Why boys are better than girls

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 18

Why boys are better than girls

Author:

hauntedattics

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Oct 30, 2001

Comments:

A stereotypical and horrendously overgeneralized rant. Written by a girl.

More diaries by hauntedattics

	Terrorism in the PRC
	I am so completely enamored...
	My New Heroine
	Where is he???
	Now I May Have Seen Everything
	Travel advice
	Stranger in paradise
	Vandalism in the PRC
	Fun with fatties
	An announcement

For my very first diary entry I thought I'd just do some stream of consciousness on why boys are, in general, better than girls. I thought of making this a full-on article, but then realized I'd have to make cogent points, and back them up with research and lots of fancy web links, and all that crap. And to be honest, who has the time, effort and brainpower for that?

OK, some people do. The rest of us have to get back to work soon.

Boys are better than girls because they are physically stronger. When I was younger I harbored dreams of being able to beat up all the boys who bothered me, but that only worked until they went through puberty and got bigger. I have now realized that the only way I'll ever be able to beat up boys anymore is to take lots of steroids and become a female body builder. But this also takes time and effort, and I would have to take time off from work.

Boys are better than girls because their thought processes are refreshingly direct and simple. If a boy sees an attractive girl, he thinks, "Wow, what a hottie. Wonder if she'll have sex with me?" If a girl sees an attractive boy, she thinks, "Wow, what a hottie. Wonder if he'll treat me well and take me on romantic dates? And look longingly into my eyes and write me poetry? But wait...what if he's a jerk? What if all he wants from me is sex and then he'll tell all his friends and stop returning my calls? Yeah. And then he'll break up with me and say that he just wants to be friends, and..." You get the picture. This difference in thought processes may be inherent or socially engendered, but does it really matter? It's there.

Finally, boys are better than girls because they don't have to freeze their butt cheeks off if they have to pee somewhere outside, miles from any bathroom.

Maybe next time I'll write about why dogs are better than cats.

	I think girls (5.00 / 1) (#1)
	by nobbystyles on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:29:52 AM PST

	Are more aesthetically pleasing than most boys even if you are a girl.

	you forgot (5.00 / 2) (#2)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:30:07 AM PST

	that men don't actively seek out someone who will treat them like pure dog shit, ignoring an obviously better deal. also, men generally don't enter in a relationship just because a given woman has more money, drives a red sports car, owns a domino's, what-have-you. i'm getting spitting mad, so i'm going to stop soon. and where did this old wives tale come up about men cheating more than women? in my experience, that's pure bullshit. i've known more men that have been cheated on than the other way around, and most of my friends are women. because i don't like men either. and what about asking people out? a guy would be flattered if a chick asked him out. if he wasn't interested, he would likely turn her down politely. a fucking woman, on the other hand, will make absolutely no fucking effort to preserve any sense of fucking self-worth in the poor, deluded fuck that was incoherent enough to want to take the fucking bitch out. HOW COME WOMEN DON'T HAVE NATALIE PORTMAN POSTERS THAT HYPNOTIZE THEM? DO YOU KNOW THAT I HAVE SOLVED NO LESS THAN TEN COMPLICATED PROGRAMMING ISSUES THAT HAD ME STUMPED FOR DAYS WHILE STARING BLANKLY AT MY POSTER?! I THINK THAT SHOWS JUST HOW AESTHETICALLY FUCKED YOU PEOPLE ARE. OH, AND GOD FORBID YOU TRY AND BE A GENTLEMAN AND OPEN A DOOR FOR A WOMAN OR HELP HER WITH HER BAGGAGE. THAT'S A FUCKING FEDERAL CRIME THESE DAYS. I HATE YOU ALL! HATE! HATE! HATE!

	Do you need help? (none / 0) (#13)
	by kwench on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:12:05 AM PST

	I've known more men that have been cheated on than the other way around a fucking woman, on the other hand, will make absolutely no fucking effort to preserve any sense of fucking self-worth in the poor, deluded fuck that was incoherent enough to want to take the fucking bitch out. I guess you had some real bad experience. Do you want to talk about it? I'm sure, we can help you.

	home? (none / 0) (#17)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:20:47 AM PST

	i have no home. hunted. despised. living like an animal. the jungle is my home. but i will show the world. i will create my own race. a race of atomic super-actresses that will conquer the world! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

	you definitly do! (none / 0) (#22)
	by kwench on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 11:02:05 AM PST

	Try this.

	Yes, kill them all! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
	by John Milton on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 04:39:54 PM PST

	Don't forget "the face that launched a thousand ships." The Queen ho' Helen of Troy is a perfect example of the feminine races penchant for treachery. It's better than the obvious fatalities she caused though. After the countless live spent fighting for the bitch while she was screwing first Paris and then his sucessor, she batted her eyes at Menelaus and got to go back as Queen while the Trojan women were enslaved. Thus they were forced to watch there husbands and sons brutally massacred, became sexual playthings for the murderers, and then slaves of the faithless strumpet their husbands died to protect. Yet, history mentions her as having no other virtue beyond being a cute bauble. -John Milton

	no other virtue? (4.50 / 2) (#30)
	by nathan on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 04:44:42 PM PST

	Being a cute bauble is one hell of a virtue, man. What do you think cheerleaders are even for? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	In my experience, that's not it. (none / 0) (#36)
	by John Milton on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:45:56 PM PST

	Judging from past experience, most cheerleaders aren't much better looking than non-cheerleaders. I don't understand why people seem to believe that. Cheerleaders can actually be very ugly. They're just in very good shape, very limber, and willing to wear short skirts over tight panties. That seems to be the main attraction. If I were compiling a list of beautiful girls that I knew, I would only add a few cheerleaders. -John Milton

	I have foiled you again. (none / 0) (#41)
	by nathan on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 06:30:49 PM PST

	Notice I never said that cheerleaders were great beauties. I said they were cute baubles. Great beauty is a whole nother story, as is sexiness. Cute girls are rarely sexy, and almost never beautiful (although that's no insult; genuine human beauty is incredibly rare.) Cute girls look like they're inexperienced, spunky, peppy, naive, and resilient in that slightly baby-fattish kind of way. Beautiful women stop you in your tracks. Genuinely sexy women, when you meet them, make you twitch helplessly like a gaffed fish. Good God, can you imagine five minutes alone with Anais Nin at her prime (which would have been 30-40, as I make it.) It makes my eyes water and my heart skip multiple beats in succession. It makes my palms spontaneously sprout hair. It makes my toes curl up and my jaw clench and my stomach muscles tense like I've just been punched in the solar plexus. That's sexiness (which has nothing to do with beauty, mind.) Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Yeah, well... (none / 0) (#44)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 09:15:33 AM PST

	Anais Nin may have written killer erotica, but who has any proof she was any good in the sack? Sometimes people you don't initially think are sexy suddenly become sexy later in your relationship with them. And sometimes, as you say, they slay you at first glance. Be careful with the hairy palms - I've heard shaving 'em is a delicate matter...

	Virtues (none / 0) (#48)
	by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:05:47 PM PST

	They're just in very good shape, very limber, and willing to wear short skirts over tight panties. These too are virtues.

	Random responses (5.00 / 1) (#31)
	by chloedancer on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 04:48:48 PM PST

	RE: ...men don't actively seek out someone who will treat them like pure dog shit... You don't know Shoeboy very well, do you? ;) RE: a guy would be flattered if a chick asked him out. It's always been a winning strategy for me, but I've always enjoyed playing by the "guys' rules" far more than those commonly viewed as perhaps more "appropriate" or traditional for my gender. If I could anyone (man or woman) to learn just one thing, it would be this: If you can get over your own anxieties re: asking for something and getting a "no" in response, you'll be shocked and amazed by your success rate. RE: AND GOD FORBID YOU TRY AND BE A GENTLEMAN AND OPEN A DOOR FOR A WOMAN OR HELP HER WITH HER BAGGAGE... Guilty. But I'm trying to get better on this one, really. It's not that it offends me when guys do these things; why should I pass up an opportunity to show off my phenomenal musculature/flexability/upper body strength? Most of the men I appreciate find this to be a subliminal turn-on and I genuinely enjoy watching the effect. Truth be known, I'd rather receive direct compliments from men whose opinions matter to me than to have 'em thinking that manners are an acceptable substitute for an authentic connection. Falling back on the "good manners" thing is a cop-out by comparison.

	whatever. (none / 0) (#32)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:05:46 PM PST

	If you can get over your own anxieties re: asking for something and getting a "no" in response, you'll be shocked and amazed by your success rate. you don't know me very well, do you? let me simplify it this way: bullshit. my phenomenal musculature/flexability/upper body strength i can think of nothing more utterly repulsive. if i wanted to screw a guy, i would... screw a guy. or something. Falling back on the "good manners" thing is a cop-out by comparison. let me guess: you listen to the grateful dead while masturbating to fond memories of clinton's presidency in some dirty coffee shop. that entire paragraph is meaningless new-age oprah pseudo-psycho-babble. go buy some bon-bons tomorrow and go back to laying on the couch watching daytime talkshows.

	watch it buddy (none / 0) (#33)
	by Peter Johnson on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:28:14 PM PST

	osm, I consider you the greatest living master of English prose. Because of this, I will let you off with a warning instead of following my standard policy of deleting all posts criticizing the lovely and talented chloedancer. That is all, --Peter Are you adequate?

	you're under a spell. i will pray for your soul (none / 0) (#34)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:31:44 PM PST

	living that's pushing it.

	Noted, shoeboy. (none / 0) (#40)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 06:24:58 PM PST

	We wouldn't want any controversy to erupt, now would we? © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Controversy? What did I miss? (none / 0) (#60)
	by chloedancer on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 04:01:47 PM PST

	It seems to me that osm and myself have created a mutually-satisfactory understanding. I perceive neither criticism nor cause for the oh-so-coveted state of controversy here. If I'm reading Shoeboy's missive correctly, I'd interpret it instead as his own charmingly backhanded way of practicing the "compliments strategy" and I, for one, applaud his effort (what with the "lovely and talented" part striking me as being more significant than the somewhat misguided attempt at chivalry, truth be known).

	Ah. That's all right then. (none / 0) (#61)
	by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 04:44:30 PM PST

	It was the foul stench of false chivalry that Slave was reacting to. Slave is perhaps a bit jumpy, lately. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Keep thinking like that, really. (none / 0) (#35)
	by chloedancer on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:42:52 PM PST

	It just means that I'll never have to worry about you taking a fancy to me, and for that, I'm grateful. Thanks for opting out, osm! And, for the record, muscles and curves are not exclusive; I accept that I am undeniably feminine, despite my preferred attitudes.

	that's for damn sure. (none / 0) (#39)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:59:10 PM PST

	I'll never have to worry about you taking a fancy to me, and for that

	P.S. (none / 0) (#3)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:30:47 AM PST

	DOGS SUCK.

	urinalysis has a slight flaw... (none / 0) (#4)
	by nathan on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:36:16 AM PST

	It's quite easy for women to pee standing up, thus not requiring them to bare their fair, tender bottoms. Ahh, soft, fluffy feminine bottoms! [ FX ] GLUAGHLUHALGUHALGUHALUHG Ahem, I have no idea what came over me. Sorry about that. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Easy there, Homer... (none / 0) (#6)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:47:35 AM PST

	I should of course have said that boys can pee UNAIDED miles from the nearest bathroom. And what's fluffy about girls' bottoms?

	Obviously (none / 0) (#11)
	by TheReverand on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:57:27 AM PST

	you've never dated an Italian woman.

	Nope. (none / 0) (#12)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:02:19 AM PST

	Never dated an Italian woman. Or an Italian man, for that matter. In fact, the only non-American guy I've ever dated was a Brit. It wasn't pretty. I don't hold it against the UK, though.

	Hmm (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:44:24 AM PST

	"What's fluffy" indeed.

	urinalysis is incomplete... (none / 0) (#28)
	by nathan on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 01:04:44 PM PST

	Obviously you haven't sufficiently investigated the subject. Imagine the liberation - peeing standing up, just like the most manly of men. You might be interested in knowing that in Tuareg culture, men pee squatting and women standing up. Anyway, I mean 'fluffy' not in the sense of 'covered with fluff,' but fluffy like a nice meringue or silkily whipped cream. As for the Jerkcity noises, I'm sorry, but it's been a long time since I've been anywhere near a feminine bottom, so that's just how things are gonna be. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Remember, hauntedattic (none / 0) (#5)
	by Adam Rightmann on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:43:31 AM PST

	it was the fairer sex that bore our Saviour. Don't denigrate your gender, while you can't be priests, you do have your own charms. A. Rightmann

	listen, pal (none / 0) (#7)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:48:55 AM PST

	don't make me take the unprecedented step of deleting another editor's post.

	Too late, there is precedence (none / 0) (#9)
	by Adam Rightmann on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:54:14 AM PST

	I won't name the editor, but that uncouth Welshman has already edited a previous column. A. Rightmann

	You are right, as usual (none / 0) (#8)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:51:00 AM PST

	Maybe next time I will attempt to think of what some of those charms could be. I'll get osm to help me.

	yeah, i'll help you alright (none / 0) (#10)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:55:55 AM PST

	i'll help you into the kitchen where you can fetch me a beer and get to work on my pot roast.

	OK (none / 0) (#14)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:13:28 AM PST

	I'll get you your beer, but pot roast isn't very good for you. How 'bout some nice chicken breast or lean steak instead?

	haha! (none / 0) (#15)
	by osm on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:16:48 AM PST

	i don't drink and i don't like meat (except pepperoni on pizza). guess again.

	You are welcome, child (none / 0) (#16)
	by Adam Rightmann on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:16:51 AM PST

	Though I don't know about this OSM, he seems a rather tortured soul who could use confession. A. Rightmann

	Rim Jobs (0.00 / 1) (#18)
	by egg troll on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:43:08 AM PST

	Why do women have such an aversion to me giving them a wet, sloppy rim job? Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

	Girls are far superior to boys! (none / 0) (#19)
	by kwench on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:44:05 AM PST

	Sorry for contracticting you, hauntedattics, but according to a little statistics I did, girls have a far bigger influence on the internet as boys do. I collected data concerning the creation time (designated: CT) of a diary entry and the number of posts (NoP). I calculated the number of posts per hour (PpH) and took the highest number for 100% (Pc). Here are the results: CT / NoP / PpH / Pc / Creatorname 10 17 1.88 100% hauntedattics 07 04 0.33 018% osm 06 00 0.00 000% kwench 05 04 0.28 015% chloedancer 01 22 1.22 068% TheReverand 01 04 0.22 012% donkpunch We can conclude three things from this statistics: - As we can clearly see, girls get far the most posts (100%). - Kwench is too masculine (0%). - TheReverand is most likely a girl or at least a hermaphrodite (68%). Let me finish this short essay about the power of girls with a little interlude in a french IRC channel where I tried to say "I'm just right now in Sweden." I translated it to: "Je seule suis en Suède maintenant." A big mistake. I got several nice chats with young french boys...

	A little IRC observation (none / 0) (#21)
	by egg troll on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:50:59 AM PST

	Ah yes, IRC. Where the men are men, and so are the women. Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

	Hmm... (none / 0) (#26)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:37:42 PM PST

	I applaud your quasi-scientific study of diary posts, and concede that girls may have the edge on guys in influencing the internet. But I think my points about strength, directness of thought and pee-mobility still apply. Be careful what you say about the Reverand - he is not someone you want to piss off. And remember to leave off the 'e' in French chat rooms...

	quasi-science (none / 0) (#42)
	by kwench on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:52:20 AM PST

	Yes, of course, it is quite quasi-scientific. For a "real" scientific statistics I would have to choose another scale for the timeline than linear. For example, by using a logarithmic scale, I'm sure TheReverend would appear as a man with perhaps an (little) emotional way of thinking but nevertheless a warm and caring personality with a high I- and EQ. I see only one problem... what do to about chloedancer? (She is a she, isn't she?)

	Your statistical problem (none / 0) (#46)
	by hauntedattics on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 09:38:32 AM PST

	Yes, as far as I know, chloedancer is a she, so she doesn't fit your theory. However, check out the diary entries today and see if many more posts have been made in her diary. Your theory may work better now. And maybe you want to look at the quality of some of the posts...some of them may only rate being counted as .5 or .25 of an actual post.

	Yes, I am an XXer... (none / 0) (#47)
	by chloedancer on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 10:04:43 AM PST

	even in RL, believe it or not! But I am also always the resident statistical anomaly, so it's par for the course.

	automated statistics? (none / 0) (#49)
	by kwench on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:10:44 PM PST

	Well, I'd love to do a new statistics but unfortunately it needs a lot of time for a carefully composed statistics with logarithmic scales and quality-ratings and so on. But perhaps www.adequacy.org is interested in installing a program that automates this process. I'd certainly be willing to help you and do an implementation in GW-BASIC (or QBASIC or TurboPASCAL).

	As long as it isn't Perl... (none / 0) (#50)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:32:48 PM PST

	Perl is an abomination, the fruit of a sick, deranged mind. -- Peace and much love...

	Certainly is Perl next to the Devil's language (none / 0) (#51)
	by kwench on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:51:38 PM PST

	perl -lpe 'tr[a-zA-Z][n-za-mN-ZA-M]' Does this look like a real clean program? No, it looks like the nonunderstandable syllables only the mind of a lunatic can produce.

	May I remind... (none / 0) (#52)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:23:25 PM PST

	May I remind the less computer-savvy readership that the above code is actually considered a paragon of good, clean, readable Perl code. What bad Perl code looks like is a sight too horrible to behold. Truly Lovecraftian in its splendour. -- Peace and much love...

	non-Satanic languages (none / 0) (#55)
	by moriveth on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:16:05 PM PST

	With all the useless CS research being supported by taxpayer dollars, why can't some hotshot grad students write a programming language that doesn't sound like the speech of witches and pagans? In the beginning, there was a main function, and void. And GOD said, "Hello World!" And GOD saw the text on stdout, that it was good. Amen. Surely godly Christians deserve to be able to program as effectively as perl-loving Satanists.

	Sane programming? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
	by kwench on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:42:36 PM PST

	You are thinking of a programming language with a clean procedural design and really anal strong typing? A language where everything must be declared first? A language that is so mathematical that you cannot do something useful but only different flavors of bubble- and quicksort? A language that is so appraised by the Lord that it received the name of a major theologist? Ever thought of using Pascal?

	Counterpoint: girls are better than boys (none / 0) (#23)
	by moriveth on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 11:16:31 AM PST

	Boys are much more likely to rob, defraud, assault, rape, murder, hijack planes, and write free software than girls.

	girls (none / 0) (#24)
	by alprazolam on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:19:24 PM PST

	can get laid. that's important.

	You forget an important one. (none / 0) (#25)
	by elby on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:28:19 PM PST

	Even women who complain about their inability to get laid, still can get laid just by walking into a bar and asking random strangers. A guy who tried same would come up empty handed, if not reeling from being slapped -lb

	Yes, but... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:43:32 PM PST

	...then the woman who got laid by a random stranger would then assume that their encounter actually meant something, waste precious mental and emotional energy fretting about why he never called back, and finally swearing off all such random couplings again. Until the next week. Guys who do happen to get laid have no such issues.

	Um, elby, (none / 0) (#38)
	by chloedancer on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:55:54 PM PST

	I hate to tell you this, but I have one male friend who basically walks up to women in various bars and night clubs and opens with the line "Will you sleep with me?" just about every Friday/Saturday night. And most of the time it's like watching a train wreck (some of the negative reactions are spectacular to watch, really). But the honest-to-god truth of the matter is that, on average, for every 100 or so women he queries, one will respond affirmatively and take him home with her. He's an average-looking gent, not much of a conversationalist, but he still manages to get laid about 50 times a year (and his technique hasn't changed in about ten years' time, give or take). I admire his tenacity. While it's not the most elegant strategy, I can't deny that he seems to be generally happier than most of the single guys I know.

	so you're saying that (none / 0) (#53)
	by alprazolam on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:31:45 PM PST

	every weekend except for thanksgiving and christmas, this guy goes out to bars and asks 100 women to sleep with him, less, if somebody agrees faster? jerking off never seemed more reasonable.

	no kidding. (none / 0) (#54)
	by nathan on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:43:05 PM PST

	The real issue at "hand," so to speak, is that men will rarely turn down sex, whereas women tend to be able to go longer without it. The strong masculine sex drive is quite a burden sometimes. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I've no doubt that self-satisfaction (none / 0) (#57)
	by chloedancer on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:08:33 PM PST

	is the easier option, but I have yet to meet a man who is capable of performing his own blow jobs as a solo act. I would also say that my friend craves the intimate human contact enough to view his success rate as being worth the effort (but not enough to invest the same amount of time/energy in sustaining a more long-term situation).

	you've met him now... (none / 0) (#58)
	by nathan on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:14:57 PM PST

	...the amazing Limberoni! One of the many perks of interning summers at Cirque du Soleil. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	no wonder (none / 0) (#59)
	by alprazolam on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:36:27 PM PST

	but not enough to invest the same amount of time/energy in sustaining a more long-term situation considering how his 'relationships' start off.

	So perhaps I was exaggerating.. (none / 0) (#62)
	by elby on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 05:47:12 PM PST

	But, I think there is still a point to be made. A guy who was approached by a woman in this way would probably be flattered and at least seriously consider it. I think many normal, functional, attractive guys might even take her up on it, and I doubt she'd have to ask very many before she found one who said yes, assuming she was reasonably attractive. I think a guy who approached women like this would generally be having sex with women I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and his success rate would be much, much lower than his female counterpart. I had this discussion recently in a bar with a rather attractive female friend. Guys at nearby tables were making quite an effort to join in on the conversation, I'm sure most of them were thinking "I'd fuck her, alright!" But then, what do you expect in a bar? -lb

	Turnabout is fair play? (none / 0) (#63)
	by chloedancer on Tue Nov 6th, 2001 at 07:33:33 AM PST

	Wanna know the truth, inasmuch as one woman's experience might represent it? I gave up on waiting for guys to ask me for a date many years ago and pretty much adopted a policy of "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." My estimate is that 2/3 to 3/4 of the guys I strike up a conversation with are generally pleased/intrigued; the rest are somewhat alarmed or anxious (most likely because it's not what they expect). There's also an added "baggage" component if I ask a guy out or approach him to strike up a conversation -- the assumption is that I'm "easy" or sometimes its interpreted as meaning that I only want one thing (and, truth be known, on rare occasion it's actually true -- c'est la vie). Living in the French Quarter for four years was a trip. I'm reasonably attractive, have an eye-catching figure and when I want to "turn it on," I have buckets of charisma. Leaving my house was an endurance exercise because just about every guy in town from somewhere else was looking for his fabled "French Quarter fling." Even dressed in sweats and looking ratty in my favorite neighborhood hangout, I had to train my bartending buddies to pour me fruit juice concoctions instead of real drinks for all the ones that ended up being sent my way. Those years, more than anything else, taught me more than I ever wished to know about how easy men can be, and how easy they wish women were. The best anecdote was when I was "in drag" (dressed to the nines with the hair and makeup flawless) and went to hang out with my gfs to listen to my favorite local band -- we were having a "dress up for ourselves" night. While walking to the club, some hayseed bohunk with a soft Kentucky drawl queried, "Pardon me, Ma'am -- Are you a lady of the night?" in a tone of voice that managed to convey awe and wishful thinking simultaneously. I simply smiled in response and shook my head "no" -- it was one of those "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" moments. When I reached Checkpoint Charlie's (the club), I shared my amusement with Doc (the doorman). His only response was, "He's still standing?!" He'd lived in the Quarter long enough to know how the local womenfolk tend to react to such incidents. When men are conditioned to react to such visual stimuli, it's no wonder that you're ripe for the taking if that's what the lady is seeking -- it's a no-win proposition, if ya ask me.

	Gender rules (5.00 / 1) (#37)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:46:15 PM PST

	I find that men and women live by different rules. This is where the stereotypes of "logical vs emotional" come in. I'm not going to try to quantify the rules; for one thing it's impossible to be completely accurate, and for another it's against some of the rules. Where do these rules come from? In part they're manifestations of our biological differences, but largely these rules are taught to us by our families and peers. People who tend to step outside the boundaries of their gender assigned roles get labeled and discouraged. How many fathers worry about their sons being effeminate? How many mothers disapprove of their tomboy daughters? It is possible for a woman to play by a man's rules and prosper, just as the reverse is also true. However, It's far more difficult for women not because they're not suited for it, but because they're taught NOT to. The goals and expectations for each gender are different, and that kind of programming is hard to overcome. A troll's true colors.

	Yeah, right (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 08:37:10 AM PST

	Where do these rules come from? In part they're manifestations of our biological differences, but largely these rules are taught to us by our families and peers. Oh please. Name one such rule that can safely be attributed to "biological differences".

	Casual fornication (none / 0) (#45)
	by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 09:31:52 AM PST

	A woman has for more at stake from fornication than a man (well, in this lifetime at least), bearing and raising a child is an enormous undertaking. Thus, from genetic propagation theory, women have the best chance of propagating their genes by delaying intercourse until they have found and secured a good, stable man who can provide for them and their children, while men can more safely pursue (again, in this temporal lifetime) a strategy of frequent, casual fornication. A. Rightmann

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.