Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moni Duettmann

What's wrong with men?

Recommended Posts


Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

Although it's always a bit annoying when a man explains to women what they like, I'll grant you that some of us do like an animal "edge" to them, though I'd challenge you to name one single politician from any country in the world whom you believe to possess that animal thang. Whoever you name, you'll be wrong. None of them have it. Rock stars? Nah. Eddie Vedder excepted. Maybe Mick J. back in the day. Athletes like who? Beckham? jeesh - he fusses more about his appearance than I do.


If you think that's annoying, think how annoying it is to hear how women just want a nice guy or a gentleman,

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I meant that it's annoying, as a woman, to be told, by a man, what I, a woman, wants. I reserve myself wholeheartedly the right to be the one to decide what I want, need, like, find attractive.

 


Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

Although it's always a bit annoying when a man explains to women what they like, I'll grant you that some of us do like an animal "edge" to them, though I'd challenge you to name one single politician from any country in the world whom you believe to possess that animal thang. Whoever you name, you'll be wrong. None of them have it. Rock stars? Nah. Eddie Vedder excepted. Maybe Mick J. back in the day. Athletes like who? Beckham? jeesh - he fusses more about his appearance than I do.


If you think that's annoying, think how annoying it is to hear how women just want a nice guy or a gentleman, when personal experience tells me beyond all doubt they most definitely do not. Surveys about what people want are useless because they are liars and/or are not conscious of what they actually want. Steve Jobs remarked upon this in an interview in Business Week.

I'm sorry. Not following at all. You're saying women don't know who they find attractive? Surely not. That's a dangerous sort of rationale though it's not the first time I've heard it. "She kept saying no but I knew she really meant yes"....

And by the way, being nice and having an animal edge in terms of attractiveness and sexuality are not mutually exclusive. We're talking about two completely different attributes here.

 

 


Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

Although it's always a bit annoying when a man explains to women what they like, I'll grant you that some of us do like an animal "edge" to them, though I'd challenge you to name one single politician from any country in the world whom you believe to possess that animal thang. Whoever you name, you'll be wrong. None of them have it. Rock stars? Nah. Eddie Vedder excepted. Maybe Mick J. back in the day. Athletes like who? Beckham? jeesh - he fusses more about his appearance than I do.


The most well known politician with the animal thing was John Kennedy. Robert Kennedy ran a close second. Martin Luther King had it too, Barrack Obama has it now, and I suppose Bill Clinton still has it. Saddam Hussein had it. That dude has a ton of illegitimate children. 

Rocks stars? What about Elvis, the most famous of all? 

Concerning athletes, see this 
 about the ten athletes with the most illegitimate children. Number one is a professional basketball player with 14 children by nine different women. 

No, the most famous American politician for messing around was JFK. If the American gals of his time saw him as having that animal edge, I wouldn't know. I have my doubts it was his animal thing that got him action - the short nose and round baby face just isnt animal. Looks at the other names on your list....nope you just don't understand what the animal edgy thing is. But then, you ain't a gal.

Like I said, you stick to deciding what's hawt for you in women and leave defining hawt in men to us ladies.

 

 

ETA I keep looking at the names you list. What they appear to have in common is that they had lots of kids/ or had a reputation as jack the lads. I think what you're thinking about is more to do with male role models for yourself and not male hunks who ring women's bells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:

I believe that the "you" that posted that believes that. However, which "you" is it? The you that posted that is your rational self, that one that controls your actions during calm and ordinary states. Moreover, that self believes it is the only "you" in existence and denies the existence of any other selfs.

If I placed you in the presence of a high-status male, you would enter a different state, the state that says "I must have his genetic material for my offspring" and a different you would take over and for that time and would believe it's the only self in existence ever, in that state.

You are familiar with the legend of Odysseus and the island of the Sirens? To get past the island, Odysseus instructed his crew to plug their ears with wax and tie him to the mast. He ordered the crew not to remove the wax from their ears, nor respond to him in any way until the ship had safely passed the island. 

 

When the ship got within hearing distance of the Sirens, Odysseus become mad. He ordered the crew to turn toward the island and threatened execution to all who disobeyed. The crew ignored him. They had planned in advance to to obey the logical Odysseus, not this insane person who had temporarily entered a mad state.

That's what happens to women around politicians and rock stars. They enter a mad state.

I find it quite disturbing that you keep telling women that they don't know who/what they like. This is sexism taken to the nth degree. Please stop perpetuating such myths. Teen girls go mad in front of pop stars because they have no clear idea of how to express their feelings of being attracted. Big difference between a girl of 14 and a woman of 40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:


Randall Ahren wrote:

That's what happens to women around politicians and rock stars. They enter a mad state.

Pssst, for some of us it's Astrophysicists.    ; )

I go for arty farty literary types myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:


Randall Ahren wrote:

That's what happens to women around politicians and rock stars. They enter a mad state.

Pssst, for some of us it's Astrophysicists.    ; )

I go for arty farty literary types myself.

Oh yes please!

A man with a book is much more interesting then one showing his muscles.

Brains and talent, that is what attracts me, because the people with brains need to procreate as well.

I reckon nature made people fancy different types to make sure we don't end up like a world that looks like that MTV show about dumb orange people living near a shore (goodness me, J'shore is not permitted to be mentioned here! If only LL could ban it from tv...).

Some women are attracted to power, some to looks, some to intellect, some to feet, some to wealth, some to short hair, some to glasses, some to nosehairs, etc, etc.

Same goes for men.

And sometimes, to keep things interesting, we change our mind, develop our taste or go for the opposite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you

*

girls are

*

complaining that nice guys don't

*

hang about forever

*

waiting for you to

*

finish playing around with the

*

greasy sleazebucket representatives of our gender?

***

Are you

*

surprised when there aren't any nice guys available when you have lost your

*

looks and come to your

*

senses and want someone

*

reliable to

*

hang around and

*

look after and

*

support you and your

*

children, even if they aren't

*

his?

*** Rudi

***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carole Franizzi wrote:

I find it quite disturbing that you keep telling women that they don't know who/what they like. 

For a comedian, you're taking this very seriously. My conclusions are not just limited to women, it's men and women. People in general are not consciously aware of who/what they like. They are driven by unconscious desires. Why should that be disturbing to you?

@Celestial, what you, Jo, and Carole all have in common is that you are attracted to intelligent men. It's entirely consistent with my thesis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


RudolphUkka wrote:

I think that I would be attracted to an intelligent woman, but I have never met one.

***

Rudi

***

With that attitude, you probably never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


kattatonia Wickentower wrote:


Storm Clarence wrote:

An OP that starts: "What's wrong with men?" and the entire conversation focuses on the size of his package - even though he is SLemasculated at birth.  You women are brutal!  Just brutal!  I wrote above that this OP was better suited for the LWL group.  Bad things.  

My dear Storm, that's the second time you've suggested that in this thread.  I'd suggest you were trolling, only I know better.


Being I wrote that 4 months ago on this thread, I would think that it is you that is trolling, only I know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

I find it quite disturbing that you keep telling women that they don't know who/what they like. 

For a comedian, you're taking this very seriously.

I'm a comedian?? Well, I never...

 


Randall Ahren wrote:

My conclusions are not just limited to women, it's men and women. People in general are not consciously aware of who/what they like.

If knowing what you, yourself, really like is hard, how the heck can you know what the opposite sex likes? Might I  humbly suggest that your understanding of what you think women really like is strongly influenced by your own subconscious?

Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

I find it quite disturbing that you keep telling women that they don't know who/what they like. 

 

 Why should that be disturbing to you?

Well, because men claiming women don't know what they really want has been used as an excuse for not taking no for an answer for a very long time...

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carole Franizzi wrote:

If knowing what you, yourself, really like is hard, how the heck can you know what the opposite sex likes?


Observation. Broke, short, and bald doesn't go over real with women. If you do see a short bald guy married to a taller, attractive, woman, he's probably a doctor or movie producer and looks a lot taller standing on his money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

If knowing what you, yourself, really like is hard, how the heck can you know what the opposite sex likes?


Observation. Broke, short, and bald doesn't go over real with women. If you do see a short bald guy married to a taller, attractive, woman, he's probably a doctor or movie producer and looks a lot taller standing on his money.

And that's related to your beasty, animal male thingy thesis how....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

If knowing what you, yourself, really like is hard, how the heck can you know what the opposite sex likes?


Observation. Broke, short, and bald doesn't go over real with women. If you do see a short bald guy married to a taller, attractive, woman, he's probably a doctor or movie producer and looks a lot taller standing on his money.

Randall, "broke" is a rational metric, not an animal one. When I see a attractive woman on the arm of an unattractive but rich man, it's not hard for me to guess which of the two is most rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Randall Ahren wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

If knowing what you, yourself, really like is hard, how the heck can you know what the opposite sex likes?


Observation. Broke, short, and bald doesn't go over real with women. If you do see a short bald guy married to a taller, attractive, woman, he's probably a doctor or movie producer and looks a lot taller standing on his money.

Randall, "broke" is a rational metric, not an animal one. When I see a attractive woman on the arm of an unattractive but rich man, it's not hard for me to guess which of the two is most rational.

What Maddy said. Choosing a man for his bank account is the diametric opposite of being drawn irresistibly by his animal appeal. Head over hormones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Jo Yardley wrote:


RudolphUkka wrote:

I think that I would be attracted to an intelligent woman, but I have never met one.

***

Rudi

***

With that attitude, you probably never will.

I think you misunderstood him, Jo. He doesn't select for intelligence. That many women do eases his search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Randall Ahren wrote:

@Celestial, what you, Jo, and Carole all have in common is that you are attracted to intelligent men. It's entirely consistent with my thesis. 

 

Correct.  I do hope that you realized my comment supported your thesis.      The types of men that you had listed "politicians and rock stars",  are just a few types of high status men.   Those particular types appeal to women that see value and status in those areas. 

For women like myself, and I'm guessing for Carole and Jo, too....we place the status into a different realm of life, so for us, the high status man would be a highly intelligent, educated one.  Even within that smart-guy-realm there are subcategories.  Such as Carole's arty-pharty-literary guys...and my science-astrophysicists-guys.   

But, again there are qualifiers.  Just being uber smart is not enough, other attributes are need to round out the ones that really send me into the "state", that you mentioned.   So, add a highly developed sense of humor, being a classy well-mannered gentleman, assertiveness in dealing with the world, a developed sense of aesthetics and style, and intrinsically being Yang to my yin...and we have a winner. 

You are quite correct, at least for me, that being around such a man does send me into a different state of being, and happily so.   : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Look at the current season of Survivor. You have Cochran of Harvard Law. Smart, but seriously deficient athletically and also lacking in social skills. Diametrically opposed to him is Ozze, who dominates the tribe with his athletic skills, but lacks Cochran's ability at logical analysis. 

A typical female strategy on Survivor is for a female to align with a strong male, and even mate with him. In return the male protects her and takes her to the end with him.

@Maddy, both seem rational as each gets something the other wants. 

@Carole, you want an example of both observation and animal thang? Observe the behavior of groupies around rock stars. You really think it's logical for a dozen women to all engage in carnal relations with the same guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:

Big difference between a girl of 14 and a woman of 40.


And in some cases there is also a big difference between a boy of 15 and a man of 35. I've met more for whom that was true than false, but in my experience immature men are more common than immature women. Neither are much fun to be around.

Boys in high school are still for the most part stuck with the 'cheerleader' thing: cheerleaders are cute, everyone else is a dog. One of the things that struck me most about going to my XXth high school reunion (see how adroitly I dodge the age thing?) was how much more attractive and interesting the women were than I remembered them from my youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maddy, remember, what your DNA wants isn't necessarily what you want. We are part of something bigger and greater than ourselves that we cannot understand. As Robert Pirsig postulated, imagine two bloods cells in your body asking if they are part of anything bigger than themselves. The body wants that white blood cell to commit suicide by enveloping an invading bacterium, but is that in the white cell's personal best interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

I am confused here.  Or maybe it is that I am not sure from her post what exactly it is that Moni wants.

Are you just wanting to "pixelate," or are you seeking a LTR Moni?

There are some men in SL who really do care, who aren't here just for the pixel bumping.  We value friendships and one thing that we know is one way to kill a friendship with a woman is to jump in bed with her for a 'one night stand.' 

Possibly the problem is that just like your post, that In World you are sending out mixed messages.  And believe it or not, men can be very sensitive to that.  We prefer to know what is going on, what we are getting into.  Emotions know no gender and sex in many ways can open the door to emotional involvement and attachment.  So what happens is that many of us men (and I suspect women) become cautious in order to protect our hearts.

One other thing that I have seen in my four plus years in SL is that it is next to impossible to have a LTR without bringing RL into it.  Time and time again I have seen relationships end when one or the other would not cross that bridge.  And I have also seen the relationships end when it was discovered who the other person really was in RL.  While there are some who have successfully crossed this bridge here, I think it is the exception.

All these things may matter to the men who you are talking about wanting to jump on poseballs with.

 

Perrie, I don't often interact with you here in the forums, but I want to say that it's posts like this one which are why I admire you. It's nice to know there are men in SL who value friendships.

To the OP, I can't identify directly with your question since I'm happily married in RL (and partnered to my RL husband in SL) and therefore have never sought the type of SL relationship you are looking for. However, my advice would be that if you are seeking interesting, articulate men for fun or a relationship, find the places where they hang out (there are quite a few here in this forum!) and spend some time getting to know them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Quinn Morani wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

I am confused here.  Or maybe it is that I am not sure from her post what exactly it is that Moni wants.

Are you just wanting to "pixelate," or are you seeking a LTR Moni?

There are some men in SL who really do care, who aren't here just for the pixel bumping.  We value friendships and one thing that we know is one way to kill a friendship with a woman is to jump in bed with her for a 'one night stand.' 

Possibly the problem is that just like your post, that In World you are sending out mixed messages.  And believe it or not, men can be very sensitive to that.  We prefer to know what is going on, what we are getting into.  Emotions know no gender and sex in many ways can open the door to emotional involvement and attachment.  So what happens is that many of us men (and I suspect women) become cautious in order to protect our hearts.

One other thing that I have seen in my four plus years in SL is that it is next to impossible to have a LTR without bringing RL into it.  Time and time again I have seen relationships end when one or the other would not cross that bridge.  And I have also seen the relationships end when it was discovered who the other person really was in RL.  While there are some who have successfully crossed this bridge here, I think it is the exception.

All these things may matter to the men who you are talking about wanting to jump on poseballs with.

 

Perrie, I don't often interact with you here in the forums, but I want to say that it's posts like this one which are why I admire you. It's nice to know there are men in SL who value friendships.

 

Have to agree with Quinn...Perrie, are you by any chance available? :matte-motes-evil-invert:  :matte-motes-silly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Kylie Jaxxon wrote:


Quinn Morani wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

I am confused here.  Or maybe it is that I am not sure from her post what exactly it is that Moni wants.

Are you just wanting to "pixelate," or are you seeking a LTR Moni?

There are some men in SL who really do care, who aren't here just for the pixel bumping.  We value friendships and one thing that we know is one way to kill a friendship with a woman is to jump in bed with her for a 'one night stand.' 

Possibly the problem is that just like your post, that In World you are sending out mixed messages.  And believe it or not, men can be very sensitive to that.  We prefer to know what is going on, what we are getting into.  Emotions know no gender and sex in many ways can open the door to emotional involvement and attachment.  So what happens is that many of us men (and I suspect women) become cautious in order to protect our hearts.

One other thing that I have seen in my four plus years in SL is that it is next to impossible to have a LTR without bringing RL into it.  Time and time again I have seen relationships end when one or the other would not cross that bridge.  And I have also seen the relationships end when it was discovered who the other person really was in RL.  While there are some who have successfully crossed this bridge here, I think it is the exception.

All these things may matter to the men who you are talking about wanting to jump on poseballs with.

 

Perrie, I don't often interact with you here in the forums, but I want to say that it's posts like this one which are why I admire you. It's nice to know there are men in SL who value friendships.

 

Have to agree with Quinn...Perrie, are you by any chance available? :matte-motes-evil-invert:  :matte-motes-silly:

Wow.......

I feel honored here.  I sometimes wonder what folks think about some of my posts.  I know it happens to many people here that things that they say never get responded to.  And I know that at times I have strong opinions regarding some subjects that are not in line with the status quo. 

Though I generally don't openly discuss my personal life both in RL & SL (I don't really separate the two) in this forum or any other forum for that matter, I probably reveal more of myself than I realize.

The so called 'stages of SL,' like the 'stages of life,' have been discussed many times here.  And like many long term SL'ers, I have gone through most of them, from being a pose ball hopper when I first started to being in a committed partnership. 

Several months ago Torley made a statement that I have really taken to heart, to live by not only in my SL but in my RL too.

"It is a difficult thing that, while life in general appeals to a diversity of people, many people's interests are in conflict. This is also true in Second Life, and I continue to be a proponent of responsible disclosure in relationships that matter to you. On top of that, there's insecurity that people keep hidden, not to mention jealousy and other "demons" that drag someone down from acknowledging and living the life THEY really want... in the process they become control freaks trying to prevent OTHERS from feeling fulfilled......."

While Perrie is not In World as often as he used to be, I have found that 'responsible disclosure' has enriched my SL experience.  I am more happy than I have ever been here and the relationships I do have are thriving and growing in the places that I have them.

Torley went on to say,

"The psychology of it intrigues me deeply. I just hope more people can come inworld and use Second Life as a tool of confronting hangups and dealing with their baggage, so they have healthier relationships with others. Not growing means not really living."

If more people were to really take this to heart, what a rich and wonderful place SL could be.  I believe I am a better person for it. 

Thank you both for your kind words.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...