General

Munchies
When you want to describe a group of people without painting broad strokes over the entire group, use the word SOME. Some means "a portion of a group that isn't indicative of the whole."

Munchies
When you want to describe a group of people without painting broad strokes over the entire group, use the word SOME. Some means "a portion of a group that isn't indicative of the whole."

Malvineous:
I'm not sure that "some" communicates what I want it to, because it's just an indeterminate number. For example, some people shower daily. Some people have walked on the moon. There's no indication of frequency or proportion. Is there no room to discuss major trends in human behavior?

Munchies:
Here we have OP compare his plight to that of gay people and continue to ignore multiple women calling him out of his misogyny. He demands explanations that have already been given or rejects them outright because he doesn't like them and accuses people of ad hominem attacks were there were none.

You hate to see it.

X_Larsson:
You have not mentioned ONE factual quote where I slander, denigrate, hate, ridicule, diminish etc. Do that, please show where I have done so.

I don't CARE at all if you or anyone on the forum likes me or not, but I have not expressed any of the above things about anyone. I do care about truth, though.
Your feelings are not evidence.

If my posts are full of discrimination and lies, it would be super easy for you to find examples. Noone of you have presented such quotes yet.

Munchies:
Here we have OP compare his plight to that of gay people and continue to ignore multiple women calling him out of his misogyny. He demands explanations that have already been given or rejects them outright because he doesn't like them and accuses people of ad hominem attacks were there were none.

You hate to see it.

X_Larsson:
You have not mentioned ONE factual quote where I slander, denigrate, hate, ridicule, diminish etc. Do that, please show where I have done so.

I don't CARE at all if you or anyone on the forum likes me or not, but I have not expressed any of the above things about anyone. I do care about truth, though.
Your feelings are not evidence.

If my posts are full of discrimination and lies, it would be super easy for you to find examples. Noone of you have presented such quotes yet.

Munchies:
Yes. It's called whipping out the graphs and charts.

You made a lot of claims about women. While I will not deny these claims are true for some women, are you sure they are as widespread as you assume them to be?

Keep in mind you have been explaining to women how women work. Are you really sure you want to hang your hat on that? Really and truly? This is after making statements about how women do not understand how men work.

The word "some" is your best and safest word choice. Words have denotations and connotations. You seem to understand the denotations (dictionary definitions) but struggle to understand the connotations (implied meaning).

Think again about the example I gave you. Think about how different the connotations of those words were and how they changed the sentence's meaning.

The same applies here.

Malvineous:
Ok, here are two articles that each cite multiple studies on what women find attractive in men.
businessinsider.com/science-backed-qualities-in-men-women-like-2016-6
confidencetoachieve.com.au/what-women-want-in-a-man-according-to-science/

I haven't been explaining to women how women work. I've been giving my thoughts on gendered differences in socialization/psychology, for both men and women who are reading the thread. It's not a private conversation. I know that women fully understand how they work. However, I don't think either gender fully understands how the other works, because each person is limited to their own perspective. Having conversations like this could be a way to reach some kind of understanding about each other.

I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hoped to discuss the ideas on their own merits instead of simply getting told my language is wrong. I asked in good faith how to express the SAME ideas about patterns better, instead I'm basically told not to express them in the first place. Those are the connotations of what you're telling me. Again, I'm not attached to being right about this, but I do care about being able to speak on the topic. It's true that it may not be as widespread as I think, but that's an opportunity to give me some examples that you think are more widespread, and we can discuss.

The example you gave me of 'most men beat their wives' would only bother me because it's untrue. However, if you were to phrase it the other way around, and say that 'most partner abuse is committed by men', then that wouldn't bother me because it is true. My ego isn't wrapped up in such things. (Unless it were used as justification to reach some wild conclusion like 'that's why you should never trust your boyfriend' ). Also, how is saying 'most women are attracted to multiple things in a partner beyond the physical' as bad as saying 'most men beat their wives'? If we look at the connotations, then what I said would paint women in a more flattering light than men, because it would imply they're less "shallow".

Munchies:
Yes. It's called whipping out the graphs and charts.

You made a lot of claims about women. While I will not deny these claims are true for some women, are you sure they are as widespread as you assume them to be?

Keep in mind you have been explaining to women how women work. Are you really sure you want to hang your hat on that? Really and truly? This is after making statements about how women do not understand how men work.

The word "some" is your best and safest word choice. Words have denotations and connotations. You seem to understand the denotations (dictionary definitions) but struggle to understand the connotations (implied meaning).

Think again about the example I gave you. Think about how different the connotations of those words were and how they changed the sentence's meaning.

The same applies here.

Malvineous:
Ok, here are two articles that each cite multiple studies on what women find attractive in men.
businessinsider.com/science-backed-qualities-in-men-women-like-2016-6
confidencetoachieve.com.au/what-women-want-in-a-man-according-to-science/

I haven't been explaining to women how women work. I've been giving my thoughts on gendered differences in socialization/psychology, for both men and women who are reading the thread. It's not a private conversation. I know that women fully understand how they work. However, I don't think either gender fully understands how the other works, because each person is limited to their own perspective. Having conversations like this could be a way to reach some kind of understanding about each other.

I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hoped to discuss the ideas on their own merits instead of simply getting told my language is wrong. I asked in good faith how to express the SAME ideas about patterns better, instead I'm basically told not to express them in the first place. Those are the connotations of what you're telling me. Again, I'm not attached to being right about this, but I do care about being able to speak on the topic. It's true that it may not be as widespread as I think, but that's an opportunity to give me some examples that you think are more widespread, and we can discuss.

The example you gave me of 'most men beat their wives' would only bother me because it's untrue. However, if you were to phrase it the other way around, and say that 'most partner abuse is committed by men', then that wouldn't bother me because it is true. My ego isn't wrapped up in such things. (Unless it were used as justification to reach some wild conclusion like 'that's why you should never trust your boyfriend' ). Also, how is saying 'most women are attracted to multiple things in a partner beyond the physical' as bad as saying 'most men beat their wives'? If we look at the connotations, then what I said would paint women in a more flattering light than men, because it would imply they're less "shallow".

Munchies:
Not even what was said. I said to use the word some instead of "most" or "typically" when talking about characteristics that are not indicative of the group. And no one said you couldn't express yourself. You were told the way you were doing it was hurtful and not expressing yourself as clearly as you'd like.

This is not the same thing.

Munchies:
Not even what was said. I said to use the word some instead of "most" or "typically" when talking about characteristics that are not indicative of the group. And no one said you couldn't express yourself. You were told the way you were doing it was hurtful and not expressing yourself as clearly as you'd like.

This is not the same thing.

Malvineous:
Yes, I do use the word "some" to mean a minority or undetermined number of examples that is not indicative of the group. The problem is, that's not the idea I want to express. That's a different idea. Perhaps it would soften the blow to add more waffle words like "I've noticed that it's common for" or "It seems like there's a frequent trend of"...
I promise you I'm not trying to be hurtful. I'm more than willing to change the phrasing I use, so long as it can still mean what I want it to mean.

X_Larsson:
Kind of a serious question...
In my daily life, I see virtually ZERO women I am attracted to, and it is primarily their looks/size/body type I am not appreciating, but often also their personality, morale or view on life.

However, occasionally I meet a woman with whom I share at least some intellectual and psycological common ground, and where things are fun and drama free.

Soooo.... If the first option is to NOT date at all (as in never finding a feedee of suitable age and personality), is it better to set upp some semi-platonic date with an otherwise suitable woman, even if she is not fat, feedee, foodie, or gainer?

I am not talking about some sort of fake sexual relationship (yuk), but about enjoying the romantic side of things, but with no assumption it will lead to sex.

Yeah, that was the odd scenario... Are there aspects of mental health, self preservation and sanity that can be so vital that they outweigh (I had to write it) the consequences around not being sexually compatible? At least not when entering into the dating phase?
Or is it even worse to actively setup a relation that is a fast track to some sort of "friend zone".

BustingButtons:
This was the original post that spawned this thesis of a thread.


Paragraph 1: Op is having issues finding attraction, with both physical, morale (I assume they mean "moral " and personality. Not my business but they've posted publicly it is our business so my opinion: invest time in getting to know people, spend more time off the internet. With no description of the morals or type of woman they want, OP is more vague than my gender identity two years ago.

Paragraph 2: Op wants drama free time with a woman they share psychological and and intellectual common ground with. They sound a bit self absorbed and yet I find no fault with this statement. We want to feel an equal.

Paragraph 3: This is where OP gets weird. They ask if they should have a semi-platonic date that is completely separated from their kink. What is OP asking? Semi-platonic?

Paragraph 4: They want a romantic relationship, they're lonely. No assumption of sex should be involved with their relationship, (tbh you shouldn't be assuming sex, it's not healthy and is probably why you've posted here).

Paragraph 5: OP is querying is it okay to this under some biological imperative to stay sane. Yet drops the incel bomb of "friend zone".

Honey you're assuming sex, you can't forgive that you want sex (it is okay to want sex). You're unhappy you can't find an equal yet you word it all in a way that you'll never find one.

Like I'm surprised this thread gained so much traction from an incels meandering. Can I use a woman to satisfy a biological need so I don't go mad? My brother in Christ, you've detached from your own humanity :/