Couple.Divorce()

[Debs 0]

Jeremy Falcon wrote: You're a shining example of the women mentality. Your first sentence pretty much means that there is little point in my responding to someone who has such pre-conceptions, so I'm not about to enter into a protracted debate. I have better things to do. I am in what I see as a very equal long term relationship with a man that I fancy the pants off, and no, I do NOT want to be controlled by him, nor do I want to control him. I like being on an equal footing, thank you very much. Incidentally, I did not say that you were belittling women in my post, read it again, why don't you? I was trying to say that it was mis-leading to mass-categorise individuals simply by gender to have specific personality categoristics, as you appeared to be doing. All your quasi-psychological analysis regarding sexual dynamics was neither objective nor logical. Debbie

[Jeremy Falcon]

Debs wrote: Incidentally, I did not say that you were belittling women in my post, read it again, why don't you? Actually, my interpretation was on the grounds of my misunderstanding of the term "pigeon-hole." I managed to look it up, however. Now, to more clearly identify my standpoint... It is extremely scientific and logical to classify aspects of genders and species. Scientists do it all the time with living animals and plants alike. Like a preying mantis for example will kill the male after mating. That's something that only belongs to the female. The males do not have the need to perform this action. Plenty of diverse idiosyncrasies exist in humans as well (perhaps more so because we are complex creatures) and can be easily classified - whether you choose to believe this or not. Debs wrote: All your quasi-psychological analysis regarding sexual dynamics was neither objective nor logical. For one, you are not aware of my complete deductions and analyses regarding the human mind and psyche. Nor do I care to explain them all to such a closed-minded person. For two, your statement presents absolutely nothing but your OPINION that happens to conflict with mine simply because it speaks of your gender. You got your ego hurt and responded to defend yourself without giving it any real logical thought in the first place. No real validity came about. You simply wanted to say, "I'm a chick and I don't like what your saying." Get real. For three, you still aren't thinking on a deep enough level to understand what I present. Stop looking at the surface and taking things at face value. For four, as far as quasi, get real. I know psychology better than programming, and I'm a damn fine programmer. :) I've had that crap shoved down my through since birth because my mother took it in college, my sister did too, and I've studied it myself. Debs wrote: I do NOT want to be controlled by him I never meant control in the pretext of him telling you when to take a piss, per sé. Like I said, don't take everything at face value. But, the control is there. Where do you think the term "honey-dos" came from? Debs wrote: I am in what I see as a very equal long term relationship with a man that I fancy the pants off So basically, you're telling me that he would be willing to dump you before you would be willing to dump him. Not to say you couldn't, but if you're so head-over-heels

[Debs 0]

My original quote regarding having better things to do was than to argue with people who quote rhetoric yet are unwilling to enter into a reasoned debate. I'm happy to explain my stance as long as I think you're not a complete bigot and I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you prove otherwise :) Jeremy Falcon wrote: It is extremely scientific and logical to classify aspects of genders and species. Of course. You can easily categorise males and females (human, praying mantis, even plants!) according to biological differences. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Plenty of diverse idiosyncrasies exist in humans as well (perhaps more so because we are complex creatures) and can be easily classified - whether you choose to believe this or not. I do believe that people are very diverse, in fact I think that women (and men) are far more diverse than your post gave them credit for. I don't think that people can be classified so easily by gender for personality traits as easily as people seem to want to attempt to do it. Sure you can put people into personality types based upon their genders, but it's the sweeping generalisations that I find so annoying. Jeremy Falcon wrote: For two, your statement presents absolutely nothing but your OPINION that happens to conflict with mine simply because it speaks of your gender. My posts always represent my opinion, as do yours. I would disagree with you equally had you tried to categorise all males as, say, insensitive, agressive, whatever. Jeremy Falcon wrote: But, the control is there. Where do you think the term "honey-dos" came from? No idea, it's not a term I'm familiar with, and I didn't think you meant complete dictatorship in your original post either. Jeremy Falcon wrote: So basically, you're telling me that he would be willing to dump you before you would be willing to dump him. Not to say you couldn't, but if you're so head-over-heels for him then you're not as good for his ego; he's good for your ego. That's something you wouldn't normally let go of so quickly. No, I wasn;t saying that, where did you get that idea from? I am very much in love with him and find him very, very attractive (i.e. fancy the pants off), as does he me, or he's putting on a very good act ;), and yet he doesn't control me, nor I him. We are both of the type that just

[Jeremy Falcon]

Debs wrote: I'm happy to explain my stance as long as I think you're not a complete bigot and I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, unless you prove otherwise How interesting it is to note that I can say the exact same thing about you. Debs wrote: I do believe that people are very diverse, in fact I think that women (and men) are far more diverse than your post gave them credit for. You still haven't even come close to discussing my original point. I'm not talking about diversity and personality, per sé. I'm referring to gender (not really gender, but feminine and masculine) issues that have prevalent, noticeable, and distinct traits that are specific with each. For instance, how many macho, testosterone-laden men do you think care about their nails? Same thing with a manly chick, she may not care about her nails as much as a feminine chick. The psychology behind this (like social and peer pressure) why some still might do this but not care as much I'll save for another day, but one thing remains true, there are certain characteristics that go along with being masculine and there are certain characteristics that go along with being feminine (and this goes for mental attributes as well as physical). That was my whole point all along. You're a chick, so you should know. I was telling Paul essentially this. FEMININE women don't want a sissy guy, maybe a butch or dyke (no offense to lesbos, just conveying a point), but not a "girlie" type chick. Hell, even some gay guys want manly men. If you feel you don't need a man's man, then I bet you've noticed at least in some point in your life that some chicks are just too "girlie" for your liking. Now, on the other side. Masculine is attracted to feminine (as I stated above, so do not read as in guy to girl) - laws of nature. I'm a bigger than average guy (not fat; big) and semi-macho (when I need to be), and I don't want a chick that's like that either physically or mentally. So, I can attest to the opposite side of this personally. Debs wrote: it's not a term I'm familiar with Basically, it's a term meaning to ask your significant other to do a chore or job or whatever for whomever, but usually yourself. As in, "Honey, could you do this for me?" By definition, it can go either way with either individual asking the other for a "favor", but in practice the chick usually gives the guy the honey-do