5 ms·

"Sorry, you'll have to take up that one with the big guy upstairs. The truth is, if you cry, women will be less attracted to you. They will think you are nice a

"Sorry, you'll have to take up that one with the big guy upstairs. The truth is, if you cry, women will be less attracted to you. They will think you are nice and sweet and they will laud your ability to show your emotions. But they will not want to f--k you. Women are attracted to strength and command." Forgive me for the harsh response, but what absolutely sexist bs. I am sure there exist some women are exactly how you described. But saying "women are" attracted to one thing or another is just as stupid as describing all men as slobbering idiots who only like blondes or all italians as plumbers obsessed with hopping on goombas.

darkroasted 11y ago
In the world we actually live in, sexism is true. Men and women are different. Now obviously, there is great variation among human beings. While men are generally physically strong than women, obviously a very small percentage of women can bench press more than the median man. But when the number of exceptions in a general pattern is small, say less than 5%, then I drop the qualifiers because qualifiers make for lousy writing. It is better English and still fully truthful to make a statement like, "men are stronger than woman" rather than the statement "on average men are stronger than woman" because the number of exceptions to the generalization is quite small. I feel quite confident in saying that >95% of women will experience an increase in romantic attraction to a man who shows strength and command, and will be less attracted to a man who cries because his boss chewed him out. I base this on hundreds, possibly thousands of data points from my own experience and the shared experience of others. "But saying "women are" attracted to one thing or another is just as stupid as describing all men as slobbering idiots who only like blondes or all italians as plumbers obsessed with hopping on goombas." This analogy is so bad that can I only surmise that you are actively arguing in bad faith. Again, every woman I know is more attracted to a man when he performs feats of strength and command. No Italians I know are plumbers obsessed with jumping on goombas. So no, your analogy is terrible. Meta question -- why did you make such a willfully stupid analogy?

darkroasted 11y ago

In the world we actually live in, sexism is true. Men and women are different. Now obviously, there is great variation among human beings. While men are generally physically strong than women, obviously a very small percentage of women can bench press more than the median man. But when the number of exceptions in a general pattern is small, say less than 5%, then I drop the qualifiers because qualifiers make for lousy writing. It is better English and still fully truthful to make a statement like, "men are stronger than woman" rather than the statement "on average men are stronger than woman" because the number of exceptions to the generalization is quite small. I feel quite confident in saying that >95% of women will experience an increase in romantic attraction to a man who shows strength and command, and will be less attracted to a man who cries because his boss chewed him out. I base this on hundreds, possibly thousands of data points from my own experience and the shared experience of others. "But saying "women are" attracted to one thing or another is just as stupid as describing all men as slobbering idiots who only like blondes or all italians as plumbers obsessed with hopping on goombas." This analogy is so bad that can I only surmise that you are actively arguing in bad faith. Again, every woman I know is more attracted to a man when he performs feats of strength and command. No Italians I know are plumbers obsessed with jumping on goombas. So no, your analogy is terrible. Meta question -- why did you make such a willfully stupid analogy?