-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
ITT: I interview girls about dating
- Thread starter Ash Obtained Kush
- Start date
- Status
attraction between girls and guys is a matter of "value"; girls will generally like guys with higher "value". (guys like girls with tits)
"bad boys" are usually guys with confidence, so they seem to have a higher value. however, it is possible to be nice and be confident so it's not really "good boy" vs "bad boy", it's "loser" vs "non-loser".
"bad boys" are usually guys with confidence, so they seem to have a higher value. however, it is possible to be nice and be confident so it's not really "good boy" vs "bad boy", it's "loser" vs "non-loser".
Smogon is a ideal place to do a project on dating and what women think.
i hate the "bad boy" vs "nice guy" comparison. the reason why girls tend to lean towards "bad boys" is because they appear confident. above all else, girls want to be protected and feel safe, it's in their nature. it's annoying hearing "nice guys" who complain about why girls are going after people other than them, when in reality they aren't making an effort with said girl, and as a result she moves on and chooses someone else.
having the "bad boy" reputation is a little ridiculous, people are perfectly capable of being confident yet nice(whatever that means) at the same time, you can't define people into an exclusive role.
edit @ surgo - yeah i was going to mention that too but forgot, glad you remembered at least
having the "bad boy" reputation is a little ridiculous, people are perfectly capable of being confident yet nice(whatever that means) at the same time, you can't define people into an exclusive role.
edit @ surgo - yeah i was going to mention that too but forgot, glad you remembered at least
Cereza
Tastes Like Candy
I wouldn't say bad boys per se, just guys who have the confidence to ask you out. If they don't they probably just want to be friends, I guess this is how the "friendzone" is created. I hate when guys say they have been frienzoned when they never asked the girl out, seriusly, we won't go around following you unless really, really interested.
About lying, I say both, females and males, are head to head.
About lying, I say both, females and males, are head to head.
I feel bad for you if you're doing this for a class, your questions rely on constructions of gender and sexuality that are silly and juvenile. If you peddle this shit at a university your professor will fail you. Anyone who understand research methods will fail you.
Find something less stupid to ask questions about.
Of course gender roles are sexist, by definition they are necessarily sexist. In practice they are also sexist. Gender roles are attributes and behaviors that society attributes to one gender and does not attribute to the other. This is basic tautology, in my opinion. If you accept my definition, or even my characterization of gender roles, than you cannot logically reject my conclusion that gender roles are necessarily sexist given the standard definition of sexism. Gender roles and sexism are indistinguishable.
As for who gets away with more lying? Are you kidding me? All this is really asking the me is am I as sexist as the person asking this question? You're asking me to attribute behavior with a negative connotation to one gender over another. Too bad, all people regardless of race, class, sex, religion, gender, sexuality, et al lie the same amount on average. I'm pretty good at manipulating people do to what I want, but I don't need to lie to get them to do it, manipulation is different than lying.
You can't make (unprejudiced) generalizations about the actions of specific identities as groups (ex: gender, class, sexuality, race), you can make statements about the actions of individuals.
Guess what? People will date people who ask them out. If a person doesn't ask a person out, they won't be able to go on a date with that person.
Find something less stupid to ask questions about.
Of course gender roles are sexist, by definition they are necessarily sexist. In practice they are also sexist. Gender roles are attributes and behaviors that society attributes to one gender and does not attribute to the other. This is basic tautology, in my opinion. If you accept my definition, or even my characterization of gender roles, than you cannot logically reject my conclusion that gender roles are necessarily sexist given the standard definition of sexism. Gender roles and sexism are indistinguishable.
As for who gets away with more lying? Are you kidding me? All this is really asking the me is am I as sexist as the person asking this question? You're asking me to attribute behavior with a negative connotation to one gender over another. Too bad, all people regardless of race, class, sex, religion, gender, sexuality, et al lie the same amount on average. I'm pretty good at manipulating people do to what I want, but I don't need to lie to get them to do it, manipulation is different than lying.
You can't make (unprejudiced) generalizations about the actions of specific identities as groups (ex: gender, class, sexuality, race), you can make statements about the actions of individuals.
Guess what? People will date people who ask them out. If a person doesn't ask a person out, they won't be able to go on a date with that person.
Okay, now to critique/answer your questions.
"Bad boy" means so many different things that this question is impossible to answer. Your question is completely unclear. If I was grading this, you'd already be looking at no better than a C.
So, yes. If I was teaching this class, right out the bat you'd have to have a really damn good presentation to get any better than a C. Your questions are meaningless and your methodology is terrible.
edit: I really like Myzozoa's response. I feel like most of what I wrote is just echoing that.
"Nice guy" is a phrase used to refer to a cowardly person who offers friendship and then is surprised and angry when the other person takes them up on it, feeling as if they were owed something more. Does that sound sexy to anyone? It doesn't to me.
"Bad boy" means so many different things that this question is impossible to answer. Your question is completely unclear. If I was grading this, you'd already be looking at no better than a C.
By definition. You might as well ask "2 + 2 = 4?"
In what context?
So, yes. If I was teaching this class, right out the bat you'd have to have a really damn good presentation to get any better than a C. Your questions are meaningless and your methodology is terrible.
edit: I really like Myzozoa's response. I feel like most of what I wrote is just echoing that.
THIS THIS THIS
Passivity gets you nowhere. In fact, these "nice guys" are also jerks because they have this inflated sense of entitlement...
Attraction is like music taste, you love a genre or two above anything else but she can find a few more "acceptable".
You can't do much about the first part (which actually should be good news since that means just because a women is unbelievably beautiful she must fall into some sort of depressing stereotype) but to be acceptable I think rather than self confidence we should focus on self acceptance. People can't love you if you cannot love yourself.
There are some things that can help you score a date/look/talking chance if you aren't the girl's favorite genre of men, such as dressing up nice, smelling good, fit, funny, etc. that will help you land in the acceptable genre but beyond that if she doesn't dig your actual personality your better off with someone else because either you or she isn't your type of music.
Being "made for each other" isn't a stupid cliche, but it's not "glove fitting the hands perfectly" either, you just find yourself naturally attracted to each other and naturally acting yourselves.
Edit: I believe in gender roles but not dryly separate or immune to cooperation. Women and Men are different biologically and otherwise but at the same time there is something called "different but equal". I don't expect women to serve in the SAS/Navy Seals anymore than I expect a man to fix me a sammich. Because that shit is just too creepy ;_;
You can't do much about the first part (which actually should be good news since that means just because a women is unbelievably beautiful she must fall into some sort of depressing stereotype) but to be acceptable I think rather than self confidence we should focus on self acceptance. People can't love you if you cannot love yourself.
There are some things that can help you score a date/look/talking chance if you aren't the girl's favorite genre of men, such as dressing up nice, smelling good, fit, funny, etc. that will help you land in the acceptable genre but beyond that if she doesn't dig your actual personality your better off with someone else because either you or she isn't your type of music.
Being "made for each other" isn't a stupid cliche, but it's not "glove fitting the hands perfectly" either, you just find yourself naturally attracted to each other and naturally acting yourselves.
Edit: I believe in gender roles but not dryly separate or immune to cooperation. Women and Men are different biologically and otherwise but at the same time there is something called "different but equal". I don't expect women to serve in the SAS/Navy Seals anymore than I expect a man to fix me a sammich. Because that shit is just too creepy ;_;
i hope you're joking
The part about the sandwich is probably a joke, but I think he was serious about not wanting women to serve on the front lines. It's silly to me: no one should serve on the front lines, there shouldn't be any lines to serve on. Biological determinism is the dying joke of pseudo-scientists, neo- Social Darwinists, and the Catholic Church. I find it likely that most women can fire a gun with equal precision as a man or can be trained to do so.
Male and female physiology is different, but unless they need to piss out a fire (10 points if you know who im referencing) I think women can do just about everything men can do.
Warning large box of theoretical babble:
I think that 'different, but equal' is a very poor message to send our daughters. Mostly because the way it is sent/will be sent often makes it seem as though women can't do the same things that men can. In Brown vs BOE, a key testimony came from a psychologist who demonstrated how a similar message 'separate, but equal" lead to insecurities and anxieties in children of color. Young females are discouraged from pursuing the same subjects/activities that male children are encouraged too. I think if for the next 200 years, you had developing children (male and female) engage in the same sport activities competing against each other in 'coed' teams or just 1 vs 1 competitions where both sexes participate in competition for the same trophies, it would eventually be clear that they are much closer to equal in athleticism and strength than we consider them now. My argument is that at their early development, girls are less encouraged than boys to participate in strenuous sports. Think ages 2-4. These ages don't seem that critical, but if young females are discouraged at these ages than they basically begin life behind (remember how we think that girls start out weaker because their girls? my theory shows how this illusion comes about). This early, small?, disadvantage adds up over the course of 5 or 6 years, so that by the time children are 9 or 10, it would seem males are much stronger than females. My argument is that social forces perpetuate male athletic advantage, not their biological nature.
Anyone else think of this song on reading the first question? Only me?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfeys7Jfnx8
Essentially the song's lesson is the guy that's the treats the girls with the most respect is liked. It's not whether a guy fits the sterotypic "good" or "bad" persona, but how much care is given.
Essentially the song's lesson is the guy that's the treats the girls with the most respect is liked. It's not whether a guy fits the sterotypic "good" or "bad" persona, but how much care is given.
Sorry guys, but when it comes to matters of extreme importance like serving sammiches they better be served by an attractive female wifey of mine. With bewbs. Lots and lots of bewbs ^_^ </joke>
OK I don't like when people misread my posts, there is a difference between serving on the front line and serving in an elite combat unit like the Navy Seals/SAS. Obviously a women can fight and should fight, but in matters of extreme physical endurance and overall physical power men are better. There is a reason why sports don't have mixed teams on the professional level and I don't see anyone calling sexism at the Olympics when men and women compete separately.
It has nothing to do with determinism or any of that crap, men or suited better for some jobs and women are suited better for others, that doesn't mean that the basic rights for each should be tampered with and at the same time that doesn't mean in some circumstances (maternity leave for example) they should get EXTRA rights as well.
Unless of course some people want to enact equality to the letter (ala 2081) we could all just pump ladies with male hormones and protein shakes so we can all be one big happy family. Obviously at children's age kids from different sexes should mix and play freely and be taught in the same manner but if the hormones start to kick in and differences start to appear we should teach both genders that it is OK and ease them into the transition (sex ed, the talk, seperate dressing rooms, etc.) instead of just letting them figure it out without any guidance.
Edit: Differences in race and differences in gender or not the same. The first is just a different paint job, the second actual has some physiological differences between the two genders. That doesn't mean different genders have different rights or should be locked out of something but at the same time they shouldn't be forced to do something that is better suited for one gender.
Edit2: There used to be a time where the only acceptable job for a women is to be a housewive and anything else is just a joke. That was a terrible time. But do we have to go from one extreme to another, ridicule any women who chooses to stay at home and take care of it instead of being occupied mainly with another career?
OK I don't like when people misread my posts, there is a difference between serving on the front line and serving in an elite combat unit like the Navy Seals/SAS. Obviously a women can fight and should fight, but in matters of extreme physical endurance and overall physical power men are better. There is a reason why sports don't have mixed teams on the professional level and I don't see anyone calling sexism at the Olympics when men and women compete separately.
It has nothing to do with determinism or any of that crap, men or suited better for some jobs and women are suited better for others, that doesn't mean that the basic rights for each should be tampered with and at the same time that doesn't mean in some circumstances (maternity leave for example) they should get EXTRA rights as well.
Unless of course some people want to enact equality to the letter (ala 2081) we could all just pump ladies with male hormones and protein shakes so we can all be one big happy family. Obviously at children's age kids from different sexes should mix and play freely and be taught in the same manner but if the hormones start to kick in and differences start to appear we should teach both genders that it is OK and ease them into the transition (sex ed, the talk, seperate dressing rooms, etc.) instead of just letting them figure it out without any guidance.
Edit: Differences in race and differences in gender or not the same. The first is just a different paint job, the second actual has some physiological differences between the two genders. That doesn't mean different genders have different rights or should be locked out of something but at the same time they shouldn't be forced to do something that is better suited for one gender.
Edit2: There used to be a time where the only acceptable job for a women is to be a housewive and anything else is just a joke. That was a terrible time. But do we have to go from one extreme to another, ridicule any women who chooses to stay at home and take care of it instead of being occupied mainly with another career?
lol protip: the edits aren't helping man
smh
smh
I see my awesome English skills are leaving you guys in a state of awe.
tldr: Men and women should have the same rights, they shouldn't be forced to do anything that is beyond their physical limits, gender roles do exist in RL in extreme and few cases and should remain that way, extreme and few. Also choosing to stay at home and taking care of the kids isn't demeaning to women, it is a job.
You spelled evolved wrong in your sig. I will edit this post when you fix it.
yeah, that's a wrap....
- Status