|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:59 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 Quote: But being pysically strong goes beyond the business and sex appeal. There's something about being strong, and now I add, healthy that makes someone feel good. Exercise helps relieve a lot of stress and helps your mind organize things. Gives it a way to cope with what happened in the day. There's a difference between overly masculine strength and excessive muscular development and being fit. Sure exercise is great and releases endorphins and whatever, but like everything you can't over do it. Weightlifting women aren't exactly considered attractive are they? I'm getting the vibe that you wouldn't defend their feeling good through exercise, simply because it is not steriotypically required of their gender role to do so. Quote: But then don't you think that sexism would die once people know what roles they have, and assume that, and live by that? Instead of having one universal role that both sexes follow, making it even more confusing to men what it means to be a man, and also the same for women, confusing them in what makes them a woman. And that is what has happened for most of the time the human race has been in existance, with dominant males and suppressed females, only recently have women been considered much more than things nice to look at. Any predetermined role is wrong, people should do what they want, regardless of popular public opinion. Again, it's late, I came back because I couldn't sleep ._. apologies if that didn't make much sense You didn't have to break the quote up. Being fit and healthy doesn't mean overly muscular. It means being in good shape and health. That should be something that everyone should strive for, and it should be something that definitely replaces the bone dry girls that every young girl is striving to be, which is just sick. I never endorse overly muscular people for either sexes. Plus being overly muscular, like those steroid totting body builders has a detrimental effect on the body. It's just gross. The gender roles I'm talking of, not the stereotypical ones you're mentioning that repress women and exalt the males. I personally think that these views are a tad outdated. For men to be the breadwinners, the physically strong and fit head of the household, figuratively oozing with macho charm and ego isn't very close to reality. It's what most men want to be but can never quite reach. Sure, working out and keeping fit is fine, it keeps the body in shape, but while we're placing such a high overall importance on the physical you're neglecting the mental. Keep your body fit, but your mind keen. I'm getting off track. To state that sexism would die once people know their role in society is ridiculous. Place someone into a role that doesn't fit and they'll be unhappy and want to break out of it. You'll have to learn to understand the sexes a little better before trying to place them into your own categories. It's all well and good trying to order the world to your own set ideals of men being physically superior and women being passive and yielding, but it cannot work out in reality and would certainly not bring an end to sexism. Women are not all happy to leave the physical working to the men and bend to their every wish, and we can see that with such a role placed on society those ill contented will rebel and break free of their proverbial shackles.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:00 pm
I agree, I've dated people I didn't think were attractive at all, but I loved their personalities.
I guess it all narrows down to what you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:00 pm
Cornetto1 I still disagree, helping people satisfies peoples "charity drive". All people want to be on the moral high ground, this is natural, how do people do this? They create organisations to help others, they donate to organisations, hell people who really want to get on their high horses go over there and live in the slums for a few years helping out the underpriviledged locals, they only ever do this because they either want to feel better or more important than other people or because they want to reinforce their so called morals and ethics. And you guys see this as something wrong? Even though they're helping just because they get a satisfaction from it, it's wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:01 pm
Cornetto1 Because it makes you seem shallow and sexist and diminishes the impact of your argument I already explained it. If you interpret it in a shallow way, then that's you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:02 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 I still disagree, helping people satisfies peoples "charity drive". All people want to be on the moral high ground, this is natural, how do people do this? They create organisations to help others, they donate to organisations, hell people who really want to get on their high horses go over there and live in the slums for a few years helping out the underpriviledged locals, they only ever do this because they either want to feel better or more important than other people or because they want to reinforce their so called morals and ethics. And you guys see this as something wrong? Even though they're helping just because they get a satisfaction from it, it's wrong? I think what Cornetto is pointing to is that it's not a selfless act if you seek some satisfaction from it. That takes the whole meaning away. To be charitable now is to give money to keep face in society or to satisfy your own feelings of self importance. Sure, if the end result is the same, what's the big deal? Think about it, it's an entirely selfish motive to helping other people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:03 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 I still disagree, helping people satisfies peoples "charity drive". All people want to be on the moral high ground, this is natural, how do people do this? They create organisations to help others, they donate to organisations, hell people who really want to get on their high horses go over there and live in the slums for a few years helping out the underpriviledged locals, they only ever do this because they either want to feel better or more important than other people or because they want to reinforce their so called morals and ethics. And you guys see this as something wrong? Even though they're helping just because they get a satisfaction from it, it's wrong? Like I said earlier, what they give back is much less than what they take, yet the recievers are still grateful and the hypocrites feel virtuous. And what ^ said
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:07 pm
GuruLazer I personally think that these views are a tad outdated. For men to be the breadwinners, the physically strong and fit head of the household, figuratively oozing with macho charm and ego isn't very close to reality. It's what most men want to be but can never quite reach. Sure, working out and keeping fit is fine, it keeps the body in shape, but while we're placing such a high overall importance on the physical you're neglecting the mental. Keep your body fit, but your mind keen. I'm getting off track. To state that sexism would die once people know their role in society is ridiculous. Place someone into a role that doesn't fit and they'll be unhappy and want to break out of it. You'll have to learn to understand the sexes a little better before trying to place them into your own categories. It's all well and good trying to order the world to your own set ideals of men being physically superior and women being passive and yielding, but it cannot work out in reality and would certainly not bring an end to sexism. Women are not all happy to leave the physical working to the men and bend to their every wish, and we can see that with such a role placed on society those ill contented will rebel and break free of their proverbial shackles. Sure they're outdated. I'm using some biblical points. And I did mention working on your mind as well, check the first post. It's still unedited. And the man I'm talking about wouldn't have a strong ego, but the love he would receive from those he's heading would overpower the ego. Just to run something by you. Many powerful women—those who held very influential positions in the business place (fortune 500 companies), regarded as the business place as nothing once they had children. That they just left the bread-winning to their husbands. And those who opposed this didn't have any kids. It goes to showing you how the views change, and how some of them vary. You can't really assume anything till you've experienced almost all that life has to offer. And that doesn't go into saying that I've experienced everything and know anything there is about the human race. I'm still growing and learning as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:08 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 Because it makes you seem shallow and sexist and diminishes the impact of your argument I already explained it. If you interpret it in a shallow way, then that's you. Wow, that is an awfully dumb thing to say xD Quote: • A man should be strong; this means he should be active, physically strong and able, and fun to look at (attractive from a girl's pov, and something to strive for from a boy's pov). How is that NOT shallow? xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:10 pm
Norayr nikki stix Norayr nikki stix Norayr I appreciate your input, and I believe that that's one thing that many guys don't have… balance. And it's because of this that many of them are like you said, jerks or pretty emasculated. For me, i love guys with the "emo" look. its always been that way. I got for the punks, goths, emos, scene, and the famous "trendies" lol. Im more for personality, but apperance is also fun. I think that when boys are skinny and muscly its nasty cuz all you see is bulk. and i hate when guy's boobs stick out further than theyre beer guts. But im not too picky, I mean yeah theyre fun to look at, but there has to be more then body, ho about brainds and eyes... oh a good smile... yes yes and geez they need to know dental higein!! Then I'd never appeal to you physically. Well... i wouldnt be too sure. I mean it al depends. ive liked some FUGLY people but it was because their personality changed how i saw them. Definitely. Have you noticed that the more you spend time with a person the less you consider their appearance. To some extent you've forgotten their appearance till you stop and just look at them for a while. True, or until one night the ugly man who turned pretty for his personality showed his dominating side and bitched at you because hes "not you little play thing" and then you see them in a WHOLE NEW LIGHT... yep its true. when you think so highly of some one it takes one bad action to turn it all around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:11 pm
GuruLazer I think what Cornetto is pointing to is that it's not a selfless act if you seek some satisfaction from it. That takes the whole meaning away. To be charitable now is to give money to keep face in society or to satisfy your own feelings of self importance. Sure, if the end result is the same, what's the big deal? Think about it, it's an entirely selfish motive to helping other people. I see what you're saying. Though I'm curious, are you saying that what happens is a paradox or are you contradicting what Cornetto said? (Heh, next time I do something where I'm spending my money on the poor, and giving up my time and comfort to help people out, I'll be sure to remind myself that what I'm doing is selfish xp )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:13 pm
Cornetto1 Norayr Cornetto1 Because it makes you seem shallow and sexist and diminishes the impact of your argument I already explained it. If you interpret it in a shallow way, then that's you. Wow, that is an awfully dumb thing to say xD Quote: • A man should be strong; this means he should be active, physically strong and able, and fun to look at ( attractive from a girl's pov, and something to strive for from a boy's pov). How is that NOT shallow? xd Thanks for the first comment. I already said that attractive has a wide array of meanings. You just chose to see the superficial. Oh and just to clarify, "If you interpret it in a shallow way, then that's you," means you choose to see it that way. I'm not saying you're shallow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:14 pm
Norayr Sure they're outdated. I'm using some biblical points. And I did mention working on your mind as well, check the first post. It's still unedited. And the man I'm talking about wouldn't have a strong ego, but the love he would receive from those he's heading would overpower the ego. Just to run something by you. Many powerful women—those who held very influential positions in the business place (fortune 500 companies), regarded as the business place as nothing once they had children. That they just left the bread-winning to their husbands. And those who opposed this didn't have any kids. It goes to showing you how the views change, and how some of them vary. You can't really assume anything till you've experienced almost all that life has to offer. And that doesn't go into saying that I've experienced everything and know anything there is about the human race. I'm still growing and learning as well. As I can tell, for your views still seem pretty limited. This is not a judgement or criticism intentionally on my part, just an observation. As for leave to have children, it's not much for business women to ask to leave whilst they deliver their own child; something a man is incapable of doing, but would undoubtedly be given better treatment and consideration if he did. Some women choose to leave work to raise a family, some stay working. Some men make the same choices, but I notice you didn't bring them into the equation. However, one question. you say you were using Biblical references, I must have missed them. Could you point them out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:14 pm
Norayr GuruLazer I think what Cornetto is pointing to is that it's not a selfless act if you seek some satisfaction from it. That takes the whole meaning away. To be charitable now is to give money to keep face in society or to satisfy your own feelings of self importance. Sure, if the end result is the same, what's the big deal? Think about it, it's an entirely selfish motive to helping other people. I see what you're saying. Though I'm curious, are you saying that what happens is a paradox or are you contradicting what Cornetto said? (Heh, next time I do something where I'm spending my money on the poor, and giving up my time and comfort to help people out, I'll be sure to remind myself that what I'm doing is selfish xp ) You say spending your money on the poor, like they're dying animals you feed out of the kindness of your heart. People donate to charity through guilt, promise of redemption or a nice ego massage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:15 pm
nikki stix Norayr nikki stix Norayr nikki stix Norayr I appreciate your input, and I believe that that's one thing that many guys don't have… balance. And it's because of this that many of them are like you said, jerks or pretty emasculated. For me, i love guys with the "emo" look. its always been that way. I got for the punks, goths, emos, scene, and the famous "trendies" lol. Im more for personality, but apperance is also fun. I think that when boys are skinny and muscly its nasty cuz all you see is bulk. and i hate when guy's boobs stick out further than theyre beer guts. But im not too picky, I mean yeah theyre fun to look at, but there has to be more then body, ho about brainds and eyes... oh a good smile... yes yes and geez they need to know dental higein!! Then I'd never appeal to you physically. Well... i wouldnt be too sure. I mean it al depends. ive liked some FUGLY people but it was because their personality changed how i saw them. Definitely. Have you noticed that the more you spend time with a person the less you consider their appearance. To some extent you've forgotten their appearance till you stop and just look at them for a while. True, or until one night the ugly man who turned pretty for his personality showed his dominating side and bitched at you because hes "not you little play thing" and then you see them in a WHOLE NEW LIGHT... yep its true. when you think so highly of some one it takes one bad action to turn it all around. That's ugly, and I'm so sorry you had to experience that. I hope you don't generalize now; hope he hasn't tarnished men in your eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:18 pm
Norayr Cornetto1 Norayr Cornetto1 Because it makes you seem shallow and sexist and diminishes the impact of your argument I already explained it. If you interpret it in a shallow way, then that's you. Wow, that is an awfully dumb thing to say xD Quote: • A man should be strong; this means he should be active, physically strong and able, and fun to look at ( attractive from a girl's pov, and something to strive for from a boy's pov). How is that NOT shallow? xd Thanks for the first comment. I already said that attractive has a wide array of meanings. You just chose to see the superficial. Oh and just to clarify, "If you interpret it in a shallow way, then that's you," means you choose to see it that way. I'm not saying you're shallow. No problem wink Sure, I see where you're coming from, but since when has attractive, in any that context ever meant anything other than "sexy". confused Maybe the dainty ladies of the household are looking for someone to carry heavy shopping bags because they're afraid of breaking their nails?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
