RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking

RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 8:52:42 AM)
This is a thread about what people say versus what they do, and how they rationalize differences. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Agreed. It's also completely disingenous how he phrases his "questions". Or clueless. In no example that has been made were any of these women saying one thing and doing another. Thank you for bringing this point up, that you feel that I'm being disingenuous in the way I asked the question soliciting your input. The topic is a discussion opened to better understand the connection between what people say versus what they actually do, with respect to clothing choices. Since it's an open discussion, people will provide their opinion on WHETHER that observation is even true in the first place, and, if it's true, WHY it's true (specifically, what's the thought process involved). I do agree with you that my phraseology appears to be prejudged in that I'm implying that many women say one thing and yet, they actually do quite another (particularly, IMHO, the younger woman and not so much the more mature women). You're welcome to disagree with either of the key points, which are, fundamentally, if we expand it to "people" and not just "women" (as per a previous poster who brought up male chest displays): With respect to clothing choices and sexual objectification ... Do people (men and women) say one thing, yet do something quite the contrary? If so, what is THEIR thought process that allows that rationalizes* that dichotomy?* quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Unless a woman has a pea sized brain, she is totally aware of what she wearing and the desired affect. I would fully and completely agree with you that people know at all times exactly what they're doing with respect to what they're wearing, and the perceived effect on others (however, I believe some people here will certainly beg to disagree with you on this important point). So, while it's clear to me that people know EXACTLY what effect they intend by the clothing they wear, there is not going to be a universal agreement on this important point among all of us. Many will say that people are, actually, clueless, or careless, of the effect of what they wear, which, if that's actually the case, it would go a long way toward explaining the apparent dichotomy of what people say, versus what they do. So, it's a very important point which is fundamental to an understanding of the issue! quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 It's also ridiculous to compare highly trained Olympic athletes with cheerleaders and Hooters servers. The female athletes wear what is most helpful in achieving a goal (speed, etc.). Hooters do it to entertain men and get bigger tips. While I completely disagree with you on why the trained Olympic athletes wear what they wear (which I proposed to show with the pictures showing the track and field athletes and my depiction of wresting garb), I do fully and emphatically agree with you on why the Hooters waitresses wear what they wear. Bearing in mind this is not a discussion only about WHAT people wear (that would be boring and wouldn't get us anywhere). No. This is a discussion about what they DO versus what they SAY. I don't have any interviews of women athletes to compare with to discern what those women say versus what they do. But, I did provide the interviews with the Hooters' waitresses, where, anyone intelligently discerning who reads the Hooters interviews in the business review would certainly notice the apparent cluelessness (should we call it hypocrisy?) of the women interviewed. Are we wrong about Hooters? Or are these women simply innocent, or naive, or, just maybe misled about what they're wearing and what they say in those interviews? How do we rectify the THOUGHT process of the women who seemed so innocent in those interviews with the fact that even the name alone, of Hooters or Twin Peaks, are obvious and blatant euphemisms for the objectification of breasts? quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Everyone concerned is clear on these points, except the OP. There is no hypocrisy in any of these examples. I think there is clear hypocrisy. I tried to portray the seeming hypocrisy as clearly as I could. When you read those interviews with the Hooters waitresses, did you not detect any hint of hypocrisy? When you see how a football player dresses versus how the cheerleader dresses, do you not see any hint of hypocrisy? When a wrestler or a track and fielder can cover their body far better than others in similar conditions, do you not see the hypocrisy? Those pictures were chosen to DISPLAY graphically the hypocrisy. So, I am curious how and why that display failed to impact you in any meaningful way? Since this is a thread about what people say versus what they do, and how they rationalize differences, I would be curious to know more why you see no hypocrisy where I seem to see it clearly in (some) people's words and actions.

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 9:08:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67 Rule number 1 never try to figure women out. If that is the case, then this thread will go nowhere, since this is a thread about what people say versus what they do, and how they rationalize differences. If there is no possible explanation, other than it doesn't make any sense, then this thread will be destined to go nowhere.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 9:27:01 AM)
We don’t have any of that malarkey at our football grounds and if we did I want them in boots and corset as it more atheistically pleasing to me stuff everyone else - I am skilled in the art of debate and I have been honing my debating skill of debacle watching USA (republican or tea party of what ever the hell they call themselves) buffoonery go at it, hoping evermore they will unleash the lions at some point, and to please the baying crowd and their kindred mob mentality. Do you believe they talk/represent all women folk. And what of the rough and tumble fellows with all their shoulder pads and high heels – don’t get that in Rugby, no siree – do they still play Australian rules football or did the Geneva convention outlaw that, I doth wonder. Not sure what to answer. Don’t they cite cheerleaders as a tradition, as long as they don’t black up…means what is a tradition and what is an outrage. Never understood cheerleaders - is that not what the crowd is for? Even Barbie comes in a plethora of ranges; skin tones and sizes nowadays, and ken still without his junk - we had action man in my day I had scar face - I digress. Do we not all wish to be desired - granted some by the one and most others by the many; attentions whores I believe I/others call them; a destitute race looking for their next like, pointless admirer, mirror mirror. Muffin to muffin

Lucylastic -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 9:29:58 AM)
no you arent Crumpets You are showing pictures taken at one specific time and space and using it as support for your "proof" , and NOT using the women SHOWN with their own words. You are ascribing the pictures to all women, and we know dont we that you do NOT understand that NO woman has the exact same thoughts as another. I couldnt apply for a job at hooters, 1, im too old, 2. Im certainly not going to get hired for my face, 3 Im not going to get hired for my size. no matter if I have a degree in mixology or business management and dressed as required" and sex sells. You might wanna go back in history before the victorian age to find dresses with bared upper breasts was de rigeur. Im a woman, You know, that I love erotica, nudes, glamour, why should you consider women who embrace their sexuality and femininity as being "sluts" or whores'(from the previous shitty thread. I have corsets, I have crotchless panties, I have enough lingerie to open a shop. well for plus size women at least. I have customers who all wear their lingerie for their own reasons. Not just to titillate men. ALtho IM fine if they do. WHo am I to judge what makes women feel sexy in. Its her feelings not mine or yours. I dont wear my sexy lingerie on a daily basis, I dont wear corsets on a daily basis, I sure as hell dont wear sexy thongs every day, and I dont agree that im doing anything different to any other woman, unless she is paid/loves to be eye candy. Shelf life on youth and beauty is low....hit 40 as a woman and unless you are and have been eye candy are often seen as sexually desperate by men who think they are entitled to pretty women.. which is so much bollocks.

CodeOfSilence -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 11:11:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence If you do not want to assimilate into the norms of your culture that's one thing. But to purposefully make yourself look unattractive (I mean there are classy, attractive styles using pants and shirts), that's just silly. There are even styles that clearly send signals that you're not interested in flirtation but that are still pleasant on the eye. First of all, local men actually prefer conservative dressing females as romantic partners. So if you dress pleasant on the eye, but professional and conservative, you will get ALOT of male attention. They love women that look like ice queen virgins and completely covers up. So looking unattractive assures you get zero male attention at your work place. I hate being seen as a female at work. I like to be one of the guys. So I refuse to look like one. But so far, everytime when I have been chastitise for it, I have resigned, and each time, they relented and leave me alone. Not only with this company but several companies, as I was a hard worker and I did a great job. They can't fault me for my work. They can only complain about my dressing and my refusal to wear make up. I like to wear baggy male work shirts and straight cut male pants. And I even wear male black shoes. And point is, if they tell me I can't work there anymore unless I change and start wearing more feminine, I resign and leave, and don't try to fight them on it. I respect their policy, but I don't have to be part of it. Move on and find someone else to work for. My dressing does not affect my good service to customers. I'm confident about the work I do, and I can't be bothered to entertain their dress code. I dress neatly, like a man, and it's not untidy. My shirt and pants are neatly pressed, my shoes are polished. Anyway, I like dressing up feminine only for my man. In that, I will wear anything he wants. Why should I dress for anybody else's aesthetics who I do not want attention from? Currently, it still pisses me off when men tell me I am disrespecting them by refusing to wear make up. Of course that just makes me even more determined never to wear it, ever! It's just incredible how many local men keeps telling me that. One guy told me that he would be embarrass to take me to a company function if I refuse to put on make up. It's just incredible to me. But anyway, I've been sticking to men who appreciate my natural face and avoiding these guys who are make up militants. I think there is seriously something wrong with this world, when a man thinks it's mandatory for a woman to always wear make up. Oh I agree completely that only a complete twat would tell a woman that she is disrespecting him because she's not wearing makeup. Most makeups hurt the skin in the long term so even from that standpoint it's better not to use them. I like the way you guys roll in Asia with facial masks as the primary tool! I've got a bit dry skin so heck, even I'm looking into that. But IMO you should dress for someone else's aesthetics in the service business because it gives a nice impression. I have no idea how you dressed, you'll have to send me a picture for that. But personally I don't like seeing someone looking too shabby in a restaurant, makes me think the place is shabby too. Plus I love art and design and if the waitresses and waiters kinda keep in with the theme or add something unique of their own then that's just more awesome imo :-) Edit: Neat is fine ;-) And your attitude about it all is pretty good anyway. I'm a dude so I can't really compare out situation to yours. The pressures on women in general are larger than on men. IMO there are just far worse mechanisms of social control out there than "looking sexy".

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 11:55:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67 No one thinks anything of it, at least I don't. Since this is a thread about what people say versus what they do, and how they rationalize differences, with respect to your observation that men can go shirtless without disapproval while women don't, we certainly can agree that this is what they do. To stay on topic, we need to then look at what they SAY, with respect to being shirtless... and then understand WHY (if there is a discrepancy). [image]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1b/7d/15/1b7d152aa4853c41d589d3ac5bff4fed.jpg[/image] I'm sure nobody disputes this point, so now we need to move to the important (and fundamental) topic of whether this action jives with what they SAY, and if it doesn't mesh logically with what they say, then we have to ask why. BTW, there is hilarious video on women jogging topless that someone posted to either the "creeper" thread or to the "pounce" thread, which was rather well designed to point out the hypocrisy in how we all tend to think, where after watching it, you might also beg to wonder HOW we rationalize this hypocrisy... If I can find it, I'll re-post it here (that creeper thread is something like a score of pages long and my connection here, especially with Tor, is too flaky to allow me to easily find it for you right now.)

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 1:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets It's a given that women don't want to be treated as sex objects, especially while in public, yet, it's just as much a given that (some) women shove their panties in our faces every chance they get. Why the continued insistence that all women are exactly the same? It's a given that some women don't want to be treated as sex objects, especially while in public, other women do enjoy being treated as sex object, yet, it's just as much a given that (some) women who shove their panties in our faces every chance they get are looking to use their sexuality to find a form of attention they find both flattering and validating, while women who don't find that form of attention flattering and validating do not shove their panties in our faces every chance they get. There, I fixed it for you... If you see a woman deliberately shove her panties in your face, you can bet your ass that she'll feel flattered if you admire her for doing so in a positive and social class* appropriate manner. If a woman is acting and dressing in a manner that shows that she does not desire to shove her panties in your face, you can bet your ass that she'll feel bad if you call her out in a sexuallized manner for an accidental wardrobe malfunction, no matter how positively phrased or intended. Telling one of the cheerleaders in your pic: "you have really nice legs", will be appreciated. Telling a minister's wife dressed in an ankle length skirt the same after an accidental tumble down a flight of stairs left her more exposed than she had preferred won't be appreciated at all... * Complimenting a woman in a manner respectful of the social class she deems herself to belong to, and/or is attempting to date into is important. Women who deem themselves of a high(er) social class will not take well to low(er) class language when being complimented, sexually or not. This is primarily because women date 'up' and thus, giving a woman a compliment in a colloquialism not in line with the social class she is (attempting to be) part of is taken as an insult, because you are telling her that she isn't good enough to achieve the social standing she desires. However, the faux pas isn't in the sexualisation of the compliment itself (assuming it's a "panty in your face" type woman) but rather in insulting her social desirability by implying that she's of a lower class herself. This is causing the discrepancy you're seeing in the hooter girl's interviews. It's not that they object to being sexualized, it is that they are very often girls putting themselves through college, and thus consider themselves to be part of, or aspiring to be middle class or higher. Hooter patrons on the other hand are often blue collar workers, and thus give compliments to these girls in a manner not in line with the social standing the girls see themselves as having, which results in frustration. In turn the girls themselves aren't introspective enough to realize that it's not so much the sexualized compliments that bother them, but rather the way in which they are phrased, because they don't really categorize sexualized compliments that are appropriate to their class as "sexual", instead seeing those comments as merely "flattering". It's natural for them to have this inconsistency btw, because every class considers the language used by the classes below them as more vulgar than their own, even if the sentiment being expressed is exactly the same, and taken the same by each respective class. Hence the disconnect of hooter waitresses complaining about being treated as sex objects, while at the same time obviously deliberately provoking being viewed as such. Giving a woman a compliment in a language of a class she considers beneath herself will almost always result in you being considered vulgar and offensive by her, regardless of whether or not she enjoys being sexualized by strangers.

Cinnamongirl67 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 1:30:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67 No one thinks anything of it, at least I don't. Since this is a thread about what people say versus what they do, and how they rationalize differences, with respect to your observation that men can go shirtless without disapproval while women don't, we certainly can agree that this is what they do. To stay on topic, we need to then look at what they SAY, with respect to being shirtless... and then understand WHY (if there is a discrepancy). [image]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1b/7d/15/1b7d152aa4853c41d589d3ac5bff4fed.jpg[/image] I'm sure nobody disputes this point, so now we need to move to the important (and fundamental) topic of whether this action jives with what they SAY, and if it doesn't mesh logically with what they say, then we have to ask why. BTW, there is hilarious video on women jogging topless that someone posted to either the "creeper" thread or to the "pounce" thread, which was rather well designed to point out the hypocrisy in how we all tend to think, where after watching it, you might also beg to wonder HOW we rationalize this hypocrisy... If I can find it, I'll re-post it here (that creeper thread is something like a score of pages long and my connection here, especially with Tor, is too flaky to allow me to easily find it for you right now.) Okay. Men running down the road shirtless that's what they do. Their excuse. It's very hot. Also what they say internally--- damn I'm looking mighty fine with my 6 pack. Look at me! Oh look at me baby. Okay. Woman running down the road, shorts up her arse crack that's what they do. Their excuse. Oh the less material I have on the faster I go, it's so hot, I'm a wilting flower. What they say internally. My gluts are so hard and fine, everyone is looking! They want this superb butt! Will they admit that? Nah most never will. Lol I hope this makes sense to you crumpets.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 2:21:55 PM)
Ok crumpets, there are women choosing to be sexual, there are women pressured to be sexual, there are women perceived as sexual even though they did not intend to be sexual, woman wanting to be sexual without being seen as sexual, and there are women neither trying to be sexual nor perceived as sexual What I am saying is that it is immoral to pressure a women to be sexual in most professions. So, as NookieNotes was saying, believing there to be hypocricy because females conscious of woman's rights are in contradiction with random females posing half naked clumps all females together. That is fundamentally prejudiced

stef -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 2:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets This is a thread about what people say versus what they do, and how they rationalize differences. No, this is a thread that perfectly illustrates you're a clueless creeper

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 4:05:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence If you do not want to assimilate into the norms of your culture that's one thing. But to purposefully make yourself look unattractive (I mean there are classy, attractive styles using pants and shirts), that's just silly. There are even styles that clearly send signals that you're not interested in flirtation but that are still pleasant on the eye. Excellent counterpoint! Since the topic is what people do and how that reconciles with what they say, this counterpoint is perfectly apropos. In past threads where this topic came up (e.g., buried somewhere on the fifteenth page or so in the "profiles" thread and in the "creeper" thread) someone, I think it was Lady Constanze (but I could also be others) brought up the fact that only certain clothes fit her, and those clothes reveal more than a typical man's garb would reveal. This was a practical consideration. I should also note that she provided, in that thread, some representative photos, which seemed, to me, to be perfectly normal attire and which did not provide me cause for concern with respect to the topic at hand. She, being a mature woman, seemed to be comfortable NOT displaying every inch of her body while she was out in public or at work, which, to me, makes perfect logical sense. In HER case, what she SAID and what she DID seemed (for the most part anyway), to be perfectly alighed (there was an issue with the few days in a year such as Halloween, but let's not go there unless others choose to delve deeper into that subject of falling off the wagon for a few days out of the year). I'm sure you have seen women in professional attire. They don't look unattractive to you, do they? They look perfectly fine to me, yet, professional attire would never show undue amounts of skin. [image]http://www.csulbbap.org/uploads/3/1/3/7/31373733/7093930_orig.png[/image] I agree with you that, in those cases, what people say and what they do DOES make perfect sense. So, it's not everyone who makes no sense; just some people (more the younger ones than the wiser mature ones, I would think). [image]http://fashionovert.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Modern-Business-Professional-Dress-for-Women-with-Photo-of-Business-Dresses-Plans-Free-at-Ideas.jpg[/image]

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 4:59:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Perhaps it is your own thought process that requires modification here. I'm not sure where you are going with that tack. Are you saying I should not OBSERVE what people do, and what they SAY they do? Or are you intimating that the mere fact that I solicit discussion on this topic means that I'm wrong? Or, more probably to the point ... are you telegraphing that you disagree and therefore, without any basis whatsoever, you ask me to agree with you, even though your point isn't stated nor defended in the least? Or, are you going somewhere else with this tack? [image]https://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ask.jpg[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When you cease thinking that all women are the same, with the same wants needs and desires, you will realise how silly your question is. Ah, I see. You're on the classic non-scientific tack that nothing is possible to understand. I see. I do. I've heard it before. Everyone is different. Everything is immeasurable. Nothing is summariz'able. In effect, you seem to be going toward the tack that there is no way to observe and gain insight into common human behavior. Well, I've studied tens of thousands of "things" in my life, and, after having done so, I believe EVERYTHING is possible to understand. But, you can't understand ANYTHING until you take a good hard basic look at it. Reproductive-age females have been acting the way they act today since before humans existed, just as viruses have been acting the way they act today since before multi-cellular organisms existed. Nothing has changed since the beginning of time. Therefore, if you DON'T ask the question - you know absolutely NOTHING about that which you care about! For a simple example, if you have no clue about a virus, of course, there is no way that you can classify them into any category whatsoever. They're all different and the same at the very same time. You know nothing whatsoever about any individual virus, and, at the same time, you know nothing about them, as a class, if you can't CLASSIFY them into categories. For example, as a class ... Do you consider a virus a living organism? Most scientists would say they're not living at all. They're just a class of very intelligent assemblages of proteins and either DNA or RNA. Did you know that? Where am I going with this tack? I'm trying to explain to you that if you don't ASK QUESTIONS and if you don't TRY TO UNDERSTAND, then all you know is .... um ... uh ... er ... all you know is absolutely nothing. One question ALWAYS leads to another, by the way. For example, if we didn't ask the question of whether viral particles are alive or not, we'd know absolutely nothing about what it even MEANS to be alive. But, I DO understand YOUR point. To some people, that question (of what it means to be alive) is moot. But, at the same time, those people are wholly ignorant of what it means to be alive. Then we get to your point of classification... Is every virus the same? Nope. But, we certainly can CLASSIFY them into categories, can't we? If we didn't, we'd know absolutely nothing about them. [image]http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/bacteriophage-670.jpg[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Try thinking not of women in general - because there isn't a one size fits all answer - but of the individual women you may know. See above argument for whether viruses are alive or not. That's a one-size-fits-all answer. See also the question about different types of viral particles (e.g., RNA viruses versus DNA viruses). There's an example where, if you don't even know to ask the question, then you know absolutely NOTHING about what you're trying to better understand. And, if you don't then go down the path of the pathogenesis of the diseases they cause, you again know absolutely nothing of which you are trying to understand. [image]http://image.slidesharecdn.com/07-viruses-140119202247-phpapp01/95/07-viruses-12-638.jpg[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle (Of course it may be the case that you don't know any women in which case this whole discussion is pretty pointless isn't it?) I know what (many) women do. I know what (many) women say. Hence, the philosophical question asking for insight from the likes of you. [image]http://img.ifcdn.com/images/459217c98890eeac47ccec867cc8ca6a955a01e019b2dc26e2a98a7b7d534d50_1.jpg[/image]

Greta75 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 6:12:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets They look perfectly fine to me, yet, professional attire would never show undue amounts of skin. [image]http://www.csulbbap.org/uploads/3/1/3/7/31373733/7093930_orig.png[/image] I agree with you that, in those cases, what people say and what they do DOES make perfect sense. So, it's not everyone who makes no sense; just some people (more the younger ones than the wiser mature ones, I would think). [image]http://fashionovert.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Modern-Business-Professional-Dress-for-Women-with-Photo-of-Business-Dresses-Plans-Free-at-Ideas.jpg[/image] Crumpets, I know men who will find both attires sexy. You know, all men are different. Some actually think a woman is sexier when she's more covered up. More mystery, more left to imagination. And that turns them on.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 6:26:10 PM)
Crumpets, how long have you been compiling your sexist rant? How long have you hated women? Too complicated for you?

Cell -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 6:47:18 PM)
Crumpets... I think everyone is basically trying to get you to understand that 'no plan survives contact with the enemy'... there's a gulf between theory and practice... and there's no substitute for experience. See you later dater ^_~

lovmuffin -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 8:07:55 PM)
FR Can we dispense with all the Psychobabble now and get back to more pictures like on the first page of this thread ??? [8D]

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 11:02:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I know men who will find both attires sexy. You know, all men are different. Some actually think a woman is sexier when she's more covered up. More mystery, more left to imagination. And that turns them on. To that interesting point, it's instructive to share that I received the following insightful admonition in my inbox, which is related to this thread, but from whom I shall not divulge ... quote: Men sexualize women. It's men who made corsets, and made Norma Jean aka Marilyn Monroe act like an idiot not the intelligent woman she was. We don't control you with our panties. You permit us to control you by being weak to your desires. We are not compelled nor weakened by our sexual desires, but men are very much so crippled by their desires. We are responsible for our thoughts, desires, and decisions and we do not blame our feelings on others' appearance or underwear. Perhaps a better question is why are men so incapable of better managing their desires.

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 11:15:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler <nothing of any value ever> Your brain must be nearly empty now with all that lack of value you repeatedly imparted to this thread. Do yourself, me, and everyone else a favor, and plonk me as I have just plonked you. PS: Killfiles are forever. [image]https://i.imgur.com/TeLDwS3.gif[/image]

crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 11:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin FR Can we dispense with all the Psychobabble now and get back to more pictures like on the first page of this thread ??? [8D] In keeping with the humor of that request ... there's this that didn't make the cut ... [image]https://i.imgur.com/cuthKL6.jpg[/image] And this ... [image]https://i.imgur.com/gWHFjy4.jpg[/image]

Greta75 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/1/2016 11:27:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Perhaps a better question is why are men so incapable of better managing their desires. I constantly read in the news of Malaysia, to my annoyance, it being a Muslim country that it's always the woman's fault IF the man behaves like disrespectfully, as a man is different from a woman and cannot control his desires. Like the damn country's official government SAYZ THAT! So they put 100% responsibility on the woman, to dress in baggy shapeless ninja suits, although I'd give it to Malaysia that they do celebrate colours, and it's usually colourful ninja suits and not just boring black. Women are just suppose to be understanding towards men ineptitude and what they cannot help themselves by dressing accordingly in manners where there could be no possible sexual attractiveness. I just hope that you belonging to a western culture, would feel that, as a man, you have no problem controlling yourself at all times, because, you are a better man than those who claim they can't help it and those who claim it's a natural biological thing exclusive to men that they cannot be fault for. There are so many men on earth that can control themselves. And I am sure you belong to one of them as well.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625