Why do they need a women’s forum?[/quote]
No idea, but I imagine it must be all pillow fights in lingerie and hot lesbian action back there.
divea: Next time, before you want to reply with any snide remarks, why don’t you try reading what I actually wrote? Come on, you’re meant to be a moderator and meant to lead by example.
antarctic: Yes, you’re partially correct, she went psycho on me after the fact, though I really had no positive or negative feeling toward her until that point (besides which, that’s irrelevant since I was only interested in her for the sex, hence why I disclosed that to her). The part where you are incorrect is that I ended anything. There was nothing to end since I had explicitly stated that we weren’t going to have a relationship.
Why do they need a women’s forum?[/quote]
No idea, but I imagine it must be all pillow fights in lingerie and hot lesbian action back there.[/quote]
You wish! I’m guessing not.
Hold on there! Being a mod doesn’t preclude Divea from having an opinion contrary to others or having the right to express them. Also, I didn’t find her remarks offensive, just clearly expressed as not agreeing or being pleased with your opinion. :roflmao:
Northcoast: She’s clearly implying I’m a psycho, despite misrepresenting (or not bothering to read) what I wrote. Of course she’s allowed to have her opinion, though that doesn’t automatically mean it’s valid or relevant.
What if I had written something like “and they call people who misrepresent, or don’t bother to properly read, other posters’ posts [insert insult]. Where’s the jerking off smiley?” This is the kind of stuff other people would get warned or banned for, but too many of the moderators regularly get away with. I don’t mind getting into a mud-slinging match with the person involved, because (based upon what’s been demonstrated in this thread and others) I don’t think it would be much of a challenge and it would be more for amusement than anything. However, I know the mud would only be allowed to fly one way.
I’m more bemused than anything. At this stage in the game, I don’t actually expect rationality from people, the internet or this site in particular, but that’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Hold on there! Being a mod doesn’t preclude Divea from having an opinion contrary to others or having the right to express them. Also, I didn’t find her remarks offensive, just clearly expressed as not agreeing or being pleased with your opinion. :roflmao:[/quote]
And the stupid ‘Divea is a mod’ card, doesn’t work, anymore. Thanks NC.
divea: What are you saying with respect to posters insulting each other then? Is this official policy?
English sure is interesting… can’t help but enjoy the subtleties of this language…
Let’s try that again:
And you wanted to sleep with a woman whom you found contemptible??? Or you didn’t want to sleep with her but didn’t mind doing it, if she came over. 
And they call the woman Psycho - where’s the vomit smiley?[/quote]
Let’s try that again:
It’s awfully confusing, isn’t it - things change so much with context (or lack of it) or even when changing the context. It isn’t funny - or it is, depending on my point of view.
No comment on the details of what was has been written, but this non-NES doesn’t see any personal insults in here, except one aimed at an unnamed Taiwanese woman. 
yuli: So if I wrote something like “…and they consider X an idiot”, you don’t think I would be implying X is an idiot? You don’t consider that a veiled insult? Is that different from actually calling X an idiot in a direct sense for the purposes of what’s on and what’s not on?
People insult unnamed people who don’t frequent this site all the time. That’s not off limits (otherwise half of the posters in the international politics forum would have been banned long ago). It’s when it’s directed at actual posters that it’s an issue.
I did not insult you, just that the attitude of sleeping with someone you find contemptible is and vomitable. And calling the ‘silly bitch’ a psycho, is kettle and pot stuff. Where’s the insult?
And you wanted to sleep with a woman whom you found contemptible??? Or you didn’t want to sleep with her but didn’t mind doing it, if she came over. And they call the woman Psycho - where’s the vomit smiley?[/quote]
divea: Clearly, psycho refers to people in that sentence. The woman is being referred to as psycho and the implication is that the person calling the woman psycho is in fact psycho. Maybe that’s not what you mean (though it could very easily be a case of revisionism) but that’s grammatically and logically what that sentence is saying.
For instance, if we said, “…and Tom calls Bill idiotic”, the implication would be that Tom is at least as idiotic as Bill. Otherwise, we’d say, “…and Tom calls Bill’s behaviour idiotic.”
Aside from all of this, it completely misses the other point (which is probably not against the rules, but which I’m trying to clear up philosophically) of misrepresenting what another person wrote. At what point did I say that I found the woman contemptible until after she’d behaved a particular way after we’d slept together? My reason for finding her contemptible is that, against all her better judgement, and despite being told that a particular outcome was not on the table, she still went and did something self-destructive and then tried to blame someone else (who had given her full disclosure) for that. It’s something about trying to move the goal posts and then having a tantrum when the other party calls that cheating. I’m not really sure why the second option you gave is an issue. I might not want to do something if it’s inconvenient. Perhaps I could be considered lazy, or even unromantic, for not chasing her around Taipei? Then again, I didn’t actually say anything about that one way or the other. I’m not really sure how that’s relevant.
Again, in all of this, I am somewhat bemused that I laid all of my cards on the table with that woman and she chose to act in a particular way, yet I’m perceived as somehow having manipulated, taken advantage of, or in some other way wronged her. This is what I always find so fascinating about what people think. Can someone be considered to be legally and psychologically empowered to make decisions, yet then be absolved of their personal responsibility in choosing to make those decisions, particularly if full disclosure is involved? Isn’t there a contradiction there?
GuyInTaiwan, I think this is the typical, if you don’t follow my moral/ virtues of love. Then you are a pig. Too many people are discussed when people have opposing view points.
Some people find it hard to understand that some people only want sex or don’t want a monogamous relationship. Too bad people cannot accept that others feel differently about love and war than they do.
[quote=“steelersman”]GuyInTaiwan, I think this is the typical, if you don’t follow my moral/ virtues of love. Then you are a pig. Too many people are discussed when people have opposing view points.
Some people find it hard to understand that some people only want sex or don’t want a monogamous relationship. Too bad people cannot accept that others feel differently about love and war than they do.[/quote]
I think it was GiT’s rather harsh tone that exacerbated the reaction. If he had said, “I told her I only wanted to sleep with her once, but she still came back and stalked me for months afterward. Silly girl!” it wouldn’t have sounded so bad.
Also, another point. He seems to be ignoring the power he had over the woman. For some unfathomable reason this chick was totally into him, giving him the power. If afterward he realized that it was a mistake, he should at least have acknowledged that he had inadvertently taken advantage of a woman who desperately wanted him (again, I’m totally at a loss to explain this 
) and was hoping for more than he said he would give, and would put up with the unsatisfying in the short term inn the hope of getting what she really wanted later. In a strange way it’s the parallel of the situation that he originally denounced, with the nerd hanging out with the hottie he’s in love with, and her using him for attention with no intention of giving him what he really wants. Of course, GiT’s approach is honest, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he bears no moral responsibility.
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]divea: Next time, before you want to reply with any snide remarks, why don’t you try reading what I actually wrote? Come on, you’re meant to be a moderator and meant to lead by example.
[/quote]
Divea’s a moderator? I was under the impression that she’d been unleashed to rain fire on flob misogyny. 
Oi vey, and this thread was going so nicely… 
Can we get back to talking about the sexes misunderstanding each other in terms of shagging, not shagging, relationships, friendships and a turn of the old psycho?
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Northcoast: She’s clearly implying I’m a psycho, despite misrepresenting (or not bothering to read) what I wrote. Of course she’s allowed to have her opinion, though that doesn’t automatically mean it’s valid or relevant.[/quote]Yeah…I know! But, it doesn’t bother me at all because I’m simply just another misogynistic pig. Please don’t read into the word “another”…ok…no offense and no specific direction intended. :liar: :roflmao:
Flame on!
Some like to shag hags and then complain? IS the wrong in shagging hags or complaining about shagging them? 
The double standards are in the fact that women are being blamed for being friends with men they have no intention of sleeping with, despite the fact that the men may be in love with them, and this is apparently the woman’s responsibility, whereas if a man has full blown sex with a woman who has feelings for him, that’s okay as long as he’s ‘upfront’ about it. You can’t have it both ways. Either the person with the power bears some responsibility for the other person’s feelings and acts appropriately, or they don’t. Ascribing blame to women for simply being friends with a man, but not blaming men who’re fucking the woman who wants more from the relationship, is irrational.
If you look at the examples given in this thread, the woman in the relationship is always the person at fault. I don’t know about Taiwan very much because I haven’t lived there yet (although the Taiwanese women I know are erudite, intelligent, articulate, interesting and completely fair and rational) but in the world which I inhabit both men and women can be manipulative, ego boost-seekers, and both men and women can be love-sick fools who allow others to play with their emotions.
I agree with the poster who said that this all smacks of religious finger-pointing at women for being responsible for just about everything. 
Steady, mate. Let’s try to remember our gentlemanly manners when speaking in mixed company.
[quote=“Petrichor”][quote=“finley”]
GiT, I thought I’d missed something here too … but I read back carefully and I can’t see any double standards. The fact that the stories are about men being upfront with women about their non-interest in marriage doesn’t imply a double standard; it’s just that the authors happen to be men. I get the feeling that the people who wrote those stories have been in ‘shoe on the other foot’ situations and been just fine with it. Everyone understands, and nobody has a problem with it. There are many different sorts of relationships, and there are certainly cultures that would find our ‘western’ ideas about marriage, male/female roles etc. at best bizarre and unfathomable, and at worst immoral or stupid.
[/quote]
The double standards are in the fact that women are being blamed for being friends with men they have no intention of sleeping with, despite the fact that the men may be in love with them, and this is apparently the woman’s responsibility, whereas if a man has full blown sex with a woman who has feelings for him, that’s okay as long as he’s ‘upfront’ about it. You can’t have it both ways. Either the person with the power bears some responsibility for the other person’s feelings and acts appropriately, or they don’t. Ascribing blame to women for simply being friends with a man, but not blaming men who’re fucking the woman who wants more from the relationship, is irrational.
If you look at the examples given in this thread, the woman in the relationship is always the person at fault. I don’t know about Taiwan very much because I haven’t lived there yet (although the Taiwanese women I know are erudite, intelligent, articulate, interesting and completely fair and rational) but in the world which I inhabit both men and women can be manipulative, ego boost-seekers, and both men and women can be love-sick fools who allow others to play with their emotions.
I agree with the poster who said that this all smacks of religious finger-pointing at women for being responsible for just about everything. [/quote]
You may or may not agree but these two situations are not completely the same. In the cases of the man having the power that have been mentioned, the man was upfront about his intentions. The cases in which a nerd fell for a woman, the woman was not straight forward about her intentions.
It boils down to whether being forward and honest resolves someone of responsibility in a relationship when they are in the position of power?