Posted by Neredbojias on 09/04/05 03:51

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
> >>>> Sure, but comparing as groups again, women are certainly less sexually
> >>>> orientated than men.
> >>>
> >>> That's simply because they lack a definitive pointer.
> >>
> >> Doubt that's the cause.
> >
> > Sure it is. -A classic case of penis-envy.
>
> Ahem.

Gesundheit.

>
> > Women don't know what to do without what they don't have
>
> Don't include me in that!
> I'm entirely happy without what I don't have.
> (not giving out details on what to do without it though)

Sure, I have no problem with that. I was as happy as a coon hound in a
skunk swamp the day my ex-wife left although I did perform one final
solemn ritual when I burned her picture in effigy and spread the ashes
haphazardly around the ring in the bowl of the commode prior to a hearty
and renewing flush of life.


> > and become desperately discombobulated,
>
> Never.
> Btw, it's men who have a lack of blood in their brain cells when they
> use what they do have. Recipe for discombobulation.

Not exactly. Men are proficient at redistributing bodily fluids for
their vital purposes and can always take a nap after mating if they feel
fatigued.

>
> > exhibiting behavior Freud cataloged quite scientifically over a century
> > ago.
>
> And which behaviour would that be exactly? As I've never been
> discombobulated[1] in the slightest possible way, I have no idea what
> behaviour would go with that (lack of) state of mind.

Irrationality, petulancy, pettiness, rudeness, inconsideration,
haughtiness, coldness, vileness, pruriency, and flatulence just to name
a few. With some thought, most men could make a list several pages
long.

>
> > On the other hand, this was somewhat of a vanity on the part of
> > the "first psychologist" because any man worth his salt knows what they
> > need instinctively.
>
> I reckon he should have been an inventor; he had too much time on his
> hands and therefore started rationalizing what everybody knew already
> without a need for words.

It sounds to me like you have one giant hang-up regarding the supposedly
enormous amount of optional time men hypothetically have at their
disposal. Well, to rectify your conceptual miscegenation, men seldom
have "time on their hands." They may have interludes of lesser
productivity with something in their hands, but that is an eel on a
different reel.

> > This seems to be an irreconcilable point of debate so I shall sublimate
> > my current perceptions of same with a discrete non-response.
>
> Wise choice. And the longest non-response I've ever seen.

Men are used to such things which, ironically, seem to occur in times of
greatest need.

> >>> Men tire easily of droll mental meanderings.
> >>
> >> You reckon? I thought that's what gives an inventor his ideas.
> >
> > Inspiration is what motivates an inventor. For example, the guy who
> > invented the bra probably wanted nothing so much as to become familiar
> > with what his psychological makeup made difficult for him to grasp.
>
> I think you're quite right about that. If it were really a functional
> item meant for support, it would have been a women who invented it.

I could refute that but let's just say that when walking along skid row,
men simply got tired of seeing old hags sag in the wrong kind of bag.

> >>> Women have random headaches.
> >>
> >> You believe that?!
> >
> > Actually, no.
>
> Impression of clever man rescued.

Unfair censorship! You fight dirty.

....
> > Of course. I wasn't accusing *you* of such a base gambit.
>
> Somehow this sounds as if I'd be wise to act naive, or stupid to act
> wise...

If you have to "act", you're acting like a woman.

>
> [baking cookies vs inventing modern technologies]
> > Excuse me for being sarcastic in a way not particularly genteel.
> > It's just that talk about creativity and baking somehow makes me feel
> > the stove's been on for a lengthy time and I have to get my cookies off.
>
> <g>
> (be careful - they may be hot)

He he he. If you think they're hot, you should see the cannoli.

>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> But only on her free Saturday.
> >
> > Yeah, once a week if you're lucky sounds about right.
>
> Hmpf.

<grin> (I like it when a woman corroborates my assertions with a
humble, begrudging act of silence.)

>
> >>> Of course efficient time-management comes
> >>> so naturally to men that perhaps we overlook the possibility of its
> >>> deficiency elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Okay, you got me there. Proof I'm a woman. Efficient time-management?
> >> That's certainly not me.
> >
> > "Efficient" doesn't mean "spartan".
>
> Ow, I know that, point still holds though. I'm certainly not
> time-efficient.

Whose fault is that? -Your mother's? Geesh, woman, it's the modern
world! Get on the stick! -Er, the ball. Oh, just get with it.

>
> > There can be plenty of time to do
> > the things you want to do and still accomplish all that is necessary if
> > you use your time wisely. Men tend to learn this during puberty by
> > multitasking on the commode.
>
> Ah /that/'s what they call it!

Generally I call it a crapper but I try to watch my language when I'm
speaking to a dame.

>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> If those were a measurement of men's inventiveness, we'd still be
> >> lighting our paraffin (kerosene for you) lamps every night, if that.
> >
> > Harrumph, I detect a note of disparagement in your redoubtable rebuttal.
> > Or is it a misinterpretation on my part and your just into wax?
>
> No misinterpretation, sir. Well detected I might say. Not to be taken
> personally of course, I'm sure your good self would be quite a bit
> more inventive than most of today's one-lining attention seekers.

Moi? Nah. Why reinvent the wheel when you can do things in established
circles.

>
> > <Misc. irreproachable truisms by Neredbojias snipped>

> I find that hard to believe, really.

>
> > Sometimes you have to view the situation
> > pragmatically and just do what you do as good as you can do it. (That
> > could even be why a young male's whizzer is called a "do-do".)
>
> That must be an American expression, surely. Never heard it being
> called that before :-)

Yes, I was hesitant about including that little snippet. Just out of
curiosity, what do young Australian males call it, -a "willie-wong" or
something?

>
> > As for your less-than-subtle intimation that men often respond to
> > women's voicings with "She doesn't understand," it may very well be the
> > oldest excuse in the book but I doubt it predates the oldest profession
> > in the world which succinctly delineates the reasoning of at least some
> > of the fairer sex. Would you say such reasoning is conducive to
> > promoting confidence in that same sex?
>
> You really have to ask?
> Of course it isn't. Rather the opposite.

Hmm, I didn't expect agreement here and am temporarily at a loss for
words. You're saying then that women's words are to be taken
salaciously? Well, okay by me.

>
> ------------------
> [1] That sure is a funny word, especially when you say it a couple of
> times in a row.

That's what I thought about "do".

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]