and

http://www.doubleyourdating.com/

And much, much more. As if there are a fixed set of Absolute Cardinal Standards for straight men, lesbians, and some bisexuals to adhere to in their quest for romance, love, and sex.

I’m not sure how the heck I got deceived…

Some women like Pepsi, some like Coke, some like Diet Pepsi, some like Diet Coke, some like both Pepsi and Coke, some don’t like cola at all.

But wait, we need a scientist to make Female Cola, a cola that all women will enjoy. How do we make this Female Cola? If we can make this cola, women would stop drinking water, orange juice, milk, coffee, tea, etc. and only drink Female Cola! A company stands to make Trillions of Dollars if it could just find the exact recipe.

Aaargh. It’s time to start all over again. Thanks Valcoris, I’ll keep that in mind.

Let’s change it a bit. They are as described, but the women they meet in the hypothetical bar don’t know their occupations.

Now what?

Some Guy:
The answer isn’t to give up it’s just to take it a little slower. Keep reading and trying to absorb as much info as you can. Tekanji has put together a huge and awesome collection of blogs and sites on her sidebar. Start by reading a few posts from each and keep up with the ones that you find most helpful or interesting. The biggest issue/mistake that your running into is trying to create a system where no system exists. Basically, if you look at it as individual to individual attraction and relation instead of trying to group people into little boxes you’ll have a much easier time. It’s about remembering each of us is attracted to different things.

I’ll take your charity guy and drug dealer theory and play with it a little. Let’s say the charity guy is well spoken, he’s not particularly funny most of the time but he holds a great conversation, he’s respectful. Let’s take your drug dealer now and make him well spoken, funny most of the time but he doesn’t do many deep conversations, he’s respectful.

Here’s what happens. If I meet both individuals I am personally more likely to like the charity guy because I prefer long deep conversations over laughs and what most consider fun. It’s a personal preference. It works the same way for any person. Some people may have an issue with the drug dealer because of his job others won’t. Some people will not like the charity guy because of his job. Some people find the funny trait more attractive, others prefer someone more serious.

The major error isn’t just taking women and makeing them a monolithic block. You have to take it to a really basic level. Does my theory or whatever assert something other than women are people? Does my theory go against the idea that all people are individuals?

The other part that is kinda eating at me is that you seem to think het sexual relationship dynamics have some magic system they run by that is wholly different. It doesn’t, all relationships are the same basic theory. Individual A likes certain things. Individual B likes certain things. If A meets B whether they form a friendship or not, whether they form a more involved relationship or not is based on the things they each like and dislike and how many or which ones of those the other person has. The things I look for in a partner might be a little different than the things I look for in a friend but it is the same basic theory.

You have to think about it this way. A man finds a women that is a perfect partner for him. She feels the same way the two enter into a relationship and live happily ever after. Would you make the assumption that the women would be the perfect partner for every man? Then why are you looking for the traits that all women find attractive?

Sorry to annoy you with all this crap. I can’t seem to figure it all out.

Put it this way: If the drug dealer and the charity guy went into a bar, which one is most likely to find a date and which one is most likely to walk out of there alone?

From the information given, it’s impossible to give an accurate answer to the question. You’re presuming that the salient information people use in bars to judge whether or not they want to go home with a man is his job. I shouldn’t have to say this, but that kind of assumption is not only patently wrong but also sexist.

It’s not so much a matter of women being a monolithic block of people who are universally turned on by men of negative attitudes, it’s more of a matter of mathematical probability.

Except that you aren’t using probability at all — you’ve offered no statistics, nor even a shred of evidence to support your assumptions. What you’re using is a sexist assumption that only holds water if you treat women as a monolithic block who are universally turned on by “bad” men (ie. your drug dealer).

Honestly, it’s not the explanation that’s the problem but the fact that the base from which you’re arguing has no foundation in fact. You’re pulling hypothetical examples and assuming an outcome that reinforces your bias without offering any actual evidence to back up anything you’ve said about the interactions between men and women seeking different-sex relationships.

There is a dearth of information — and I’m talking studies, analysis, and other evidence — on this issue. I’m sure you can also find various articles on Google Scholar. I would suggest that instead of clinging to what you want to believe, that you do some research into the issue (both assenting and dissenting opinions) and get an informed opinion. Especially if you intend on debating the issue on any other post — here, or elsewhere.

Beste: All I can think of are snarky responses about men with pussies because of what she says about men getting more “pussified” every year. Really, I just can’t take anyone seriously who uses the phrase “real men” (or “real women” for that matter). There is no one “real” man or woman, because we’re all individuals and we’re all different. It’s such a simple concept, and yet people just don’t want to get it.

Also:
http://thehathorlegacy.info/the-misogynist-who-gets-the-girls-is-a-male-fantasy/