Something I have noticed

[Prophett]

Mortukai, you appear to be quite the moron. Science is very important and should be taken seriously but it isn't the supreme judge that so many of us in the western world make it out to be. And sorry, but if there was no common sense there would be no scienctific experiments to begin with. So common sense is a lot more important than you'r e letting yourself believe. Moreover, it's semantically invalid to label it my common sense because as it follows common sense is something supposedly intrinsic to everyone, although with you're ignorant views you're helping to disprove that.

Yes, there are discernable differences among the various racial groups and it's this variety that does add spice to life. But it's these differences that also help to perpeutuate, with the help of people who care to read more into these differences than they should, prejudicial inspired racial stereotypes that are so prevalent in our culture.

"It has been proved, however, in recent years, that there is no significant genetic differences between the races. In fact, ' the more we learn about humankind’s genetic differences… the more we see that they have almost nothing to do with what we call race '(Begley 1995:44). Further, the biological and physical differences cited above are not as clear cut as it may seem. The large lips and nose of "black" Africans are not generic to all African nations (e.g. north African blacks do not exhibit it), and it is a common feature of Eskimos and South American Indians. The slit eyes of the Asians are also common in South American Indians and San-Bushmen. Thus, these, too, are not clear race markers. Language is also obviously not a clear indicator (the use of Afrikaans as a common language in South Africa, especially by the Coloured community is a good example)" (Racism).


Also, "68% of all human genes are identical between all humans, and have no polymorphic variation whatsoever. Thus, to whatever degree any two human individuals (let alone groups of persons) differ from one another, these differences are, by definition, limited to the approximately one-third of genes where difference is even theoretically possible.

When this 32% of genes that could contain "differences" have been studied in-depth (Nei and Roychoudhury 1982), it is found that the net codon differences between human "racial" groups are significantly smaller than the differences between two randomly selected genomes from within a particular group. In other words, if whites and blacks are subspecies, and inherently different, this would mean that there would have to be thousands of subspecies within the "white" group, and "black" group as well, since the in-group differences are so much larger than the inter-group differences.

In fact, 96.8% of the genetic code between blacks and whites is shared, with only a maximum of 0.032 of the genes varying between any white or black person. The variation between whites and Asians is 0.019 (98.1% similarity), and the difference between blacks and Asians is 0.047 (95.3% similarity). These differences are far too small to indicate subspeciation, as such phenomenon would typically be characterized by variation many times greater than the above numbers. There are no subspecies of a given phylum with this high a degree of genetic overlap, anywhere in nature " (Wise ).

Now you're claim about blacks havign more free testosterone may have some validity(although I have to look more into it) but right off the bat it neglects several external factors that have a significant effect on testosterone levels: diet, exercise and emotional state. (Wise).

Relevant as well, is the fact that the above external factors are also cultural components that can be viewed in a black culture that has an affinity towards weightlifting and sports (e.g. basketball, football, baseball) which are undoubtedly testosterone enhancing activities.

All in all, I am not moved by you're view, but that's just what it is, a view, and you're perfectly entitled to it as I am mine.

Sincerly,

Prophett (Tehuti)







My Works Cited

1. Racism. 09 Apr. 2005
<http://www.youth.co.za/papers/racism.htm>.

2. Wise, Tim. RaceandHistory.com. 9 Apr. 2005
<http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm>.

 

[Prophett]

Mortukai, you appear to be quite the moron. Science is very important and should be taken seriously but it isn't the supreme judge that so many of us in the western world make it out to be. And sorry, but if there was no common sense there would be no scienctific experiments to begin with. So common sense is a lot more important than you're letting yourself believe. Moreover, it's semantically invalid to label it my common sense because as it follows common sense is something supposedly intrinsic to everyone, although with you're ignorant views you're helping to disprove that.

Yes, there are discernable differences among the various racial groups and it's this variety that does add spice to life. But it's these differences that also help to perpeutuate, with the help of people who care to read more into these differences than they should, prejudicial inspired racial stereotypes that are so prevalent in our culture.

"It has been proved, however, in recent years, that there is no significant genetic differences between the races. In fact, ' the more we learn about humankind’s genetic differences… the more we see that they have almost nothing to do with what we call race '(Begley 1995:44). Further, the biological and physical differences cited above are not as clear cut as it may seem. The large lips and nose of "black" Africans are not generic to all African nations (e.g. north African blacks do not exhibit it), and it is a common feature of Eskimos and South American Indians. The slit eyes of the Asians are also common in South American Indians and San-Bushmen. Thus, these, too, are not clear race markers. Language is also obviously not a clear indicator (the use of Afrikaans as a common language in South Africa, especially by the Coloured community is a good example)" (Racism).


Also, "68% of all human genes are identical between all humans, and have no polymorphic variation whatsoever. Thus, to whatever degree any two human individuals (let alone groups of persons) differ from one another, these differences are, by definition, limited to the approximately one-third of genes where difference is even theoretically possible.

When this 32% of genes that could contain "differences" have been studied in-depth (Nei and Roychoudhury 1982), it is found that the net codon differences between human "racial" groups are significantly smaller than the differences between two randomly selected genomes from within a particular group. In other words, if whites and blacks are subspecies, and inherently different, this would mean that there would have to be thousands of subspecies within the "white" group, and "black" group as well, since the in-group differences are so much larger than the inter-group differences.

In fact, 96.8% of the genetic code between blacks and whites is shared, with only a maximum of 0.032 of the genes varying between any white or black person. The variation between whites and Asians is 0.019 (98.1% similarity), and the difference between blacks and Asians is 0.047 (95.3% similarity). These differences are far too small to indicate subspeciation, as such phenomenon would typically be characterized by variation many times greater than the above numbers. There are no subspecies of a given phylum with this high a degree of genetic overlap, anywhere in nature " (Wise ).

Now you're claim about blacks havign more free testosterone may have some validity (although I have to look more into it) but right off the bat it neglects several external factors that have a significant effect on testosterone levels: diet, exercise and emotional state. (Wise).

Relevant as well, is the fact that the above external factors are also cultural components that can be viewed in a black culture that has an affinity towards weightlifting and sports (e.g. basketball, football, baseball) which are undoubtedly testosterone enhancing activities.

All in all, I am not moved by you're view, but that's just what it is, a view, and you're perfectly entitled to it as I am mine.

Sincerly,

Prophett (Tehuti)




My Works Cited

1. Racism. 09 Apr. 2005
<http://www.youth.co.za/papers/racism.htm>.

2. Wise, Tim. RaceandHistory.com. 9 Apr. 2005
<http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm>.

 

[Prophett]

sorry, double post !

 

[PRMoon]

I'm part black and part native american. When I was younger I didn't generally get accepted by anyone one. People use to think I was hawaiian (except the hawaiians) or portarican (except the portaricans).

I've pretty much givin up on racial differences in people. There's only 2% genetic differential in the entire human race (look it up it's true) ie we're all pretty much all the same (basic body make up). I'd much rather focus on the individual humans themsleves then whatever advantage or disadvange that we all get from that 2% difference.

 

[comote]

Actually I think the genetic difference between the races is much less than 2%. If I remember correctly our genetic structure and that of chimps is 99% the same.

since people are reference crazy today
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm

 

[PRMoon]

Originally posted by comote
Actually I think the genetic difference between the races is much less than 2%. If I remember correctly our genetic structure and that of chimps is 99% the same.

since people are reference crazy today
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm

You know I was thinking something like that, I just got my facts mixed up. It's actually less the 1/10th of a precent difference (took my own advice and double checked). My point remains though, why would you even care about less then a 1% difference in the spectrum of however many billion people are on this planet? Focus on what makes them who they are upstairs rather then what they look like or what nature has given them in the way of small differences.

 

[Mortukai]

Mortukai, you appear to be quite the moron. Science is very important and should be taken seriously but it isn't the supreme judge that so many of us in the western world make it out to be. And sorry, but if there was no common sense there would be no scienctific experiments to begin with. So common sense is a lot more important than you'r e letting yourself believe. Moreover, it's semantically invalid to label it my common sense because as it follows common sense is something supposedly intrinsic to everyone, although with you're ignorant views you're helping to disprove that.

Thank you for the insult. Appreciated. Also, I really like your harping about how great common sense is. By that logic (whoops sorry if I'm using an evil concept like "logic", but fvck you), the world is flat, because for millions of years it was "common sense" that the world was flat. The world must also be the center of the universe.

The fact is, "common sense" is not intrinsically known to everyone, nor even the majority of everyone. "Common sense" is dependant upon culture and fluctuates over time. There are many more hindus than christians, does that mean that it is common sense that hinduism is true? Is it common sense that cows are sacred? To the germans in WW2, it was common sense that blacks, gays, and jews were all inferior. And now you're telling me that it's "common sense" that all races are genetically identical for all intents and purposes. Give me a break. Your fear of appearing prejudiced or having anything to do with the evil of racism is dangerously clouding your judgement of objective reality.

My point is that you can shut the fvck up right now about "common sense". Especially using it to bash science, which is undoubtedly the single most accurate and reliable way of ascertaining objective reality. Read into Carl Popper's answer to the Problem of Induction to see why. Nothing in the history of humanity has sparked more advancement in human knowledge and potential than the field of science. If you don't agree then don't reply to me because you are too pigheaded to see what's right in front of your face (a computer monitor being illuminated by an electron gun being fed images by a processor running on principles of quantum mechanics, all happening faster than your brain can process the colours).

Yes, there are discernable differences among the various racial groups and it's this variety that does add spice to life. But it's these differences that also help to perpeutuate, with the help of people who care to read more into these differences than they should, prejudicial inspired racial stereotypes that are so prevalent in our culture.

So your answer is to deny these differences, rather than educate and prevent irrational prejudice based on them. That's brilliant. Why dont we all just assume that girls are guys are identical except for our genitals, so that way we can eradicate sexism. Let's also assume that people are the same no matter how old they are, so that way we can eradicate age-based discrimination too. Neo-Feminazis would love you.

Re: the differences between races being less than the differences within races: Yes. I know. It is also true that the differences between the genders is less than the differences within the genders. Does this mean that on the whole, there are no differences between genders? Of course not. To assume that it does is pure ignorance and wishful thinking.

Re: the gene differences: you are overlooking one very large and significant fact: small gene variations can have very large effects. One single gene mutation can kill a human before they progress past the blastocyst. Humans share 99% of their DNA with chimps, and 50% with bananas. If you would like observable evidence for this, simply consider the tiny gene variation between caucasions in a given country. There will be geniuses, retards, fat people, skinny people, beautiful people, ugly people, masculine people, feminine people, tall people, short people, people with strong immune systems, people with weak immune systems, people with psychological disorders, people without psychological disorders, pale people, tanned people, etc, etc, etc. Huge variation. Tiny gene differences. And that's within a single given race.

The difference between races is analogous to the differences between breeds of cats. Yes, they look different. Yes, their appearance may be shared among other breeds, sorta like a "mix-n-match" deal. Yes, they are still cats. But some breeds are more aggressive. Some are more prone to disease. Some are bigger, some smaller, some have pudgy faces, some have long faces, some are skinny, some are prone to health problems. And if you knew anything about evolution and historical athropology, you'd see why different human races exhibit different characteristics. And yes, these differences are empyrically verifiable by reliable and consistent scientific research. Ranting about how small the genetic differences is and then using these numbers as the foundations for the claim that we are all the same is quite simply stupid because it ignores objective reality and the wealth of scientific knowledge from all fields which study humans.

No-one, least of all myself, has made any claim to the effect that biology is destiny. Having a degree in psychology myself, to make such a claim would be profoundly ignorant of me. Yes, environmental factors (including society, economics, status, prejudice, food, access to education, etc) do play a very important role, but it is every bit as important to never underestimate the contribution of genetics, just as it is important to never underestimate the contribution of environment. But regardless of whether the differences are biological or environmental (much more likely both), the fact remains that there are verifiable differences.

Your cited sources are anti-racism sources. My cited sources were published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The bibliography for the only source you cited that had one lists more anti-racism sources. The reference lists for my sources cite more medical research papers in more peer-reviewed journals. Your sources seek to attack anything that looks like racial differences. My sources merely present the objective facts as discovered through repeatable scientific method and sound statistical analysis.

I'd thank you to cease being such an ignorant fvckhead about this.

 

[lynch1000s]

I've noticed this as well. Black men do seem to be smoother talkers than guys of other races.

Here's my thoughts:

-typical black men have different personality types: black men who seem to have a lot of luck with women have assertive extroverted personality types. This same personality type (assertive extrovert) seems to be portrayed differently in white men (not going to go into a full explanation).

-less condescending. Black men seem to treat white women like goddessess. White men, who have luck with woman, usually don't.

-different body styles. Black men are usually taller, more well built, and have a different facial structure. Their different facial structure gives them a bigger warmer smile, that woman are attracted to. Black men also have dark brown eyes that woman are more attracted to.

-Better socialized. Black men may be better socialized with woman. Instead of playing the mind games that white guys play, they are more about talking and spending time with women, overall being friends. White men are all about work, black men (not to sound racist, and generally speaking) are generally more about spending time with friends and having a good time.

-Other things, but I don't feel like explaining them because I have stuff to do.

Maybe I'll expand on it later.

 

[LADawg49]

Lynch, from experiences I would have to agree with a few of your observations. I have both white and black male friends so I can definitely tell you the difference between the two from experiences.
1. From experience, white males are very concerned about what people will think and about social status, etc when it comes to choosing a woman. Heck that is a big factor why you see way more black men with white women than white men with black women. Many white guys are afraid to have a relationship wtih a blk woman in fear of what their family, friends and co-workers think. On the other hand, blk men don't have those concerns when going with a white woman cause they are gonna face discrimination/racism whether they are with a white woman, black women, or whoever.
2. The first statement leads to fear of rejection. Many white males are afraid to talk to a woman cause they are afraid of rejection. As it is, white folks benefit from white privledge meaning that they have a leg up(especially white males) over other groups. When you are used to getting all the breaks in life, any sort of rejection damages your ego/self esteem. On the other hand for black men, they are used to facing rejection due to racial discrimination so any sort of rejection from a woman won't affect them. However, I've noticed when it comes to approaching blk woman, ive noticed blk men tend to show more AFC tendencies due to fear of rejection.
- In addition from experiences, I would have to agree with you when it comes to blk men being better socialized. For example, when spending time with my ex's family, they(especially her father) were very hospitable and warm-hearted. Remember, alot of women don't give a **** on how much money/status a man has and instead like a man that is warm-hearted and hospitable. Remember money doesn't equal love.

 

[jprjrjr]

Originally posted by lynch1000s
I've noticed this as well. Black men do seem to be smoother talkers than guys of other races.

Here's my thoughts:

-typical black men have different personality types: black men who seem to have a lot of luck with women have assertive extroverted personality types. This same personality type (assertive extrovert) seems to be portrayed differently in white men (not going to go into a full explanation).

-less condescending. Black men seem to treat white women like goddessess. White men, who have luck with woman, usually don't.

-different body styles. Black men are usually taller, more well built, and have a different facial structure. Their different facial structure gives them a bigger warmer smile, that woman are attracted to. Black men also have dark brown eyes that woman are more attracted to.

-Better socialized. Black men may be better socialized with woman. Instead of playing the mind games that white guys play, they are more about talking and spending time with women, overall being friends. White men are all about work, black men (not to sound racist, and generally speaking) are generally more about spending time with friends and having a good time.

-Other things, but I don't feel like explaining them because I have stuff to do.

Maybe I'll expand on it later.

If white women are sooooooo attracted to black men, how interracial marriages only account for less than 3 percent of all marriages?. I'm so fvcking sick and tired of hearing how black men do better with women. I do great with women, and I'm Italain ie CAUCASIAN. Knock it off with the myths already.

P.S. I'll be happy to provide sources of the 3 percent figure.

 

[jprjrjr]

Another thing to consider. Have any of you noticed the kind of white women who date black men. 1)Usually very overweight. 2) Low socio-economic level. 3) Recently members of the Jerry Springer show audience.

Now I'm not saying black men don't pull their fair share of good looking white women, but it's usually because they're rich, very good looking or a famous athlete.

If someone is good looking they get women. YOU'RE FVCKING SKIN COLOR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Sure there are women who will date someone specifically for their ethnicity, but that's just pretty fvcked up in my book.

 

[TheInfamousCBear]

From what Ive seen in my life and my own experience, most black dudes dont date/marry white girls, we just fukk em and thats it...Then the white chicks go back to their white boyfriends/husbands...Thats why ythe interracial marriage stats are so low, prolly cause most dudes I know arnt trying to wife any white chicks and the girls are too shook to get into a relationship..

 

[Prophett]

Morutuaki, what I want to know is how this discussion moved from racial sterotypes to science's precedence over common sense?

But I'll wrap it up for you quick. When I was talking about common sense I wasn't referring to the definition which is contingent on culture. Maybe that's the definition you learned in you're psychology class. But I don't have one of your fancy psych degrees so I am not going to argue with you on that. But the common sense I was referring to was the empirical one. For example, I don't care what culture you're from- Chinese, Eskimo, African- you know that if you jump off a cliff the consequence will be death or injury. It doesn't matter what culture, the consequence invariably remains the same: bodily injury. Simple as that, unless you're living in the matrix, which I think you're, one that is ruled and maintained by science. If you want to bring in the claim that back in the day the western world thought the world was flat, you trip yourself up because that view wasn't empirical. Actually, in terms of observational facts, it was lacking. The ppl back then thought the world was flat not because they actually observed it to be flat but because the seafaring technology available to them at the time did not enable them to explore the whole width of the world. So they speculated that the world was flat in an attempt to tie up loose ends and justify their lacking technology. So going by "my" definition of common sense, it's wrong of you to label this view as common sense when it was mere speculation.


Moreover, I never once, in any of my posts, criticized science. In fact, I claimed that it should be taken seriously (

Science is very important and should be taken seriously

). Now what I did say that you're feeble mind might've construed as an attack on science was the fact that we can't fully rely upon the institution of science to answer questions about a world that will forever be an enigma to us (regardless of how many scientific/technological developments there are). You can argue in favor of science all you want but it won't be the deus ex machina for mankind. That's just about as ridiculous as soley relying upon religion and creationsism to answer questions about the universe. You gotta remember, man, that we as humans, via our empirically tailored senses, are only seeing a miniscule fraction of the world. A view that is further skewed by our subjective egos. Science is only a reflection of the significantly truncated perspective of this world and is essentially our brain's way of trying to figure out this place we call home. In many ways as much as it's a effective tool it's also a comfort mechanism for our brains. Our brains have to believe in science in order to make sense of it's quite limited perception of the world. That's probably the reason why a lot of you science nuts go crazy at the possibility that science may after all not be our savior- because it would then mean that everything you know is a sham and thus, so are you're lives.

Moreover, you're forgetting that the computer monitor whose relial upon high speed quantum mechanisms that are far superior to my brain and in following, yours, was built by a person with a brain. Now that person may have extensive degrees and long years of formal training. They may even be innately gifted in certain areas. But regardless, when it all boils down, the fact remains that that monitor and computer you respect so much were all made possible by an organ common to every human being-black, white, chinese, indian, pakistani, mixed, samoan, whatever!-: the brain. Regardless of any of the crap you spout from you're mouth, the brain is the most powerful entity in our known world. With that, "logically", it then follows that anything made my the brain is consequently lower in terms of quality. Meaning, regardless of how progressive you're precious science and computers are, they will always be less efficient than the human brain which is the most powerful super computer ever. Simple as that.

On the real subject of this post, I'lll end up spending less time because, frankly, right now I have more important things to do (not to say that I won't mind continuing this debate later on). I love how you accuse me of saying things to the contrary of what I actually say and believe. Cut it out p*ick. I acknowleged the differences between the races. And to bring up the similarites shared between a human and a banana is just inane and proves nothing but how little common sense-my common sense- you have. Believe me, there are a helluva lot of differences between that black thug slinging crack on the street , the asian nerd playing starcraft in his room, and the white corporate executive negotiating billion dollar deals in his wallstreet boardroom. However, these differences are less attributable to genetic differences than to ones related to the environment. Genetics are important, yes. But you're forgetting that most of the genetic differences present in our world are responses to the environment (i.e. speciation, adaptive radiation, etc.) . Yep, it was the environment that triggered all of them.

And that bull**** about me being a neo-feminazis' dream, bollocks! You're a moron. My argument on racial equity gives no credibility to the agenda of feminazis! Why? Well, if it did it would have to support the utterly proposterous and laughable scenario that anyone would be able to mate with anyone regardless of sex and produce offspring because no matter how hard you try to bring attention to the differences among the races, the fact still remains that people of different races are able to breed together.

Also, for you're information I have a lot more sources, ones that are actually academically acknowledged (by you're sacred scientific insitutions), that give sufficient support to my view. The reason I used the previous ones, which as you put it were all "anti-racist sources" (I love how you semantically **** yourself with that one) was the fact that I didn't have time to leaf through my books (I actually have a life outside this forum). But want to see them, just say the word and I'll get them (though it might take some time) .


Laters,

Ass

 

[jprjrjr]

Originally posted by TheInfamousCBear
From what Ive seen in my life and my own experience, most black dudes dont date/marry white girls, we just fukk em and thats it...Then the white chicks go back to their white boyfriends/husbands...Thats why ythe interracial marriage stats are so low, prolly cause most dudes I know arnt trying to wife any white chicks and the girls are too shook to get into a relationship..

Yeah, you fvck the white trash hogs we don't want. Get your head out of your azz and quit living in dream land

 

[jprjrjr]

Most black guys would marry a white chick in a second. It's the white chicks who aren't having it. I love how some black guys try and perpetuate this myth that white women want them. Personally I couldn't care less who anyone fvcks, but when they start with bullshyt that isn't true..ill say so.

 

[TheInfamousCBear]

Keep in mind im generalizing (sp?) here...
I assume when we talk about girls in this thread, were talking about white girls...The reason why it seems like black dudes do well with white girls is cause some of us dont put them on a pedistal, cause were in it for the sex and so is she...If she says no, we laugh at her and we move on to the next, cause she wasnt anything to us but a hole to poke...Alot of people I know say theyll smut out white chicks and date black chicks cause white girls throw the pu$$y at us, to the point where me and my friends got puss just cause we were black, and its not just the broke/ugly white chicks either that do this...But some white dudes put these girls on a pedistal and if they get rejected, they make a big deal out of it when they shouldnt...

Oh yeah, alot of non black girls who like black dudes are freaks...Plus if youre black and you have good/high status, its a wrap, youre gonna get alot of a$$...

 

[TheInfamousCBear]

Originally posted by jprjrjr
Yeah, you fvck the white trash hogs we don't want. Get your head out of your azz and quit living in dream land

Lol @ this guy...Why are you so mad? Its gonna be ok...I dont know where you live at, so it might be different there, but thats how it is around here....

Most black guys would marry a white chick in a second.

It depends...Some would, some wouldnt...

 

[Delta Male]

IT DOES NOT MATTER!!!

Suppose women are more attracted naturally to black guys than white guys. I personally believe this is absolute bullsh!t, but let's just suppose. Would you do anything different?

Would you sit home crying all day and jerking off, complaining that girls don't like you because you're white or Asian? Or would you keep being social and fun just like you used to, hooking up with hot chicks and having good times? It's like if a guy is short, or fat, or has acne or any other handicap. If you're comfortable with it it's not a big deal, it's just if you blow it up in your head and make it huge that it ruins your social life.

THIS TOPIC IS PURE KEYBOARD JOCKEYING BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF WHO'S RIGHT, IT SHOULDN'T CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR!!!

-Dan

http://www.rapidsocialimpact.com

 

[Prophett]

I agree with delta. Infamous may have a point about certain types of white chicks but why would anyone, regardless of race, wanna mess with chicks that are obviously of low quaility (and I'm talking about intelligence and self-worth, none of which are measured by physical hotness).

The point is, some girls like black guys some don't. Period. Same goes with guys of other races. Obviously logic disctates that people of a particular race will be more attracted to persons belonging to their own race (although many black guys have an unhealthy preoccupation with white chicks that has more to do with social conditioning than anything).

Also, if you're goodlooking, regardless of race, you should do fine. But again, who the **** cares? Work on you're game and you'll be ight. Unless you want to go and get some insane surgery and see how much that helped michael jackson's a$$.

 

[LADawg49]

TheInfamous, u pretty much summed up what i was gonna say. The reason it seems that some blk men do well with white women is like I said, they don't put them on a pedestal, hence the DJ qualities come into play. However ive noticed from friends that when it comes to dating/approaching black women, some of them tend to come across as AFCs/symps(proclaiming love for their woman, showering her with gifts, takin her on shoppin sprees, etc) at times, maybe because they are putting them on a pedestal or afraid of rejection or something.