance. As for traits like intelligence, values and communication skills which people tell surveys they want, well, they DO want them. But they use appearance as a sort of screening tool. The other person has to pass the appearance test before they'll delve deeper for things like intelligence and the gold old 'sense of humor'.

Literally everyone does that.

No, you're mistaken. Appearance is the primary focus for both genders. Appearance is what draws them to each other. All other criteria come after that. You don't look across the room and notice how intelligent someone is or what great values they have. You look for someone hot, and then comes sex and getting to know them. A woman can look across a room and see a tall, strong, handsome guy with muscular arms and shoulders and want to meet him. She's rarely going to look across the room and see some skinny guy with glasses and think "I bet he's intelligent. I wish I could meet him!".

Sure, but a hot dullard or jerk is going to get screened out of the romantic partner pool PDQ. And that goes for both genders. As I pointed out: apperance is a factor, but it's not the most important one at all.

Only in that most guys simply do not have the opportunities most girls have. When they do, you get the likes of Gene Simmons and Wilt Chamberlain, who claim to have slept with thousands (or tens of thousands) of women. Is there a female equivalent of Chamberlain out there other than sex workers? I've never heard of one. And the thing is you don't need to be rich and famous to have sex with thousands of guys if you're a reasonably attractive woman. Just about any good looking woman can do it.

Which strikes me as a question of choice more than actual desire.

Let me pose this theoretical situation. After a party, three guys are left behind with one girl, and they have consensual sex together. What do people think of the three guys? Nothing much. No damage to their reputations. The girl? She's a total slut. Now reverse the genders. What do they think of the guy who has sex with three girls? He's a hero. Them? They're sluts.

I'm not questioning the obvious existence of sexual double standards, only the extent to which they actually dictate people's sexual behaviour.