posted
The real trick is not to touch the guy at all. If a girl at a party takes her shirt off, she has my complete attention, no matter how many times she's touched my elbow. Even if she's not airbrushed a bit!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
See if a girl takes her shirt off I am turned off because I immedietly assume, "Used Goods"
I've had alot of girlfriends (not the intimate type but the platonic type). They would often come to me for advice about how to get a guys attention, or rant to me about how a guy did not pick up on their hints.
Touching is a huge deal, there's a barrier that exists right up until physical contact is made. But if a girl sits next to me and starts making conversation (but she has to keep the momentum up, not querie about some basics about me and then lose momentum) she is off to a very good start. For me at least, what I can see is important, but its far more important for me to gauge off what I can hear.
If a girl touched me 3 times on my elbow though I'd probably think, "Wow VERY interested."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The use of phrases such as "used goods" annoys me. I also think "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" is possibly the worst attitude towards women ever.
But. Touching is definitely helpful when flirting. I notice very subtle things sometimes, like if a man stands a little bit closer to me than I would consider "usual." Of course, sometimes I get a bit weirded out. I don't appreciate it when men I don't know very well touch my midsection at all. Arm around the shoulders is possibly okay, but contact with my midsection is tricky.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...I am turned off because I immedietly assume, "Used Goods"
I've heard this attitude ("used goods" = bad) before, and I just don't understand it. Why does that matter?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just about to edit my post to clarify that I'd put "used goods" in quotes because I didn't like the term, but it looks like I've been beaten to it. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've had alot of girlfriends (not the intimate type but the platonic type). They would often come to me for advice about how to get a guys attention, or rant to me about how a guy did not pick up on their hints.
Therein lies the beauty of the crotch brush: it's impossible to miss or to misinterpret.
quote: But if a girl sits next to me and starts making conversation
Women who can actually make conversation, not only listen but have something to say, are freaking worth their weight in gold.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you're not trying to imply that most women don't have something to say or can't make conversation, but that's kind of how it's coming out.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who can actually make conversation are worth worlds.
But I'm stuck on the crotch brush. For some reason I'm picturing a stiff wire brush, used vigorously, to ensure that the person in question never ever hints anything at you ever again.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH: I merely mean that I think there is something attractive about a girl who does not easily bestow her affections on men.
I personally find something incredibly sexy about the fact that my wife and I are exploring our sexuality and it does not involve anybody else, it never has and it never will.
But thats not to say when I was dating that I would not kiss a girl who had had previous boyfriends, or had even had sex.
But if a girl is willing to rip her shirt off merely for the entertainment of a bunch of horny male dogs, I just don't want to be a part of it, thats all.
If a girl likes to express her sexiness in that way, thats all well and good for her, its just wont impress ME thats all.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Women who can actually make conversation, not only listen but have something to say, are freaking worth their weight in gold.
We are. Sadly, most men still won't date us if we are overweight.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Women who can actually make conversation, not only listen but have something to say, are freaking worth their weight in gold.
We are. Sadly, most men still won't date us if we are overweight.
That's just more gold!
I prefer to err on the side of too much, rather then too little when it comes to girls Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have different preferences in mates. Many guys don't want to date overweight women. Many women don't want to date unemployed men. Guys often want to date younger women. Women often want to date more emotionally mature men.
I'm still hoping my girlfriend gives me her weight in gold. That's gonna rule!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can completely understand people who value a stricter sexual morality in themselves and the people they date preferring to date people who feel the same. I can even understand people who don't believe sex before marriage is wrong being uncomfortable if they find out someone they're dating has had a lot more partners than they have, although I don't feel that way myself.
I cannot understand labeling such people which a derrogatory term, even in the hypothetical. There's no "merely" about it. Someone doesn't share your moral values. That's a fine reason not to get involved with them. It's a crappy reason to call them names.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I can completely understand people who value a stricter sexual morality in themselves and the people they date preferring to date people who feel the same. I can even understand people who don't believe sex before marriage is wrong being uncomfortable if they find out someone they're dating has had a lot more partners than they have, although I don't feel that way myself.
I cannot understand labeling such people which a derrogatory term, even in the hypothetical. There's no "merely" about it. Someone doesn't share your moral values. That's a fine reason not to get involved with them. It's a crappy reason to call them names.
You're being a mite melodramatic. I thought, "used goods." Its far from me to tell a girl that she is used goods, as there is simply no positive outcome to be gleaned by such an action in that scenario.
I am perfectly happy to take note of who the shirtles girl is, and proceed to focus my attention on other girls.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You didn't think used goods, or none of us would know it. Of course you didn't tell her, it was a hypothetical situation. You used the term here, and that is what I am objecting to.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK so it would have been ok for me to formulate the idea in my head, but not articulate it into words?
Ok seriously
We are talking about my hypothetical response to supposed situation in which a girl takes off her shirt.
From now on I will simply say, "I would frown on the actions of the shirtless girl" and simply not specify why I would.
Though I will concede articulating my response in this forum does indeed constitute name calling and if I ever meet this hypothetical girl, Ill apologize for insulting her from within this community.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK so it would have been ok for me to formulate the idea in my head, but not articulate it into words?
It would still have been wrong to think of a woman as "goods" an object, something that could be bought or sold, that loses value from having a previous owner (getting it yet?).
But if you had kept this wrong thought to yourself, it wouldn't have been overtly rude.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, can you see why we're objecting? I felt insulted by your characterization of the hypothetical girl as used goods, and I'd as soon swim to Tahiti as take my clothes off at a party. I am not "goods." Women are not goods. A good is a commodity - something you buy or trade. An object.
Thinking or calling someone "used goods" doesn't acknowledge that you are dealing with a person with whom you do not share morals - you are treating her like an it or an object. It's not okay to talk about people like that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your last line shows you still don't get it. Listen to kat, she's explaining it better than I could.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the objection but I think you are mistakenly reading too much into the phrase, "Used Goods"
We compare human beings to objects of lesser importance all the time. Nobody objected to me comparing the men in the hypothetical situation as "horny dogs." (Though perhaps I did not give enough time for men in this forum to respond in such a manner) Men are certainly not dogs, and not all of them are horny.
My objection to the shirtless girl in this situation is that she is surrendering to the mindless caterwauling (again men are not cats) of these unruly males. I think there are perfectly legitimate mediums for girls to celebrate their beauty in front of men, women, or coed audiences. I personally do not think stripping in front of a party of strange men is one of those mediums. Ditto for girls wishing to use their sexiness as a means to draw certain men towards establishing a relationship with them.
If you disagree with my perception of the situation, I'm sorry if my opinion gauls you to any degree. But I just would personally rather not associate with a girl who is so liberal in exposing her body to men.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it is because for a long time women were considered objects or tradable goods or less than human, that this is so offensive. "Men are dogs" is clearly a metaphor; "women are goods" is not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one is objecting to your preference. I'm certainly not. I greatly prefer dating someone with my same standards and practices.
quote:But I just would personally rather not associate with a girl who is so liberal in exposing her body to men.
That's fine. Just don't label her (and by extension every woman) as a thing when you do so. You sound like you're at a yard sale.
If you didn't mean it that way, then you should know that your words have more meaning than you intended. It's like swearing in another language. You meant to say the equivelent of "darn" but the native speakers just recoiled in horror.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can accept that there is a history of maltreatment to women including viewing women as, "goods to be bought and sold." If that makes the use of the phrase, "used goods" overtly offensive, I can accept that. I don't need the term.
edit: I'm sorry if the phrase cause any of you to take offense. I certainly did not intend it that way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to be clear, I was talking about a lady flashing me to get my attention, not a woman taking off her shirt in an attempt to sell herself on the commodities exchange.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: People who can actually make conversation are worth worlds.
Given that the thread was kind of, at that point, about what turns us on, I'm sticking with women, but you are free to mean what you want to.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was actually an interesting editorial in the New York Times on the 16th about stuff like this... it was called "Why Aren’t We Shocked?"... but unfortunatly I can't get to this page because I don't have a subscription... Either way, the editorial argued that through clothing embracing sexuality, and other such things, women today are supressing themselves as much as they were supressed years and years ago by men. (Or at least thats what I took from it.)
Posts: 33 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"yet the final result is what women are supposed to aspire to become."
Not really. It is the fantasy world of commercialism that seems to work. They know what sells. Many people they sell to desire this kind of a person and so that is the kind of person adversers "create." A few people who don't conform to this image, and those who just like to point fingers, might be critical of those changes. Most (at least American men) will still pick the "dolled up" version over the "real" version. So, are they selling to men or are they selling to women?
There was a study printed in National Geographic showing that these kinds of changes actually enhance men's attraction to the women. It just wasn't pulled out of a rabbit hat. Now, they did say in the article that it wasn't a universal application. However, what they did say was that some aspects of female bueaty was slightly more than the eye of the beholder. Going on memory, I think it was big eyes, big breasts, and big posteriors were a consistant attraction.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Owie.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
