Equality?

[scratch]

Continued from here:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=135725

I realize that this is an old, dead thread, but this is my work.

The full thread is here:

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=138169

Two points:

1. Nothing I propose suggests a woman should be anything but receptive to the advances of a man in whom she's interested. My claim is merely that it is counterproductive for her to be aggressive beyond encouragingly accepting those advances. Is the consensus in this forum that both parties benefit when women approach, pursue and court men if they so desire?

2. When KarmaSutra disparaged my ideas, she seemed to do so on the grounds that this sort of strategy, when employed by women, was disadvantageous for men. I don't agree with that, as I believe that all confident, secure men would be pretty damn content if a woman did nothing proactive yet happily agreed to whatever meeting times and activities they suggested. More importantly, without additional negative implications, why should a strategy crafted for women be scorned solely based on the fact that it's disadvantageous to men? It's not for men, and if a man doesn't think a woman behaving to my specifications would be kind and fun, he might wish to ask himself why.

When I asked her what she felt was an appropriate tactic for women to adopt regarding dating and relationships, she devolved away from into what I imagine is groupspeak:

A woman must have matured in the four primary areas of her life (what I've termed the Four Karmic Pillars of Personal Ascendancy) Management, Respect, Initiative and Responsibility. Once these have been mastered she then can accept and appreciate what a man ,who has also blossomed and groomed these areas to his satisfaction, can contribute to her life. This will then culminate in a flourishing relationship of which both can reach the next paradigm.

Based on this exchange, I am curious to know if there is a belief here that, while men may engage in whatever lie-free machinations and strategies as long as the end goal is mutual romantic enjoyment, any strategy or forethought employed by women regarding how much and how fast to give of themselves is evil and unethical. That is, women aren't entitled to the sort of helpful tactics given to men here.

Kindly excuse the long sentences. The points here don't lend themselves to concision.

 

[scratch]

Bump.

 

[ketostix]

Your point isn't very clear but from what I can decipher what you're saying is that men aren't harmed by a female's games. You go on to give very mild examples of hard to get games a woman should play. From what I saw no one would object to those mild examples. But in the real world, hard to get games are a slippery slope and women use it for all sorts of purposes and to such extreme degrees that it does hurt men who allow themsleves to be subjected to them.

I'm not sure what all this has to do with you entitling your thread equality. But I'll give you my take. Women want to hold onto old fashioned, antiquated ideas if and only if they suit them. Old rules like taking a woman out, courting her, and proving your devotion no longer fit. Back then women had less money, little access to birth control, just less advantages that they have today in general. Women don't need every single advantage that can't be conjured up. That's not equality, it's inequality.

 

[Telos]

Is this a scientific abstract?

 

[scratch]

Your point isn't very clear but from what I can decipher what you're saying is that men aren't harmed by a female's games.

But in the real world, hard to get games are a slippery slope and women use it for all sorts of purposes and to such extreme degrees that it does hurt men who allow themsleves to be subjected to them.

I'll attempt to clarify. First, it's hypocritical to characterize women as pliant and submissive, then critcize them for not being proactive in the initial stages of interaction. I am not proposing mild examples, but rather the full compliment of actions (and inactions) women should take; the slippery slope argument applies here no more than in any other debate. I agree men are harmed by female games, but none of the ones I deliberately articulate.

Second, it's also hypocritical to propose that only men are allowed to manipulate, as if that's necessary to level the playing field. Yes, I agree men usually have more noble motives, but my game only appeals to women with equally noble motives.

Old rules like taking a woman out, courting her, and proving your devotion no longer fit. Back then women had less money, little access to birth control, just less advantages that they have today in general. Women don't need every single advantage that can't be conjured up. That's not equality, it's inequality.

I agree that general notions of inequality are antiquated, but there's still a great deal to be said for letting men be men and women be women. I believe that the tactic I propose is the ideal way to do that.

 

[penkitten]

dear scratch,
karma is a man, but in the above post you called him a she 3 times and a her once. i hope that was just a typo.

i believe that fellow women should be their own best judge on how freely, how fast or how much they choose to give themselves. i believe that no woman should give herself in attempt to hold the reins on a man, because that would be something evil and we see it happen everyday.

i liked what you said about noble motives.