Smith117
Posts: 1447
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
lol... You know, to me, this is a shining example of the topic at hand.
And to me, it's a stuning example of the point I made.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
While where it exactly began could be debated, it appears that StormsSlave essentially took exception to your response to her comment...
SnowStorm made an observation that did not agree with your own experience. Instead of just indicating your viewpoint and explaining why you reached a different conclusion, your response took a "superior" position and proceeded to "lecture".
Actually, she didn't explain her viewpoint except to say "in her experience" so I didn't feel the need to explain either. Evidently, our "experience" is sufficient, so I left it at that. And my "lecture" as you put it was more directed at a further answer to the OT, not her. In fact, in my "lecture" I even agreed with her. Those men who whine and complain about not being able to handle women do tend to blame their irrational nature. She used that term first, I just agreed that some men don't get that nature, while those that do seem to handle their women just fine.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I don't want to sound like I'm belaboring the point of how she made her comment, but I want to make it apparent so that it will more easily contrast with your own. She could have said, "Men who are inept at handling a woman, blame the "irrational nature" of a woman instead of their own shortcomings." She did not. She gave an "emotional out" for any man reading who didn't feel it applied to him.
Your response, on the other hand, began well enough...You made it clear that it was your own experience.
But then in the explanation of your conclusion, you slipped into a manner that left no "emotional out"... the first of which is by using the word "inherent." It's one thing to say that some women, or even most women, can be irrational... or that even all women have the capacity to be irrational. But you've declared irrationality to be inherent in women. Inherent means existing as a permanent and inseparable element. No outs there..
And in mine, I specifically stated two groups of men, those who can handle women and those who can't. Therefore, no need for an "out." There is further no need for an "emotional out" because there has already been more than one woman in this thread who agrees with me about their emotional nature. Not only the women in this thread, but several I know have said they think women are VERY overly emotional. So there is no need for an out.
A poplar radio host here in town says repeatedly, "If someone is secure in themselves, they don't feel the need to correct such statements, because they know that while it is a generalization, it doesn't apply to them. Those who are very insecure will seek to correct such a generalization because they think it speaks directly about them....about which they tend to be right."
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Okay. StormsSlave has taken this personally and goes a little over the deep end. Her wording is harsh and betrays how she has taken your comments personally. She's attempting to back you into a verbal corner. You've insulted women and implied a distaste for something that is "inherent" in women, so she wants to make you say that despite that, you want women anyway. She wants you to admit to a weakness... still being attracted to and desiring of something that you've declared flawed.
That's not irrationality speaking, that's emotion. She isn't necessarily wanting to "get back" at you, but to make you face your own humanity and flaws. To humble the superiority you've displayed.
Actually, she "tried" to take a shot at me, out of emotion, which goes back to the overall tone of the thread. Many have already said women are irrational and emotional....sometimes the two go hand in hand. You see, according to you, she's reacting to an "air of superiority" that she READ INTO my statements. I didn't put it there. I never said men weren't flawed at all. But this thread isn't about men, it's about understanding women. So I answered accordingly. Her EMOTIONAL response was irrational because it was reacting to something in my post that wasn't there.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Looks to me like you know exactly what she's trying to do and you are digging in your heels. You'll not only respond exactly the opposite of what you believe she wants, you'll say you like it... that you're much happier because of it. You'll take the wind out of her sails by confirming her negative.
It's just my personal assessment here, but she's put you on the defensive. She's attacked you and insulted you, so you're trying to reassert control.
Oh I know full well I took the wind out of her sails, but I wasn't on the defensive with my reply, I was agreeing with her. The simple fact is that after so many attempts to deal with the women about which I am speaking, I have decided I'm much better off on my own. I've suspected for quite awhile that I am not the relationship type. Each day, things like this just make me more and more sure of that. I wasn't being defensive with her at all, I was simply agreeing
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
I admit that I knew my comment could be taken in two different ways...
I found the exchange between you and StormsSlave to be humorous. While my intent was to simply point out that it was just as well you stayed away from women since you didn't seem to have a very favorable opinion of them and would most likely just make them unhappy, too, I left my comments short and sweet because I suspected you'd take them otherwise.
Like your response above where you knew what StormsSlave wanted to accomplish and you purposely took the opposite stance to prove control, I figured you might see my comments as doing the same... trying to take control by confirming a negative.
Making a statement that you know can be taken two ways, and then allowing that to be done, is simply attempting to stoke a fire. If you really did want it taken a certain way, you'd have written it more toward that direction. You didn't and so it looked more like an insult. Don't backtrack now and claim that it wasn't. My reply to that insult was not a "shot back" it was simply stating a fact. You're not the kind of woman I'd be interested in. So, feel free to take as many shots as you like at my dating history or my future follies. The fact is, you don't know how they feel, only how you feel. And how you feel isnt' relevant because I'm not interested in you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
And my reply...
Was to create a little cognitive dissonance.
The congnitive dissonance was already there, as it is caused by holding two contradictory ideas at once, which we apparently do. The comment you made wasn't necessary to 'create' the dissonance because it already existed. The only function that your comment could serve, then, was to continue stoking the fire.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Your insult was ineffective and I was showing why. You'd kinda shot yourself in the foot with your agreeing with StormsSlave's attempt to put words in your mouth to describe women as intolerable, irrational, out-of-control dimwits. Remember, you said, "I couldn't have said it better myself."
I made that statement to her entire reply, not just one part of it. You did see that she included two questions in her reply, right? The questions "Why bother with us?" and "Why the need to put up with....?" To which my reply fits just fine. "I couldn't have said it better myself." As if to say "Why bother? Good question. I don't."
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Since you think of women in that light, why on earth would I want to be on your radar? To be honest, I would wonder why any woman would.
And you'd be very, very suprised. I've met many in the vanilla world who agree about the way women are. And I have met MANY MORE in the S/M lifestyle who not only agree, but who also use that as a motivating drive for their submission. They are the types of women who see a woman running for president and ask "Why the hell would she do that? Women shouldn't run this country."
You'll take exception to that quote, but before you do, realize that it is not from me. It's from a submissive woman I've known more than a year now. In fact, this woman who made that comment told me she often fantasized about running for office, and winning, then standing up on the podium and declaring that she would concede to her male opponent, indicating in no uncertain terms that women shouldn't be in such a position of power. Despite the initial shock upon hearing that from her, her mindset came to be one of the reasons we got along as well as we did.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
At any rate, it's been interesting and fun. If there's any real lesson to be learned here, it's that, while either side can take a good amount of ribbing about the foibles of the opposite sex, there comes a point where it's too much. Try leaving some "emotional outs", too.
If the statements I'd made needed an "out" perhaps I will leave one. But, when my reply follows not one, but many women who hold the same view, I feel no need to leave such an out. You'll notice, I hope, that the other women in this thread haven't responded in the way that you and she did. Two women in an entire thread reacting that way to one little bitty statement. Seems a bit odd, don't you think?
|
RE: Understanding women???? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread