Poll: Ladies, Do you want a manly man, or a sweet guy?

[MissGinaKid]

A mix of both would be great but if i have to pick. I want a man. A really big guy that can go and punch people screming "I AM A MAN!" With strong arms and defenitly a beard.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

don't imply that manly means douchebag, because in my opinion that is the polar opposite of what a manly man is.

Yes but do you expect the useless bags of scrotal sweat to admit to their own personal failings or continue to blame others for their situation? It's always someone else's fault.

umm sure considering that doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense to me and that's what counts.

what I was trying to say is that I agree that his statement is a false dichotomy it's an either or, being that either you are a good guy, or a manly man and the reality is that there is no one way to classify people, because there aren't really two of any one person anywhere.

Yes but ask yourself why such a false dichotemy exists? Who perpetuates these false dichotemies? What purpose do they serve?

 

[Paksenarrion]

Depends on the girl. I myself choose the sweet gentle guys, but draw the manly man out of them. (I just coax them out of their shyness bit by bit, and sooner or later, they start grabbing my waist first instead of the other way around.) Unfortunately, that usually results in them turning into assholes. I tended to go for virgins who like to please their mothers. I got a kick out of being the bad influence. ^_^

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

Contrary to what I have posted previously, I am secretly waiting to meet my lumberjack so that we can go off and make babies. Someone who doesn't whine when he gets sick, but isn't rude to waiters either.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

However, I feel I must point out that I never claimed any universal rules either. General trends, which I feel are accurate within a certain (fairly small) margin of error, are all I ever stated.

I find the extrapolation of personal experience to more general trends to be unreliable unless they're being used as predictive models for the same person. If you were applying personal experience as a predictive model for future personal experience, I apologise. If not, I remain doubtful... and no doubt a bit smug (for completely unrelated reasons).

 

[likalaruku]

I want a guy who looks, & maybe even sounds like a chick. Lead me to your castrati.

I know what you're thinking; "Why not just date women?" Because I just don't get along with other women, & when they get emotional & hormonal, I don;t want to be anywhere near them.

So why sound like a chick? Because my ears have a hard time picking up the low frequency of deep voices.

Why can't he be manly? I'm butch enough that if a manly dude dated me, he'd feel gay about it. A guy has to be my opposite.

 

[PDizzle418]

what I was trying to say is that I agree that his statement is a false dichotomy it's an either or, being that either you are a good guy, or a manly man and the reality is that there is no one way to classify people, because there aren't really two of any one person anywhere.

Yes but ask yourself why such a false dichotemy exists? Who perpetuates these false dichotemies? What purpose do they serve?[/quote]

so what your asking is why I think this is a false dichotomy, I don't know, because I've never been a douche bag, and I'd assume that douche bags would be the ones perpetuating the stereotype, in the end it's up to the individual person and not society to decide how they are going to represent themselves.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Complete prick is a bit to far, though.

Yes but an incomplete prick might be far too disturbing for most people.

I think I'll just say to hell with this whole relationship thing and just use men for their bodies.

For personal or scientific purposes? Or both?

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

Yes but an incomplete prick might be far too disturbing for most people.

That just got you added as a friend. Deal with it.

For personal or scientific purposes? Or both?

Why can't it be both? At the same time?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

so what your asking is why I think this is a false dichotomy, I don't know, because I've never been a douche bag, and I'd assume that douche bags would be the ones perpetuating the stereotype, in the end it's up to the individual person and not society to decide how they are going to represent themselves.

No, I'm not asking why you think it's a false dichotemy.

I'm asking why you think such false dichotemies exist and what purpose you think they serve.

I mean haven't you wondered why, when things like this crop up, there's invariably some binary choice of 'emotional doormat' vs 'complete douchenozzle'? Some variation of 'nice guys' versus 'bad boys' theme that often ends up as a platform for certain people to portray women as indecisive and/or deceitful if not outright batshit crazy?

 

[ZephrC]

However, I feel I must point out that I never claimed any universal rules either. General trends, which I feel are accurate within a certain (fairly small) margin of error, are all I ever stated.

I find the extrapolation of personal experience to more general trends to be unreliable unless they're being used as predictive models for the same person. If you were applying personal experience as a predictive model for future personal experience, I apologise. If not, I remain doubtful... and no doubt a bit smug (for completely unrelated reasons).

Well, I certainly can't speak for anyone else's experience. All I have to go off of for that really is anecdotal evidence.

However, I do find that a fairly large percentage of anecdotal evidence agree's with my experience, and most of the people that disagree have less experience than I do. Certainly there are exceptions, but I find them to be rare, and so I feel that my point stands as much as any point can without proper testing.

Obviously my own consistent lack of success in relationships is due to my own personality and not all women in general, but I'm pretty happy with my personality, and unwilling to change for a relationship. So there is a stalemate there, which I am disinclined to break.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Yes but an incomplete prick might be far too disturbing for most people.

That just got you added as a friend. Deal with it.

FINE! I will. Hrumph. Just for that, eat steaming hot RECIPROCITY!

For personal or scientific purposes? Or both?

Why can't it be both? At the same time?

Well it could be but some of those scientific implements are quite intimidating... And the other implements even more so.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Certainly there are exceptions, but I find them to be rare, and so I feel that my point stands as much as any point can without proper testing.

Yes but you try getting a research grant for that.

 

[ZephrC]

Certainly there are exceptions, but I find them to be rare, and so I feel that my point stands as much as any point can without proper testing.

Yes but you try getting a research grant for that.

People have gotten research grants for weirder things.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Unfortunately, that usually results in them turning into assholes.

Yeah, the Law of Unintended Consequences is a *****.

I much prefer the Law of Hilarious Consequences but that rarely exists outside of comedies.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Certainly there are exceptions, but I find them to be rare, and so I feel that my point stands as much as any point can without proper testing.

Yes but you try getting a research grant for that.

People have gotten research grants for weirder things.

Researchers in Oz mostly get told to move to the US if they want money for things like researching, equipment, lab space, food, etc...

 

[Ericb]

(...)Give me either one and I'll be happy for
life. And I don't care that they're not real.

Oh, the tragic conflict between these two sentences is nearly poetic.

I am an extremely nice guy, and yet my best friend is a jackass with a

huge ego.

Ah, the poetic conflict between these two sentences is nearly tragic.

Needless to say, he gets all of the girls.

Usually, jerks tend to try their luck more often. They will lie about their failures and will exalt their victories.

But they get more because they risk more.

Which makes sense. After a while tripping up, you'll eventually learn to walk. And then run.

I'd also like to add this is horrendously heteronormative.

It sure is.

These dychotomies (Manly/Sweet, Metro/Rugged, Whiney/Arrogant) are false because they don't comply with the broad

scale upon which a person can go back and forth. Everybody has their moments.

Save for the truly distorted, almost nobody lives perpetually on an extreme or another.

I got a kick out of being the bad influence. ^_^

With that smiley on the end, that phrase of yours got to be really disturbing. Congrats. =D

I want a guy who looks, & maybe even sounds like a chick. Lead me to your castrati.

I know what you're thinking; "Why not just date women?" Because I just don't get along with other women, & when they get emotional & hormonal, I don;t want to be anywhere near them.

So why sound like a chick? Because my ears have a hard time picking up the low frequency of deep voices.

Why can't he be manly? I'm butch enough that if a manly dude dated me, he'd feel gay about it. A guy has to be my opposite.

Your honesty is refreshing.

For personal or scientific purposes? Or both?

Why can't it be both? At the same time?

I'm pretty sure this was supposed to sound sexy.

 

[Ishadus]

Certainly there are exceptions, but I find them to be rare, and so I feel that my point stands as much as any point can without proper testing.

Yes but you try getting a research grant for that.

People have gotten research grants for weirder things.

Oh sweet merciful Jeebus truer words than this have never been spoken.

I used to have faith in the way science works to improve the world until I actually got introduced to scientific journal articles and how little they actually say versus what they pretend to say.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1312 sums it up nicely for me.

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

For personal or scientific purposes? Or both?

Why can't it be both? At the same time?

I'm pretty sure this was supposed to sound sexy.

Science is sexy.