|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/06/50 11:26
With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
> > True, it's a generalization. You may be the next Newton for all I know.
>
> Well, no. Not enough time on my hands ;-)
Which is another way of saying you have responsibilities, -
responsibilities you chose earlier in life perhaps via a different kind
of creative compulsion.
....
> > Well that's debatable but I'll admit there's likely to be large
> > differences between separate individuals in each of the sexes.
>
> Sure, but comparing as groups again, women are certainly less sexually
> orientated than men.
That's simply because they lack a definitive pointer.
> >>> In any case, all such phrases are just "casual" references to *how*
> >>> the thinking does or does not transpire. Men's biggest objection
> >>> is often simply the lack of such transpiration.
> >>
> >> Or rather, their *perceived* lack of such transpiration.
> >
> > How does anyone know anything except by perception? I submit that when
> > a women *thinks* she knows what she's doing (whether it's valid or not,)
> > she is often oblivious to how and even if it is perceived by others.
>
> The same goes for men.
Not in the same areas. Men tire easily of droll mental meanderings.
Women have random headaches.
> > Of
> > course men can exhibit the same trait, but clueless naivety seems
> > primarily a woman's forte.
>
> I doubt that. Even generally speaking.
Oh, but it's a sexual aide. Surely you've encountered it sometime or
other.
....
> > Yes, for the most part, because their jobs were as inventors. They had
> > the foresight, daring, and determination to risk financial well-being if
> > not basic sustenance on something that could very well not pan-out.
> > Some were foolhardy, yes, but even some of those had scintillating
> > success. -And what was the old lady doing during these times of trial
> > and tribulation? At home baking cookies?
>
> Not if her husband was an inventor. Someone had to earn the money to
> buy food. In the case her husband was not an inventor, I'd say both
> she and her husband were busy raising a family. (which among other
> things involves the woman baking cookies, yes)
So, all non-inventor married men are involved in raising a family with a
woman who bakes cookies? Okay...
> If she was single, chances are she was not baking cookies, but most
> likely teaching schoolkids how to read and write, or working in an
> office.
If she's single, she needs to support herself, yes, but that's not her
main goal. Her main goal is unquestionably a "man goal", ergo, to make
herself appealing to a perspective mate, which, among other things, may
involve baking cookies.
>
> >> When a woman needs to do a job on the computer at home, she has to
> >> simultaneously feed and bathe the kids, talk to the neighbour who
> >> wants to borrow some sugar, bring a beer to the husband who's working
> >> on his car, answer the telephone, vacuum the floor, do the dishes...
> >>
> >> Very generally speaking, I know. And most of it is dictated by
> >> nature, biologically, but it still means that men have more time for
> >> what they are doing.
> >
> > Well, yes and no. Men "multitask", too, but on a larger scale. Fixing
> > the car is equivalent (not equal) to feeding the baby or answering the
> > door, etc. However, that doesn't mean they have more time; it may mean
> > that their time is sectioned into larger chunks
>
> Which gives them more time to focus on the one job they're doing in
> such a time section.
This sounds like an excuse. Of course efficient time-management comes
so naturally to men that perhaps we overlook the possibility of its
deficiency elsewhere.
> > but even these chunks
> > can be subdivided into smaller bits by such things as domestic
> > exigencies and uncooperative wives/significant_others.
>
> In which case it's unlikely they'll invent any difficult scientific
> things during such subdivided times.
I dunno, men can be pretty darn inventive on the spur of the moment.
Just look at the lines they come up with while dating.
....
> > You forgot cigarettes.
>
> They're a definite want. No need. People don't die of nicotine
> deprivation.
They may not die, but they'd kill for a cigarette. Preventing murder is
a needful thing in my book.
....
> >> That's one of the reasons I don't voice my opinion on the subject
> >> here.
> >
> > I can understand. Besides, it always gives me a little thrill when a
> > woman stifles herself.
>
> It's good that you left that last remark in context.
I'm usually the epitome of decorum.
> >>> Oh, I wasn't talking about me but my ancestors. 'Don't like to
> >>> talk about myself much; people usually think I'm bragging...
> >>
> >> Try me ;-)
> >
> > Well, this is a bit awkward, but, you see, I'm God. Yes, I said God.
> > Oh, I don't have any supernatural powers or anything, nor do I behave in
> > a particularly divine or saintly way, but I didn't set Adam and Eve in a
> > garden naked and expect them not to "eat of the forbidden tree", either.
> > Still, I'm God. Well...let me qualify that. I'm part God, part of God,
> > and will always be no matter what the future has in store. Now you know
> > who I am.
>
> I don't think 'bragging' is the right word for what you just said.
Of course not, but alas, I detect incomprehension. What I said is the
humblest thing I could have said.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|