What are your no-no's with dating?

Vela

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm calling bull****. First time I spoke about it was today. Which you responded to, and here we are. Care to find earlier posts on the thread where I raised it?



And just because your male friends behaves that way.... what? I don't get the relevance of the example, unless you're suggesting I do the same... and yet, you have no idea of my selection criteria.

I meet someone I find physically attractive, we engage in dating, and I find out about them. When exactly am I to know they're princesses, high maintenance or whatever way you want to describe them? Yup. during the dating experience.

And to be fair, I'm still waiting for you to show where I said that kind of attitude was a majority in my experience of dating/women. Because I didn't.

An outside observer POV on this: the vibe I get from your posts is that you generally go for very attractive (conventionally), slim women who are attracted to materialistic things. I haven't read back through your posts and I can't remember specifics of anything you've said or haven't said, but that's the impression I got. That's 100% your prerogative, of course. And as you said, you don't really know what they're like until you date. But I'd also say that if you date those kinds of women then you're going to encounter the whole money-grabbing thing in many of them. That's likely where irishrebe is coming from.

daedal

Face only pics, i want to see the rest of the package.

irishrebe

Vela wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm calling bull****. First time I spoke about it was today. Which you responded to, and here we are. Care to find earlier posts on the thread where I raised it?



And just because your male friends behaves that way.... what? I don't get the relevance of the example, unless you're suggesting I do the same... and yet, you have no idea of my selection criteria.

I meet someone I find physically attractive, we engage in dating, and I find out about them. When exactly am I to know they're princesses, high maintenance or whatever way you want to describe them? Yup. during the dating experience.

And to be fair, I'm still waiting for you to show where I said that kind of attitude was a majority in my experience of dating/women. Because I didn't.

An outside observer POV on this: the vibe I get from your posts is that you generally go for very attractive (conventionally), slim women who are attracted to materialistic things. I haven't read back through your posts and I can't remember specifics of anything you've said or haven't said, but that's the impression I got. That's 100% your prerogative, of course. And as you said, you don't really know what they're like until you date. But I'd also say that if you date those kinds of women then you're going to encounter the whole money-grabbing thing in many of them. That's likely where irishrebe is coming from.

Thank God someone gets it.

Wibbs

I'm running a bit behind the thread to be fair...

irishrebe wrote: »

I agree that men in general are less resilient. I don't think it has anything to do with who does the dumping.

I'd respectfully disagree IR. If someone, anyone has been the dumpee way more than being the dumper it's going to have an impact. For a start the notion of choice in the matter comes into it. Never mind the feeling of being always the dumpee. And like I said - and would bet the farm on - in the average going out with people since their teens narrative, the men are way more likely to have been the ones given the heave ho. Way back in the day when I was posting and modding the Personal Issues forum, that trend was very much in evidence. The regular thing was; "she broke up with me and I didn't see it coming" kinda thing(even though he bloody well should have). The reverse was rarer.

Now just to be clear, I am not saying such men got dumped for no good reason, nor am I booking a ticket on the blame train here. Fuck that, there's enough of that blame bullshite going on regarding men and women of late. It's merely my personal observation.

I think that instead of reflecting on their past choices and analysing what went wrong, and accepting their part in how things went wrong, a lot of men just jump to the kneejerk reaction of never trusting another woman ever again. The guy I'm seeing now hasn't had a relationship in six years because he is so scarred from the relationship with his ex, but instead of admitting to himself that he went for a particular type of woman (extremely attractive, could get any man and knows it, spoiled, mean), he has tarred all relationships with the same brush and thinks they will all result in emotional turmoil.

Yep I'd generally agree with that IR. Though I've known enough men who have taken responsibility for their screwups who still can't reset the mechanism.

I have been treated horrifically by some men in my time...much, much worse stuff than what he had with his ex. In one case, emotional abuse which escalated to physical abuse. And that's without even getting into sexual harassment and assault by men I didn't know. Yet I pick myself up and keep dating because I know there are good people out there and that a fulfilling and happy relationship is better than being single. A lot of men just don't seem to be able to bounce back.

And I'd defo agree with that.

Wibbs

anewme wrote: »

If you don’t treat the waiter/waitress with respect then not interested.

A bloody good yardstick that is ANM. How someone treats a member of the opposite sex(or the same sex if you're a gay chap or chapesse) who they're not romantically invested in is a very good judge of how they will treat you after the initial infatuation dies off.

mojesius

Thankfully I'm married and out of the dating scene now for nearly a decade at this stage.

A few things that were a no go but happened:
-talking about an ex ad nauseum
-offering head shop cheap drugs
-farting proudly

(All on first dates)

Vela

Vela wrote: »

An outside observer POV on this: the vibe I get from your posts is that you generally go for very attractive (conventionally), slim women who are attracted to materialistic things. I haven't read back through your posts and I can't remember specifics of anything you've said or haven't said, but that's the impression I got. That's 100% your prerogative, of course. And as you said, you don't really know what they're like until you date. But I'd also say that if you date those kinds of women then you're going to encounter the whole money-grabbing thing in many of them. That's likely where irishrebe is coming from.

Well, let me put it this way. I like attractive (slim) women who take care of themselves, are confident about their appearance, and usually have a professional career behind them. Generally speaking the women I have relationships with aren't concerned about my money because they have their own.

Now, you've admitted that you haven't read the whole thread, but I suspect you've read a lot of irishrebe's posts, and she has a tendency to make leaping assumptions about posters without any evidence to support them. In fact, a lot of this thread is the two of us circling around a variety of issues, and trying to pin each other down. She's made a number of assumptions about me, and when I asked her to quote where I said such... silence or a movement to another issue. The same thing happened with another female poster. So I can accept that you might assume certain things about me based on their posts, but perhaps missed where they failed to prove their statements.

I don't like high maintenance women although irishrebe repeatedly suggested that I did simply because I made the point that there are quite a few women out there who do value money/wealth in their relationships with men. There have been a few other arguments similar to that where a point was made, and then a rather strong leap of logic was assigned to me... based on her experience...

As for where irishrebe is coming from, why do I need you to tell me? She does write very well, and clearly states her opinions... I can see where she's coming from easily... I'd just like that she back up her claims a little more, especially when she's making herself an authority on dating from a male perspective. When she claims I have stated something but fails to provide a quote (after been asked) bothers me... but I guess it doesn't bother you much.

Grayditch

Not agreeing that Savage Garden are the greatest band in the world.

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote: »

Thank God someone gets it.

yup. I've been grateful to givyjoe too.

Vela

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, let me put it this way. I like attractive (slim) women who take care of themselves, are confident about their appearance, and usually have a professional career behind them. Generally speaking the women I have relationships with aren't concerned about my money because they have their own.

Now, you've admitted that you haven't read the whole thread, but I suspect you've read a lot of irishrebe's posts, and she has a tendency to make leaping assumptions about posters without any evidence to support them. In fact, a lot of this thread is the two of us circling around a variety of issues, and trying to pin each other down. She's made a number of assumptions about me, and when I asked her to quote where I said such... silence or a movement to another issue. The same thing happened with another female poster. So I can accept that you might assume certain things about me based on their posts, but perhaps missed where they failed to prove their statements.

I don't like high maintenance women although irishrebe repeatedly suggested that I did simply because I made the point that there are quite a few women out there who do value money/wealth in their relationships with men. There have been a few other arguments similar to that where a point was made, and then a rather strong leap of logic was assigned to me... based on her experience...

As for where irishrebe is coming from, why do I need you to tell me? She does write very well, and clearly states her opinions... I can see where she's coming from easily... I'd just like that she back up her claims a little more, especially when she's making herself an authority on dating from a male perspective. When she claims I have stated something but fails to provide a quote (after been asked) bothers me... but I guess it doesn't bother you much.

1. Totally cool that you go for ladies who have their **** together financially. You hadn't made that clear before which is why I got the impression I did.

2. I read the whole thread, that was the point. My point was that I couldn't specifically recall exactly what you said in each of your posts, but that I still got that overall impression. This was in response to you asking for proof of where you said certain things/to be quoted. It wasn't about one certain thing you said, it was about the overall impression you gave.

3. I saw both of you at each other and I didn't jump to conclusions about either of you. I simply saw something escalate and thought it would be useful to have an outside POV.

I wasn't attacking you at all. I saw the discussion get heated and simply offered an opinion.

Vela

Grayditch wrote: »

Not agreeing that Savage Garden are the greatest band in the world.

Ahhhh they were my FAVE band in school and I still listen to them:D Darren fcuked it up when he went solo:(

facehugger99

I would say the trait I most value when dating is discretion as I'm already married..

beefburrito

facehugger99 wrote: »

I would say the trait I most value when dating is discretion as I'm already married..

Send me a pm lol

Vela

Vela wrote: »

1. Totally cool that you go for ladies who have their **** together financially. You hadn't made that clear before which is why I got the impression I did.

I hadn't made that clear because we hadn't been talking about my personal dating habits until irishrebe raised it near the end of the evening. Instead, we had been talking about dating in general, and if you look back, I actually posted a link where I made my first contribution about women & money.

2. I read the whole thread, that was the point. My point was that I couldn't specifically recall exactly what you said in each of your posts, but that I still got that overall impression. This was in response to you asking for proof of where you said certain things/to be quoted. It wasn't about one certain thing you said, it was about the overall impression you gave.

Your own words:
I haven't read back through your posts and I can't remember specifics of anything you've said or haven't said

3. I saw both of you at each other and I didn't jump to conclusions about either of you. I simply saw something escalate and thought it would be useful to have an outside POV.

I wasn't attacking you at all. I saw the discussion get heated and simply offered an opinion.

We had a discussion, and TBH I wasn't considering how someone might perceive the whole thing to get an overall impression. Still, I don't have any problem with people having opinions... as long as they're willing to defend them.

And I never said that you were attacking me. I pointed out where you might have misunderstood or perhaps have missed some important aspects of the discussion, but ultimately you can assume anything you like. That's your choice.

Vela

Deleted User wrote: »

Your own words:
I haven't read back through your posts and I can't remember specifics of anything you've said or haven't said

.

That was the point of my post. I've already said so, twice. i.e. there wasn't anything specific you said that I could recall, it was the general impression I got from your overall posts.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I never said that you were attacking me. I pointed out where you might have misunderstood or perhaps have missed some important aspects of the discussion, but ultimately you can assume anything you like. That's your choice.

You got very defensive when I gave an objective POV, so I assumed that you felt that way. No worries so.

Vela

Vela wrote: »

That was the point of my post. I've already said so, twice. i.e. there wasn't anything specific you said that I could recall, it was the general impression I got from your overall posts.

So... you admitted twice that you hadn't read my posts, and didn't go back over the previous three pages to check your observations to be true. So, what's the problem?

You made an observation based on what then? A vague memory without dealing with anything specific. And you expected me to simply accept it and take you seriously? really? And no, I'm still not seeing this as an attack.

I'm just really bemused at your logic

You got very defensive when I gave an objective POV, so I assumed that you felt that way. No worries so.

How did I get 'very' defensive? And being objective would require you to actually check the posts and compare my posts with Irishrebe's. Which you've admitted not doing.

Vela

Deleted User wrote: »

So... you admitted twice that you hadn't read my posts, and didn't go back over the previous three pages to check your observations to be true. So, what's the problem?

You made an observation based on what then? A vague memory without dealing with anything specific. And you expected me to simply accept it and take you seriously? really? And no, I'm still not seeing this as an attack.

I'm just really bemused at your logic



How did I get 'very' defensive? And being objective would require you to actually check the posts and compare my posts with Irishrebe's. Which you've admitted not doing.

Ah jeez, I'm not sure how else to explain this to you.

The other poster said she got a certain impression from your posts. You asked for specific quotes. I responded to say I got the same impression from your posts overall and not from anything specific. I made it clear that I didn't read back over your posts in detail because that was my point. Of course I've read them, I've been following and posting in this thread.

If you don't get it now, I give up

Vela

Vela wrote: »

Ah jeez, I'm not sure how else to explain this to you.

Clear language and using logic. It's what most posters do.

Think of it from my angle. A poster shows up and tells you:

1) that they haven't read your posts, and are unwilling to read back over a few pages to verify their info.
2) they don't have any specific objections to what you've written, but
3) they, then, make an observation on the whole discussion from their pov. They support the poster you've been arguing with. Grand. No worries.

Are you really going to simply accept what they say without checking where they're coming from? Why would you accept this posters pov?

The other poster said she got a certain impression from your posts. You asked for specific quotes. I responded to say I got the same impression from your posts overall and not from anything specific.

I made it clear that I didn't read back over your posts in detail because that was my point. Of course I've read them, I've been following and posting in this thread.

Your point was that you couldn't (and she couldn't) find any posts of mine to support her impression? Impressions are cheap, and easily passed around.

The other poster made "an impression" based on something I never actually said, and when called on it, continued with the same impression, without producing anything to support it.

In many ways, a lot like you're doing now... since you're basing your impression, on her impression, and not providing any justification for that impression.

If you don't get it now, I give up

Oh, I get it. I just don't agree with you.

As I said previously... if you post something, expect to defend it. You have the right to your opinion, but I also have the right to tear you to pieces for making unfounded observations.... especially when you, yourself, provide me with the ammo to do so. i.e. telling me that you hadn't read my posts was very suggestive to your attitude in posting your observation.

Vela

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I get it.

You really, really don't.:pac: It's like we're speaking different languages here.

I'll leave you to it.

irishrebe

Deleted User wrote: »

Vela wrote: »

An outside observer POV on this: the vibe I get from your posts is that you generally go for very attractive (conventionally), slim women who are attracted to materialistic things. I haven't read back through your posts and I can't remember specifics of anything you've said or haven't said, but that's the impression I got. That's 100% your prerogative, of course. And as you said, you don't really know what they're like until you date. But I'd also say that if you date those kinds of women then you're going to encounter the whole money-grabbing thing in many of them. That's likely where irishrebe is coming from.

Well, let me put it this way. I like attractive (slim) women who take care of themselves, are confident about their appearance, and usually have a professional career behind them. Generally speaking the women I have relationships with aren't concerned about my money because they have their own.

Now, you've admitted that you haven't read the whole thread, but I suspect you've read a lot of irishrebe's posts, and she has a tendency to make leaping assumptions about posters without any evidence to support them. In fact, a lot of this thread is the two of us circling around a variety of issues, and trying to pin each other down. She's made a number of assumptions about me, and when I asked her to quote where I said such... silence or a movement to another issue. The same thing happened with another female poster. So I can accept that you might assume certain things about me based on their posts, but perhaps missed where they failed to prove their statements.

I don't like high maintenance women although irishrebe repeatedly suggested that I did simply because I made the point that there are quite a few women out there who do value money/wealth in their relationships with men. There have been a few other arguments similar to that where a point was made, and then a rather strong leap of logic was assigned to me... based on her experience...

As for where irishrebe is coming from, why do I need you to tell me? She does write very well, and clearly states her opinions... I can see where she's coming from easily... I'd just like that she back up her claims a little more, especially when she's making herself an authority on dating from a male perspective. When she claims I have stated something but fails to provide a quote (after been asked) bothers me... but I guess it doesn't bother you much.

What Vela said is what I was trying to say. I never said you definitely went for these high maintenance princess types, because I have no idea, but that was the impression I got from reading your posts. She just worded it better than I did.

Tell me how

Was just reminded of a strong dating no-go. Pedants.

You those that just can't let something go? They go on and on and on about it. Dominating the conversation even though they know most people have no interest in it. Yeah. I don't like that.

irishrebe

Tell me how wrote: »

Was just reminded of a strong dating no-go. Pedants.

You those that just can't let something go? They go on and on and on about it. Dominating the conversation even though they know most people have no interest in it. Yeah. I don't like that.

You know what I really hate in people? B1tchiness and passive aggression.

Oh this thread

All of the people have their own preferences when it comes to the opposite/same sex and dating. Some like slim women and slim men. Others like well built men and curvy women. Red hair and freckles? No problem. There's plenty out there for you. Successful business and pots of money? Great. You get a look in too.

Vela

I was trying to diffuse an argument and got into one of my own

Lesson of the day: I shall never be a diplomat.

To get back in topic, another dating no-no I have is game playing. You know lads who do the whole "I'll reply to her in a few hours/days" thing because they think it'll hold a woman's interest? Fair enough if they're actually busy, but not when it's a purposely planned "tactic". That just pisses me off and I walk on by immediately.

irishrebe

Vela wrote: »

I was trying to diffuse an argument and got into one of my own

Lesson of the day: I shall never be a diplomat.

To get back in topic, another dating no-no I have is game playing. You know lads who do the whole "I'll reply to her in a few hours/days" thing because they think it'll hold a woman's interest? Fair enough if they're actually busy, but not when it's a purposely planned "tactic". That just pisses me off and I walk on by immediately.

Do people really wait days? I was reading on another forum about a lady who was dating a guy who regularly took 2+ days to reply to texts. I wouldn't be putting up with that at all. How much effort is it to write a quick text?

dublinbuster

"woman was put on earth for mans benefit and pleasure"
it depends how she reacts to this statement, as to how i will proceed

Triceratops Ballet

dublinbuster wrote:

"woman was put on earth for mans benefit and pleasure" it depends how she reacts to this statement, as to how i will proceed

Let me guess rolling round on the floor with laughter isn't the response you're looking for.

dublinbuster

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Let me guess rolling round on the floor with laughter isn't the response you're looking for.

if you get a woman laughing your well on your way to success, would you not agree?

dublinbuster

dublinbuster wrote: »

if you get a woman laughing your well on your way to success, would you not agree?

I suspect you're more likely to be ignored online, and avoided otherwise. :rolleyes:

dublinbuster

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect you're more likely to be ignored online, and avoided otherwise. :rolleyes:

women dont know what they want, they are a heard animal, they will go with whatever is the consensus, at this moment in time it be a career girl, work and forget about raising a family, they have been tough to look down upon those women who are stay at home mums.
the dirty little well know secret is this has them miserable, a few bacardi and cokes and melancholy sets in, work out side of homemaking is not bringing joy to women like they where told it would, feminism of the last 50 years cant change a million years of evolution which has moulded woman in to what they are.
So if you want to get the girl be a Man and let her be a Woman,the traditional way, dont pussy foot about with this feminism BS, its only a flash in the pan on the human timescale.
So that little opener will tell you plenty about the woman by her reaction, if she gets pissy and feminist, shes not worth the effort, walk away leave her to be miserable, if she reacts by laughing and saying something funny back, proceed.

Tell me how

^^^^
Lol. Decided to come to Boards for the Bank Holiday weekend did you?

irishrebe

dublinbuster wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect you're more likely to be ignored online, and avoided otherwise. :rolleyes:

women dont know what they want, they are a heard animal, they will go with whatever is the consensus, at this moment in time it be a career girl, work and forget about raising a family, they have been tough to look down upon those women who are stay at home mums.
the dirty little well know secret is this has them miserable, a few bacardi and cokes and melancholy sets in, work out side of homemaking is not bringing joy to women like they where told it would, feminism of the last 50 years cant change a million years of evolution which has moulded woman in to what they are.
So if you want to get the girl be a Man and let her be a Woman,the traditional way, dont pussy foot about with this feminism BS, its only a flash in the pan on the human timescale.
So that little opener will tell you plenty about the woman by her reaction, if she gets  pissy and feminist, shes not worth the effort, walk away leave her to be miserable, if she reacts by laughing and saying something funny back, proceed.

NOW will the men on here pretending that this attitude isn't a 'thing' actually admit that it is?

And it's 'herd' animal, you illiterate oaf.

anewme

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^
Lol. Decided to come to Boards for the Bank Holiday weekend did you?

Came in a tardis on day release from the 50's.

Tell me how

irishrebe wrote:

NOW will the men on here pretending that this attitude isn't a 'thing' actually admit that it is?

1 example does not imply common behavior. Of course there are people who think they above is kinda OK but they are as common as women who think they shouldn't have to work because the man will provide for them.

Both types are extremists, both exist, both are statistically irrelevant in terms of indicating common behavior.

The account was just formed today. It's probably chore sex guy with a bit of a tweak on his normal approach.

irishrebe

Tell me how wrote: »

irishrebe wrote:

NOW will the men on here pretending that this attitude isn't a 'thing' actually admit that it is?

1 example does not imply common behavior. Of course there are people who think they above is kinda OK but they are as common as women who think they shouldn't have to work because the man will provide for them.

Both types are extremists, both exist, both are statistically irrelevant in terms of indicating common behavior.

The account was just formed today. It's probably chore sex guy with a bit of a tweak on his normal approach.

It is common though. These people are everywhere. As women make more and more noise about their rights and issues, this type of brain dead simpleton comes out of the woodwork.

anewme

irishrebe wrote: »

It is common though. These people are everywhere. As women make more and more noise about their rights and issues, this type of brain dead simpleton comes out of the woodwork.

I have to say I don't know any people like that, men or women.

Then again, I'm a career woman. To be a career woman or man you have to be able to spell.

Unless you are a career criminal. Then you get a spell inside.

Tell me how

irishrebe wrote:

It is common though. These people are everywhere. As women make more and more noise about their rights and issues, this type of brain dead simpleton comes out of the woodwork.

No. It isn't.

This type of poster is so rare, I'm betting the account will be banned or closed within 24hrs. If people holding these views were rational, that wouldn't happen.

If 1000 men thought this way out of 1M in Ireland. It still would mean 99.9% didn't hold this view and so should reasonably be discounted.

Once again, there are extremists within both genders. (Let's just stick to 2 genders for now).


P.S. I'm going out now so won't be able to keep arguing this back and forth eternally. That and I don't want to.

givyjoe

irishrebe wrote: »

NOW will the men on here pretending that this attitude isn't a 'thing' actually admit that it is?

And it's 'herd' animal, you illiterate oaf.

Jesus, it's obviously a piss take and even in the unlikely event it isn't.. one ridiculous post is hardly indicative of anything.

Honestly, you'd swallow a horse.

dublinbuster

irishrebe wrote: »

NOW will the men on here pretending that this attitude isn't a 'thing' actually admit that it is?

And it's 'herd' animal, you illiterate oaf.

when your a handsome bastard such as myself, who has no problems with the ladies, tells the truth, the bitter hard working and miserable feminist and the white knight hangers on , come rushing to say it not true.
Its not a "attitude", it is reality.
Women are miserable working to climb the career ladder, they keep putting of having a family, before you know it they are in their late 30's, miserable and childless, every time they see family and friends who settled down and started a family, they die a little bit more inside.
As a man once you accept this reality, you can have your pick of hard working career women, as i have stated women go with the consensus, so you as the man and potential partner must lead her back onto the traditional path, in other words, man work, woman stay home raise family, teasing and joking along these lines will draw out the natural state of a woman, the feminism will be dropped as her true nature kicks in.
She has now changed groups, from the bitter miserable feminists, to happy traditional woman, now this is when the man must be vigilant, her old group of miserable female feminist friends will try to drag her back.
Women dont do guilt, as to be guilty means you are responsible. what affects women is being judged, nothing worse for a woman than to be judged by other women, her miserable feminist friends will be out in force trying to derail her happiness, so you as the man reassure her and remind her at every opportunity about how happy she is now that she is not a bitter feminist, encourage her to hang out with her friends who are traditional women.
Watch as she blooms into a happy vivacious woman, free from the feminist lie.

irishrebe

Tell me how wrote: »

irishrebe wrote:

It is common though. These people are everywhere. As women make more and more noise about their rights and issues, this type of brain dead simpleton comes out of the woodwork.

No. It isn't.

This type of poster is so rare, I'm betting the account will be banned or closed within 24hrs. If people holding these views were rational, that wouldn't happen.

If 1000 men thought this way out of 1M in Ireland. It still would mean 99.9% didn't hold this view and so should reasonably be discounted.

Once again, there are extremists within both genders. (Let's just stick to 2 genders for now).


P.S. I'm going out now so won't be able to keep arguing this back and forth eternally. That and I don't want to.

Maybe not this obviously extreme and trollish, no, but I have encountered many, many people with similar views. The tutor of a course I took in Dublin a year or two ago said that women were deluded if they truly believed they didn't need a husband and children, as if this was a perfectly normal and common viewpoint. Several of us complained, nothing was done. If you refuse to believe that, I'm not going to argue back and forth.

Triceratops Ballet

dublinbuster wrote:

when your a handsome bastard such as myself, who has no problems with the ladies, tells the truth, the bitter hard working and miserable feminist and the white knight hangers on , come rushing to say it not true. Its not a "attitude", it is reality. Women are miserable working to climb the career ladder, they keep putting of having a family, before you know it they are in their late 30's, miserable and childless, every time they see family and friends who settled down and started a family, they die a little bit more inside. As a man once you accept this reality, you can have your pick of hard working career women, as i have stated women go with the consensus, so you as the man and potential partner must lead her back onto the traditional path, in other words, man work, woman stay home raise family, teasing and joking along these lines will draw out the natural state of a woman, the feminism will be dropped as her true nature kicks in. She has now changed groups, from the bitter miserable feminists, to happy traditional woman, now this is when the man must be vigilant, her old group of miserable female feminist friends will try to drag her back. Women dont do guilt, as to be guilty means you are responsible. what affects women is being judged, nothing worse for a woman than to be judged by other women, her miserable feminist friends will be out in force trying to derail her happiness, so you as the man reassure her and remind her at every opportunity about how happy she is now that she is not a bitter feminist, encourage her to hang out with her friends who are traditional women. Watch as she blooms into a happy vivacious woman, free from the feminist lie.

Oh shut up! go out and enjoy the sunshine. You can daydream in the sun about a scenario where any of that makes sense!

dublinbuster

irishrebe wrote: »

It is common though. These people are everywhere. As women make more and more noise about their rights and issues, this type of brain dead simpleton comes out of the woodwork.

woman has never been more miserable that she is now, working hard to have a career, put of having a family, they are going around in a daze, they know what is wrong with them, but dont want to break free from the herd, as that would lead to them being judged, and women hate to be judged, it put the fear of God into them.
So its up to men to split the woman from the herd and then lead her on the path to happiness, the traditional path.
The man then is the one passing judgement on her, reassure her that she is doing the right thing, wont take much as nature will kick in.
The mans judgement and her nature will be much stronger than the judgement of her miserable feminist friends.

givyjoe

irishrebe wrote: »

Maybe not this obviously extreme and trollish, no, but I have encountered many, many people with similar views. The tutor of a course I took in Dublin a year or two ago said that women were deluded if they truly believed they didn't need a husband and children, as if this was a perfectly normal and common viewpoint. Several of us complained, nothing was done. If you refuse to believe that, I'm not going to argue back and forth.

One poster and one tutor... I mean if that's not statistically significant, what is!

irishrebe

givyjoe wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Maybe not this obviously extreme and trollish, no, but I have encountered many, many people with similar views. The tutor of a course I took in Dublin a year or two ago said that women were deluded if they truly believed they didn't need a husband and children, as if this was a perfectly normal and common viewpoint. Several of us complained, nothing was done. If you refuse to believe that, I'm not going to argue back and forth.

One poster and one tutor... I mean if that's not statistically significant, what is!

I've already said I hear it often. I gave the example of a tutor because this is someone in a position of responsibility, who was happy to stand up and say it in front of 25 people. Not just an idiot down the pub.

dublinbuster

Tell me how wrote: »

No. It isn't.

This type of poster is so rare, I'm betting the account will be banned or closed within 24hrs. If people holding these views were rational, that wouldn't happen.

I

cant refute anything i posted so ban?
if i am wrong it should be easy to beat me in a debate, should it not?
But you want a ban, that tells a lot

A Pint of Goo

She is a feminist or atheist. Experience has taught me that women into these ideologies are insufferable.

irishrebe

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

She is a feminist or atheist. Experience has taught me that women into these ideologies are insufferable.

Great, another one.

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote: »

It is common though. These people are everywhere. As women make more and more noise about their rights and issues, this type of brain dead simpleton comes out of the woodwork.

yup. These kinds of muppets did come out of the woodwork. 30-40 years ago when first wave feminism took off, and thankfully, his kind of attitude is mostly disappearing (it's highly doubtful it will ever completely disappear). The idea that women today are being treated worse than those before is rather silly (I'm using silly rather than use a more insulting word)

There are fools everywhere.. You just don't judge the whole human race, or a gender based on the fools.

irishrebe wrote: »

Maybe not this obviously extreme and trollish, no, but I have encountered many, many people with similar views.<Snip>.

You have encountered many types of people with <insert negative view> and have an example from friends/colleagues to support every point you wish to make. Yup, I know you live in the real world and not in a bunker, but this line of yours has become somewhat repetitive.

A Pint of Goo

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

She is a feminist or atheist. Experience has taught me that women into these ideologies are insufferable.

I'm atheist. Go trawl through my posts for a hint of insufferability. Dare you

dublinbuster

dublinbuster wrote: »

woman has never been more miserable that she is now,

Ahh yes because a woman living the life of serfdom a thousand years ago would have been so much happier, than women today.

Your posts lack clarity and seek to stir emotions. That's why we all suspect you won't still be with us later.

And to be clear, I'm one of those male posters who regularly discuss against feminist ideas, and I think you're being a muppet.