SpudFiles

let's just say it had something to do with teaching adolescents and gender differences

My advice ? Take a gap year - try different jobs and think what you want to do in your life

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: See... that's how you avoid the friend zone. People want what they can't have

one bad part of it was shes XX while i was 19.

she'll be right, turning 16 in 8 days sure gonna be a sweet 16 for me lol

POLAND_SPUD wrote:

one bad part of it was shes 15 while I was 19

well here in poland it wouldn't be a problem - age of consent @ 15

Oooo i that's my kind of country

dam i sound like a pedo in all of them replys

Crna Legija wrote:dam i sound like a pedo in all of them replys

It's not like you were 45 and she was 12...

Oh and MrC, you know how you were saying that a woman's power in the bedroom and in society are two different things?

Behold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20308225

Behold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20308225

Yet you continue to pursue women of the Russian kind when so many were used by the KGB or similar to gain intel from foreign 'diplomats'

I don't see what the problem is though, whoever resigned shouldn't have had the affair in the first place. I assume a woman in the same position would have also resigned in the same circumstances. I assume the guy was blackmailed and didn't play a long or the woman was out to destroy him. Male agents have also seduced females (often the wife/lover of someone important) to gain leverage/intel. Never seen James Bond?

Or am I missing something?

MrCrowley wrote:Yet you continue to pursue women of the Russian kind when so many were used by the KGB or similar to gain intel from foreign 'diplomats'

The appeal of Eastern European women is that they do not have the undeserved sense of entitlement most Western women are raised with. Gender roles are clearly and unapologetically defined and everyone is refreshingly honest and frank without a hint of hypocrisy or double standards. It's a simpler world, and it makes me resent "our" society even more.

This says it all: http://www.happierabroad.com/ebook/Page52.htm

I don't see what the problem is though, whoever resigned shouldn't have had the affair in the first place. I assume a woman in the same position would have also resigned in the same circumstances. I assume the guy was blackmailed and didn't play a long or the woman was out to destroy him.

The point was that a woman without the use or threat of physcial violence was able to demolish the career of a respected and powerful man.

Male agents have also seduced females (often the wife/lover of someone important) to gain leverage/intel. Never seen James Bond?

hehe care to mention some examples that aren't works of fiction?



James Bond as it would work in real life, ironically also in the presence of Mr. Criag - flashing your tit won't save you.

care to mention some examples that aren't works of fiction?

It has popped up a few times in a book that I'm almost done reading by Oleg Gordievsky and Christopher Andrew called 'KGB: The Inside Story' (it is actually about the history of most of their intelligence services, the title was probably suggested by the publisher).

I can't remember specifics (the book seems to introduce at least 10 new names per page on average ) but I recall two examples where one agent was sleeping with the mistress of an important person and another where it was the person's wife. I think one of the examples may have been a Russian agent based in D.C. but there's so much information in the book it's hard to remember details.

Apparently, East German intelligence spied on West Germany by using male agents to seduce the secretaries of important people.

The point was that a woman without the use or threat of physcial violence was able to demolish the career of a respected and powerful man.

But the key points are:
1 - He was an important, public, figure.
2 - He had an affair

If it were a different country (somewhere more progressive than the U.S.), not an important person, or he didn't have an affair then he may still have his job. Also, a woman wouldn't usually be in a position to threaten a man with physical violence. Plenty of women can tell stories about abusive husbands but it's not as frequent the other way round. And as I said before, I can see a women resigning if the roles were reversed in those circumstances.

Blackmail can also be used successfully without the threat of physical violence. Had the person been caught drunk driving or smoking pot, male or female, someone out there could blackmail him.

a woman wouldn't usually be in a position to threaten a man with physical violence. Plenty of women can tell stories about abusive husbands but it's not as frequent the other way round.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... c-violence

Campaigners claim that men are often treated as "second-class victims" and that many police forces and councils do not take them seriously. "Male victims are almost invisible to the authorities such as the police, who rarely can be prevailed upon to take the man's side," said John Mays of Parity. "Their plight is largely overlooked by the media, in official reports and in government policy, for example in the provision of refuge places – 7,500 for females in England and Wales but only 60 for men."

The official figures underestimate the true number of male victims, Mays said. "Culturally it's difficult for men to bring these incidents to the attention of the authorities. Men are reluctant to say that they've been abused by women, because it's seen as unmanly and weak."

I can bleat on and on about how women aren't what you seem to think they are, but until you discover it for yourself it would be an exercise in futility

Some quotes I like:

It is important to remember that each year over 97% of all husbands do not resort to violence in their relationships. Considering the sheer amount of verbal abuse we withstand that statistic amazes me.

Men protect weak females. It's in their memes. Women do not protect weak males – they despise them. Women are not solicitous providers for their men. They don't have any idea what that role would be; historically, biologically, sociologically, memetically, they aren't equipped for it. And that is why they will never lead this, or any other society, until they can show that they are responsive to the genuine needs of their men. Right now, we're upholding their dignity while they squat peeing in our shoes.

And finally, this would be interesting:

The New Male Manifesto is easy to remember. It goes like this: LET THEM FIX THEIR OWN TOILETS!

Interesting article written by a woman: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... woman.html

True, I shouldn't really have added the bit about abusive husbands but the first part of that sentence still stands. I imagine in most of these domestic violence cases where men are the victims the violence is spontaneous (kicked in the nuts, plate thrown at head, punched, burnt/scalded), preventing the man from taking defensive action to avoid injury. To be threatened with physical violence, the man would have to be in a permanently disadvantaged physical state as, on average, men are stronger than women and should be more than capable of preventing physical abuse when they know its coming.

That line of reasoning relies heavily on what you said "The point was that a woman without the use or threat of physcial violence was able to demolish the career of a respected and powerful man." and really only applies in those specific circumstances. The way you phrased your sentence makes it sound like physical violence can be used or threatened to ruin a person's career but that women have the ability to do it through other means. My point was that only men, on average, would be in the position to use physical violence as a threat because a woman is disadvantaged physically and will lack the element of surprise that, I posit, accounts for many female vs. male domestic violence cases.

It's probably likely that there are more male vs. female blackmailing cases involving threat of physical violence than there are female vs. male blackmailing cases that threaten violence due to the superior strength of the average man over the average woman.

Basically, I'm arguing that this phrase "without the use or threat of physcial violence" is redundant

Men protect weak females. It's in their memes. Women do not protect weak males – they despise them. Women are not solicitous providers for their men. They don't have any idea what that role would be; historically, biologically, sociologically, memetically, they aren't equipped for it. And that is why they will never lead this, or any other society, until they can show that they are responsive to the genuine needs of their men. Right now, we're upholding their dignity while they squat peeing in our shoes.

But that's biological innateness, many primate species (humans included) exhibit male intrasexual selection. Female primates would be less likely to pass on their genes if they chose a weak male. Male primates also select female primates on certain characteristics too (group status, health, competition, reproductive history). Also, as I've already mentioned, men have the benefit of being able to have multiple mates without much risk of social stigmatization. I don't even know where to start with that, it's just conjecture. As I've already stated, women (not sure about other primate species) have often been found to be the ones who provided the most sustenance for their tribe/group by a decent amount. Meat was highly valuable to these people but it just wasn't as available or convenient as other sources of food that women were in charge of collecting. Furthermore, there's nothing to suggest women can't be providers. Being a provider for a man is a different story as there a cultural factors that can't be ignored. Traditionally, a man doesn't want to have a women provide for him due to social implications. Aside from that, there are plenty of examples where a women earns more than a man or is the only one employed in a relationship/family. Are you kidding? This is basically saying "women, please yours husbands or you wont be successful".

edit: you really gotta stop reading the tabloids. The crap I have seen written in them is beyond astounding. I know you can't read most articles in Google Scholar due to access restrictions, but there are plenty of studies that are open access. I found more than enough research to back up the claim about female vs. male domestic violence and I had the added benefit of not relying on a British tabloid or research conducted by a group that may purposefully or accidentally influence the statistics or conclusions through bias.

MrCrowley wrote:I imagine in most of these domestic violence cases where men are the victims the violence is spontaneous (kicked in the nuts, plate thrown at head, punched, burnt/scalded), preventing the man from taking defensive action to avoid injury.

Assumption, not fact.

To be threatened with physical violence, the man would have to be in a permanently disadvantaged physical state as, on average, men are stronger than women and should be more than capable of preventing physical abuse when they know its coming.

Again, assuming, particularly that physical capability equals actual capability.

Imagine you are arguing with your ( imaginary, for now ) girlfriend and she punches you in the face. Even though you are stronger than her, would you hit her back? And if you did and she then reported you to the authorities, who's side do you think they would be on? Even if you had suffered violence from here, wouldn't you be reluctant to retaliate because you have been raised not to strike women regardless of the circumstances, or fear the repercussions if you did?

Again, you probably have not had enough experiences to realise the implications of what you are defending.

The way you phrased your sentence makes it sound like physical violence can be used or threatened to ruin a person's career but that women have the ability to do it through other means. My point was that only men, on average, would be in the position to use physical violence as a threat because a woman is disadvantaged physically and will lack the element of surprise that, I posit, accounts for many female vs. male domestic violence cases.

The point I was trying to make was that a woman is not as weak socially as you were trying to imply in this discussion so far. In fact, it's probably due to female influence in society that his having an affair was grounds for resignation at all, if it was really run by a boy's club they would have bought him a beer congratulating him on the bit on the side and allowed him to continue with his job.

Also, physical strength has no bearing on who has the potential to be threatening. A 22 revolver in the hand of a 6 year old child will bring down a 200 lb boxer with ease.

It's probably likely that there are more male vs. female blackmailing cases involving threat of physical violence than there are female vs. male blackmailing cases that threaten violence due to the superior strength of the average man over the average woman.

That again is pure speculation.

Basically, I'm arguing that this phrase "without the use or threat of physcial violence" is redundant

No it isn't, because:

- you are arguing that men are more powerful than women in society
- you are saying that this is because men are stronger and therefore more dominant than women.

The point I'm trying to make is that in the society we live in, physical strength has no bearing on power (Bill Gates anyone?) and therefore your claim that women are weak and lack influence because of this is a non sequitur.

But that's biological innateness, many primate species (humans included) exhibit male intrasexual selection. Female primates would be less likely to pass on their genes if they chose a weak male. Male primates also select female primates on certain characteristics too (group status, health, competition, reproductive history). Also, as I've already mentioned, men have the benefit of being able to have multiple mates without much risk of social stigmatization.

So we accept this as biological innateness, but reject male dominance?

Traditionally, a man doesn't want to have a women provide for him due to social implications. Aside from that, there are plenty of examples where a women earns more than a man or is the only one employed in a relationship/family.

How many such cases exist as a percentage, and in the cases of the woman who earns more, how much of her salary goes towards mutual benefit vis a vis his? I have been in situations where a girlfriend had a considerably higher salary yet still expected me to purchase gifts, pay for meals, hotels etc.

Are you kidding? This is basically saying "women, please yours husbands or you wont be successful"

No, you got it wrong - What it is saying is that men are willing to run society taking women's rights/issues into consideration in order to create social order fair for all - unless women are capable of doing the same for men, they cannot be viable choices for leadership.

edit: you really gotta stop reading the tabloids. The crap I have seen written in them is beyond astounding.

Whenever I reference the Daily Mail, it's usually tongue in cheek

I found more than enough research to back up the claim about female vs. male domestic violence and I had the added benefit of not relying on a British tabloid or research conducted by a group that may purposefully or accidentally influence the statistics or conclusions through bias.

have a read through this: http://standyourground.com/forums/index ... pic=3414.0

I digress, we should schedule the resumtion of this discussion for spudfiles' 20th birthday

Now, I've missed a lot, let me break up your fun.

In my opinion, women are kind of handy, they sure as hell beat the palmer sisters, and they make a fine sammich. And all the problems men have with them isn't because women are at fault.

I see them as either a spoiled child, or a pup. They need to be lead, if they aren't, they act like fools. While I don't advocate physical or psychological abuse, they need to me led, and controlled to some extent.

Now regarding social status, it isn't women at fault, "men" put them up on a pedestal, and have you ever seen a spoiled puppy? It runs riot, acts like it's everyone's friend, then misbehaves. But everyone forgives it, because it's just a puppy. That's what women do.

So use your balls, be dominating, and you find yourself having fewer female problems.

Zeus wrote:So use your balls, be dominating, and you find yourself having fewer female problems.

That's the gist of what I've been trying to convey

You aren't being blunt enough Jack, though I want to pull you up on something.

If women are the critisers, then why are you an analytical chemist? Be glad I didn't call you an anal chemist, I've heard that joke a million times

And by the way, I was under the impression women in your part of the world were fairly good, they're surprisingly well behaved down here.

Zeus wrote: So use your balls, be dominating, and you find yourself having fewer female problems.

but don't go showing them you balls, you can get arrested for that

I don't mean literally use mate, turkey slaps are so 2006

Zeus wrote:You aren't being blunt enough Jack, though I want to pull you up on something.

If women are the critisers, then why are you an analytical chemist?

I actually shrugged off the reins of quality control a few years ago, these days I manage the laboratory, make sure all the machines are running (man's work, see? ) and take care of what we call "technical services", it's a sort of fire brigade R&D monitoring where if a process does not proceed according to plan, which is not a rare event, your job is to correct the problem or potentially lose tens of thousands of euros' worth of product.

I've met more than my fair share of Anal chemists, don't worry

And by the way, I was under the impression women in your part of the world were fairly good, they're surprisingly well behaved down here.

Not the local ones, the way I describe them to my Spanish colleagues is "tienen el coño dorado", where their sense of entitlement is far in excess of anything they have to offer in return both physically and intellectually. I almost married one three years ago, certainly dodged a bullet there.