Male Behavior Regarding Women.

This is a blanket comment that does not apply to relationships between men and women (or romantic relationships, necessarily), but I avoid gatherings because the women segregate and babble about girly concerns, while the men are still given space to sit alone in the living room, quiet, isolating. Time and again, I've run into this dated dynamic, even among "progressive" individuals. So, roles are surprisingly alive and well.

I resent this. I started to go sit alone with the men. That made me "strange." No comment about my uncles, except that "Steve must be so bored!".....

Even among the families of friends I run into this. It's as if, because I am a woman, I am not an individual, just a stupid bird or something that is lightweight and squawks.

Basically, I think gender roles aren't on hospice yet. Where's Dr. Kevorkian?
 
Happy Phantom said:
Ladies,

I'm curious what your thoughts/experiences are with how some men interact with and treat single women, married women, and women who are involved in a fully committed relationship with their SO.

Do single women not wearing a ring typically get hit on more than a married woman wearing a ring?

I understand this is a multifaceted topic and I really would like to hear about and discuss your experiences.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to me, how many men posted here, ;)
 
Vigilance said:
The poster FreeSp1r1t makes a flaw in his reasoning, and without any evidence the poster assumes that ALL women with rings must be married. The Poster Free simultaneously comes to the conclusion that a ring is a sign of marriage at all times. The poster commits a serious logical fallacy by assuming women with rings must be married when this cannot be true at ALL times.

I. I add my comments below:

Not all women with a ring are married. I also address the poster @Milktoast Bandit here and his concerns. Some married women don't wear rings. Some non-married women wear rings. With this said, I, now, deduce the value of the ring to a ceremonial object without determinative and cumulative value, which makes the usual lurker unknown to if the woman is married or not. Body language helps here and the lurker should be careful when approaching.

Lastly, the poster should come to know these days wearing a ring does not always equate marriage. For these reasons, I fail to understand the poster's logic in understanding how he equates a ring to marriage at all times. Marriage is separate than rings, which have been deduced to ceremonial objects.

II. I, now, make a personal comment:

Don't tell me ceremonial objects and marriage are two of the same things. Objectively a ceremony and a ring cannot be the same. They are not even of the same category. To make it easy, a ring is an object, superficial in nature. Marriage is ceremonial.
Click to expand...

It was nice of you, to take the time to explain to all of us. Have you ever been married ?
 
FreeSp1r1t said:
I agree. Marriage can be difficult at times. It can test you for the good and the bad. People that deliberately hurt a relationship that has been made public and sacred (not all but many) for their own gratification, deserve a special section in hell that has NO lube.
Click to expand...



The poster FreeSp1r1t makes a flaw in his reasoning, and without any evidence the poster assumes that ALL women with rings must be married. The Poster Free simultaneously comes to the conclusion that a ring is a sign of marriage at all times. The poster commits a serious logical fallacy by assuming women with rings must be married when this cannot be true at ALL times. The poster uses flawed reasoning, makes invalid assumptions, and jumps to faulty conclusions.

I.

I add my comments below:

Not all women with a ring are married. I also address the poster @Milktoast Bandit here and his concerns. Some married women don't wear rings. Some non-married women wear rings. With this said, I, now, deduce the value of the ring to a ceremonial object without determinative and cumulative value, which makes the usual lurker unknown to if the woman is married or not. Body language helps here and the lurker should be careful when approaching.

Lastly, the poster should come to know these days wearing a ring does not always equate marriage. For these reasons, I fail to understand the poster's logic in understanding how he equates a ring to marriage at all times. Marriage is separate than rings, which have been deduced to ceremonial objects.

II.

I, now, make a personal comment:

Don't tell me ceremonial objects and marriage are two of the same things. Objectively a ceremony and a ring cannot be the same. They are not even of the same category. To make it easy, a ring is an object, superficial in nature. Marriage is ceremonial.

III.

Final thoughts:

By saying all of this, what makes the poster assume, I am messing up marriages if I do ever come in contact with a woman with a ring?? A ring is nothing!? If you follow my reasoning above, you will see I have never as you say 'deliberately' attacked a marriage. You have made faulty assumptions. If I do come across a woman with a ring, I always inquire what the deal is. Who knows what can happen then at that point or what she tells me, only fate knows. :yum::tonguewink:
 
Last edited:
James said:
Experience.
Click to expand...

What does experience have to do with anything I said? Experience does help in any event. But what's your point? I don't see the correlation of experience having to do with what I am talking about.

Explain to me how experience plays a role in what I'm saying? For example, how will experience help?

You have to learn to explain yourself, like I did in my post. You can't just say one word and hope someone will pickup your thought process.

The term experience is so vague it could mean many things. Lol :tearsofjoy:

Giving one word answers is easy, and even I can do that. In fact, anyone can do that. It's the explaining which counts and adds substance to your post.
 
Last edited:
Vigilance said:
What does experience have to do with anything I said? Experience does help in any event. But what's your point? I don't see the correlation of experience having to do with what I am talking about.

Explain to me how experience plays a role in what I'm saying? For example, how will experience help?
Click to expand...

Ok, because your lack of it is painfully obvious, to almost everyone who have read your comments. Since you rely on logic so much, tell me what you think about Kurt Godel and his incompleteness theorems.

I can literally "feel" you checking Wikipedia. Experience matters as it's one thing to read about swimming. Different in the water.
 
Last edited:
FreeSp1r1t said:
I agree. Marriage can be difficult at times. It can test you for the good and the bad. People that deliberately hurt a relationship that has been made public and sacred (not all but many) for their own gratification, deserve a special section in hell that has NO lube.
Click to expand...

While I am by no means endorsing our aspiring lawyer's approach or argument, I do think that it's only a partner who decides to participate in a fling or infidelity who can deliberately hurt an existing relationship. The only exception that I can see is when the outsider engages in active attempts (i.e. lying about a partner) to sabotage the relationship.

My rationale here is that if no "active attempts" to mess up my relationship are involved, I'm not going to act as if my partner is incapable of maintaining our relationship. Idk, to do so makes me think that I'm viewing my partner as too dumb to know she loves me, or like some kind of piece of property that was stolen.

Edit: ok I can see I just waded into the midst of something bubbling up. This is not in relation to anything posted within the last few minutes.
 
No we're all adults here at @Sloe Djinn.

Whoever wants to start some bullshit, they can, I'll just get up and walk away. I don't care, honestly. Talk smack and be tough and bad if you want. Don't involve me lol.

That's why I don't reply to a lot of posts. I see potential for the thread to blow into some garbage.

I respect most here.

Okay enough:

I brought this for all:

IMG_6009.webp


Party mix. Dig in!
 
Sloe Djinn said:
While I am by no means endorsing our aspiring lawyer's approach or argument, I do think that it's only a partner who decides to participate in a fling or infidelity who can deliberately hurt an existing relationship. The only exception that I can see is when the outsider engages in active attempts (i.e. lying about a partner) to sabotage the relationship.

My rationale here is that if no "active attempts" to mess up my relationship are involved, I'm not going to act as if my partner is incapable of maintaining our relationship. Idk, to do so makes me think that I'm viewing my partner as too dumb to know she loves me, or like some kind of piece of property that was stolen.

Edit: ok I can see I just waded into the midst of something bubbling up. This is not in relation to anything posted within the last few minutes.
Click to expand...

Nothing bubbling up, I can see why you felt that tho. I think the OP asked for women's views. I'm happy to leave it that way.
 
Vigilance said:
The poster FreeSp1r1t makes a flaw in his reasoning, and without any evidence the poster assumes that ALL women with rings must be married. The Poster Free simultaneously comes to the conclusion that a ring is a sign of marriage at all times. The poster commits a serious logical fallacy by assuming women with rings must be married when this cannot be true at ALL times. The poster uses flawed reasoning, makes invalid assumptions, and jumps to faulty conclusions.

I.

I add my comments below:

Not all women with a ring are married. I also address the poster @Milktoast Bandit here and his concerns. Some married women don't wear rings. Some non-married women wear rings. With this said, I, now, deduce the value of the ring to a ceremonial object without determinative and cumulative value, which makes the usual lurker unknown to if the woman is married or not. Body language helps here and the lurker should be careful when approaching.

Lastly, the poster should come to know these days wearing a ring does not always equate marriage. For these reasons, I fail to understand the poster's logic in understanding how he equates a ring to marriage at all times. Marriage is separate than rings, which have been deduced to ceremonial objects.

II.

I, now, make a personal comment:

Don't tell me ceremonial objects and marriage are two of the same things. Objectively a ceremony and a ring cannot be the same. They are not even of the same category. To make it easy, a ring is an object, superficial in nature. Marriage is ceremonial.

III.

Final thoughts:

By saying all of this, what makes the poster assume, I am messing up marriages if I do ever come in contact with a woman with a ring?? A ring is nothing!? If you follow my reasoning above, you will see I have never as you say 'deliberately' attacked a marriage. You have made faulty assumptions. If I do come across a woman with a ring, I always inquire what the deal is. Who knows what can happen then and at that point. only fate knows. :yum:
Click to expand...

Lol! Piss off, lawyer.
 
James said:
Experience.
Click to expand...
Vigilance said:
What does experience have to do with anything I said? Experience does help in any event. But what's your point? I don't see the correlation of experience having to do with what I am talking about.

Explain to me how experience plays a role in what I'm saying? For example, how will experience help?

You have to learn to explain yourself, like I did in my post. You can't just say one word and hope someone will pickup your thought process.

The term experience is so vague it could mean many things. Lol :tearsofjoy:

Giving one word answers is easy, and even I can do that. In fact, anyone can do that. It's the explaining which counts and adds substance to your post.
Click to expand...

"Experience" speaks volumes. By use of intuition bro :p
 
On a completely unrelated issue
......you know men are jerks when they are really nice, make an advance on you, and then, as soon as you assert your boundaries they act like the real arse they are. Not even showing the slightest modicum of politeness. I call these men misogynists because they see women and interact with them like they are just pieces of meat, to be used and 'played' to their own advantage. I love that I am too mean (wised up) and ugly (over 40) for this to happen to me anymore! :grinning: Yayyyy!!

As an aside note, of course I know not all men are like that, and I'm not anti-men. I'm just glad I can spot the ones that do have suspect motives. It is valuable foresight indeed, especially for INFJ's (of either sex).

Also if I post anything else about men on this thread, it's going to be about something positive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top