R
randomuser888
Guest
If it didn’t “cross the line,” then why does it need to be flagged? This new CAF format reeks of anarchy.
- Status
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
I don’t feel it crossed the line. However, I do think it is understandable how one would. You do realize that a poster baselessly called the entire religion sexist on a board dedicated to that religion?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I dont believe there are CAF rules against views re organisations as opposed to uncharity towards contributors.
Just because people do not like my dog that doesnt really mean an uncharity to me personally.
Clearly many authority figures and Church rules and practise have reflected the shortsightedness of the secular times it dwelt in…and the momentum of the Church does have a tendancy to perpetuate such abberations beyond their expiry date even when long abandoned by the secular conditions in which they arose. Slavery, royal authority, cosmology, sexism are but a few more obvious examples.
Just because people do not like my dog that doesnt really mean an uncharity to me personally.
Clearly many authority figures and Church rules and practise have reflected the shortsightedness of the secular times it dwelt in…and the momentum of the Church does have a tendancy to perpetuate such abberations beyond their expiry date even when long abandoned by the secular conditions in which they arose. Slavery, royal authority, cosmology, sexism are but a few more obvious examples.
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
The FAQ is not working, but it did list attacks on the dignity of the church previously as unacceptable speech. Saying the church “treats women with disdain”, to me, is a rather callous attack on the dignity of the church.
P
PDXSeeker_1975
Guest
There is simply no socially acceptable, possible way to meet anyone for friendship, relationship, or otherwise. I have absolutely no idea how I’m supposed to. I’m not looking for casual sex, or a supermodel, just would like to not experience crushing loneliness every day.
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
I think you’re taking a giant leap here.
How do you meet people?
–Diocesan and parish events aimed for your age range
–Going to town events like parades, flea markets, town days and music nights
–Clubs of your interest: Reading groups at the library, ham radio clubs, fly fish tying at the community center, ASL class at a community college
–Sites like meetup.com which allow you to look at a range of activities in your area. (and no, this is NOT about sex)
What you’re saying is that YOU want to break social constructs so YOU can be happy because you don’t want to do the work of finding friends the socially acceptable way.
How do you meet people?
–Diocesan and parish events aimed for your age range
–Going to town events like parades, flea markets, town days and music nights
–Clubs of your interest: Reading groups at the library, ham radio clubs, fly fish tying at the community center, ASL class at a community college
–Sites like meetup.com which allow you to look at a range of activities in your area. (and no, this is NOT about sex)
What you’re saying is that YOU want to break social constructs so YOU can be happy because you don’t want to do the work of finding friends the socially acceptable way.
D
DarkLight
Guest
What specific part would you object to? I’m not objecting to feminism as a whole here, merely the approach to sexual morality.
P
PDXSeeker_1975
Guest
Believe me, I don’t have the makeup to randomly approach strangers or ask a
cashier/waitress etc. out because I know they’re paid to be nice or aren’t
interested. Sorry if that was misunderstood. I’m speaking as someone who’s
done all those other suggestions, including multiple Meetups, parish
groups, volunteer groups etc. Not many Catholic groups for 40+ singles.
Sure there’s a brief social period during the specific events, but it’s
never resulted in a friendship outside of those walls. I don’t know, maybe
I should try the weird, awkward randomly approaching strangers approach
(Probably not -Im basically used to being alone at this point anyway, like
it or not).
cashier/waitress etc. out because I know they’re paid to be nice or aren’t
interested. Sorry if that was misunderstood. I’m speaking as someone who’s
done all those other suggestions, including multiple Meetups, parish
groups, volunteer groups etc. Not many Catholic groups for 40+ singles.
Sure there’s a brief social period during the specific events, but it’s
never resulted in a friendship outside of those walls. I don’t know, maybe
I should try the weird, awkward randomly approaching strangers approach
(Probably not -Im basically used to being alone at this point anyway, like
it or not).
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Perhaps counseling is in order then. You don’t need a Catholic social group, you need to go out and meet other people. You may or may not find Catholics with your similar view.
However, if you are finding it continually difficult to speak with people in truly ordinary situations, again, it may be time for professional help. Your loneliness may be a sign of depression feeding your anxiety and awkwardness. I am not a mental health professional, but from the way you speak it is quite clear that you could benefit from someone with know-how to coach you.
However, if you are finding it continually difficult to speak with people in truly ordinary situations, again, it may be time for professional help. Your loneliness may be a sign of depression feeding your anxiety and awkwardness. I am not a mental health professional, but from the way you speak it is quite clear that you could benefit from someone with know-how to coach you.
A
ATraveller
Guest
As if secular culture is sooo much better. Treating women like disposable sex toys and downgrading humans to the level of compulsive organisms. The latter is anti-science by the way as humans have complete self-control.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I thought about flagging it, but since it did not personally attack another poster, I decided that it should be left up in the interests of free speech.
Do I think his opinion is bigoted and incorrect? Of course I do. However other people think the same thing about me and I rather would not be censored just because people disagree with my opinions.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Without the ability to read the full rules, I tend to agree with you. I know that via the old rules the type of speech would not be permitted so I would not condemn the person who flagged the post, either.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
I thought about flagging it, but since it did not personally attack another poster, I decided that it should be left up in the interests of free speech.
Do I think his opinion is bigoted and incorrect? Of course I do. However other people think the same thing about me and I rather would not be censored just because people disagree with my opinions.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
No see, you don’t understand. It is only harrassment if it’s unwanted. If she thinks the guy is attractive and she wants to have casual sex with him then it is okay. And men are supposed to know whether or not they fit her criteria before they even look at her.
Feminists wanted secular morality and they got it. Now they don’t like it. Pity.
Feminists wanted secular morality and they got it. Now they don’t like it. Pity.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Lets dial back the tone a little and have a KitKat perhaps…
Not all of us are extroverts and can readily engage just by rubbing shoulders in a crowd and having anonymous sex with strangers
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Lets dial back the tone a little and have a KitKat perhaps…
Not all of us are extroverts and can readily engage just by rubbing shoulders in a crowd and having anonymous sex with strangers
Actually an introvert here married to an introvert. We both attended the same parish–sometimes even the same Masses. We both went to a few of the diocesan ToT’s…we’ve confirmed it. On my life, I cannot remember seeing him. He swears he never saw me there. But we’ve found photographic evidence we were. We were introverted strangers in our own little worlds. What eventually happened is that we both signed up for a Catholic dating site and met up at Mass.I’m not sure what I would have done if he approached me during a ToT event…I probably would have thought he was a weirdo depending on the timing.
So I really think that many, many people are best served by getting help in that department or being willing to understand how the social awkward things may be there for a reason and be willing to work within social constructs however annoying they may be.
X
Xantippe
Guest
What percentage of women when hit on respond positively to lewd overtures from strangers? If it’s less than 50% (and it is), you can assume that the attention is unwanted.
I just don’t get the attitude that says that if only 5-15% of women are going to respond positively, then that means that it’s a complete mystery how women are going to respond.
There is no mystery here.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Right. Very, very few women - none that I’ve talked to - actually appreciate these sorts of advances. Heck, I’ve seen major discussions among women of how to dress and act in order to avoid attracting attention while out in public. The idea of women enjoying it if the guy’s attractive enough in my experience seems to be mostly a male fantasy/justification.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
I was not aware that anyone here was claiming that walking up to a woman and making a remark about various body parts or what you want to do to her later is a socially acceptable approach.
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
A more interesting question, in my opinion, is what percentage of males compose the “desirable” category and what their response rate is versus the averave male.
I think we can all agree that the 6’4" “alpha” male has a significantly higher chance of scoring in a cold-approach scenario than the 5’6" balding “beta”. Which is actually where the isea of Game and Pick-Up theory came from. It is a strategy for the 80% of men who don’t have women chasing them.
And one of the earliest things they found was the most obvious and what you are touching on: rate doesn’t matter as much as pure quantity. An “alpha” with the success rate of 50% who only goes after ten women can be matched by the intrepid PUA “beta” with a 5% rate who goes after 100 women. Since the name of the Game was quantity, strategies had to be developed to get through the interaction in the fastest possible manner and reach either acceptance or rejection as early as possible in order to fit in more attempts.
Game theory also has shown that baseline acceptance/rejection doesn’t really change according to time spent trying… Or at least not often enough to justify the opportunity cost. If a girl is not down, almost nothing will change her mind, so it is best (from their perspective) to push the limits as far as you can to determine her feelings at the earliest possible moment. Now, men have always used these strategies to some degree (hence the “cat-calling”) but only recently has it really been approached scientifically and en masse.
And what they’ve found is that respect and “good behavior” are negatively correlated with positive response. Feminists and Christians don’t like to admit this, but the near universal rule is that women do, in fact, like the bad boys. The few exceptions to the rule don’t really justify a change of strategy as far as Game goes.
So it’s not really a question of “do women like this” as much as “do most women respond to this more often than they respond to something else?” The answer is a conclusive “yes, the Game theorists generally have it right”.
So really, women are largely to blame for all this. If they responded to nice guy behavior then the Game theorists would be working “beta Game”. They don’t, so Game theorists work “alpha Game” and unfortunately for everyone, that means cocky attitudes, lewd behavior, and a large, superficial net.
I think we can all agree that the 6’4" “alpha” male has a significantly higher chance of scoring in a cold-approach scenario than the 5’6" balding “beta”. Which is actually where the isea of Game and Pick-Up theory came from. It is a strategy for the 80% of men who don’t have women chasing them.
And one of the earliest things they found was the most obvious and what you are touching on: rate doesn’t matter as much as pure quantity. An “alpha” with the success rate of 50% who only goes after ten women can be matched by the intrepid PUA “beta” with a 5% rate who goes after 100 women. Since the name of the Game was quantity, strategies had to be developed to get through the interaction in the fastest possible manner and reach either acceptance or rejection as early as possible in order to fit in more attempts.
Game theory also has shown that baseline acceptance/rejection doesn’t really change according to time spent trying… Or at least not often enough to justify the opportunity cost. If a girl is not down, almost nothing will change her mind, so it is best (from their perspective) to push the limits as far as you can to determine her feelings at the earliest possible moment. Now, men have always used these strategies to some degree (hence the “cat-calling”) but only recently has it really been approached scientifically and en masse.
And what they’ve found is that respect and “good behavior” are negatively correlated with positive response. Feminists and Christians don’t like to admit this, but the near universal rule is that women do, in fact, like the bad boys. The few exceptions to the rule don’t really justify a change of strategy as far as Game goes.
So it’s not really a question of “do women like this” as much as “do most women respond to this more often than they respond to something else?” The answer is a conclusive “yes, the Game theorists generally have it right”.
So really, women are largely to blame for all this. If they responded to nice guy behavior then the Game theorists would be working “beta Game”. They don’t, so Game theorists work “alpha Game” and unfortunately for everyone, that means cocky attitudes, lewd behavior, and a large, superficial net.
Last edited:
X
Xantippe
Guest
Even pick up artists themselves report very, very low rates of positive reaction.
What they do “works” because they are willing to bother hundreds of women.
What they do “works” because they are willing to bother hundreds of women.
- Status