Women are Sluts
- Thread starter Sharpy
- Start date
Jessbuff
Active member
Alright, I've come to a conclusion. You [alpinecowboy] need to take a biology course and I need to take some anthropology or sociology courses.
As far as genetics is concerned, you are saying that there are no races because there is this gradual color wheel effect. If that were truly so, would there be no boulders, no pebbles and no sand? Just rocks. God forbid we stereotype boulders as being heavy!
You made a couple of frustrating social science comments again: 1: Humans have no instincts: WOW! Meet DARWIN. Go do some reading buddy. I spent a 3 hour psychology lecture learning about human instincts.
2. And you said biology has NO influence on behavior! Yikes! You would have an interesting conversation with David Myers, who wrote my psychology text book. He says "The conclusions-that nature is crucially important, and that nurture is crucially important-are central to today’s psychology" (P.99 Psychology 6th ed.) This is a recurring theme in the text book. Don't even bother overwhelming me with pages of typing about this, it’s etched in stone in the science community.
Now lets go back to the point of the article, which wasn't to bicker over minor details. You have yet to really mount any counter argument. To sum up your argument against the article: I heart anthropology, YAY LOL!
[On a more serious note] You said that
1. since we do not know all women we cannot generalize all women. (But really can we generalize anything then?)
2. stereotyping is harmful to society. (For sure, but if it bears some truth should we ignore it for the sake of our egos?)
3. culture shapes society. (Do you blame our culture for the behaviors described in the article?)
You can fill in the blanks and clarify the above if I put words in your mouth and then lets debate the article. There's not much point in debating Anthropology concepts, I have no frame of reference.
I really thought there was an interesting point raised by someone else. They asked the chicken and the egg question. Does women's behavior shape our culture or does our culture shape women's behavior?
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
As far as genetics is concerned, you are saying that there are no races because there is this gradual color wheel effect. If that were truly so, would there be no boulders, no pebbles and no sand? Just rocks. God forbid we stereotype boulders as being heavy!
You made a couple of frustrating social science comments again: 1: Humans have no instincts: WOW! Meet DARWIN. Go do some reading buddy. I spent a 3 hour psychology lecture learning about human instincts.
2. And you said biology has NO influence on behavior! Yikes! You would have an interesting conversation with David Myers, who wrote my psychology text book. He says "The conclusions-that nature is crucially important, and that nurture is crucially important-are central to today’s psychology" (P.99 Psychology 6th ed.) This is a recurring theme in the text book. Don't even bother overwhelming me with pages of typing about this, it’s etched in stone in the science community.
Now lets go back to the point of the article, which wasn't to bicker over minor details. You have yet to really mount any counter argument. To sum up your argument against the article: I heart anthropology, YAY LOL!
[On a more serious note] You said that
1. since we do not know all women we cannot generalize all women. (But really can we generalize anything then?)
2. stereotyping is harmful to society. (For sure, but if it bears some truth should we ignore it for the sake of our egos?)
3. culture shapes society. (Do you blame our culture for the behaviors described in the article?)
You can fill in the blanks and clarify the above if I put words in your mouth and then lets debate the article. There's not much point in debating Anthropology concepts, I have no frame of reference.
I really thought there was an interesting point raised by someone else. They asked the chicken and the egg question. Does women's behavior shape our culture or does our culture shape women's behavior?
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
both. whores on the streets are forced there for money, the only reason men dont join them is because no woman would want that. and yet women can control what they want through others.ex: the presidents wife can convince him of her views. but weight issues w/ women were a burden men and society gave them. really a lot of the controversy comes from the media, not many ppl are really sluts or that skinny. life for women is harder than for men phiscally, mentally, sicolocially bla blah blah, but men still have it preyy hard. so in conclusion:
1. culture shapes ppl's behavior, and the people shape the culture.
2. women are frequently demrazlized, abused and many times this is not agknowledged.
3. biology has many incredibly strong and fercious female species, but humans are weaker than most wild animals. so even b4 civilization males protected while females gave birth, but the females fought w.e bothered them. so it is also biologically that we get the feminie side of many cultrues.
4. nothing is really clear on exatly how what started, all that is known is that even in our western society sexism is still a touchy topic, ppl get offended extremley easily.
so pretty much women take a lot of crap form men and do what we can to improve our lives, also biolgically natural.
ive waited all my life to cross this line into the only thing thats true -ryan cabrera
1. culture shapes ppl's behavior, and the people shape the culture.
2. women are frequently demrazlized, abused and many times this is not agknowledged.
3. biology has many incredibly strong and fercious female species, but humans are weaker than most wild animals. so even b4 civilization males protected while females gave birth, but the females fought w.e bothered them. so it is also biologically that we get the feminie side of many cultrues.
4. nothing is really clear on exatly how what started, all that is known is that even in our western society sexism is still a touchy topic, ppl get offended extremley easily.
so pretty much women take a lot of crap form men and do what we can to improve our lives, also biolgically natural.
ive waited all my life to cross this line into the only thing thats true -ryan cabrera
alpinecowboy84
Active member
1. humans do have instincts, but lets be honest in comparison to other organisms they are stark . the point is, human beings need to be imprinted to a degree like none other. you have to ask yourself what of your knowledge (in terms of survival) is instinctual? not very much at all. almost everything you know is due to what you have learned, and that is a result of culture not instincts. might i add that darwin is intensively studied in physical anthropology, so yes i have met dawin on many occasions..and yes, we are pals.
2. of course biology affects people (when did i ever say that it didn't?). biology determines the structures in our brains, in our bodies, etc. obvioiusly that's going to play some kind of role. i've taken psychology, i'm perfectly aware of the massive debate over nature vs. nurture. for example i strongly believe that homosexuality is a biological trait. there are ways that humans act that are beyond the influences of culture, i'm entirely aware of this. maybe i might have placed too much emphasis on culture...of course biology has constructed some kinds of instincts that have arisen from human adaptation, however, it is culture that has been our main means of survival. you must know that culture is that it is freefloating, or free of any sort of direction. culture is something constructed that is not carried with us in terms of our genes (i can clarify further if this is at all confusing) - although, our genetics have obviously developed in order to handle the complexities of it (brain size, intelligence, etc).
1. can you generalize anything, of course, this is necessary as human populations are enormous and as i've already stated, we can't begin to address humans one by one. however, don't think for a second that its intelligent, logical or of any sense to generalize half the population as being biologically predisposed to be manipulative. thats an absurd notion. you still aren't getting this man. there exist a plethora of cultures all of which enculture women to act diffently, that alone is enough to dispell any beliefs that all women act in a certain way.
2. yes stereotyping is harmful to our society and this has nothing to do with ego. stereotypes make sense, its completely understandable as to why people form them. however, stereotypes are damaging and anyone who wants to reduce problems in society should not base their interpretations of others off of broad assumptions - because thats what stereotypes are. you need to be aware that not everyone is average, and while a stereotype might serve as a good "footprint" for analysis, you can't assume that its going to be correct. besides, for the love of god, haven't we established by now that stereotypes are dangerous...have you not been paying attention to any of the social movements for the last 50 to 100 years?
3. culture shapes society, yes to a large degree it does. i don't blame culture, culture is a construct, not a living thing that needs to be punished for doing something 'bad.' i see things that are a result of culture, yes? now what exactly is your point by asking me this...should i fear some kind of set up?
in terms of the chicken or the egg (i think), its not one or the other. however, in male dominated societies i believe that it is males who have shaped female roles often. women are of course going to react to this in various ways. when women manipulate men with their sexuality, like andrew said, i'd simply view it as a subversion to male dominance, those that do it are simply shifting the balance of power - and doing it by whatever means necessary.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
2. of course biology affects people (when did i ever say that it didn't?). biology determines the structures in our brains, in our bodies, etc. obvioiusly that's going to play some kind of role. i've taken psychology, i'm perfectly aware of the massive debate over nature vs. nurture. for example i strongly believe that homosexuality is a biological trait. there are ways that humans act that are beyond the influences of culture, i'm entirely aware of this. maybe i might have placed too much emphasis on culture...of course biology has constructed some kinds of instincts that have arisen from human adaptation, however, it is culture that has been our main means of survival. you must know that culture is that it is freefloating, or free of any sort of direction. culture is something constructed that is not carried with us in terms of our genes (i can clarify further if this is at all confusing) - although, our genetics have obviously developed in order to handle the complexities of it (brain size, intelligence, etc).
1. can you generalize anything, of course, this is necessary as human populations are enormous and as i've already stated, we can't begin to address humans one by one. however, don't think for a second that its intelligent, logical or of any sense to generalize half the population as being biologically predisposed to be manipulative. thats an absurd notion. you still aren't getting this man. there exist a plethora of cultures all of which enculture women to act diffently, that alone is enough to dispell any beliefs that all women act in a certain way.
2. yes stereotyping is harmful to our society and this has nothing to do with ego. stereotypes make sense, its completely understandable as to why people form them. however, stereotypes are damaging and anyone who wants to reduce problems in society should not base their interpretations of others off of broad assumptions - because thats what stereotypes are. you need to be aware that not everyone is average, and while a stereotype might serve as a good "footprint" for analysis, you can't assume that its going to be correct. besides, for the love of god, haven't we established by now that stereotypes are dangerous...have you not been paying attention to any of the social movements for the last 50 to 100 years?
3. culture shapes society, yes to a large degree it does. i don't blame culture, culture is a construct, not a living thing that needs to be punished for doing something 'bad.' i see things that are a result of culture, yes? now what exactly is your point by asking me this...should i fear some kind of set up?
in terms of the chicken or the egg (i think), its not one or the other. however, in male dominated societies i believe that it is males who have shaped female roles often. women are of course going to react to this in various ways. when women manipulate men with their sexuality, like andrew said, i'd simply view it as a subversion to male dominance, those that do it are simply shifting the balance of power - and doing it by whatever means necessary.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
JackBach
Active member
skibum_: In fact, females of most species, from damselflies to penguins, routinely copulate with several different mates.
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with your argument, but I was under the impression that Penguins were mongomous, at the very least in regards to reproduction.
/////ENEMY () WITHIN\\\\\
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with your argument, but I was under the impression that Penguins were mongomous, at the very least in regards to reproduction.
/////ENEMY () WITHIN\\\\\
johnnypsunami
Active member
i like sluts.
'wow....ATLANTASKI should be dragged behind a truck at 90mp/h over rusty razorblades, stabbed multiple times with ice picks, raped up the bum-bum by rabid gorillas and then shot....'-big_white_hucker
'wow....ATLANTASKI should be dragged behind a truck at 90mp/h over rusty razorblades, stabbed multiple times with ice picks, raped up the bum-bum by rabid gorillas and then shot....'-big_white_hucker
In our culture this is 100% true... girls have not only way more power sexually but also have more power in every other aspect of life. This article is very true if you apply it to our culture. However if you take this to a global scale your article is completey fucked. That is not sexist really... it is stating that girls use their booty as a way to get stuff from guys... and enjoy it. All i'm saying is that skibum_ is right. And whoever that guy that bitched about everything, just shut up.
Join the homework sharing cult today!
Join the homework sharing cult today!
Jessbuff
Active member
Well, alpine cowboy, I’m glad to see we are agreeing on things now. I am also glad to hear that you are on good terms with Darwin! And no, there is no set up. I just got you to understand and agree with the basis of my points. I understand that we will not agree on everything.
But I do believe we may agree on the basis of the article. I would also like to explain why I did not react to it as harshly as some people did.
It seems to me that the man who wrote the article was trying to prove some chauvinist theory of his and got all caught up in it and missed the interesting discovery that his research actually made.
From my interpretation of the article, most species generally have females who are sluts and are willing to have sex with as many mates as possible. Humans, however, seem to be the exception to this rule. The author was very abstract and concluded that women should be sluts too because they are biologically predisposed to be that way.
But let’s look deeper into it. Let’s do what all good critical thinkers do and look for a possible explanation. What makes humans different from all of these species?
Well, as you said; alpine cowboy, humans have a greater capacity for culture. My theory is that since men are the more aggressive of the sexes, they immediately took control of the power in human society. With the power, they were in a much better position to shape the way human cultures evolved. It was in their interests to be able to be promiscuous but not to let women be promiscuous and shaped the culture accordingly. Women who had extra marital sex were called sluts and often shunned, where as men have always seemed to have more leniency with regard to having multiple partners. (Ex: polygamy in religion)
Now, as women are gaining rights and equality, it is becoming more socially acceptable for them to behave as men do - as sluts!
This actually has rather dire consequences for society. If both women and men act like sluts, the way that apes do, I would say that we are becoming more primitive. We are becoming savage. Many people would say that we are becoming less human, but I think it is quite the opposite; we are becoming more human!
What to do, what to do? You may not agree with this (in fact I don’t know if I agree with this) but men could stop women from following this path, as the article suggests, by saying “I refuse to be sex-ploited any longer!�
Comments?
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
But I do believe we may agree on the basis of the article. I would also like to explain why I did not react to it as harshly as some people did.
It seems to me that the man who wrote the article was trying to prove some chauvinist theory of his and got all caught up in it and missed the interesting discovery that his research actually made.
From my interpretation of the article, most species generally have females who are sluts and are willing to have sex with as many mates as possible. Humans, however, seem to be the exception to this rule. The author was very abstract and concluded that women should be sluts too because they are biologically predisposed to be that way.
But let’s look deeper into it. Let’s do what all good critical thinkers do and look for a possible explanation. What makes humans different from all of these species?
Well, as you said; alpine cowboy, humans have a greater capacity for culture. My theory is that since men are the more aggressive of the sexes, they immediately took control of the power in human society. With the power, they were in a much better position to shape the way human cultures evolved. It was in their interests to be able to be promiscuous but not to let women be promiscuous and shaped the culture accordingly. Women who had extra marital sex were called sluts and often shunned, where as men have always seemed to have more leniency with regard to having multiple partners. (Ex: polygamy in religion)
Now, as women are gaining rights and equality, it is becoming more socially acceptable for them to behave as men do - as sluts!
This actually has rather dire consequences for society. If both women and men act like sluts, the way that apes do, I would say that we are becoming more primitive. We are becoming savage. Many people would say that we are becoming less human, but I think it is quite the opposite; we are becoming more human!
What to do, what to do? You may not agree with this (in fact I don’t know if I agree with this) but men could stop women from following this path, as the article suggests, by saying “I refuse to be sex-ploited any longer!�
Comments?
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
ok whoever created this thread is a fuckin retard. i bet uve never actually known a girl to say something so wrong. u make it seem like girls are robots and have no meaning but to jump on our dicks and leech our money. u are seriously retarded. like....fuck man how can u be so shallow?
NS Skateboard Cult
NS Skateboard Cult
Jessbuff
Active member
Neonpink, I'm sorry to say that you are dead wrong. The field of psychology (the study of human BEHAVIOUR) has tested most of it's hypotheses on RATS who share slightly less DNA with us than do chimps.
I believe we also share something like 80% of our DNA with a banana. Bananas don't even have behaviour, let's not be rediculous. Most of our DNA is used to encode for genes which carry out basic functions like energy transport, metabolism, membrane construction, protein sythesis etc. The 5 % difference between apes and fruit flies makes a HUGE difference.
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
I believe we also share something like 80% of our DNA with a banana. Bananas don't even have behaviour, let's not be rediculous. Most of our DNA is used to encode for genes which carry out basic functions like energy transport, metabolism, membrane construction, protein sythesis etc. The 5 % difference between apes and fruit flies makes a HUGE difference.
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
alpinecowboy84
Active member
skibum^ (in regards to your last post) you still fail to understand that the mere idea that all women are sluts and predisposed to act in such a manner is completely abusrd. its entirely irrational and no matter how much you want to manipulate the data of a study, its not going to affirm this.
and neonpink, thankyou. thats a point i was intended to make but couldn't remember the actual percentage.
jessbuff:
first off. stop referring to women as sluts, it only undermines the credibility of your argument. if you were speaking about the social norms of black people you wouldn't repeatedly refer to them as 'niggers.' your consistent use of "sluts," which is an overwhelmingly innaccurate generalization, makes you appear to be the great chauvinist that you have claimed not to be. i have known so many people who claim to not be racist but still employ the term "nigger" on a regular basis - from what i have seen, you are no different. if you want to debate maturely and seriously, and most importantly with an objective intention, then i suggest you develop a mature academic tone. on top of this, the concept of a 'slut' is based off of the social norms within your culture and is therefore, not a biological factor, but a social construct: so stop addressing it as if it is something universal.
as for darwin, you did not 'get' me to agree with the basis of your points. darwins prinicpals go against your argument actually.
the article has major holes in it. i still argue that it has chosen to ignore the tenets of humanity (both bilogically and socially). we have thoroughly proven by now that human beings search for a "most attractive" mate is subject to social standards. take women for example, the values placed in importance in terms of attractive traits (among women) is not in tune with what is necessarily going to work as the best mate (in terms of producing offspring). the women most valued in society are often malnourished, do not have ideal hips for childbearing and are rarely evaluated in terms of qualities such as intelligence. furthermore, as the ideal female candidate in terms of her aesthetic has changed over the years (from women in paintings to marilyn Monroe to brook burke), we can see that it is far more influenced by cultural ideals than by set biological predispositions.
besides, what this so called scientist has blatantly forgotten, is that human awarness is superior to biological predispositions. meaning, humans are aware of what they biologically want, however, they define their actions by social norms. for example, you don't need to use a toilet, biologically speaking you could just as easily pop a squat in the middle of campus and take a load off. however, due to cultural norms, this is deemed well beyond taboo. the application of this is, that regardless of whether women are biologically predisposed to want mulitple partners, out cultural norms greatly overpower this. furthermore, through all the variation of cultures that exists in this world. instances of women desiring multiple sex partners is EXTREMELY rare.
THE POINT THAT MAKES THIS RESEARCH WORTHLESS: is that he has made observations about female organisms across a range of species and made a massive generalization which lumps human beings in with this. the problem is, that in doing so he has made absolutely no effort to consider the fact that almost none of society can be seen as congruent with this.
as for your theory jessbuff:
first of all there are a number of societies with an egalitarian social structure. this has nothing to do with the strength of men, or thier so called aggressive nature, but instead is based on autonomy – I’l explain this yet again: societies that place value on womens roles in society are those which provide women with responsibilities to their society that are equally valued with men.
polygamy has nothing to do with sexuality. polygamy is based off of the notion that mulitple wives provide an economic advantage. while husbands are provided with more sexual choice, polygamy’s major purpose is that it provides a support for the tasks that must be accomplished - more women means better means to complete agricultural work, cooking, cleaning, etc – the same reason that families in the global south tend to have so many members.
your notion of primitive savagery was projected by evolutionists 150 years ago and is entirely stale and most importantly overwhelmingly disproven – it is long dead as a projection. this idea of a savage, assumes that western culture is superior to the "primitive" nature of less developed societies. so you can drop that argument completely. you don't get "less human" nor do you become "more human."
the main issue is that once more you are trying to argue the prinicpals of anthropology with an anthropology major, yet you have absolutely no knowledge of anthropology. thats fine, I understand that you haven’t taken any courses (and I must respect your passion to debate an issu) but you have no idea the degree to which you don't know what your talking about. i personally wouldn't expect in the slightest to be able to argue engineering (i think that was your major) with you. today i spoke with one of my professors in her office, we discussed the extent of anthropology and its analysis on everything that is human. i brought up this debate with her and outlined what i had been arguing against (your points essentially), she had a good laugh to say the least. i know that comes across as incredibly pompous, however its entirely true, you are completely unaware of your ignorance (don't get pissed about that term, take it for its literal meaning).
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
and neonpink, thankyou. thats a point i was intended to make but couldn't remember the actual percentage.
jessbuff:
first off. stop referring to women as sluts, it only undermines the credibility of your argument. if you were speaking about the social norms of black people you wouldn't repeatedly refer to them as 'niggers.' your consistent use of "sluts," which is an overwhelmingly innaccurate generalization, makes you appear to be the great chauvinist that you have claimed not to be. i have known so many people who claim to not be racist but still employ the term "nigger" on a regular basis - from what i have seen, you are no different. if you want to debate maturely and seriously, and most importantly with an objective intention, then i suggest you develop a mature academic tone. on top of this, the concept of a 'slut' is based off of the social norms within your culture and is therefore, not a biological factor, but a social construct: so stop addressing it as if it is something universal.
as for darwin, you did not 'get' me to agree with the basis of your points. darwins prinicpals go against your argument actually.
the article has major holes in it. i still argue that it has chosen to ignore the tenets of humanity (both bilogically and socially). we have thoroughly proven by now that human beings search for a "most attractive" mate is subject to social standards. take women for example, the values placed in importance in terms of attractive traits (among women) is not in tune with what is necessarily going to work as the best mate (in terms of producing offspring). the women most valued in society are often malnourished, do not have ideal hips for childbearing and are rarely evaluated in terms of qualities such as intelligence. furthermore, as the ideal female candidate in terms of her aesthetic has changed over the years (from women in paintings to marilyn Monroe to brook burke), we can see that it is far more influenced by cultural ideals than by set biological predispositions.
besides, what this so called scientist has blatantly forgotten, is that human awarness is superior to biological predispositions. meaning, humans are aware of what they biologically want, however, they define their actions by social norms. for example, you don't need to use a toilet, biologically speaking you could just as easily pop a squat in the middle of campus and take a load off. however, due to cultural norms, this is deemed well beyond taboo. the application of this is, that regardless of whether women are biologically predisposed to want mulitple partners, out cultural norms greatly overpower this. furthermore, through all the variation of cultures that exists in this world. instances of women desiring multiple sex partners is EXTREMELY rare.
THE POINT THAT MAKES THIS RESEARCH WORTHLESS: is that he has made observations about female organisms across a range of species and made a massive generalization which lumps human beings in with this. the problem is, that in doing so he has made absolutely no effort to consider the fact that almost none of society can be seen as congruent with this.
as for your theory jessbuff:
first of all there are a number of societies with an egalitarian social structure. this has nothing to do with the strength of men, or thier so called aggressive nature, but instead is based on autonomy – I’l explain this yet again: societies that place value on womens roles in society are those which provide women with responsibilities to their society that are equally valued with men.
polygamy has nothing to do with sexuality. polygamy is based off of the notion that mulitple wives provide an economic advantage. while husbands are provided with more sexual choice, polygamy’s major purpose is that it provides a support for the tasks that must be accomplished - more women means better means to complete agricultural work, cooking, cleaning, etc – the same reason that families in the global south tend to have so many members.
your notion of primitive savagery was projected by evolutionists 150 years ago and is entirely stale and most importantly overwhelmingly disproven – it is long dead as a projection. this idea of a savage, assumes that western culture is superior to the "primitive" nature of less developed societies. so you can drop that argument completely. you don't get "less human" nor do you become "more human."
the main issue is that once more you are trying to argue the prinicpals of anthropology with an anthropology major, yet you have absolutely no knowledge of anthropology. thats fine, I understand that you haven’t taken any courses (and I must respect your passion to debate an issu) but you have no idea the degree to which you don't know what your talking about. i personally wouldn't expect in the slightest to be able to argue engineering (i think that was your major) with you. today i spoke with one of my professors in her office, we discussed the extent of anthropology and its analysis on everything that is human. i brought up this debate with her and outlined what i had been arguing against (your points essentially), she had a good laugh to say the least. i know that comes across as incredibly pompous, however its entirely true, you are completely unaware of your ignorance (don't get pissed about that term, take it for its literal meaning).
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
Jessbuff
Active member
I read your intro dude, but not the rest as of yet. You obviously aren't mature enough to argue without slandering and insulting your opponent. Whatever, I'm not taking offence to it, you are a nincompoop anyways! Hope you don't plan on running for office, people won't vote for someone that is insulting; it's not a good personality trait. Anyways, I'm not the one calling them sluts, the article is. So I'm going to go hit a bucket of balls at the driving range while you beat off your bucket of balls alone in your room. I may or may not read your post, mainly out of spite for you. (Actually I probably will) Don't hold your breath though, well actually do, maybe you'll pass out and die.
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
tricksterboardin
Member
my beliefs tend to run on alpine cowboy train of thought ,though in today's society being raised in a western world would have a much smaller impact than you credit it with. anyone can study a culture over the internet or at a library and there are social that you could go to to become directly aquainted with the culture.
///////////////////////////////////////
i am Sum Ting Wong praise me- Sum Ting Wong july 5th 2004
CANADA KICKS ASSS
///////////////////////////////////////
i am Sum Ting Wong praise me- Sum Ting Wong july 5th 2004
CANADA KICKS ASSS
alpinecowboy84
Active member
^^dude, you need the understand the difference between a personal attack and an attack on what you've said. because theres a huge difference, the first one is very common among academic circles, the second is looked down upon. i think its pretty fair to say that, while i have been more than rude at times, the majority of what i've said has been a criticism of your ideas.
and i find it hilarious that after telling me that i need to learn how to be mature, you go and personally insult me and tell me to die??? if thats not childish then i don't know what is.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
and i find it hilarious that after telling me that i need to learn how to be mature, you go and personally insult me and tell me to die??? if thats not childish then i don't know what is.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
alpinecowboy84
Active member
i think the problem is that you take criticism personall, something you just cant do if you want to debate. it just makes you look like a sore contender.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
Jessbuff
Active member
Alright, so I decided to read the rest of your post. Apparently you weren’t done being an ass. I’m sorry that I am not willing to change the way I speak for the purposes of debate. Unlike you I am not being fake, although, apparently the fact that you are an asshole isn’t something you can hide.
As for the criticism of my use of the word slut, I used it for BOTH sexes in order to relate the terms used in the article to my little theory. I’m truly amazed that you brought this to your professor. Is she writing your responses? She must be totally un-biased too - a woman anthropology professor supporting your view point from the ANTHROPOLOGY perspective on WOMEN. Now there’s an un-biased source.
I’d like you to explain how Darwin’s principles conflict with my argument. You made a huge claim and offered no supporting evidence.
As for your analogy of popping a squat - totally doesn’t work. Toilets were invented for comfort and waste management, not because people didn’t think it was socially acceptable to poop standing up.
You have yet to argue the basis of the article though. Maybe the little theory I made up to re-spark debate was crap, as I realize it is (and props for dismantling it). But really, I have offered examples of women behaving as the article charges and your only argument against it is that I don’t know all of the women in the world or that I hang out with trashy women. (Which I resent. The girls I hang out with are awesome, and not at all trashy. Yet, those I have asked agree that women can have a great influence on men by using their sexuality.)
Women have a lot of power through their sexuality: power that men do not have with theirs. Girls don’t spend money and go out of their way to get guys to whip out their penis’. Guys, on the other hand, will do almost anything to see girls kiss or show their tits. I’ve seen it first hand. I’ve been to parties. Who do you suppose uses the date rape drug most often? - Not women, they can get what they want.)
Anyways, I’ve tried to be pleasant with you but I’m done with that. If you want to sling mud I can do that too. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, or if you are capable of having one, then respond to this politely. You may not hear back from me if you choose to be an asshole. You can prove your point politely. If you don’t, I will assume you know you are wrong and do not want to continue.
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
As for the criticism of my use of the word slut, I used it for BOTH sexes in order to relate the terms used in the article to my little theory. I’m truly amazed that you brought this to your professor. Is she writing your responses? She must be totally un-biased too - a woman anthropology professor supporting your view point from the ANTHROPOLOGY perspective on WOMEN. Now there’s an un-biased source.
I’d like you to explain how Darwin’s principles conflict with my argument. You made a huge claim and offered no supporting evidence.
As for your analogy of popping a squat - totally doesn’t work. Toilets were invented for comfort and waste management, not because people didn’t think it was socially acceptable to poop standing up.
You have yet to argue the basis of the article though. Maybe the little theory I made up to re-spark debate was crap, as I realize it is (and props for dismantling it). But really, I have offered examples of women behaving as the article charges and your only argument against it is that I don’t know all of the women in the world or that I hang out with trashy women. (Which I resent. The girls I hang out with are awesome, and not at all trashy. Yet, those I have asked agree that women can have a great influence on men by using their sexuality.)
Women have a lot of power through their sexuality: power that men do not have with theirs. Girls don’t spend money and go out of their way to get guys to whip out their penis’. Guys, on the other hand, will do almost anything to see girls kiss or show their tits. I’ve seen it first hand. I’ve been to parties. Who do you suppose uses the date rape drug most often? - Not women, they can get what they want.)
Anyways, I’ve tried to be pleasant with you but I’m done with that. If you want to sling mud I can do that too. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, or if you are capable of having one, then respond to this politely. You may not hear back from me if you choose to be an asshole. You can prove your point politely. If you don’t, I will assume you know you are wrong and do not want to continue.
'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)
"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
alpinecowboy84
Active member
although i still think you are taking my criticisms of your argument as a personal attack, that is the best argument you've put forth so far. unfortunately, i have an essay and about 200 pages of reading to do for monday, so i don't have time to read back through the material. i'll give a rebuttle when i have time. just needed to clarify this so that you don't assume that my silence is equatable with some kind of a victory.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
punk_rider
Active member
it seems that everyone agree on one thing: the guy who started this thread is a retard knowing few about girls.
so, i guess i express everyone's opinion saying he's narrow minded and not worth it
*******************
FACE YOUR FEARS, LIVE YOUR DREAMS!!
PUNK'S NOT DEAD!
RAILS SUCK!
POWDER SKIING RULES!
DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!
so, i guess i express everyone's opinion saying he's narrow minded and not worth it
*******************
FACE YOUR FEARS, LIVE YOUR DREAMS!!
PUNK'S NOT DEAD!
RAILS SUCK!
POWDER SKIING RULES!
DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!
punk_rider
Active member
^haha!! i wondered how long you would take to answer!!
haha!! you're fast man!!!
;D
*******************
FACE YOUR FEARS, LIVE YOUR DREAMS!!
PUNK'S NOT DEAD!
RAILS SUCK!
POWDER SKIING RULES!
DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!
haha!! you're fast man!!!
;D
*******************
FACE YOUR FEARS, LIVE YOUR DREAMS!!
PUNK'S NOT DEAD!
RAILS SUCK!
POWDER SKIING RULES!
DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!
haha, ur right. this whole thing is retarded and wrong. there are some individuals who are "sluts" but no species or gender can be generalized that much on an interspecies basis. skibum is obssesed w/ this thread and is getting way too defensive for someone who "doesnt really beleive the atrilce". no one gender is a slut, and no one species is a slut, bc thats the norm of their own species. not all can be compared to humans. oh and you can study a cultar, but you'll never really know it unless youve lived there for a while. its just too big a gap. and skibum you fuckin retard, shut up
ive waited all my life to cross this line into the only thing thats true -ryan cabrera
ive waited all my life to cross this line into the only thing thats true -ryan cabrera
back_woods
Active member
but your see you are
********OTTATREAL*********
It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators soOOonnN, it aint me, it aint meEEE, I aint no fortunate oOONNE
********OTTATREAL*********
It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators soOOonnN, it aint me, it aint meEEE, I aint no fortunate oOONNE
Sharpy
Active member
I read an interesting study today about how in 36 out of 37 countries in which the study was done, 76% of women places socioeconomic status in their top 3 desirable qualities in a man. In comaprison, only 5% of men placed socioeconomic status in their top 3.
DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
Like a virgin on prom night.
DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
Like a virgin on prom night.
gypsy
Member
there's no way im going to read the whole thread, but guys, check this book out;
Survival of the Prettiest
by Dr. Nancy Etcoff
It is an excellent overview of the phsycological aspects of male/female relationships, from an evolutionary perspective. Seriously, its a good read and very informative.
* bethaka
Survival of the Prettiest
by Dr. Nancy Etcoff
It is an excellent overview of the phsycological aspects of male/female relationships, from an evolutionary perspective. Seriously, its a good read and very informative.
* bethaka