REAL women

₲uardian said:
Is that sarcasm?
Sure I could assume things, but I need you to be specific before I continue.
Click to expand...
..... before I do that - could you tell me which response would end up being the most interesting?
Actually don't even tell me.
Just go with option B (where option B is the more interesting or outraged response).
 
Lumi Spitsbergen said:
Hahahaha, actually rabidly curious. I'm afraid I'm not taking this as seriously as you are.
Click to expand...
I might be taking it seriously, but then again, you might be taking it more seriously. Who knows?

But ok, I was (obviously I thought) sarcastic. BUT I would still appreciate it if I could see the more interesting response.
Click to expand...
Well, I assumed you were sarcastic, but knowing that does not help me understand what you meant by it. I can't respond to what I don't know.

Also, if you didn't have any real opposition to begin with, that's fine too.
 
Last edited:
₲uardian said:
I might be taking it seriously, but then again, you might be taking it more seriously. Who knows?



Well, I assumed you were sarcastic, but knowing that does not help me understand what you meant by it. I can't respond to what I don't know.
Click to expand...
It was a response to your response...? @.@ I am confuzzled as to the mystery here. Have I unwittingly become a Woman of Mystery? Sweet. I'll go grab my fedora.
 
Okay, let me give an example conversation:

Me: [insert music band here] is an awesome band.
You: Is that why they have so many fans (sarcasm)

In this example, it's easy to derive the conclusion that you think my favorite band isn't that good. But you didn't explicitly say it. My main goal right now is to know exactly what you are saying. And not merely that you are being sarcastic because this has been established.
 
Last edited:
₲uardian said:
Okay, let me give an example conversation:

Me: [insert music band here] is an awesome band.
You: Is that why they have so many fans (sarcasm)

In this example, it's easy to derive the conclusion that you think my favorite band isn't that good. But you didn't explicitly say it. My main goal right now is to know exactly what you are saying. And not merely that you are being sarcastic because this has been established.
Click to expand...

Well, in the above example conversation if I said that I would be implying that said band sucked and lacked a sufficient following because of their musical deficiencies. I doubt I would be sarcastic about someone else's tastes though, unless truly heinous.

In this case I was implying that, yes, funny, cute, confident, interesting guys who have jobs exist and are "real men" within common boundaries of human expectation. It wasn't especially profound? What did you think I could be saying?
 
₲uardian said:
Okay, this is what i wanted.

I accept this statement just as much as "real women beautiful and thin"
Click to expand...
Now you are the one who should define the exact meaning of his words. Are you saying both are quite common, somewhat common, uncommon?
That the number of guys with these personality traits are equal in number to the number of girls who have those physical traits?
 
Lumi Spitsbergen said:
Now you are the one who should define the exact meaning of his words. Are you saying both are quite common, somewhat common, uncommon?
That the number of guys with these personality traits are equal in number to the number of girls who have those physical traits?
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase:

I accept this statement just as much as "real women are expected to be beautiful and thin"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top