Why do the " Bad Boys" get so many women?

[exoflare]

Who are you fooling? Everyone knows that physical abuse crosses the line.

Which doesn’t address what I said or what you said at all. You note your lack of physical strength as if it somehow rules out the possibility of abusiveness, and it doesn’t. There was really no purpose in mentioning it at all, except to make you appear even more defensive. Anyone else feel free to chime in if I missed something.

 

[chevalier]

1. Must be a biological woman. I do not, cannot, and will not involve myself in a romantic relationship with a “transwoman” since it is against Catholic teaching on sexual morality!

Of course it is and no argument there.

1. Must not be flat-chested. Why? I will give three reasons for this.
   a. Some of the worst rejection that I’ve had came from flat-chested women. I have no idea why this is the case. Coincidence? Maybe.

Of course coincidence! Give me a single half-decent causal link.

b. I do not want to have rumors that I’m dating an underage woman. Why? Because rumors have the potential of becoming very large unless addressed at the most strategic time.

Don’t live in an imaginary world of intrigue. Firstly, while you’re in the centre and spotlight of your own life for obvious reasons, you’re not important enough for people to fill their days with gossip about you. For an ordinary person like you or me, this is a non-concern.

Also, it takes an idiot to judge a woman’s age (solely) by the look of her chest. And idiots are going to think weird things by definition. You cannot predict them.

c. I do not want to date someone who looks like a stereotypical “transwoman”.

There’s no connection. You either like the look or you don’t. The rest is not important. Don’t try to make statements by forcing yourself to pretend that you’re either attracted or unattracted when you are not. Or you’ll end up insane.

1. Must not look boyish. It is because my first ex-girlfriend looked boyish.

That’s a silly reason, honestly (and a bit childish, you need to be more mature than that). Just because you don’t particularly like your first ex-girlfriend doesn’t mean you need to dislike everybody who looks similar or has the same name or surname or anything like that, which isn’t really important to you. This is the same mechanic as disliking all women because one of them has hurt you, just less extreme. What is important to you is always the individual person. You can narrow down your pool by skipping people you can’t marry (e.g. women who are really men, women who are already married etc.) or people you know you wouldn’t like to marry (e.g. cheaters, liars, verbal abusers). But you aren’t going to prove anything or change anything or avenge anything by excluding certain categories of people, it only makes sense to exclude or be careful about people who belong to a category that you know (empirically, or at worst on the basis of some reliable psychology) wouldn’t be good for you.

Who are you fooling? Everyone knows that physical abuse crosses the line. I didn’t say it was the only form out there but I’ve read enough statistics to say it’s an obvious indicator.

You tell me I have a lot to learn but I think you have a LOT of common sense to recover. Seriously.

Nope, he’s right. You really mentioned your lack of physical strength as a reason why you couldn’t be an abusive person. Or at least it came out like that. It’s true that physical abuse is only one of the possible forms and the other ones don’t require physical strength. In fact, physical abuse doesn’t require exceptional or average strength, either. Even if a child hits you, you still feel it. Apart from pain, there’s also offence and humiliation–no specific amount of strength is required to deliver those (e.g. a slap on the face, a contemptuous prod). So, logically, his position has merit and you perhaps meant something different than you said, or didn’t fully elaborate what you meant. It happens like that with unfinished thoughts, misunderstandings happen.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’ll go for appearances first (yes, thread-relevant).
I recall that some in this thread states that nice guys and nice girls should try looking more confident. I agree.
Hence, my standards for external appearances. Note that it’s not a major thing with me. Except for #1, of course.

1. Must be a biological woman. I do not, cannot, and will not involve myself in a romantic relationship with a “transwoman” since it is against Catholic teaching on sexual morality!
2. Must not be flat-chested. Why? I will give three reasons for this.
   a. Some of the worst rejection that I’ve had came from flat-chested women. I have no idea why this is the case. Coincidence? Maybe.
   b. I do not want to have rumors that I’m dating an underage woman. Why? Because rumors have the potential of becoming very large unless addressed at the most strategic time.
   c. I do not want to date someone who looks like a stereotypical “transwoman”.
3. Must not look boyish. It is because my first ex-girlfriend looked boyish.

Not too young and actual girls…this leaves a lot of women with many different kinds of appearance still available.

If you want to date only actual girls, get to know people before you jump into the rituals of courtship. The women won’t be offended and the transsexuals will undoubtedly gather that you are a traditional sort of fellow…not their “type”. If you pull total strangers onto the dance floor, you are far more likely to run into someone who is rudely looking for a straight man to freak out.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Which doesn’t address what I said or what you said at all. You note your lack of physical strength as if it somehow rules out the possibility of abusiveness, and it doesn’t. There was really no purpose in mentioning it at all, except to make you appear even more defensive. Anyone else feel free to chime in if I missed something.

Yeah the word ‘even’. I said I don’t even have the physical strength, let alone the personality.

Oh but no, just cuz I have a preference for a certain archetype, it means I do.

Frankly, I’ve lived my whole life debunking stupid psychological theories like the Oedipus complex and the fact that the bullied only become the bullies. But instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you all just think I’m in denial.

So, logically, his position has merit and you perhaps meant something different than you said, or didn’t fully elaborate what you meant. It happens like that with unfinished thoughts, misunderstandings happen.

I think that’s more grounds to stop presuming a person’s character than it is a grounds to be more elaborate.

And frankly, I think the two previous people on this thread who have already done this to me are starting to get on my nerves. I’ve already had this treatment in real life, I don’t need the internet joining in.

 

[Crescentinus]

Of course it is and no argument there.

Of course coincidence! Give me a single half-decent causal link.

Don’t live in an imaginary world of intrigue. Firstly, while you’re in the centre and spotlight of your own life for obvious reasons, you’re not important enough for people to fill their days with gossip about you. For an ordinary person like you or me, this is a non-concern.

Also, it takes an idiot to judge a woman’s age (solely) by the look of her chest. And idiots are going to think weird things by definition. You cannot predict them.

There’s no connection. You either like the look or you don’t. The rest is not important. Don’t try to make statements by forcing yourself to pretend that you’re either attracted or unattracted when you are not. Or you’ll end up insane.

That’s a silly reason, honestly (and a bit childish, you need to be more mature than that). Just because you don’t particularly like your first ex-girlfriend doesn’t mean you need to dislike everybody who looks similar or has the same name or surname or anything like that, which isn’t really important to you. This is the same mechanic as disliking all women because one of them has hurt you, just less extreme. What is important to you is always the individual person. You can narrow down your pool by skipping people you can’t marry (e.g. women who are really men, women who are already married etc.) or people you know you wouldn’t like to marry (e.g. cheaters, liars, verbal abusers). But you aren’t going to prove anything or change anything or avenge anything by excluding certain categories of people, it only makes sense to exclude or be careful about people who belong to a category that you know (empirically, or at worst on the basis of some reliable psychology) wouldn’t be good for you.

Problem is, a lot of homosexualists will invariably judge me as some “transphobe”. Although this is not much of a problem here in Manila, it has the potential of being a serious problem if I go to the West. Then again, I prefer fighting homosexualists than listening to them.

So, it’s a good idea for me to marry someone who’s flat-chested!? I don’t get it since I do not want to date a flat-chested woman. And no, I’m not even attracted to them! I am fed up with the idiocy that some have when it comes to turning flat-chestedness into some fetish. Sadly, this came from the anime “Lucky Star” when Konata said that “Having a flat chest is a status symbol!” and some idiots within the fanbase decided to preach that.

As for rumors, I’m somewhat scared if rumors go after me at school or work. It has the potential of destroying me.

You’re right, it was highly immature of me to say that.

 

[Crescentinus]

Not too young and actual girls…this leaves a lot of women with many different kinds of appearance still available.

If you want to date only actual girls, get to know people before you jump into the rituals of courtship. The women won’t be offended and the transsexuals will undoubtedly gather that you are a traditional sort of fellow…not their “type”. If you pull total strangers onto the dance floor, you are far more likely to run into someone who is rudely looking for a straight man to freak out.

Good point, and it will offend some homosexualists.

 

[roselily]

Look, its a nice fantasy.
Women come in all sizes. The petite ones can be very charming.
But don’t go into the illusion that a woman is an angel or some little innocent doll who relies on your protection and will not be a sometimes angry, sad, or otherwise passionate being.
Sure there are women who are very silent and never stand up to themselves. These have often been given the message at home that they were not worth listening to, and their issues will explode at some point.

Find yourself a best friend. Thats a better way.

True.

 

[roselily]

Look I’ve had good friends but recently I’ve been hanging around the less that savory ones and there are days when I grow tired of it.

Is it a crime if by ‘best friend’, I assumed it’s time I finally set out for that girl? After all, good piece of courting/dating advice is to always start out as good friends.

The only problem is I barely have a single candidate.

Why assume that I find this problematic? You wanna be a woman like that? Go ahead. I don’t see why I’m a bastard though if I say I don’t fall in love with the louder and more independent types.

And what makes you think that the girl I’m looking for doesn’t care about exploring life or their own potential? What if their own potential lies in being good wives and mothers?

See, here’s the problem I’m starting to sense here with your perspective. I would go as far as to say that I’m the one here who is truly about diversity and freedom. Why? Because I believe that girl should be what she wants to be regardless of what either feminists or conservatives say. If they wanna be a senator. Good for them. If they wanna be a stay-at-home-mom. Good for them. It is their CHOICE.

The kind of girl I want is the type who would want to be my wife, the mother of my kids, and be the object of my devoted protection. I don’t want all the girls in the world to be like that. I just want to find a single one who would choose that path.

Look I have a sister who would HATE to be that girl but do I HATE my sister? Heck no. You can be like her.

You wanna be an Amelia Earhart? I’ll support you but I won’t fall in you love with you. They’re just not my type and never will be.

Okay that’s it. If somebody assumes me immature one more time, I’m calling lack of charity. You want immature? Try the brats my brother hangs with who think the only way to bring the best out of somebody they think that needs fixing is through trolling them till they lose it.

There is no imbalance. I just happen to be surrounded at times with a lot of people who have so much ego, even you would suffocate.

The difference between me and them though is that I don’t desire to be some evil overlord. I don’t boast. I’m just tired of being squashed and will stop when I got no more giant feet wanting to step on me. Therefore, I wouldn’t be quick to assume I’ve been ‘influenced’ by their type.

Lost Wanderer, did you read that usually men do not like very independent type women, and that you are not alone?

Is it divoce rate very higher in western countries now than before?
And has women been more independent?
Very independent women can survive without men, but i thought that men would profer to have a woman depent on him, rely on him. and also in life, mother is the person you can trust most.

May God bless you and all dear brothers sisters in Christ, it is I pray you have much happiness in life.

 

[MidnightSun12]

I think a nice guy can be just as successful with women as the bad boy (it’s just that it’s going to be with one woman, rather then a bunch!)

I think female attraction to men comes down mainly to confidence! Looks can matter, but they are generally just icing on the cake for ladies. A guy’s confidence creates the attraction that a woman feels. Both “nice guys” and “bad boys” can be confident around women. That said, the “nice guy” who is afraid to approach women or afraid to be himself and relaxed around women is not going to be attractive (but this has nothing to the fact that he is “nice” but rather that he is unconfident).

Confidence is, at the end of the day, simply the absence of fear. This is a really important point to drive home: you don’t obtain confidence but rather you eliminate your fears. Nice guys who are bad with women need to ask themselves if they act this nicely with everybody else in their lives or are they just acting this way around women out of fear (ie. fear of “messing it up”, fear of rejection, fear of being single…).

You can get rid of your fears by developing a strong relationship with God… as Jesus says: fear is useless, trust is the key. The bad boy is usually confident (ie. fearless) as a result of a hardened conscience. The nice guy, however, has to become fearless by giving himself fully to Christ and His will. Both will result in a confident man who can be very attractive to women but only one results in a man who can properly care for and love a woman and have any hope of a lasting/happy marriage.

 

[Crescentinus]

I think a nice guy can be just as successful with women as the bad boy (it’s just that it’s going to be with one woman, rather then a bunch!)

I think female attraction to men comes down mainly to confidence! Looks can matter, but they are generally just icing on the cake for ladies. A guy’s confidence creates the attraction that a woman feels. Both “nice guys” and “bad boys” can be confident around women. That said, the “nice guy” who is afraid to approach women or afraid to be himself and relaxed around women is not going to be attractive (but this has nothing to the fact that he is “nice” but rather that he is unconfident).

Confidence is, at the end of the day, simply the absence of fear. This is a really important point to drive home: you don’t obtain confidence but rather you eliminate your fears. Nice guys who are bad with women need to ask themselves if they act this nicely with everybody else in their lives or are they just acting this way around women out of fear (ie. fear of “messing it up”, fear of rejection, fear of being single…).

You can get rid of your fears by developing a strong relationship with God… as Jesus says: fear is useless, trust is the key. The bad boy is usually confident (ie. fearless) as a result of a hardened conscience. The nice guy, however, has to become fearless by giving himself fully to Christ and His will. Both will result in a confident man who can be very attractive to women but only one results in a man who can properly care for and love a woman and have any hope of a lasting/happy marriage.

^This makes more sense than the nice guy/bad boy dichotomy.

 

[chevalier]

Confidence is, at the end of the day, simply the absence of fear.

Which is why it is such an overrated quality in a person. Courage is not in the absence of fear but in a spirit unmoved by it, as says the philosopher. Actual absence of fear can mark a fool, or a psychopath (the latter sometimes come with an altered or nonexistent survival instinct).

 

[chevalier]

Problem is, a lot of homosexualists will invariably judge me as some “transphobe”. Although this is not much of a problem here in Manila, it has the potential of being a serious problem if I go to the West. Then again, I prefer fighting homosexualists than listening to them.

West as in the west part of the Philippines (of which I have no expertise) or Europe/America? I can assure you that Europe is not full of a) transsexuals and b) tolerance activists who expect you to like it. The odds of being confronted with it are very small. Once in a blue moon you could be hit on by a gay person (and again not too forcefully), which has happened to a grand total of 1 European man and 1 American woman I have known (I think it was no more serious than an invitation to dance in either case), but just saying you’re straight will solve the problem.

So, it’s a good idea for me to marry someone who’s flat-chested!?

 

[chevalier]

You’re right, it was highly immature of me to say that.

You’re at school, still growing up. I lived with my head in clouds when I was your age, and said similar things. By contrast, it was mature of you to admit that you said something immature before.

And frankly, I think the two previous people on this thread who have already done this to me are starting to get on my nerves. I’ve already had this treatment in real life, I don’t need the internet joining in.

So I’d suggest trying to express yourself more clearly, not leaving too much room for interpretation that could go wrong. And then reading a bit more into what people say, as in not reading into it enough to find things that aren’t there, but just enough to avoid jumping to faulty conclusions. I honestly believe that with Exoflare you first misspoke (perhaps) and then misinterpreted his reaction. I’m not saying this to make you feel bad but to help you notice.

Perhaps you were hurt by Exoflare’s suggestion that perhaps you had a lot to learn yet (it takes a Franciscan to take such a suggestion with a smile) but a person who really believed that a person without much physical strength was incapable of being an abuser, would objectively indeed still need to learn much. Because it’s quite obviously untrue that a not very physically strong person can’t abuse others (e.g. verbally or emotionally). But since you really expressed yourself in a way that suggested you thought just that (it could be read that physically not strong people couldn’t be abusers, in fact this seemed to be the logical reading), it wasn’t unreasonable for Exoflare to take you at your word (at face value), as if you really thought that.

Hope I managed to express myself clearly enough so that it can be understood without too much difficulty.

And nobody is here with the purpose of getting on your nerves. As for your nerves, however, you need to keep them in check. It’s difficult sometimes but it’s just what a man’s gotta do (to say it the Chuck Norris way).

 

[EasterJoy]

I think a nice guy can be just as successful with women as the bad boy (it’s just that it’s going to be with one woman, rather then a bunch!)

I think female attraction to men comes down mainly to confidence! Looks can matter, but they are generally just icing on the cake for ladies. A guy’s confidence creates the attraction that a woman feels. Both “nice guys” and “bad boys” can be confident around women. That said, the “nice guy” who is afraid to approach women or afraid to be himself and relaxed around women is not going to be attractive (but this has nothing to the fact that he is “nice” but rather that he is unconfident).

Confidence is, at the end of the day, simply the absence of fear. This is a really important point to drive home: you don’t obtain confidence but rather you eliminate your fears. Nice guys who are bad with women need to ask themselves if they act this nicely with everybody else in their lives or are they just acting this way around women out of fear (ie. fear of “messing it up”, fear of rejection, fear of being single…).

You can get rid of your fears by developing a strong relationship with God… as Jesus says: fear is useless, trust is the key. The bad boy is usually confident (ie. fearless) as a result of a hardened conscience. The nice guy, however, has to become fearless by giving himself fully to Christ and His will. Both will result in a confident man who can be very attractive to women but only one results in a man who can properly care for and love a woman and have any hope of a lasting/happy marriage.

Still, the Church has recognized that sin can cover itself in a certain glamour, that evil can lure a person in by covering itself in charm, not to mention by flattery. I think that is what is ultimately behind the “bad boy” thing…the “what on earth does she see in him” head-scratching.

Bad boys will lie to get what they want and good guys won’t. Bad boys will abandon moral boundaries in order to show a girl a good time, and good guys don’t. That gives bad boys “the glamour of sin.” That’s an unfair advantage, but it is an advantage.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Because it’s quite obviously untrue that a not very physically strong person can’t abuse others (e.g. verbally or emotionally). But since you really expressed yourself in a way that suggested you thought just that (it could be read that physically not strong people couldn’t be abusers, in fact this seemed to be the logical reading), it wasn’t unreasonable for Exoflare to take you at your word (at face value), as if you really thought that.

Hope I managed to express myself clearly enough so that it can be understood without too much difficulty.

The problem with what you just did (elaboration) is that it ends up being too long. Just saying.

Look I’ve lived my entire life being harassed by people who think they could ‘fix’ me. They think I’m some broken machine that they, the oh-so-wonderful heroes have to fix. If not the machine, then I’m the monster they have to slay. I’m the bad guy. I’m the jerk. I’m the loser.

Don’t forget sir. I’m part of Generation Me, the most egotistical generation to date. Frankly, I’m just sick of it. There’s just no way I can see myself being an abuser. I don’t insult kind people. I treat well those who treat me well in turn. The only time that people should be worried about getting hurt is if they did something seriously wrong.

To equate me with an abuser is to equate me with the very people I despise. Cut me some slack if I find that insulting.

 

[Debora123]

Problem is, a lot of homosexualists will invariably judge me as some “transphobe”. Although this is not much of a problem here in Manila, it has the potential of being a serious problem if I go to the West. Then again, I prefer fighting homosexualists than listening to them.

So, it’s a good idea for me to marry someone who’s flat-chested!? I don’t get it since I do not want to date a flat-chested woman. And no, I’m not even attracted to them! I am fed up with the idiocy that some have when it comes to turning flat-chestedness into some fetish. Sadly, this came from the anime “Lucky Star” when Konata said that “Having a flat chest is a status symbol!” and some idiots within the fanbase decided to preach that.

As for rumors, I’m somewhat scared if rumors go after me at school or work. It has the potential of destroying me.

You’re right, it was highly immature of me to say that.

This whole “flat chasted” thing you keep talking about is very bizarre to me.

First of all, by “flat chested,” you probably mean small breasts… since no woman actually HAS a FLAT chest unless there is something seriously wrong with her or if she had breast cancer or something.

As a small chested woman myself, I find your claims regarding rumors or people thinking you’re actually dating a man to be pretty outrageous. Not to mention very offensive. I most certainly don’t look like a man, neither do I look like I’m 12 years old just because I have small breasts.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I just want to honestly admit that maybe it’s just that some of us “nice guys” prefer “bad girls”. As mellowcalico said, we desire the kind of girls with “bad guys”—modern, stylish, sexy,… I can only be honest here; yes, I kind of do. But I am hoping that I slowly readjust.

That is a false dichotomy. You can find very attractive “nice girls” too. One thing doesn’t exclude the other.

Here is a translation of a comment about that in one of my favourite Catholic blogs, it was a reply to a young guy saying that it was almost impossible to find a Catholic girl, and one that he was attracted to.

He said this:

…the probability of meeting a practitioner Catholic woman is quite low, and if beyond that, we want her to be attractive and with university studies the “perspective” is a fantasy…

And this was the reply:

There is a pervesión, dear (nick), which abounds between Catholics and tends to pretend timid, suffering subjects, with sad lives and leaning to ugly women, with no education, and that one finally tooks them for for wives faced with the impossibility of finding another one with better looks and virgin.

None of that is true. The (nick) is not inventing a story. He tells what happens.
I get the impression of turning in a circle, because is the same as we were saying in earlier posts, so I’ll be brief: if you have some education, preferences, axiology, habits, traditions, approach your peers. There, go looking for girls, which by the way, pretty ones abound . The nature tells you that you value what you have and that you are confident that it will be stored, carried and transmitted by mating with your peers.

Turn a deaf ear to accusations of elitism, pharisaism and other nonsense that are merely nature relegating angelisms.

…

They include things like education and such, but the message is clear.

---

Crescentinus, where I live, is difficult to confuse a woman with small breast with a man… or with a child. In fact, lots of them are very feminine… remember than hips, waist, face, are things that distinguishes a woman from a man.

Blessings!

 

[Crescentinus]

This whole “flat chasted” thing you keep talking about is very bizarre to me.

First of all, by “flat chested,” you probably mean small breasts… since no woman actually HAS a FLAT chest unless there is something seriously wrong with her or if she had breast cancer or something.

As a small chested woman myself, I find your claims regarding rumors or people thinking you’re actually dating a man to be pretty outrageous. Not to mention very offensive. I most certainly don’t look like a man, neither do I look like I’m 12 years old just because I have small breasts.

Forgive me that I had offended you. I mean no offense to my stance. I am just tired of idiots who say that dating a flat-chested woman is any one of these four things:

1. Dating a dude since some of them do look more like men.
2. Dating a teenager since some of them look younger than they actually are.
3. A good thing since according to Konata from Lucky Star “Having a flat chest is a status symbol!” My question is, a status symbol for what exactly?
4. A good thing since they want me to be attracted to them when I’m not.

Seriously, those types of people should just shut up! I want to go Michael Coren on these people one day.

 

[Crescentinus]

Crescentinus, where I live, is difficult to confuse a woman with small breast with a man… or with a child. In fact, lots of them are very feminine… remember than hips, waist, face, are things that distinguishes a woman from a man.

Blessings!

Where I live, it’s a little different. There are flat-chested women who either look more masculine than feminine (my first ex-girlfriend, for one) and then there are flat-chested women who look younger than their actual age. Hence me being very careful. Where I live, padded bras are used not as a means to warm the chest (as the case in the lands where there are temperate and sub-temperate climates) but for looking pretty.

 

[Crescentinus]

West as in the west part of the Philippines (of which I have no expertise) or Europe/America? I can assure you that Europe is not full of a) transsexuals and b) tolerance activists who expect you to like it. The odds of being confronted with it are very small. Once in a blue moon you could be hit on by a gay person (and again not too forcefully), which has happened to a grand total of 1 European man and 1 American woman I have known (I think it was no more serious than an invitation to dance in either case), but just saying you’re straight will solve the problem.

I strongly suggest that you sit down calmly, count to 10, take a couple of deep breaths stop focusing on small details that your emotions are suggesting to you (out of thin air, from a rational point of view) and look at the big picture. Please don’t take offence at me saying this but you could use a little more logic, as in properly reading the things people say to you, the what-follows-from-what, deduction etc. Or at least slow down and give it some thought (rationally, with less emotion and more calm), maybe double check your conclusions. For example, I never said anything (directly or indirectly) about it, being a ‘good idea for you to marry someone who’s flat chested’, which is a very specific, detailed and categorical statement that you filled with your imagination because you thought too fast and skipped a couple of stages. In reality, I only challenged your very specific reasons for crossing out flat-chested girls (i.e. that they reminded you of your ex).

As an example, if you want to buy a dog because dogs are cheap right now and I tell you it’s a bad reason to buy a dog, it doesn’t mean I’m telling you to buy a cat instead, or that I’m telling you not to buy a dog if you have some other, better reason (e.g. they’re useful or you just like them, which is fine enough). Nowadays, in 21st century, people make a mistake upon mistake of this kind, perhaps due to not listening/'reading carefully enough or trying to think too fast.

That’s a good reason but you’ve got to notice 2 things:
– I specifically told you already in my previous post that not being attracted to some type of women is a perfectly good reason to skip them, so no argument is needed;
– your lack of attraction to them is a whole different reason for skipping them than the fact that they remind you of your ex; just because the end result is the same (i.e. that you skip them) doesn’t mean that the difference between the reasons for your decision doesn’t count.

I guess you’re being somewhat emotional about the subject (as in it has involved a lot of strong feelings for you), so it’s blurring into one thing to you (and generally getting hazy), but you need to keep the distinctions and follow logical tracks in your reasoning. For your own good!

Turning big-chestedness into some fetish is equally idiotic. What is healthy is not turning anything into a fetish. And you don’t need to devote your life to fighting that fetish, especially not by making statements.

How illogical would a woman be for refusing to date any black-haired Austrians or men who have ‘Adolf’ as their first name? Pretty illogical, isn’t it. On the other hand, it’s pretty reasonable to avoid dating men with neo-Nazi sympathies (regardless of their citizenship, hair or even skin colour, first name etc.). What is the crux of the matter here is proportion.

So allow yourself to get to know women and appreciate them for what they really are, as opposed to setting up rules for no good reasons but just to make a statement or two in opposition to something.

Also, just because many people like a particular thing for no good reason (e.g. because they have a fetish on it) doesn’t mean that you need to start hating it in order to make some balance. You don’t.

Bottom line: know the person, decide on your own if you’re attracted or not.

Don’t live in a comic book. I understand that you may be referring to a culturally significant comic book that marks a broader tendency in the local culture but even then, the significance of a random comic book to your life shouldn’t be so strong.

By the West, I mean Europe, America, Australia and New Zealand. Sadly, the number of heterophobes in those lands are growing mostly due to how homosexualists proselytize. Unless they are stopped, heterosexuality may be outlawed! That is my cause for alarm if I go to the West and marry there. Sadly, the Western school of homosexism is also invading my homeland (partly thanks to President Obama’s policies on homosexism) hence me being worried about a takeover.

Again, it was rather immature and irrational of me. And yes, I think too fast like blitzkrieg.

Sadly, there are people (mostly in real life) who force me to date a flat-chested woman even though I said no many times. When will they listen to me?
I am very emotional on the subject.

Indeed. Turning anything into a fetish is hardly healthy. Sadly, many are encouraged to turn anything into a fetish.
As for getting to know women, I’m already doing that. The reason why I have rather high standards is because of the fact that when I had little to no standards, I would invariably end up in a really bad relationship like before.

Let’s just say that me overreacting to Lucky Star is due to me being in close contact to those who turn flat-chestedness into a fetish. Those people are a shame to the anime fanbase!