and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
Full Version: Women
Why is it that women don't like blokes who treat them well?
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 02:36 PM) 
Why is it that women don't like blokes who treat them well?
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
Hard lines old chap you were too good for her anyway.
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 02:36 PM)
Why is it that women don't like blokes who treat them well?
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
Maybe you will find love on this very forum,
Scarlets79 is probably single
QUOTE (boshdadosh @ Mar 13 2008, 02:56 PM)
Maybe you will find love on this very forum,
Scarlets79 is probably single
Scarlets79 is probably single
Err no thanks.....
QUOTE (boshdadosh @ Mar 13 2008, 02:56 PM)
Maybe you will find love on this very forum,
Scarlets79 is probably single
Scarlets79 is probably single
Probably? I've told you about her haven't I?
The reason she's such a religious fruit loop is that after her Harold died very unexpectedly, she got very lonely.
The Catholic Preist in the local village was round there regularly giving 'cumfort' in her time of need.
Hence once you let ole Paddy Murphy 'in' there's no getting 'im out of your head. Hence Scarlets relgious indoctrination now!
I hope that made perfect sense.
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 03:02 PM)
Err no thanks.....
Joking apart, sorry about your break up. Even when they get there bad boys, they spend the next few years trying to turn them into nice guys. Then they don`t want what they have created
us men, simple folk really
QUOTE (boshdadosh @ Mar 13 2008, 03:07 PM)
Joking apart, sorry about your break up. Even when they get there bad boys, they spend the next few years trying to turn them into nice guys. Then they don`t want what they have created
us men, simple folk really
us men, simple folk really
You're not wrong.
My ex said she was treated like a house-maid, cos I let her do the washing.
She never considered that I get up at 5:20am for work, travel 120+ miles a day to work, then get back at 4:45 to wait 15 minutes for her to come out of work before driving her home, and by the time I get home I'm knackered. Did my fair share of cooking, and did the hoovering.
I like to go out on the weekends, to make the most of my freetime, but she wanted to stay in the house all the time.
Some women want the bloody world!!
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 03:12 PM)
You're not wrong.
My ex said she was treated like a house-maid, cos I let her do the washing.
She never considered that I get up at 5:20am for work, travel 120+ miles a day to work, then get back at 4:45 to wait 15 minutes for her to come out of work before driving her home, and by the time I get home I'm knackered. Did my fair share of cooking, and did the hoovering.
I like to go out on the weekends, to make the most of my freetime, but she wanted to stay in the house all the time.
Some women want the bloody world!!
My ex said she was treated like a house-maid, cos I let her do the washing.
She never considered that I get up at 5:20am for work, travel 120+ miles a day to work, then get back at 4:45 to wait 15 minutes for her to come out of work before driving her home, and by the time I get home I'm knackered. Did my fair share of cooking, and did the hoovering.
I like to go out on the weekends, to make the most of my freetime, but she wanted to stay in the house all the time.
Some women want the bloody world!!
Perhaps she just wanted more time with you?
QUOTE (bulltraderpt @ Mar 13 2008, 03:16 PM)
Perhaps she just wanted more time with you?
Nope the reason stated about her being house-maid was the reason.
I could've always taken a closer job earning less, but then I wouldn't be ambitious enough!
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 03:21 PM)
Nope the reason stated about her being house-maid was the reason.
I could've always taken a closer job earning less, but then I wouldn't be ambitious enough!
I could've always taken a closer job earning less, but then I wouldn't be ambitious enough!
Taken down, in bad taste.
QUOTE (bulltraderpt @ Mar 13 2008, 03:03 PM)
Probably? I've told you about her haven't I?
The reason she's such a religious fruit loop is that after her Harold died very unexpectedly, she got very lonely.
The Catholic Preist in the local village was round there regularly giving 'cumfort' in her time of need.
Hence once you let ole Paddy Murphy 'in' there's no getting 'im out of your head. Hence Scarlets relgious indoctrination now!
I hope that made perfect sense.
The reason she's such a religious fruit loop is that after her Harold died very unexpectedly, she got very lonely.
The Catholic Preist in the local village was round there regularly giving 'cumfort' in her time of need.
Hence once you let ole Paddy Murphy 'in' there's no getting 'im out of your head. Hence Scarlets relgious indoctrination now!
I hope that made perfect sense.
How you doing btpt?
I felt lousy last night and my kids were playing up, They busted my printer and cocked all my settings so I told them a story about a wicked witch called Scarlet who lives in the computer and how she just appears at anytime and is gonna get ya.
Felt much better after that
QUOTE (boshdadosh @ Mar 13 2008, 03:33 PM)
How you doing btpt?
I felt lousy last night and my kids were playing up, They busted my printer and cocked all my settings so I told them a story about a wicked witch called Scarlet who lives in the computer and how she just appears at anytime and is gonna get ya.
Felt much better after that
I felt lousy last night and my kids were playing up, They busted my printer and cocked all my settings so I told them a story about a wicked witch called Scarlet who lives in the computer and how she just appears at anytime and is gonna get ya.
Felt much better after that
I'm OK. Wading through more bloody articles, but such is life.
Perhaps she is going to turn into some mythical horrible figure who will haunt all our kids if they don't do as they are told. A sort of 'Keyser Söze' character if you will.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814/
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 03:21 PM)
Nope the reason stated about her being house-maid was the reason.
I could've always taken a closer job earning less, but then I wouldn't be ambitious enough!
I could've always taken a closer job earning less, but then I wouldn't be ambitious enough!
Good looking women or women with sex appeal or whatever, they get quite spoilt in life. Men fall over themselves to get them.
It's the same for males who have got what it takes.
To keep in-demand women or women who are fancied by other men quite readily, there has to be that old bond of love.
But sometimes that's not enough to keep the excitement spark going.
So, such women need challenging behaviour from their men. That means that the men act in a way that suggests that they have their own life, aren't pushed around, don't automatically do as they're asked, don't fall over themselves to meet with the woman's approval. It doesn't mean violence, insults, bad temper, being found in bed with a hooker or her best friend.
Women who have had a very challenging partner that went too far and even became abusive, well they usually appreciate a decent, nice man (although for how long depends on the psychological make up of the woman).
If she found fault with you, she may have been looking for an excuse to go. So there's nothing lost, just time gained in fact, to find another partner (try going out more or even online dating sites like the free plentyoffish.com or upmarket loveandfriends.com)
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone else - sorry but it's true.
As for me (bored looks from the forum now), well I'm just me nowadays, I learnt these lessons myself. But I have to also state I was never what most sane women would consider a typical attractiveness or of a proper man's appearance, so there'd be very few ploys or seduction techniques I could try that would work - cos if there's one thing I've learnt it's if they don't fancy a man then there's no chance at all unless you're wealthy and they're materialistic or they're plain desperate. Neither of which are a good basis of course. Good looking males need to develop more warmth and humility along with the challenge behaviour to maximise their dating successes and longevity of relationships, the rest of us need to develop other hobbies and perhaps take up crochet.
Ozz, you won't be single for long, enjoy it while you can.
QUOTE (The Last Bear @ Mar 13 2008, 03:48 PM)
cos if there's one thing I've learnt it's if they don't fancy a man then there's no chance at all unless you're wealthy and they're materialistic or they're plain desperate.
Not true of all women. It depends on the woman. A lot of women are attracted to charisma, intelligence, confidence and the ability to make others laugh. These characteristics may be hidden though if you are depressed about being single and think that no women will look at you.
What a lot of men don't realise is that there are the women who are flirty and sexually active, and these are the ones who are going to be more shallow than the rest and who judge a man by his appearance and wallet. Then there are other women who, like the kind of men who complain that women only go for bastards, are also looking for a companion, looking for someone to treat them as equals and who want someone on the same wavelength as them. You can say the same thing about men in fact. Some men flirt a lot, try to impress women with a large car, are only interested in the sex and generally don't treat women with any respect. While others just want a companion they can love and respect.
The trouble is that these flirty men and women muddy the waters and prove a distraction because they are so much easier to shack up with. So don't go from partner to partner. Take your time and make a life for yourself as a single person, that is until you do find the right person that you naturally bond with.
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 13 2008, 04:14 PM)
Not true of all women. It depends on the woman. A lot of women are attracted to charisma, intelligence, confidence and the ability to make others laugh. These characteristics may be hidden though if you are depressed about being single and think that no women will look at you.
I didn't say all women, it's just the ones that are largely available - they're holding out because they have an excess of idealism and perhaps materialism to boot.
What a lot of men don't realise is that there are the women who are flirty and sexually active, and these are the ones who are going to be more shallow than the rest and who judge a man by his appearance and wallet. Then there are other women who, like the kind of men who complain that women only go for bastards, are also looking for a companion, looking for someone to treat them as equals and who want someone on the same wavelength as them. You can say the same thing about men in fact. Some men flirt a lot, try to impress women with a large car, are only interested in the sex and generally don't treat women with any respect. While others just want a companion they can love and respect.
Isn't it a strange coincidence then that the women who don't judge a man by his appearance and wallet tend to be let us say more homely looking in appearance themselves.
The trouble is that these flirty men and women muddy the waters and prove a distraction because they are so much easier to shack up with. So don't go from partner to partner. Take your time and make a life for yourself as a single person, that is until you do find the right person that you naturally bond with.
The women who are attractive and know it (ie 99.9% of them) want the best fish on the hook they can find, while they still can. Those with foresight to say I prefer the more reliable man who isn't beefcake/Tom Cruise/insert current heartthrob can be counted on the fingers of a crocodile feeder's hands and/or they are snapped up long ago, possibly at uni.
Myths such "Approach stunning women - they get less men than ordinarily attractive women" should be tempered with the addendum "Approach them only if you're their equivalent or you've just pulled up in your 2001 or younger Porsche".
The vast, vast majority of single women with any looks will hold out for someone they fancy, the rest of it comes later. If you're a plain male you'll perhaps get a look in later once these women realise looks aren't always enough.
In observation after observation I've made on this, charisma, jokes, intellect, blah blah blah will amuse a desirable woman enough to make a woman wish she fancied you, but if she doesn't fancy you then you'll be lucky to make friendship grade, if that.
The other thing to bear in mind is that plenty of previously desirable women still see themselves as being as pretty as they were in their prime, ditto the men, and that some women who've always been more homely in appearance actually think they're hot, ditto the men.
The least pullable woman or man is the one who is just the right side of attractive - everyone thinks they've a chance with them - they get invites by the shedload in their prime years.
I know the truth never sounds politically correct or meshes with the fantasy people like to have about life and others, but this is how it is for most of us, especially in the West.
People like me who can't be arsed any more aren't a good example perhaps, but if you are less than a Tom Cruise then a lot of ground can be made up by a sharp haircut, decent clothes with some colour in them, decent clean shoes, a smile even when inside your heart's breaking, and a warm and obvious sense of fun. Becoming a cynical expect-to-be-rejected type like me just won't cut it, but hell sometimes it's a lot of fun and I don't get disappointed half as much!
I didn't say all women, it's just the ones that are largely available - they're holding out because they have an excess of idealism and perhaps materialism to boot.
What a lot of men don't realise is that there are the women who are flirty and sexually active, and these are the ones who are going to be more shallow than the rest and who judge a man by his appearance and wallet. Then there are other women who, like the kind of men who complain that women only go for bastards, are also looking for a companion, looking for someone to treat them as equals and who want someone on the same wavelength as them. You can say the same thing about men in fact. Some men flirt a lot, try to impress women with a large car, are only interested in the sex and generally don't treat women with any respect. While others just want a companion they can love and respect.
Isn't it a strange coincidence then that the women who don't judge a man by his appearance and wallet tend to be let us say more homely looking in appearance themselves.
The trouble is that these flirty men and women muddy the waters and prove a distraction because they are so much easier to shack up with. So don't go from partner to partner. Take your time and make a life for yourself as a single person, that is until you do find the right person that you naturally bond with.
The women who are attractive and know it (ie 99.9% of them) want the best fish on the hook they can find, while they still can. Those with foresight to say I prefer the more reliable man who isn't beefcake/Tom Cruise/insert current heartthrob can be counted on the fingers of a crocodile feeder's hands and/or they are snapped up long ago, possibly at uni.
Myths such "Approach stunning women - they get less men than ordinarily attractive women" should be tempered with the addendum "Approach them only if you're their equivalent or you've just pulled up in your 2001 or younger Porsche".
The vast, vast majority of single women with any looks will hold out for someone they fancy, the rest of it comes later. If you're a plain male you'll perhaps get a look in later once these women realise looks aren't always enough.
In observation after observation I've made on this, charisma, jokes, intellect, blah blah blah will amuse a desirable woman enough to make a woman wish she fancied you, but if she doesn't fancy you then you'll be lucky to make friendship grade, if that.
The other thing to bear in mind is that plenty of previously desirable women still see themselves as being as pretty as they were in their prime, ditto the men, and that some women who've always been more homely in appearance actually think they're hot, ditto the men.
The least pullable woman or man is the one who is just the right side of attractive - everyone thinks they've a chance with them - they get invites by the shedload in their prime years.
I know the truth never sounds politically correct or meshes with the fantasy people like to have about life and others, but this is how it is for most of us, especially in the West.
People like me who can't be arsed any more aren't a good example perhaps, but if you are less than a Tom Cruise then a lot of ground can be made up by a sharp haircut, decent clothes with some colour in them, decent clean shoes, a smile even when inside your heart's breaking, and a warm and obvious sense of fun. Becoming a cynical expect-to-be-rejected type like me just won't cut it, but hell sometimes it's a lot of fun and I don't get disappointed half as much!
Last Bear, you are in danger of coming across as bitter mate.
QUOTE (bulltraderpt @ Mar 13 2008, 04:43 PM)
Last Bear, you are in danger of coming across as bitter mate.
You bet I'm f****g bitter!!
QUOTE (The Last Bear @ Mar 13 2008, 04:56 PM)
You bet I'm f****g bitter!!
Don't be.
When its your turn, its your turn.
QUOTE (bulltraderpt @ Mar 13 2008, 05:02 PM)
Don't be.
When its your turn, its your turn.
When its your turn, its your turn.
It'd be a bit late for it to be my turn now, but thanks for that, I'll not give up hope then as I apply for my over 40s discounted nightclub season ticket!
QUOTE (The Last Bear @ Mar 13 2008, 05:05 PM)
It'd be a bit late for it to be my turn now, but thanks for that, I'll not give up hope then as I apply for my over 40s discounted nightclub season ticket!
Over 40, man that not old!
Its the new 30 apparently.
However, when I said that to a mate whose over 40 he did come back with the quip if that's the case you don't hear 30 year olds saying 30 is the new 20 do you?
Which was a fair point I suppose.
QUOTE (The Last Bear @ Mar 13 2008, 05:05 PM)
It'd be a bit late for it to be my turn now, but thanks for that, I'll not give up hope then as I apply for my over 40s discounted nightclub season ticket!
Double post, sorry.
our roles as men and women are being corrupted, this has satanic backing
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
Family vs. The State
In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child. The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role. The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying degrees.
In scripture, the authority of the family is basic to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and mother – a woman of real authority.
In modern education, the State is the educator, and the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.
Basic to the calling of every child is to be a member of a family. Virtually all children will some day become husbands and wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling. It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e., home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and training in godly responsibility.
The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
Family vs. The State
In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child. The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role. The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying degrees.
In scripture, the authority of the family is basic to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and mother – a woman of real authority.
In modern education, the State is the educator, and the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.
Basic to the calling of every child is to be a member of a family. Virtually all children will some day become husbands and wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling. It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e., home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and training in godly responsibility.
The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree.
QUOTE (bulltraderpt @ Mar 13 2008, 05:11 PM)
Over 40, man that not old!
Its the new 30 apparently.
However, when I said that to a mate whose over 40 he did come back with the quip if that's the case you don't hear 30 year olds saying 30 is the new 20 do you?
Which was a fair point I suppose.
Its the new 30 apparently.
However, when I said that to a mate whose over 40 he did come back with the quip if that's the case you don't hear 30 year olds saying 30 is the new 20 do you?
Which was a fair point I suppose.
Yeah thanks mate, the scary thing is I remember being 25 like it were yesterday, cuddling up to a slightly psycho young woman who was at an art college! Ah never thought I'd be nostalgic for then....!!
Anyway cheers, I'll try to fool myself for a few more years, heck I'll be trying to pull in the Pension queue (if the govt's not abolished pensions by then).
QUOTE (The Last Bear @ Mar 13 2008, 05:16 PM)
Yeah thanks mate, the scary thing is I remember being 25 like it were yesterday, cuddling up to a slightly psycho young woman who was at an art college! Ah never thought I'd be nostalgic for then....!!
Anyway cheers, I'll try to fool myself for a few more years, heck I'll be trying to pull in the Pension queue (if the govt's not abolished pensions by then).
Anyway cheers, I'll try to fool myself for a few more years, heck I'll be trying to pull in the Pension queue (if the govt's not abolished pensions by then).
No worries. Remember getting old is a state of mind.
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 13 2008, 05:13 PM)
The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree.
My mum used to say something similar about women's roles. Can't say I ever listened, I was too busy trying to find out how life was for myself without pre-conceived ideas.
I think if I'd stayed in every night and not moved off the sofa I'd have been same as where I am now, sigh...
Not that I'm in the habit of agreeing with you Scarlets!
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 13 2008, 05:13 PM)
our roles as men and women are being corrupted, this has satanic backing
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
Family vs. The State
In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child. The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role. The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying degrees.
In scripture, the authority of the family is basic to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and mother – a woman of real authority.
In modern education, the State is the educator, and the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.
Basic to the calling of every child is to be a member of a family. Virtually all children will some day become husbands and wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling. It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e., home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and training in godly responsibility.
The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
Family vs. The State
In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child. The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role. The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying degrees.
In scripture, the authority of the family is basic to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and mother – a woman of real authority.
In modern education, the State is the educator, and the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.
Basic to the calling of every child is to be a member of a family. Virtually all children will some day become husbands and wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling. It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e., home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and training in godly responsibility.
The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree.
I wondered how long it would be until you'd show up.
Tell me, how is Father Murphy these days?
QUOTE (scarlets79 @ Mar 13 2008, 05:13 PM)
our roles as men and women are being corrupted, this has satanic backing
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
Family vs. The State
In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child. The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role. The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying degrees.
In scripture, the authority of the family is basic to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and mother – a woman of real authority.
In modern education, the State is the educator, and the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.
Basic to the calling of every child is to be a member of a family. Virtually all children will some day become husbands and wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling. It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e., home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and training in godly responsibility.
The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/rj.html
Family vs. The State
In the Marxist scheme, the transfer of authority from the family to the State makes any talk of the family as an institution ridiculous. The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the State determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child. The only function remaining then to the parents is procreation, and, by means of birth control regulations, this too is subject now to a diminishing role. The family in such a society is simply a relic of the old order, maintaining itself only surreptitiously and illegally, and subject at all times to the intervening authority of the State. In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the State has been accomplished in varying degrees.
In scripture, the authority of the family is basic to society, and it is a God-centered authority. The authority of the woman as help-meet (Genesis 2:18) is no less real than that of a prime minister to a king; the prime minister is not a slave because he is not king, nor is the woman a slave because she is not a man. The description of a virtuous woman, or a godly wife, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is not of a helpless slave nor of a pretty parasite, but rather of a very competent wife, manager, business-woman, and mother – a woman of real authority.
In modern education, the State is the educator, and the State is held to be the responsible agency rather than man. Such a perspective works to destroy the pupil, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the State. The State, rather than the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the individual is to assent to and bow down before the State. State education is at the very least implacably anti-scriptural, even when and if it gives the bible a place in the curriculum.
Basic to the calling of every child is to be a member of a family. Virtually all children will some day become husbands and wives, and fathers or mothers. The State school is destructive of this calling. It attempts to meet the need are essentially external and mechanical, i.e., home economics courses, sex education, and the like. But the essential training for family life is family life! It means scriptural education, discipline, and training in godly responsibility.
The State school, moreover, basically trains women to be men; it is not surprising that so many women are unhappy at being women. Nor are men any the happier, in that dominion in modern education is transferred from man to the State, and man is progressively emasculated. The major casualty of modern education is the male student. Since dominion is by God's creative purpose a basic aspect of man, any education which diminishes man's calling to exercise dominion also diminishes man to the same degree.
Yeah, ever since they gave women the vote the distinction between the sexes has been blurred. I bet that's what causes all the poofery these days
Now pi$$ off back into the kitchen
[quote name='The Last Bear' date='Mar 13 2008, 03:48 PM' post='1011789']
the rest of us need to develop other hobbies and perhaps take up crochet.
Last bear. there must be plenty of women out there for you with a sense of humour like that. Women love men who can make them laugh.
the rest of us need to develop other hobbies and perhaps take up crochet.
Last bear. there must be plenty of women out there for you with a sense of humour like that. Women love men who can make them laugh.
QUOTE (The Last Bear @ Mar 13 2008, 03:48 PM)
the rest of us need to develop other hobbies and perhaps take up crochet.
Last bear. there must be plenty of women out there for you with a sense of humour like that. Women love men who can make them laugh.
Last bear. there must be plenty of women out there for you with a sense of humour like that. Women love men who can make them laugh.
Hi butterfly, they don't tend to give us men a chance unless we look like whoever it is they fancy off Hollyoaks, or whatever - you can perhaps make them laugh if they grant you a few moments before closing the door, but they 99/100 then drop in a gentle hint that they don't fancy you, such as "I don't fancy you but you're a laugh" or "My boyfriend lives in..."
A bloke who looks good but has the warmth and personality of Asda's Smart Price chicken roll gets a head start and will find himself rather popular just for looking the way he does - he'll get automatic credit, and that happens enough times that he'll never be lonely as he'll always find women that are interested. By the time he's lost his looks and turned into Nr Blobby he'll have his kids for comfort and old flames to keep him going.
Such is life, there's always the 0.00001% chance a fanciable woman will show up for me one day, possibly even before the next Ice Age.
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 03:12 PM)
Some women want the bloody world!!
Let some other mug give it to her.
Deleted.
After a break-up a few years ago, one mate who was more successful with me told me these golden rules that worked for him...
a) "I'm just a girl who wants a boy to love this girl" - some line out of Pretty Woman. He said that it is the most accurate thing he has ever heard a woman say. Keep that in your mind when you're with them.
Don't say too much, especially on the first few dates, or that will shatter her illusions.
c) Women don't know what they want half the time. Treat them like children when it comes to making decisions.
d) Look at them in the eyes when talking (in a non-psycho way) and they love it.
I tried them. Worked a treat.
a) "I'm just a girl who wants a boy to love this girl" - some line out of Pretty Woman. He said that it is the most accurate thing he has ever heard a woman say. Keep that in your mind when you're with them.
Don't say too much, especially on the first few dates, or that will shatter her illusions.c) Women don't know what they want half the time. Treat them like children when it comes to making decisions.
d) Look at them in the eyes when talking (in a non-psycho way) and they love it.
I tried them. Worked a treat.
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 13 2008, 06:04 PM)
Deleted.
I read your post before you deleted it, thanks for posting that positive fable, am obviously very pleased for you! Don't believe for a second that'll happen for me, but I'm delighted that romantic thingy worked out for you.
QUOTE (Pacific State @ Mar 13 2008, 07:15 PM)
After a break-up a few years ago, one mate who was more successful with me told me these golden rules that worked for him...
a) "I'm just a girl who wants a boy to love this girl" - some line out of Pretty Woman. He said that it is the most accurate thing he has ever heard a woman say. Keep that in your mind when you're with them.
Don't say too much, especially on the first few dates, or that will shatter her illusions.
c) Women don't know what they want half the time. Treat them like children when it comes to making decisions.
d) Look at them in the eyes when talking (in a non-psycho way) and they love it.
I tried them. Worked a treat.
a) "I'm just a girl who wants a boy to love this girl" - some line out of Pretty Woman. He said that it is the most accurate thing he has ever heard a woman say. Keep that in your mind when you're with them.
Don't say too much, especially on the first few dates, or that will shatter her illusions.c) Women don't know what they want half the time. Treat them like children when it comes to making decisions.
d) Look at them in the eyes when talking (in a non-psycho way) and they love it.
I tried them. Worked a treat.
Thanks. Don't know about a, sounds a bit twee, I very much agree with b, very much agree with c, very much agree with d. One of the reasons d works so well is because people are subliminely programmed to find anyone who gives them positive attention a favourable rating, and from aesthetics the face is more attractive when eyes meet - this is the symmetry factor.
I know all this stuff, problem is the women I fancy don't fancy me and no jokes, eye contact nor playfully making decisions for them will work. And I'm definitely not going to be pushy with women who announce they have a boyfriend, although I know some men think that's some sort of green light (the ultimate in self-delusional positive thinking!).
Sorry Ozz, I've hijacked your thread! At least you know you're not alone.
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 02:36 PM)
Why is it that women don't like blokes who treat them well?
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
and yes just had a relationship breakup before you ask!
My bloke aka my husband treats me really well and I really like and love him
. Untidy ba$tard tho'
QUOTE (Skint Academic @ Mar 13 2008, 04:14 PM)
A lot of women are attracted to charisma, intelligence, confidence and the ability to make others laugh.
I think charisma is a very big factor, though difficult to quantify. I know a couple of guys who have this asset and while (to me) they don't seem especially different to any other male, they could easily attract no end of women, seemingly without effort (both are married however and don't take it any further than harmless flirting--decent blokes basically).
Looks don't really enter into it, there's some other factor that I can't describe or define that we tend to term charisma. Trouble is, it can't be learned (IMO), you've either got it or you haven't.
I haven't by the way, but it's still an interesting subject for me.
I think the nub of it is that women feel uncomfortable dealing with anyone they can't feel morally superior to. I've lost count of the number of times I've gone into the coffee room and found groups of female colleagues discussing their other halves' failings. The idea of a man who does not behave like a slob, get drunk all the time, behave abusively to their partner, dress scruffily, drive badly etc. is one I suspect they wouldn't like- literally, because it would give them nothing to complain about. Three decades of feminism have taught them that all men are somewhere between mildly delinquent and downright evil, and any one who doesn't fit this stereotype is something they aren't usually able to deal with.
The Last Bear, that was probably one of the most refreshing pieces I have EVER read. Rather than arguing my point and 'oh i'm not like that and I have been treated badly' I think that you are bang on the money, well observed and well written. Thankyou for your honesty, which I think is the most attractive trait a person can have, whatever gender.
Ozz, whatever will be will be, don't blame it on the boogie.
By the way I think the girl loves a boy thing was out of Nottinghill.
People are over rated.
WGA
Ozz, whatever will be will be, don't blame it on the boogie.
By the way I think the girl loves a boy thing was out of Nottinghill.
People are over rated.
WGA
Speaking from a womens perspective (well my own experience)
There is something (maybe a gene misfunction lol) very attractive about bad boys (or men that treat women like s**t)
you want them to only want you - even though they want anything with a pulse
you want to be the one to change them - even though they never will
Its a lesson I learned the hard way
There is something (maybe a gene misfunction lol) very attractive about bad boys (or men that treat women like s**t)
you want them to only want you - even though they want anything with a pulse
you want to be the one to change them - even though they never will
Its a lesson I learned the hard way
QUOTE (jackster1 @ Mar 14 2008, 11:43 AM)
Speaking from a womens perspective (well my own experience)
There is something (maybe a gene misfunction lol) very attractive about bad boys (or men that treat women like s**t)
you want them to only want you - even though they want anything with a pulse
you want to be the one to change them - even though they never will
Its a lesson I learned the hard way
There is something (maybe a gene misfunction lol) very attractive about bad boys (or men that treat women like s**t)
you want them to only want you - even though they want anything with a pulse
you want to be the one to change them - even though they never will
Its a lesson I learned the hard way
I think bad boys are more exciting than the solid, dependable (dull?) types. Well I don't think that myself (strictly butter side up y'know), I mean women can often think that. And to an extent, I can see why that would be the case. The problem is, bad boys tend to stay pretty much as they are, despite the best efforts of their parners to change them.
Gee guys, have you ever considered treating women as, well.....people?
QUOTE (anorthosite @ Mar 14 2008, 05:40 PM)
Gee guys, have you ever considered treating women as, well.....people?
There's always someone who has to take a perfectly sensible thread and just make it silly.
QUOTE (OzzMosiz @ Mar 13 2008, 03:12 PM)
You're not wrong.
My ex said she was treated like a house-maid, cos I let her do the washing.
She never considered that I get up at 5:20am for work, travel 120+ miles a day to work, then get back at 4:45 to wait 15 minutes for her to come out of work before driving her home, and by the time I get home I'm knackered. Did my fair share of cooking, and did the hoovering.
I like to go out on the weekends, to make the most of my freetime, but she wanted to stay in the house all the time.
Some women want the bloody world!!
My ex said she was treated like a house-maid, cos I let her do the washing.
She never considered that I get up at 5:20am for work, travel 120+ miles a day to work, then get back at 4:45 to wait 15 minutes for her to come out of work before driving her home, and by the time I get home I'm knackered. Did my fair share of cooking, and did the hoovering.
I like to go out on the weekends, to make the most of my freetime, but she wanted to stay in the house all the time.
Some women want the bloody world!!
There is some truth in what you say, some women don't appear to have a bl00dy clue what they want and you appear to lose out whatever you do. Do what they want, they're not happy cos you're a wuss, don't do what they want and you are a pig.
I've always found the best way to live is to be reasonable to women but don't take any shit from them (a good spanking can put an end to tantrums in no time). I've been married well over a decade now so I must be doing something right
QUOTE (anorthosite @ Mar 14 2008, 05:40 PM)
Gee guys, have you ever considered treating women as, well.....people?
Perhaps if they started **behaving** like people, I would consider it.
Women are attracted to confidence. They want to feel that you'll be a "good bull" and provide for her and her off spring. Height and looks matter to some extent, but look at the kind of women average looking rich blokes bag.
Best thing is to stay single and sh*g around (but buckle up). Love is just a word the French created to make lust sound more civilised.
I have noticed two things about both sexes as they age: -
Men - get used to having the same women around and get more attached to them. In my mind they get a little weaker.
Women - after the children have gone they get a bit, dare I say, pointless. But the older men they are with may not think this.
Best thing is to stay single and sh*g around (but buckle up). Love is just a word the French created to make lust sound more civilised.
I have noticed two things about both sexes as they age: -
Men - get used to having the same women around and get more attached to them. In my mind they get a little weaker.
Women - after the children have gone they get a bit, dare I say, pointless. But the older men they are with may not think this.
QUOTE (Minos @ Mar 14 2008, 06:50 PM)
Women are attracted to confidence. They want to feel that you'll be a "good bull" and provide for her and her off spring.
I guess that probably boils down to ancient drives (which still govern our "civilized" behavior to some degree). The need for a protector/provider to look after you while you produce offspring (which is one of the most basic drives of all).
QUOTE (Pacific State @ Mar 14 2008, 06:17 PM)
Perhaps if they started **behaving** like people, I would consider it.
You're right. It's about time I stopped sniffing the behind of every other woman I come across.
QUOTE (whatgoesaround @ Mar 14 2008, 11:28 AM)
The Last Bear, that was probably one of the most refreshing pieces I have EVER read. Rather than arguing my point and 'oh i'm not like that and I have been treated badly' I think that you are bang on the money, well observed and well written. Thankyou for your honesty, which I think is the most attractive trait a person can have, whatever gender.
Ozz, whatever will be will be, don't blame it on the boogie.
By the way I think the girl loves a boy thing was out of Nottinghill.
People are over rated.
WGA
Ozz, whatever will be will be, don't blame it on the boogie.
By the way I think the girl loves a boy thing was out of Nottinghill.
People are over rated.
WGA
Thanks, I do me best!
QUOTE (jackster1 @ Mar 14 2008, 11:43 AM)
Speaking from a womens perspective (well my own experience)
There is something (maybe a gene misfunction lol) very attractive about bad boys (or men that treat women like s**t)
you want them to only want you - even though they want anything with a pulse
you want to be the one to change them - even though they never will
Its a lesson I learned the hard way
There is something (maybe a gene misfunction lol) very attractive about bad boys (or men that treat women like s**t)
you want them to only want you - even though they want anything with a pulse
you want to be the one to change them - even though they never will
Its a lesson I learned the hard way
Yes.
I was told totally spontaneously y'day by a female colleague 16 yrs my junior what a really nice guy i am and asked if I am married, but such interest in me is rare, made a refreshing change to not be treated as the chopped liver, though.
QUOTE (The Last Bear @ Mar 15 2008, 02:03 AM)
Thanks, I do me best!
Yes.
I was told totally spontaneously y'day by a female colleague 16 yrs my junior what a really nice guy i am and asked if I am married, but such interest in me is rare, made a refreshing change to not be treated as the chopped liver, though.
Yes.
I was told totally spontaneously y'day by a female colleague 16 yrs my junior what a really nice guy i am and asked if I am married, but such interest in me is rare, made a refreshing change to not be treated as the chopped liver, though.
If she says you are a nice guy, she's not attracted to you.
Listen up:
Women are not attracted to bad boys, they are excited by them.
They mistake this "state" for attraction, and the ups and downs of the relationship (fractionation) addicts them.
They get rid of nice guys because they are boring. Shake things up , have clear boundaries, break your patterns, make her work a bit for you,lay on some real romance occasionally (run her a bath, candles, cook dinner, candles music, then dance kissing and withdrawing to change the music or make coffee(fractionating her desire for you again) then deliver the goods -ALWAYS.)
When making love, act like a porn star. Show leadership, most women WANT to be lead.Gradually, but progressively, get dirtier until you reach her limit.Then she is learning about herself.
LEARN HOW TO TALK TO WOMEN
There are many highly intelligent men on this forum, who could bore the pants off women Their brains function differently to men. Learn to talk about what women want. Fire up their emotions, so they feel alive. "Bait the hook with what the fish likes to eat."
Attraction and seduction are skill sets. They can be learnt (try Ross Jeffries). Then you can choose the women you want in your life-and they will simply love being with you.
QUOTE (SurgeonGeneral @ Mar 15 2008, 08:16 AM)
There are many highly intelligent men on this forum, who could bore the pants off women.
Ahhhhh! Maybe that's what I should be trying. God knows nothing else works.
In my reasonably extensive dating career, I am yet to meet a woman who prizes my intelligence. My straight friends, all of whom are highly erudite and educated, report the same thing.
They will prize confidence, they will prize ability to earn and they will prize "manliness". Since leaving university, I have rarely met a woman willing to engage for more than 2 minutes in a highly intellectual conversation.
So, you just fluff them, make them laugh and cuddle them - not exactly taxing but they seem to like it.
On the other hand, men, myself included, would go apeshit for a woman who could expouse her views on the world and discuss them.
They will prize confidence, they will prize ability to earn and they will prize "manliness". Since leaving university, I have rarely met a woman willing to engage for more than 2 minutes in a highly intellectual conversation.
So, you just fluff them, make them laugh and cuddle them - not exactly taxing but they seem to like it.
On the other hand, men, myself included, would go apeshit for a woman who could expouse her views on the world and discuss them.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.