History Lessons/Nature of Women Discussion

[swifTy]

your becoming a bit hard to understand man. Im not sure what your sayin exactly.

 

[TheHumanist]

Sorry, I'll try to make it more concise.

The first part above the quote is that addressing to your post that alturistic is only from a person who have everything. My response is if a person have nothing, how can he be alturistic? It is too simplistic, but a person can't be alturistic if they don't have the ablity to put resources into being one. A rich and wealthier person give to the community because he can. A poorer person don't have the money to do so, though it can be arguable he would if he could (doesn't mean that he won't be other means).

The second part address your arguement that character and creativity is still value. A women seeing it would still jump seeing that value, and if he lacks that, she would be cold to him.

I noticed a couple of things, character and creativity are consider "intrinsic" qualities of a person. Part of his/her identity and a major component that make that person "that person."

Other indicators like wealth, status, social standing and other things are "extrinsic," things that a women wants to boost her own position.

Therefore it might not be correct to lump character and creativity in the same category with wealth, power. As standing as character and creativity, while still requiring time and effort to develop (isn't that "inner game"?), it is the improvement of the person himself. Opportunistic implies that the women is only out for herself and have no conscience that she is hurting others. A parasictic leech, a women going for a man of character and creativity is not the same as a women going after a man only for status, social standing, or wealth. The former is the qualities that people in general perfer to be around, the latter is the thing that is leeched on.

Character and creativity can be still seen as "value" as it is qualties that people hold as valuable, but than that mean opportunistic is the wrong word then. That implies that the person only intends to "use" the person to their own advantage without any consideration. It have a bad connotation. Granted it is a language thing, but that what implies anyone know that negative sense of the word.

Ahh.. I hope that is more understandable. I'm just trying to look at other angles. I don't think opportunistic is the correct word. Of course people need to look out for themselves, but opportunistic also means that the person have no care for the other, like the guy who make "friends" with the neighbor just so he can borrow his nice car and never liking the person. Also since character and creativity are "intrinsic" they are liking the person rather liking what the person offers.

Ah damn, I think that last paragraph made a lot more sense.

 

[swifTy]

personally i don't distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic value. its still value! girls are the ones who do that sort of thing. its how they rationalise it to himself. they say: he's good looking yes! but thats not why i like him, no, i like him for him. its crap. of course she likes his looks. it contributes. it all contributes. and then internally things like his character, his personality. Its all value. It should all be lumped into one big category. Im usually pretty upfront about why i like someone. Character, is by far, the most influential. then id say looks.

If you like a persons character, are they not still offering? yes of course they are. They are offering a good time, excitment, they are intersting, funny. Its still value mate. The same as a person's good looks offer something nice to look at. Or the way a persons wealth extends them options. A persons status, more options. Its value. Both men and women go after value. We are all opportunistic. And yes, its only a word, we're getting caught up in our definition of it i think.

As for being altruistic i stand by what i said before. people are self-serving. its just how it is. Even if you do something nice for someone you still get a buzz out of what you did. But i have noticed certain people being more nice, more altristic. Those people that do, usually UP in the chain in comparison to others.

 

[ketostix]

Let me just give you just one example of why women are more opportunistic and exploitative by nature. It's more rare for a woman to marry a guy or get really serious with a guy who earns less than her. For instance, female physicians make more than most men and tend to not marry if they can't find another physician or some one making at least as high income. I don't have the source but I believe it's factual and can be looked up besides being common knowledge. this is just one example, but it's pretty profound. Sure there's going to be exception but they are outside the norm.

I could give you a billion other examples of how women exploit their sex to their advantage. Most of them go against convential beliefs and the AFC's image of women's nature though.

On the other hand, men are with the woman for who she is, and not how much money she makes, how much fame she has, etc. Altruism has nothing to do with women in regard to romantic relationships. As Swifty very accurately pointed out, women have many faces. All that matters in this discussion is the face they show in romantic relationships. When it comes to handing over their pvssy and entering a relationship, women think they have a goldmine and men are their meal ticket.

 

[iqqi]

There are men who only get with chicks for sex or because she is hot. These men are opportunistic.

There are women who only get with dudes cuz they drive a porshe or make $200,000 a year. These chicks are opportunistic.

Not all women are gold digging opportunist vampire wh0res.

Not all men are shallow playboys.

:yawn:

 

[ketostix]

There are men who only get with chicks for sex or because she is hot. These men are opportunistic.

There are women who only get with dudes cuz they drive a porshe or make $200,000 a year. These chicks are opportunistic.

Not all women are gold digging opportunist vampire wh0res.

Not all men are shallow playboys.

:yawn:

I don't really see it as oportunistic or shallow for a man to want to have sex with a girl he's attracted to because of her physicalities. Besides your conclusion have nothign to do with what I'm saying. I'm not claiming all women do xyz, I'm stating what most women's nature fundamentally is.

 

[TheHumanist]

Then this have to go into the nature of people themselves. Though likely that would be an endless debate. Scholars, philosophers, and scientists never agreed, and I doubt we will.

I have to concede that value is still value. However, I have a hard time agreeing it is the only reason. If it value only, than there is no place for caring for others and it would make all the good others of others, even the actions I done to help others, as some kind of act. Right now, there is a video of a speech in the anything else forum, "we all want to help one another" and I believe that is true. A value system only means that men and women would not have that desire (yes, there is that good feeling, but there is also the pushing desire to help as well as the pulling force of the reward to help).

Sure, I like that girl because she is cute, but I like to think that if I worry about her or care about her, it is also for her interests and not just my own. Human are self-serving, but it doesn't mean human are just that. The reason why there are so many threads in the mature men's forum is they see men (themselves) have those qualities to and argue if women have those qualites (the quality woman).

Edit: Ok... somehow I missed the other posts....

The problem of the statement if a women's fundamental nature is what you said, then it is claiming all women do xyz. Fundamental is the core, ALL actions have to stem from it, unless it is a woman who is fighting that, which if the the core nature of themselves, she will lose, ironically to be selfish and opportunistic. So Iqqi statement is actually a counter-arguement.

BTW I think Iqqi is trying to argue not about shallow playboys is not or is, she is trying to state many men want more than just that. Hell, on the latest new article states most men in this thing are looking for more than just to bag as many women as possible.

 

[swifTy]

even the actions I done to help others, as some kind of act

Im not saying its an act. i know you wanted to help those people. I've done it, we've all done it. By why do we do it?

Im sure if you look at it and break it down there is a reason and i bet it comes back to you somehow.

Either

you care about the person, and you want to keep them around, hence you are nice. you want to associate with them more.

or

you want to get to know a person. get into the social group. not be perceived as an a$$hole. maybe you felt sorry for the person. maybe you feel guilty and so you do something nice, to get rid of guilt feelings. sometimes we do nice things in front of people so that they like us or view us favourably. It ALL comes back to you somehow. other times we just feel in a damm good mood and want to spread some of it around. or maybe we want others to notice how good a mood we are in and boost it even more.

Sure, I like that girl because she is cute, but I like to think that if I worry about her or care about her, it is also for her interests and not just my own.

If your invested, her interests ARE your interests.

 

[TheHumanist]

Could that be perception then? From that lens, yes, my actions are all for myself. My acts to help others are to build up a relation with them or get myself accepted. From another lens, it could also be seen that genuine care for others, empathetic to them and their problems. The rewards from that don't always have to be thought up. Then again, it could be argued it does not have to consious either... Still from the other lens, that is validly possible as well.

 

[swifTy]

yes perception plays into it.

if i see you do something nice for someone, i say wow, wasn't that nice. but with more information i go, thehumanist, you cheeky bastard, you like her don't you, and you blush and say, yea i do, you got me

i dunno. think of it how you want man. to me. no such thing.

 

[iqqi]

BTW I think Iqqi is trying to argue not about shallow playboys is not or is, she is trying to state many men want more than just that.

Right, and same with women.

Alot of women want more than superficial things out of a man. I really really want to say DUH after that sentence, but... some guys might get offended. But still. DUH.

Lol, women are not any more superficial than men, and there are tons of guys who are completely superficial.

Open your eyes! See the light! What bitter men see in women, is what bitter women see in men! It really is a two way street. I don't walk down Bitter Street.

 

[iqqi]

I don't really see it as oportunistic or shallow for a man to want to have sex with a girl he's attracted to because of her physicalities.

But if physicalities are superficial...

And car types, or professions are superficial...

Then it isn't oportunistic or shallow for a woman to want to be with a man for those reasons, either.

I personally thing both, when being the only reasons, are shallow.

 

[penkitten]

Lol, women are not any more superficial than men, and there are tons of guys who are completely superficial.

can we say trophy wife?

Open your eyes! See the light! What bitter men see in women, is what bitter women see in men! It really is a two way street. I don't walk down Bitter Street.

what a golden little nugget ..

 

[Last Man Standing]

I'm more inclined to use my character and my creativity to catch a woman's imagination, things that I'll always have and she can't find anywhere else.

Very true and wise words - especially from a potato head!!