Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 9:48:51 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline 		FR~


Oh FFS crumpets!!
Give it a fucking rest will ya?

You have proven way beyond doubt that you are clueless, socially inept, and long past stupid.
Just accept that you don't geddit. It's way beyond what your moronic pea-brain can understand.

Most of us understand it very well and have done since very early years in pre-school.
You are sooo dense and obtuse you can't crack the shell let alone grasp the pip.

Of all the nonsense you've posted, in many threads, the pics you post are women who are PAID to entertain STUPID men.
Yet you can't grasp the difference at all.
Many have spelled it out to you but you still can't see it.
Women (or men) generally DO NOT say one thing and do another - not in the way you portray it.
Like Greta said - for many women it's either comfort or the uniform (dictated by MEN) that goes with the job.
Yet you cannot grasp this very simple concept.
As usual, you analyze it to death and want a detailed microscopic explanation.
There isn't one!
What you are seeking is justification for the way you think; and there is no justification. Simples!!

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 9:56:25 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline 		The plot thickens with newly insightful dialog ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
Why the continued insistence that all women are exactly the same?


As usual for you, this is a perfectly valid point which hits to the core the weakness of my initial observational statement.
Initially, this thread opened with "women" doing one thing and (presumably) saying another; however that argument has been shown to be untenable.

It's not ALL women.
It's only SOME women.

Specifically, it has been brought up to my attention that the older, more mature women who frequent this forum, do not seem to be in that category of women who say one thing yet do the exact opposite, with respect to the stated goal of not wishing to be objectivized for only their bodies.

In fact, about the only thing I can say about ALL WOMEN is that they're all likely tainted by the same duplicitous brush that SOME women paint, but that topic delves too deeply off course into the realities of persistence in attitudes applied to all, based on the crass behavior of some.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
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...


Thank you.
I think I have a major problem in this forum, which is that NONE of the women who responded, to date, would be considered in the category above of "SOME WOMEN" who say one thing and do another with respect to sexual objectification.

So, as you're appropriately pointing out, I'm asking the wrong women (perhaps the right question).

I guess the right women to ask are those I Hooter's waitresses ... but ... wait.... they DID ask them ... and the answer ... well ... the answer that came back in that interview was so unbelievably naive, it was like asking one of our past presidents why we went to war over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when none were to be found.

Clearly, the words and the actions didn't match up for that group of (younger, lower-class) women.

However, your point is very well taken that ... ... ... ...

It's a given that most mature women don't want to be treated as sex objects, especially while in public, yet, for them, it's fine that other women do enjoy being treated as sex object, where, it's just as much a given that (those) mature and sensible women who don't shove their panties in our faces every chance they get are not looking to use their sexuality to find a form of attention they find both flattering and validating, because these mature women don't find that form of attention flattering and these mature women certainly do not need to validate their sexuality by shoving their panties in our faces every chance they get!

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
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.


Upon first inspection, I don't know how to absorb and reflect upon that, likely profound, statement of fact.

On the one hand, what you say makes sense; however, I've heard (many times) from the ladies here that they dress to be sexy for a particular man, where they don't want the attention of the rabble, despite the plain fact that they have no control over these unwashed masses once the ladies go out in public dressed the way they're (sometimes) dressed.

So, their actions make sense (which is the first hint of understanding what they're thinking), yet, from a pragmatic point of view, while their strategy of appealing to a certain set of men may be sound, their tactics expose them to the nearly universal complaint of many women that they're unduly sexually objectivized.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
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 sexualized manner for an accidental wardrobe malfunction, no matter how positively phrased or intended.

What I like about your tack is that you're patiently (and eloquently) boxing me into , it seems, a better understanding (if I am not myself too dense to get your underlying points) of the fact that the ACT itself has both an INTENDED PURPOSE and a TARGET AUDIENCE.

  • If I'm the target audience of the purposefully sexual display, then the objectification will be taken appropriately by the woman, as it was meant to be, yet,
  • If I'm NOT the target audience, any and all objectification by me will be taken quite negatively, and, worse yet,
  • Sometimes a wardrobe malfunction truly is a wardrobe malfunction (in which case, any and all objectification would be considered objectionably crass, at the very least).

    This is an intriguing and interesting twist that delves deeper into the underlying strategy and tactics I seek to better understand, as there is absolutely no way my initial observations are of mere happenstance.

    (in reply to UllrsIshtar)
    • Profile   Post #: 82
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 10:07:18 AM   
    ReMakeYou


    Posts: 147
    Joined: 1/20/2012
    Status: offline     		#1: Can you show me where these cheerleaders actually go on at length about the horrors of being sexualized? Because if one group of women complains about the topic and refuses to sex themselves up, while another group dresses to excite and doesn't say anything about it, you don't have hypocrisy. You just have two groups of people, neither of whom is acting at odds with what they say.

    #2: Context is important. Hooters waitresses may well enjoy being flirts and getting attention, but an ass grab is well outside their comfort range. Again, this isn't so much hypocrisy so much as people deciding where they're comfortable drawing the line. Given many elements of culture that young women face, they may well enjoy abstract sexualization (flirting, dancing, etc.), but feel less comfortable as it becomes more real. Not the most mature way of going about things, but as you keep mentioning, these are young people. They haven't had that much time to figure themselves out yet.

    (in reply to crumpets)
    Profile   Post #: 83
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 10:07:43 AM   
    UllrsIshtar


    Posts: 3693
    Joined: 7/28/2012
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: crumpets

    LadyPact brought up the perfectly valid topic that most of my examples were of YOUNG women, and how THEY act, whereas, I'll wager that almost all, if not all, the women on this thread are NOT in that category of women.

    The women responding here are older, more mature, than the women depicted in the images purposefully selected to show the hypocrisy in how THEY (the younger women) act, versus the perceived (and universally agreed upon) concept that women should not be 'objectivized.



    It doesn't come down to young or not. It comes down to: "Is she trying to raise social status or not, and does she consider her physical assets a prime means of raising that status or has she other assets she considered more useful in that endeavor?"

    You see older women flaunting their stuff as well, and invariable when that happens the woman in question is dissatisfied with her social status AND considers her physical attributes a prime way to raise status by attracting a male higher on the social ladder.

    Again, there is not so much an issue of women acting one way, and saying something else (though that definitively goes on as well) it's a matter of women who flaunt their stuff in an attempt to raise status not responding well to being viewed as sex objects in a mannerism and language associated with a social class lower than what they're aspiring to. On top of that, most women who attempt to raise status by merely employing physical attributes often vastly overestimate the potential they have to raise status by means of said attributes, so they're extremely sensitive to being complimented on their physical attributes in a way they perceive as being below their desired status.

    Once you get the manner in which you compliment them, or view them as sexual objects in line with the social status they're attempting to achieve, reactions will be positive.

    Compliment a Hooter's waitress in a manner a rich executive might compliment his trophy wife and she'll be swooning all over you (especially when your manner of dress, and habits, back up the image of "rich executive").
    Now give her the exact same compliment in a language associated with the lowest classes and she'll be bitching to her friends about how she's so sick and tired of guys treating her like she's a sex object.

    Once you figure out what social class the women is aspiring to, or deems herself to be a part of, there's very little inconsistency between how she acts and what she says, in terms of how accepting she is of being sexualized by strangers.
    What you will find is that there is often a huge gap between the social class you judge her to be a part of (or to has the potential to be a part of) and the social class she deems herself to be a part of (or has the potential to be a part of).




    < Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 2/2/2016 10:39:50 AM >

    _____________________________

    I can be your whore
    I am the dirt you created
    I am your sinner
    And your whore
    But let me tell you something baby
    You love me for everything you hate me for

    (in reply to crumpets)
    Profile   Post #: 84
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 10:09:54 AM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    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...


    Reading for effect, what you're saying, if I may reflect upon your words, is that, since the former act (of the cheerleader) has both an INTENDED PURPOSE and a TARGET AUDIENCE, (appropriate) appreciation would likely be well taken - while in the latter case - a true wardrobe malfunction which is objectivized would never be taken appropriately.

    While I can't possibly argue against your aptly chosen minister's-wife example, I might beg to interject an objection to the latter tack, in that I tend to believe that these true wardrobe malfunctions are vastly in the minority, and are feigned, for the most part, as the cheerleaders & Norma Jean herself amply exhibit in the classic iconic wardrobe malfunction of all time.


    (in reply to UllrsIshtar)
    Profile   Post #: 85
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 10:27:29 AM   
    UllrsIshtar


    Posts: 3693
    Joined: 7/28/2012
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: crumpets

    It's a given that most mature women don't want to be treated as sex objects, especially while in public, yet, for them, it's fine that other women do enjoy being treated as sex object, where, it's just as much a given that (those) mature and sensible women who don't shove their panties in our faces every chance they get are not looking to use their sexuality to find a form of attention they find both flattering and validating, because these mature women don't find that form of attention flattering and these mature women certainly do not need to validate their sexuality by shoving their panties in our faces every chance they get!



    Nope, it doesn't come down to maturity.
    It comes down to: has she already achieved the social class she's aspiring to (or willing to settle for) or is she still attempting to raise her status.

    The reason you see more younger women instead of mature women "shoving panties in your face" is because mature women are more likely to have reached the social status they're aspiring to, or at least have settled for the social status they currently have.

    Mature women who are still looking to raise status AND who consider their physical assets a prime means of doing so will flaunt their physical attributes just as much as young women will.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: crumpets

    however, I've heard (many times) from the ladies here that they dress to be sexy for a particular man, where they don't want the attention of the rabble, despite the plain fact that they have no control over these unwashed masses once the ladies go out in public dressed the way they're (sometimes) dressed.



    They say this when they perceive that the man they currently have is as high on the social ladder they think they'll be able to achieve.
    When a "flaunting assets" type woman lands such a man, they often discontinue dressing in a manner as blatantly sexual as they did before hooking him.
    The exception to this is when they assume that discontinuing dressing in an overtly sexual manner might lose them the man (they lack security in really 'having' him), in which case -due to their insecurity- they'll still be looking to trade 'up', and will still respond positively to a man of a higher social status than the one she has giving her a higher class appropriate compliment.

    However, in this case, she'll become even more sensitive than she was before to compliments in the language of lower classes, precisely because of how insecure she is about really having secured her man, and her ticket into the social class she desires.


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: crumpets

  • If I'm the target audience of the purposefully sexual display, then the objectification will be taken appropriately by the woman, as it was meant to be, yet,
  • If I'm NOT the target audience, any and all objectification by me will be taken quite negatively, and, worse yet,
  • Sometimes a wardrobe malfunction truly is a wardrobe malfunction (in which case, any and all objectification would be considered objectionably crass, at the very least).

    This is an intriguing and interesting twist that delves deeper into the underlying strategy and tactics I seek to better understand, as there is absolutely no way my initial observations are of mere happenstance.



    • Exactly.

    Women who flaunt their stuff do so for a target audience.

    Commenting on the display of their 'wares' when you're not the target audience annoys them as much as an Audi dealer would be annoyed if, after spending half an hour showing you cars, he figures out that your budget is only 20k.

    If you're below the target audience the women flaunting her stuff is aiming for, you are -in her mind- wasting her time and energy by commenting on her appearance to begin with, and so she'll be annoyed, offended and insulted, because you are wasting her precious resources when -in her mind- it should be clear that you're not good enough for her.

    It's not a matter of the sentiment of the comment being inappropriate, it's a matter of her deeming you not 'good enough' to be allowed to comment on her to begin with, because -in her mind- it's blatantly obvious that she can land somebody far better than you. By commenting on her you're implying that you have a shot at dating her, and thus you're implying that she can't land somebody better than you, which is -in her mind- in essence an insult instead of a compliment.

    < Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 2/2/2016 10:31:22 AM >

    _____________________________

    I can be your whore
    I am the dirt you created
    I am your sinner
    And your whore
    But let me tell you something baby
    You love me for everything you hate me for

    (in reply to crumpets)
    Profile   Post #: 86
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 10:29:23 AM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline     		I am digesting and absorbing your post in chunks because your stellar clarity of thought warrants closer and deeper inspection on my part.
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    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.


    Wow.
    You've left me speechless.
    I don't know what to say.

    Every single sentence hit home, like an arrow flying straight and true through the center of the target, and beyond all expectations.

    I'm actually afraid to reflect, in that I couldn't possibly summarize the inherent logic of the discussion above, any better than you already did.
    Thank you for that education above.

    I will read it many times (dozens, in fact), like a child watches the same movie over and over, each time gleaning another tidbit of what was always there, but which is too much to take in all at one sitting.

    (in reply to UllrsIshtar)
    Profile   Post #: 87
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 10:37:23 AM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline     		Luckily, that's one viewpoint I won't have to suffer even once, let alone having to endure the effort to glean anything worthwhile from it.


    (in reply to crumpets)
    Profile   Post #: 88
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 11:17:44 AM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Greta75
    So it isn't sexual to me. This is my point! What is sexual to you, may not be sexual to us women! So there is no actions differ from words to me at all. You chose to look at it as sexual and you see discrepancy. When I look at cheerleaders, I will praise their outfits as pretty, and depending on the cheer leading they do, I am looking at the skills displayed. The last thing I am thinking about is that it is sexual at all.


    While I UNDERSTAND and appreciate your point, I must beg to disagree with your conclusion.

    To illustrate my disagreement, I believe this new Captcha challenge I found on Collarspace may help you to better understand what's considered sexual and what's not considered sexual by most people...(male or female).

    Here is the new Captcha challenge for you.
    Please select the images below that are NOT sexual.


    (in reply to Greta75)
    Profile   Post #: 89
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 12:05:37 PM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline     		/
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: ReMakeYou
    #1: Can you show me where these cheerleaders actually go on at length about the horrors of being sexualized? Because if one group of women complains about the topic and refuses to sex themselves up, while another group dresses to excite and doesn't say anything about it, you don't have hypocrisy. You just have two groups of people, neither of whom is acting at odds with what they say.


    Extremely good point.

    Other than the somewhat self-serving comments by the Hooters' waitresses, I have provided no reference whatsoever to back up my apparent claim that the women I'm portraying as exposing themselves to the risk of objectification exhibit hypocrisy in that they say they don't want to be objectified.

    I will openly admit that I simply ASSUMED that most women say they don't want to be objectified.

    But, your argument is perfectly valid, which is that there could easily be (at least) two classes of women, namely:
  • Those that expose themselves to the risk of objectification, yet they aren't adamantly against 'being' objectified as a result, and,
  • Those that don't habitually expose themselves to the risk of objectification, and, as a result perhaps, who DO expect NOT to be objectified by the masses.

    Your point is along the line of some of the more recent ones, which is to not lump all women into the same category - which means that my initial comments were far too broad and are in need of a multi-pass honing operation.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: ReMakeYou
    #2: Context is important. Hooters waitresses may well enjoy being flirts and getting attention, but an ass grab is well outside their comfort range. Again, this isn't so much hypocrisy so much as people deciding where they're comfortable drawing the line. Given many elements of culture that young women face, they may well enjoy abstract sexualization (flirting, dancing, etc.), but feel less comfortable as it becomes more real. Not the most mature way of going about things, but as you keep mentioning, these are young people. They haven't had that much time to figure themselves out yet.


    You have a point on the "abstract" sexualization, versus the "real" sexualization.
    To that effect, here's a new, simpler, Captcha I just encountred, which asks:

    Here is yet another Collarspace-exclusive Captcha challenge.
    Please select one person below who has taken sexualization beyond "abstract"...



    < Message edited by crumpets -- 2/2/2016 1:01:39 PM >

    (in reply to ReMakeYou)
    • Profile   Post #: 90
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 12:12:49 PM   
    freedomdwarf1


    Posts: 6845
    Joined: 10/23/2012
    Status: offline     		I haven't found ONE SINGLE image of yours to be "sexual" in the least... Not a single one.

    This is where you are sooo inept and an out-and-out dunce on social matters.

    Seriously crumpets.
    If you are going to continue this pointless crusade ad-nauseum, I'm going to have to start reporting your posts as trolling.

    Seriously dude.... give it up!


    _____________________________

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
    George Orwell, 1903-1950


    (in reply to crumpets)
    Profile   Post #: 91
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 12:14:12 PM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline     		I feel every poster deserves a response, so that they know the inherent value that they provide for intelligent discourse.
    To that end, here's the worthy response to "stef"...

    PS: Once plonked, always plonked.
    Killfiles are forever.

    (in reply to Greta75)
    Profile   Post #: 92
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 12:40:43 PM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    It doesn't come down to young or not. It comes down to: "Is she trying to raise social status or not, and does she consider her physical assets a prime means of raising that status or has she other assets she considered more useful in that endeavor?"

    You should be a college researcher and/or professor (or, at the very least, write a book on such topics).

    That is a profound statement which goes so far beyond my current grasp of the situation as to cause me to reconsider almost everything I've ever thought about this topic.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    You see older women flaunting their stuff as well, and invariable when that happens the woman in question is dissatisfied with her social status AND considers her physical attributes a prime way to raise status by attracting a male higher on the social ladder.

    In my heart and soul, I always knew innate biology was involved, where, the beauty of your argument is that it aptly fingers an overwhelming biological instinct which may truly be the force that causes the actions we depicted and described in this thread!

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Again, there is not so much an issue of women acting one way, and saying something else (though that definitively goes on as well) it's a matter of women who flaunt their stuff in an attempt to raise status not responding well to being viewed as sex objects in a mannerism and language associated with a social class lower than what they're aspiring to.


    While this makes perfect sense to me to answer the question of "What are they thinking?", yet again, I will refrain from restating what you wrote, because I couldn't, myself, write it any better than that!

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    On top of that, most women who attempt to raise status by merely employing physical attributes often vastly overestimate the potential they have to raise status by means of said attributes, so they're extremely sensitive to being complimented on their physical attributes in a way they perceive as being below their desired status.


    Being male, and having been exposed quite a few times to women who may fit the mold above of trying to obtain resources by feminine guile, I would also AGREE with you, that the T&A that we men so completely idolize, can only carry a woman so far into our estates.

    There needs to be more .... much more ... than just sexual attraction (although, I must admit, sexual attraction does get someone across the threshold quite effectively).

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Once you get the manner in which you compliment them, or view them as sexual objects in line with the social status they're attempting to achieve, reactions will be positive.

    More sage advice was probably never uttered to men from a woman!

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Compliment a Hooter's waitress in a manner a rich executive might compliment his trophy wife and she'll be swooning all over you (especially when your manner of dress, and habits, back up the image of "rich executive").
    Now give her the exact same compliment in a language associated with the lowest classes and she'll be bitching to her friends about how she's so sick and tired of guys treating her like she's a sex object.

    Yet again, your argument hits home on every curve.
    I won't even attempt to summarize or reflect.
    I'll just state that I agree, even though I didn't even think of this tack, until I read the very words above.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Once you figure out what social class the women is aspiring to, or deems herself to be a part of, there's very little inconsistency between how she acts and what she says, in terms of how accepting she is of being sexualized by strangers.

    This is perhaps the most prophetic sentence in this entire five-page thread!
    If this is true, then it EXPLAINS the otherwise inexplicable actions of said women!

    I love when the jigsaw puzzle starts to come together to draw a sensible picture!
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    What you will find is that there is often a huge gap between the social class you judge her to be a part of (or to has the potential to be a part of) and the social class she deems herself to be a part of (or has the potential to be a part of).


    This is an interesting point, and again, good advice for we men to assimilate.

    If I may create an argument that is parallel but akin to yours above, let's say a college-aged woman is in the library dressed specifically to garner the attentions of one of the soon-to-be lawyers studying for the bar exam in the main lobby.

    Then let's say one of the construction workers improving the lighting takes note of her instead of one of the well-dressed but immersed-in-books lawyers.

    What you're saying is that she will react quite differently to the attentions lavished upon her by the construction crew, versus the same (or similar, although we presume classier) attentions paid to her by the strategically targeted law students.

    Is that along the right tack?

    (in reply to UllrsIshtar)
    Profile   Post #: 93
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 12:46:35 PM   
    freedomdwarf1


    Posts: 6845
    Joined: 10/23/2012
    Status: offline     		This same thing has already been imparted to you eons ago crumpets.
    But those who have previously said it, you have put on hide and chosen to ignore it.

    I'm not going to say any more other than I am reporting (most of) your posts as trolling.
    Of course, I know you are not going to read this - I'm on Hide to you

    _____________________________

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
    George Orwell, 1903-1950


    (in reply to crumpets)
    Profile   Post #: 94
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 12:54:32 PM   
    crumpets


    Posts: 1614
    Joined: 11/5/2014
    From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    The reason you see more younger women instead of mature women "shoving panties in your face" is because mature women are more likely to have reached the social status they're aspiring to, or at least have settled for the social status they currently have.


    I love how you successfully boxed out my argument as to why it was the younger women who seemed to be most apt to "shove their panties" in our faces.
    While I always knew there must be an underlying biological drive that forces them to act this way, I had previously ascribed it to their biological baby-making prime-time ticking clock; but you honed that clarification closer to the truer need, which relates more to social status (i.e., resources) than to the direct input of baby-making haploid chromosomes.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Mature women who are still looking to raise status AND who consider their physical assets a prime means of doing so will flaunt their physical attributes just as much as young women will.

    I have to admit, this is another biological-drive zinger that helps to solve the riddle of "what are these women actually thinking"!

    quote:


    They say this when they perceive that the man they currently have is as high on the social ladder they think they'll be able to achieve.
    When a "flaunting assets" type woman lands such a man, they often discontinue dressing in a manner as blatantly sexual as they did before hooking him.
    The exception to this is when they assume that discontinuing dressing in an overtly sexual manner might lose them the man (they lack security in really 'having' him), in which case -due to their insecurity- they'll still be looking to trade 'up', and will still respond positively to a man of a higher social status than the one she has giving her a higher class appropriate compliment.

    Again, I will just read, learn, and listen.
    Makes total sense.
    And it fits the intense biological need that I always knew was the underlying force involved.

    This explains why so many wealthy men have that arm candy that tries vainly to remain the beauty that attracted the man in the first place. It's all they've got (plus the legal contract of marriage, and the courts, etc.).

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    However, in this case, she'll become even more sensitive than she was before to compliments in the language of lower classes, precisely because of how insecure she is about really having secured her man, and her ticket into the social class she desires.

    Makes total sense to me.
    Your theory seems to fit the data points well.

    I like where you're leading me on this.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Women who flaunt their stuff do so for a target audience.


    That one sentence explains a LOT about why it used to seem so strange to me that many women would dress sexily in public, and then be upset that the proletariat noticed!

    The proles were never the intended target!

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Commenting on the display of their 'wares' when you're not the target audience annoys them as much as an Audi dealer would be annoyed if, after spending half an hour showing you cars, he figures out that your budget is only 20k.

    Touche!

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    If you're below the target audience the women flaunting her stuff is aiming for, you are -in her mind- wasting her time and energy by commenting on her appearance to begin with, and so she'll be annoyed, offended and insulted, because you are wasting her precious resources when -in her mind- it should be clear that you're not good enough for her.


    It's all fitting together so well ...

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    It's not a matter of the sentiment of the comment being inappropriate, it's a matter of her deeming you not 'good enough' to be allowed to comment on her to begin with, because -in her mind- it's blatantly obvious that she can land somebody far better than you. By commenting on her you're implying that you have a shot at dating her, and thus you're implying that she can't land somebody better than you, which is -in her mind- in essence an insult instead of a compliment.


    Wow. Every man on the planet should read that last sentence.
    It is the gluon that keeps the fundamental particles that would otherwise fly off into space together.

    That one sentence resolves the apparent contradiction that some women dress in such a way to attract notice, yet, when they receive that notice, they affect an air of annoyance.

    This explains almost everything!

    (in reply to UllrsIshtar)
    Profile   Post #: 95
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 1:13:39 PM   
    UllrsIshtar


    Posts: 3693
    Joined: 7/28/2012
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: crumpets

    If I may create an argument that is parallel but akin to yours above, let's say a college-aged woman is in the library dressed specifically to garner the attentions of one of the soon-to-be lawyers studying for the bar exam in the main lobby.

    Then let's say one of the construction workers improving the lighting takes note of her instead of one of the well-dressed but immersed-in-books lawyers.

    What you're saying is that she will react quite differently to the attentions lavished upon her by the construction crew, versus the same (or similar, although we presume classier) attentions paid to her by the strategically targeted law students.

    Is that along the right tack?


    Absolutely.

    Even if the compliment is in fact exactly the same:

    Contractor: "Cat call whistle" = annoyed reaction/overtly ignoring the man (even if she's perhaps secretly flattered).
    Law student with the right potential: "You look lovely today" = gentle smile, and perhaps (if she's really interested) a physical touch on his arm or shoulder while thanking him for the compliment.

    Even though both men have in fact expressed exactly the same thing: I enjoy your appearance and am interested in further interaction with you.

    In fact, the contractor's chance of a negative reaction is actually increased by the proximity of more 'suitable' males, because she subconsciously feels that the contractor's interest in her might make her seem less desirable in the eyes of her target audience.
    If you're aiming for a woman of higher social status than yourself, you should always try to separate her from her higher class environment before making your move, because she'll be less like to feel like she's 'losing face' by acknowledging an interest in you, and this could give you a shot at getting her actually willing to get to know you.

    The contractor cat calling on the street when she's alone is far more likely to get a smile, because there are no other potential viable mates around to take notice and deem her less acceptable because of a lower class male's interest in her.

    That same contractor going to a grocery store chain in poor neighborhood cat calling one of the checkout girls there will probably get an entirely different reaction, especially if he owns his own business, and his truck and tools indicate that he's successful in his chosen profession. Although it's harder to guarantee that he will, because of how likely women are -especially young women- to overestimate how successful a man they can actually land.

    And of course, wealth and status isn't the only thing women look for in a man. So even if his socio-economic status is sufficient for him to be 'permitted' to compliment her, it's no guarantee that she'll actually be interested. But even if she isn't actually interested in him for other reasons than lack of status, she won't perceive his compliment as vulgar, insulting, or objectifying.



    < Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 2/2/2016 1:36:24 PM >

    _____________________________

    I can be your whore
    I am the dirt you created
    I am your sinner
    And your whore
    But let me tell you something baby
    You love me for everything you hate me for

    (in reply to crumpets)
    Profile   Post #: 96
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 1:48:00 PM   
    NookieNotes


    Posts: 1720
    Joined: 11/10/2013
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: crumpets

    however, I've heard (many times) from the ladies here that they dress to be sexy for a particular man, where they don't want the attention of the rabble, despite the plain fact that they have no control over these unwashed masses once the ladies go out in public dressed the way they're (sometimes) dressed.



    They say this when they perceive that the man they currently have is as high on the social ladder they think they'll be able to achieve.
    When a "flaunting assets" type woman lands such a man, they often discontinue dressing in a manner as blatantly sexual as they did before hooking him.
    The exception to this is when they assume that discontinuing dressing in an overtly sexual manner might lose them the man (they lack security in really 'having' him), in which case -due to their insecurity- they'll still be looking to trade 'up', and will still respond positively to a man of a higher social status than the one she has giving her a higher class appropriate compliment.

    However, in this case, she'll become even more sensitive than she was before to compliments in the language of lower classes, precisely because of how insecure she is about really having secured her man, and her ticket into the social class she desires.


    Or, like me in the comment he's referring to, I dress a specific way to go out with my man for a special evening. I don't care what other men think, and I couldn't care less to hear their comments, and yet, I do want HIM to be drooling and tongue rolled out all night long.

    So, I'm dressing like a strumpet (to exaggerate to make a point) for ONE man. The others don't then ALL have the right to comment lewdly and touch.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Women who flaunt their stuff do so for a target audience.


    In my case, above, crumpets, ANYONE not my lover who has earned the right to stare at me and comment laciviously is outside my target audience.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
    Commenting on the display of their 'wares' when you're not the target audience annoys them as much as an Audi dealer would be annoyed if, after spending half an hour showing you cars, he figures out that your budget is only 20k.

    If you're below the target audience the women flaunting her stuff is aiming for, you are -in her mind- wasting her time and energy by commenting on her appearance to begin with, and so she'll be annoyed, offended and insulted, because you are wasting her precious resources when -in her mind- it should be clear that you're not good enough for her.

    It's not a matter of the sentiment of the comment being inappropriate, it's a matter of her deeming you not 'good enough' to be allowed to comment on her to begin with, because -in her mind- it's blatantly obvious that she can land somebody far better than you. By commenting on her you're implying that you have a shot at dating her, and thus you're implying that she can't land somebody better than you, which is -in her mind- in essence an insult instead of a compliment.


    So, to go at this from another angle, I actually don't ever get offended by such things, because I don't think I'm above anyone. Or that anyone is "less than," except as in "less than invested in flowers and dinner and love and affection and time and..."

    I do get creeped out, when they don't leave it at one comment and a "Thank you," from me... And I hightail away when that happens... or sometimes give 'em what for.


    _____________________________

    Nookie
    --
    https://datingkinky.com

    I Write! A few of my books on Amazon: http://amazon.com/author/msnnotes

    (in reply to UllrsIshtar)
    Profile   Post #: 97
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 2:07:44 PM   
    LadyConstanze


    Posts: 9722
    Joined: 2/18/2005
    Status: offline     		FR

    My baby clock is switched off, so nothing to do with it.

    Like most of the women here said, I like to dress up for A guy, doesn't mean I am dressing up for any guy to leer and grope. Imagine you carrying a bunch of flowers to bring it to somebody special, how would you feel if every woman you encounter would try to grab them or go "Oh for me?" That's how women feel about unwanted attention

    _____________________________

    There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
    Those who do and those who don't!

    http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

    (in reply to NookieNotes)
    Profile   Post #: 98
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 2:10:08 PM   
    Cinnamongirl67


    Posts: 854
    Status: offline     		I find this an interesting read, and definitely some excellent insight.
    It strikes home the majority of the time but there really are women who are not ladder climbers. I do believe most women do enjoy the comfort of a good provider though.

    _____________________________

    Balanced Chakra
    http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

    (in reply to NookieNotes)
    Profile   Post #: 99
    RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking - 2/2/2016 2:17:53 PM   
    UllrsIshtar


    Posts: 3693
    Joined: 7/28/2012
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Cinnamongirl67

    I find this an interesting read, and definitely some excellent insight.
    It strikes home the majority of the time but there really are women who are not ladder climbers. I do believe most women do enjoy the comfort of a good provider though.


    Generalizations are obviously only useful when evaluating the behavior of groups.

    Once you zero in on an individual instead of a group, things become far less simple.

    As such, anything I've posed to apply to women in general is not to be taken to also apply to any specific individual woman, because even if an individual exhibits certain traits of their group average, it doesn't mean that they are representative of the perfect average of their group traits.

    _____________________________

    I can be your whore
    I am the dirt you created
    I am your sinner
    And your whore
    But let me tell you something baby
    You love me for everything you hate me for

    (in reply to Cinnamongirl67)
    Profile   Post #: 100
    Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    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
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

    0.140