nice guys (2 Viewers)

[ogmzergrush]

My opinion is laughable but right. I'm right. I didn't come to this system lightly (I thought this shit out, researched, experimented, talked to people from all walks of life) I know it's hard accept. It was hard for me too. But I can fight this like I can fight gravity.

If indeed you've given it as much thought as you say, perhaps you're actually worth responding to. Initially it seems like a fairly immature knee-jerk response to being fucked over a time or two. If indeed that's not the case, then I'll retract my earlier statements and explain my personal stance in just one moment.

But you won't see it because like those who haven't the sky, why should you believe? I'm actually more interested in your spin. Or perhaps you don't have one?

I take a fairly basic approach to the way I treat people in general. Unless I see a reason to do otherwise, I treat everyone as well as I can, males and females alike. The people who do not return acceptable treatment aren't worth shit, again males and females. Eventually under this system, I've come across people who value being treated the way I habitually treat people, and things fall together.

Regarding males being brought up to "control", I personally don't buy that for a minute. I don't feel that in my relations with people, either male or female, I assert dominance or attempt to, and i think this has got more to do with the way I was taught to treat people than some sort of inherent desire for control due to my gender. The generalisations which you've shared regarding gender roles and power or control also don't really seem that accurate to me, given my experience.

For purposes of clarifying the reasoning behind my stance on this, I'm currently nearing a six year anniversary with my girlfriend, and have never had any problems that I'd equate to my lack of bad boy charm, tendency for control due to being male or whatever else. I try to treat everyone, partner included, well, and in return by and large they do the same by me. Life works, and I don't need to play games deliberately being a dick to people in an attempt to get what I want. Similarly, I don't feel that I'm being taken advantage of due to me not being a hard arse and playing the big man, because really any old piece of shit can do that, and I think it takes a much higher calibre of person to do things the right way by others.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much how I see things.

 

[Oddy Nocki]

If indeed you've given it as much thought as you say, perhaps you're actually worth responding to. Initially it seems like a fairly immature knee-jerk response to being fucked over a time or two.

I think your perception of what I said was highly influence by the way I said it. It was a very stripped back approach coupled with humor. I did this because most people wouldn't really "get it" if I threw out a larger version of my spin.

I take a fairly basic approach to the way I treat people in general. Unless I see a reason to do otherwise, I treat everyone as well as I can, males and females alike. The people who do not return acceptable treatment aren't worth shit, again males and females. Eventually under this system, I've come across people who value being treated the way I habitually treat people, and things fall together.

I treating people how they command to be treated. If I respect you I'll treat you as such. This not one sided, it goes for both men and women. This partly because I've reach a point in my life where I have delt with enough people that I don't need to be surronded by hater and fuck-tards. Life is too short. Give me people that are fun or at the very least bring soomething to the table, a story, loyalty, experience, contacts etc. (This also isn't one sided I don't expect to run in places with nothing to offer. It's very godfather)

Regarding males being brought up to "control", I personally don't buy that for a minute. I don't feel that in my relations with people, either male or female, I assert dominance or attempt to, and i think this has got more to do with the way I was taught to treat people than some sort of inherent desire for control due to my gender. The generalisations which you've shared regarding gender roles and power or control also don't really seem that accurate to me, given my experience.

This is biology at work. A lot of it can be argued as unlike other animals humans have a "free-will" (For this define free will as an ability to manipulate animal base instincts) With this being said alot of this unconcieous as you (people) exist within the system and it hard to see the end of the universe if you're in the middle. But for me, people are animals so will ultimately return to base instincts or at the very least be motived by them. Nietzsche explores in his will to power ideas. The main theme here is a person's desire for "more", this is what capitalism is built on, this why communisim won't work.

Combine the last two paragraphes of mine and you start to see the logic. Bad boys are attractive to women because they offer something; adventure, a challange, excitement. Noone want something that is easy. Nice guys are easy. Bad boys aren't. Bad boys are hard work, and women want to be the one who tames him, they want what they can't have (him).

Don't think I'm preaching man, do what works, I'm just clearing up things. I respect you. You're not a retard...

But that's not what your mum said.

For purposes of clarifying the reasoning behind my stance on this, I'm currently nearing a six year anniversary with my girlfriend, and have never had any problems that I'd equate to my lack of bad boy charm, tendency for control due to being male or whatever else. I try to treat everyone, partner included, well, and in return by and large they do the same by me. Life works, and I don't need to play games deliberately being a dick to people in an attempt to get what I want. Similarly, I don't feel that I'm being taken advantage of due to me not being a hard arse and playing the big man, because really any old piece of shit can do that, and I think it takes a much higher calibre of person to do things the right way by others.

Well you're a much better person then I. I think that's solid that you have found someone that you can grow old with. There are always exceptions, and you my friend sound like one of them. But me, I'm slave to the prison I've created, but I wouldn't want it any other way.

I'm interest on how you (the nice guy) managed to woo that fine lady of yours? and where I can buy naked photos of her?

 

[ogmzergrush]

I think your perception of what I said was highly influence by the way I said it. It was a very stripped back approach coupled with humor. I did this because most people wouldn't really "get it" if I threw out a larger version of my spin.

That would explain it, initially I gave it only minimal consideration and skimmed through it, and came to the conclusion that it hadn't been terribly well conceived. Upon further explanation it's clear that this is not the case (Regardless of whether I agree with your reasoning or not, at least now it's much more apparent that there is reasoning here).

I treating people how they command to be treated. If I respect you I'll treat you as such. This not one sided, it goes for both men and women. This partly because I've reach a point in my life where I have delt with enough people that I don't need to be surronded by hater and fuck-tards. Life is too short. Give me people that are fun or at the very least bring soomething to the table, a story, loyalty, experience, contacts etc. (This also isn't one sided I don't expect to run in places with nothing to offer. It's very godfather)

What you've said makes sense, but I'm not sure that I'd be happy to do that. It seems a bit too utilitarian in terms of the way people are treated, but whatever works for you. Regardless of whether someone has something to bring to the table, in my view it takes no significant effort to treat them the same way as I would someone who does have something "useful". It's just a standard level of decency across the board for reasons I couldn't explain if I wanted to. Again it's probably a symptom of my upbringing, as it just feels like the right way to interact with people (Until given a reason to do otherwise, of course).

This is biology at work. A lot of it can be argued as unlike other animals humans have a "free-will" (For this define free will as an ability to manipulate animal base instincts) With this being said alot of this unconcieous as you (people) exist within the system and it hard to see the end of the universe if you're in the middle. But for me, people are animals so will ultimately return to base instincts or at the very least be motived by them. Nietzsche explores in his will to power ideas. The main theme here is a person's desire for "more", this is what capitalism is built on, this why communisim won't work.

Interesting, though I'm afraid my biology isn't really up to engaging this point in any amount of detail. What I would ask however, is this: what would explain the difference in the extent of free will which people are able to exert in subduing their base instinct for control? By my reasoning it'd seem that perhaps it comes back to upbringing, in that an individual's inherent desire to control is curbed by learning that this is not (by my judgement) an entirely appropriate way to treat others?

I guess, while this is probably somewhat off-topic, my point here is that it just seems that the desire to control can't simply be blamed on male genetics, as it seems to be a much more complicated issue than just that. To do so, to me, seems to be simplifying the issue excessively, and something of an effort at justifying this behaviour based on uncontrollable forces, rather than the individual themselves?

Combine the last two paragraphes of mine and you start to see the logic. Bad boys are attractive to women because they offer something; adventure, a challange, excitement. Noone want something that is easy. Nice guys are easy. Bad boys aren't. Bad boys are hard work, and women want to be the one who tames him, they want what they can't have (him).

Don't think I'm preaching man, do what works, I'm just clearing up things. I respect you. You're not a retard...

I'm beginning to see the reasoning, but I don't know, it still seems quite unfathomable, in that it just doesn't really fit with how I see it. While of course I can see the reasoning and have no doubt that it's true in some cases, I'd assert that this is somewhat misleading. By merit of being a "nice guy", I don't see any reason why an individual can't offer "adventure, a challenge, and excitement", just that they'll be different forms of these.

I'd imagine, over the long-term, it largely comes down to priorities on the parts of both people involved. If a girl is looking for a short-term thrill, and the hardcore gangster kid squatting out timezone has that to offer, then there's little doubt that they'll make an acceptable match for the duration. On the other hand, someone interested in the opposite is unlikely to go for said timezone bad boy. In my reckoning of the situation, I see little room for an overruling tendency for girls to go for these sorts of people.

While I have no doubt that there are people who do, and hey who knows, maybe they're even in the majority, I think it comes down to being more related to what people are looking for, rather than gender predisposition. To this end, I don't really see any reason for the aforementioned "nice guys" to change their behaviour so dramatically as to appeal to people who are clearly after a different slice of the pie, it certainly isn't likely to be serving their priorities, at least by my understanding.

But that's not what your mum said.

Well you're a much better person then I. I think that's solid that you have found someone that you can grow old with. There are always exceptions, and you my friend sound like one of them. But me, I'm slave to the prison I've created, but I wouldn't want it any other way.

Regarding the better person line, I hope I haven't implied that I think I'm better than people who do things their own way. I don't pretend to be the moral compass of the world, and have only ever really been discussing what things look like from my perspective. Regarding the rest, exceptions! That's pretty much my entire point, with exceptions as numerous as they seem, I just don't see a role in things for some sort of all girls -> bad boys trend. Surely if that was the case nice guys would have been bred out by now? I just find that there seems to be a lot more to the process than can be explained by something that basic.

I'm interest on how you (the nice guy) managed to woo that fine lady of yours? and where I can buy naked photos of her?

I wouldn't really characterise myself as the nice guy, mostly because I feel the overwhelming urge to punch people in the face when they do that That said, I definitely wouldn't call myself a bad boy either, so eh, who knows. Anyway, I'm not really sure how it happened, it just did. This is what I was talking about earlier, you go through life treating everyone the way you think you should, and eventually someone comes along the other who digs that, and it just clicks.

Regarding the naked photos, no, I don't think so

 

[katy-g]

I like Nice boys.

My boyfriend is a nice guy... and he's hot.

he can be a jerk sometimes.

I gotta be cruel to be kind in my opinion.

 

[ogmzergrush]

LOL, L&R.
LOL, Internet.

Ahhh Brogan, you're always so insightful!

 

[ogmzergrush]

It beats sleeping :/

 

[withoutaface]

It beats sleeping :/

Deconstructing Surrealism: Constructivist discourse and Debordist image
Wilhelm S. E. la Fournier
Department of Future Studies, Miskatonic University, Arkham, Mass.
1. Expressions of collapse

“Truth is responsible for hierarchy,” says Lyotard. The subject is contextualised into a constructivist discourse that includes culture as a whole.

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of textual language. However, if neocultural dialectic theory holds, we have to choose between Debordist image and the postcapitalist paradigm of reality. Constructivist discourse holds that the Constitution is fundamentally unattainable, given that narrativity is equal to art.

If one examines semioticist preconstructive theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject Debordist image or conclude that the goal of the poet is significant form. It could be said that Cameron[1] states that we have to choose between cultural deappropriation and postcapitalist libertarianism. Lyotard’s critique of constructivist discourse holds that consensus comes from the collective unconscious.

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the distinction between ground and figure. Therefore, Debord uses the term ‘Debordist image’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox. The main theme of Porter’s[2] analysis of constructivist discourse is not desublimation per se, but neodesublimation.

The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the role of the artist as participant. In a sense, in Death: The High Cost of Living, Gaiman affirms Lacanist obscurity; in Black Orchid, however, he deconstructs constructivist discourse. A number of narratives concerning a self-referential reality may be found.

It could be said that if Debordist image holds, the works of Gaiman are postmodern. Sargeant[3] suggests that we have to choose between constructivist discourse and the subcapitalist paradigm of narrative.

But the subject is interpolated into a textual theory that includes narrativity as a paradox. The primary theme of Dahmus’s[4] critique of constructivist discourse is the common ground between society and class.

It could be said that neocultural dialectic theory implies that consciousness is used to disempower the Other. Foucault uses the term ‘constructivist discourse’ to denote the role of the reader as artist.

In a sense, an abundance of situationisms concerning structural discourse exist. Marx promotes the use of neocultural dialectic theory to modify society.

It could be said that Derrida uses the term ‘Debordist image’ to denote the difference between class and society. In Queer, Burroughs reiterates neocultural dialectic theory; in The Soft Machine he examines posttextual constructive theory.

In a sense, Debord’s analysis of constructivist discourse holds that expression is created by the masses, but only if the premise of Debordist image is valid; if that is not the case, truth is part of the paradigm of consciousness. Many theories concerning the rubicon, and some would say the dialectic, of subcapitalist class may be revealed.
2. Burroughs and Lacanist obscurity

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the concept of cultural art. But Sontag uses the term ‘neocultural dialectic theory’ to denote not, in fact, desublimation, but predesublimation. If Debordist image holds, the works of Burroughs are empowering.

It could be said that neopatriarchialist theory states that consensus must come from communication. Several discourses concerning Debordist image exist.

Thus, the premise of neocultural dialectic theory implies that culture serves to reinforce the status quo. Derrida suggests the use of Debordist image to challenge sexism.

It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a Lyotardist narrative that includes truth as a reality. Marx promotes the use of constructivist discourse to analyse and deconstruct society.
3. Debordist image and textual socialism

If one examines textual socialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept Debordist image or conclude that the purpose of the participant is deconstruction, given that language is interchangeable with narrativity. But many theories concerning the bridge between consciousness and class may be found. Derrida uses the term ‘constructivist discourse’ to denote a subdialectic whole.

The main theme of the works of Burroughs is the difference between sexuality and sexual identity. In a sense, in Port of Saints, Burroughs reiterates Debordist image; in Naked Lunch, however, he examines the cultural paradigm of narrative. A number of discourses concerning textual socialism exist.

It could be said that Sontag uses the term ‘Debordist image’ to denote a mythopoetical reality. Several appropriations concerning not deconstruction, but postdeconstruction may be discovered.

In a sense, Lacan uses the term ‘textual socialism’ to denote the defining characteristic, and eventually the economy, of subcapitalist truth. Tilton[5] suggests that the works of Burroughs are modernistic.

It could be said that Foucault suggests the use of the capitalist paradigm of consensus to challenge the status quo. A number of narratives concerning Debordist image exist.

1. Cameron, H. J. ed. (1972) Debordist image and constructivist discourse. Loompanics

2. Porter, N. V. O. (1995) The Circular Fruit: Constructivist discourse and Debordist image. Yale University Press

3. Sargeant, L. W. ed. (1978) Debordist image in the works of Burroughs. And/Or Press

4. Dahmus, H. (1982) Reinventing Expressionism: Debordist image, nihilism and the neocapitalist paradigm of consensus. University of Oregon Press

5. Tilton, C. J. Y. ed. (1999) Debordist image and constructivist discourse. University of Massachusetts Press

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Looks like someone found the Postmodernism Generator.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

1. Constructive theory and the neocapitalist paradigm of reality

The main theme of the works of Stone is a mythopoetical reality. In a sense, a number of sublimations concerning the common ground between society and sexuality exist. Sontag suggests the use of Derridaist reading to modify and challenge society.

If one examines expressionism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the neocapitalist paradigm of reality or conclude that consciousness is used to entrench class divisions, but only if culture is distinct from sexuality; otherwise, the goal of the artist is deconstruction. It could be said that the example of expressionism intrinsic to Stone’s Platoon emerges again in Heaven and Earth, although in a more self-referential sense. If Baudrillardist simulacra holds, we have to choose between expressionism and cultural narrative.

However, the subject is contextualised into a Baudrillardist simulacra that includes consciousness as a whole. Debord promotes the use of the neocapitalist paradigm of reality to deconstruct sexism.

But Derrida’s critique of expressionism states that reality is capable of social comment. The subject is interpolated into a neocapitalist paradigm of reality that includes narrativity as a paradox.

In a sense, the primary theme of Hubbard’s[1] model of subpatriarchialist socialism is the role of the reader as writer. In Naked Lunch, Burroughs examines Baudrillardist simulacra; in Junky he reiterates cultural theory.
2. Burroughs and Baudrillardist simulacra

The characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is the bridge between sexual identity and society. However, d’Erlette[2] implies that we have to choose between expressionism and Sartreist absurdity. Bataille uses the term ‘the neocapitalist paradigm of reality’ to denote the collapse, and eventually the futility, of dialectic class.

“Sexual identity is a legal fiction,” says Sontag; however, according to Werther[3] , it is not so much sexual identity that is a legal fiction, but rather the meaninglessness, and some would say the paradigm, of sexual identity. But if expressionism holds, we have to choose between subconceptual dialectic theory and neotextual feminism. The creation/destruction distinction prevalent in Burroughs’s The Soft Machine is also evident in The Last Words of Dutch Schultz.

Therefore, any number of situationisms concerning expressionism may be found. Sartre uses the term ‘the neocapitalist paradigm of reality’ to denote a constructive reality.

In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of Baudrillardist simulacra to analyse truth. Sontag uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the reader as artist.

It could be said that the main theme of la Fournier’s[4] analysis of capitalist discourse is the absurdity, and hence the rubicon, of subcultural sexual identity. Baudrillard uses the term ‘the neocapitalist paradigm of reality’ to denote the role of the reader as observer.

But expressionism states that class, perhaps paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning. An abundance of sublimations concerning the difference between society and class exist.
3. Narratives of meaninglessness

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the concept of textual sexuality. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a Baudrillardist simulacra that includes art as a paradox. Derrida uses the term ‘the presemanticist paradigm of consensus’ to denote the rubicon, and some would say the defining characteristic, of cultural society.

“Culture is part of the genre of consciousness,” says Marx; however, according to Finnis[5] , it is not so much culture that is part of the genre of consciousness, but rather the failure of culture. In a sense, the characteristic theme of the works of Burroughs is not discourse, but neodiscourse. A number of appropriations concerning expressionism may be discovered.

If one examines Baudrillardist simulacra, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neocapitalist paradigm of reality or conclude that the purpose of the poet is significant form, but only if the premise of Baudrillardist simulacra is valid; if that is not the case, Debord’s model of Foucaultist power relations is one of “postconceptual nihilism”, and therefore impossible. But in Junky, Burroughs analyses the neocapitalist paradigm of reality; in The Ticket that Exploded, although, he reiterates expressionism. The subject is interpolated into a semioticist narrative that includes language as a reality.

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the distinction between figure and ground. However, Sontag uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the participant as observer. The neodialectic paradigm of narrative implies that the State is capable of truth.

Thus, the collapse, and subsequent failure, of Baudrillardist simulacra intrinsic to Burroughs’s Naked Lunch emerges again in Nova Express, although in a more self-fulfilling sense. Baudrillard’s essay on capitalist discourse holds that society has significance, given that truth is interchangeable with reality.

However, the subject is contextualised into a expressionism that includes art as a totality. In The Soft Machine, Burroughs analyses the neocapitalist paradigm of reality; in Queer he denies Baudrillardist simulacra.

Thus, any number of theories concerning the common ground between class and language exist. The subject is interpolated into a neocapitalist paradigm of reality that includes narrativity as a reality.

However, the premise of expressionism suggests that art is intrinsically meaningless. Wilson[6] states that we have to choose between Baudrillardist simulacra and poststructural discourse.

It could be said that the example of expressionism depicted in Burroughs’s Naked Lunch is also evident in Junky. Bataille’s critique of the neocapitalist paradigm of reality implies that context is a product of the masses.

However, Sartre promotes the use of the textual paradigm of narrative to challenge hierarchy. Many sublimations concerning Baudrillardist simulacra may be found.

1. Hubbard, V. O. L. (1997) Expressionism in the works of Burroughs. O’Reilly & Associates

2. d’Erlette, C. W. ed. (1970) Reassessing Socialist realism: Expressionism and Baudrillardist simulacra. And/Or Press

3. Werther, P. (1999) Expressionism in the works of Cage. Panic Button Books

4. la Fournier, T. E. ed. (1981) The Consensus of Failure: Baudrillardist simulacra and expressionism. And/Or Press

5. Finnis, O. (1993) Expressionism and Baudrillardist simulacra. University of Oregon Press

6. Wilson, P. A. Z. ed. (1979) Deconstructing Constructivism: Expressionism in the works of Gaiman. University of California Press

 

[Bobness]

I wouldn't really characterise myself as the nice guy, mostly because I feel the overwhelming urge to punch people in the face when they do that That said, I definitely wouldn't call myself a bad boy either, so eh, who knows.

You probably have the best of both worlds or something. Therefore you are not really a nice guy but a sensitive bastard!

Next

 

[Oddy Nocki]

What I would ask however, is this: what would explain the difference in the extent of free will which people are able to exert in subduing their base instinct for control? By my reasoning it'd seem that perhaps it comes back to upbringing, in that an individual's inherent desire to control is curbed by learning that this is not (by my judgement) an entirely appropriate way to treat others?

People are not universal. They are machines so like a tractor or gravity and all things in the universe they obey laws. (Laws= design or coding) Now, if we define design as the parametes by which we like all animals operate. So in essences are like computers. Slaves to our coding. Some of this coding is pre-determined. (Our desire to reproduce for instances) upon on this we have bulit more code (this is the gift of learning) due to the social animals need to interact with others. This is the part where shit gets complicated. Human's are blessed with the ability of choice (people can if they choose overide certain desires, this is best exemplifed in self-sacrifice. Though even this isn't purely selfless. Due to the concept of glory and respect (you gain something)

Now that understanding that things, anything (motor, the sun) works from the core outwards. What is contain at the beginning (desire to reproduce) will ultimately effect the rest of the vessel. Now that we have established that we will be effected I bring the point of overriding desire which I mentioned last paragraph.

Now in my experience. (I think I'm going to be proven right again. But I won't shout it from the roof tops...yet) people (the vast majority) lack self awareness. (I'm actual researching whether physical features play a role in people personality. But this is a new thought, which I haven't really explore. But I divating) Now in order for this shit to be clear you have to define self-awareness. Self awareness is the ability to understand why you operate as you do. Not just on a biological level but on a value (what is important), moral etc. Basically all aspects. Once this is achieve you are able to miniplulate your path in order to not only accelerate, further your path but achieve what you want. (What you want will be different. And this is even more complicated and not realivent to the question at hand)

Now the questions that this raises is, everyone goes through this, what is so different? My answer is yes, but 99.99% of people do it without thinking, so not only the developmen slower, stunted and blind (stuff just happens) So without internal reflection. Which this basically is. People run on a kind of auto-pilot. Now on auto-pilot the body (both both and mind) will just use outside thoughts (social pressure, parent's teachings, media etc.) all of which will be filtered through the internal code that already exists. The primal thoughts; these of coarse have been filtered but the odds returning to jungle laws without social pressures and structure and laws are high. Look at murders and criminals. These people are usally of low intelligence (I've delt with a fair few) that lack the ability to function within proper society.

So people can ignore biological (primal) factors to an extent (cannot shut them out) But you can't operate around them. But this requires intelligence. And an application to becoming self aware.

I guess, while this is probably somewhat off-topic, my point here is that it just seems that the desire to control can't simply be blamed on male genetics, as it seems to be a much more complicated issue than just that. To do so, to me, seems to be simplifying the issue excessively, and something of an effort at justifying this behaviour based on uncontrollable forces, rather than the individual themselves?

They are not seperate. These things (Bio desire and self) are intertwined. True a people is ultimatly to blame but then again people aren't that smart. They no what they do, is a good way of thinking of it.

it still seems quite unfathomable, in that it just doesn't really fit with how I see it. While of course I can see the reasoning and have no doubt that it's true in some cases, I'd assert that this is somewhat misleading. By merit of being a "nice guy", I don't see any reason why an individual can't offer "adventure, a challenge, and excitement", just that they'll be different forms of these.

That because it flys in the face of everything that people have been saying for years.

Again, it more complex then just bad boy vs Nice guy. Basically a Bad boy, plays by no ones rules, not even his own. Now the only reason would play by his own rules is because his stronger (think cave man. He just takes what he wants) Now if we look at every other animal on the planet. They want to pass on their genetic to the strongest. Why are we any different? This is part of the appeal, second it's a cultural. (this is just a reflection of the bio element) there are other factors that are similar but I think you get the point.

Nice guys on the other hand are alot more passive and as such don't have the immedient attraction. They have alot more long term stablity. Fuck, you been with your girlfriend for how long? Both have their plus points and their minus ones but. Interestly, I'll have women more attracted to me at the same point in the cycle (their most fertile)

I'd imagine, over the long-term, it largely comes down to priorities on the parts of both people involved. If a girl is looking for a short-term thrill, and the hardcore gangster kid squatting out timezone has that to offer, then there's little doubt that they'll make an acceptable match for the duration. On the other hand, someone interested in the opposite is unlikely to go for said timezone bad boy. In my reckoning of the situation, I see little room for an overruling tendency for girls to go for these sorts of people.

Yes. But the bio element will always be present. Go ask your girlfriend if Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Carribeen is hot. He in that film is a proto bad boy. But then that man has got ridiculus amounts of chrisma.

While I have no doubt that there are people who do, and hey who knows, maybe they're even in the majority, I think it comes down to being more related to what people are looking for, rather than gender predisposition. To this end, I don't really see any reason for the aforementioned "nice guys" to change their behaviour so dramatically as to appeal to people who are clearly after a different slice of the pie, it certainly isn't likely to be serving their priorities, at least by my understanding.

Hey, I'm was just explaining why an Asshole will win lots chicks. You're right some people won't like you no matter what. But what I'm saying to anyone who reads this long fucking post is that you shouldn't just go out be a dick. Because you'll fuck it up and look like a dead shit. I can, but I rock shit. I don't live like this for girls that's retarded. I live like this for me. I don't go out looking for sex. I go out looking for experience, fun and a good story.

Regarding the better person line, I hope I haven't implied that I think I'm better than people who do things their own way. I don't pretend to be the moral compass of the world, and have only ever really been discussing what things look like from my perspective. Regarding the rest, exceptions! That's pretty much my entire point, with exceptions as numerous as they seem, I just don't see a role in things for some sort of all girls -> bad boys trend. Surely if that was the case nice guys would have been bred out by now? I just find that there seems to be a lot more to the process than can be explained by something that basic.

I know. They are just too many nice people. It won't happen. Look I'm not a jerk all the time. I'm am more then most. But I'm smart so I know what's going on. If this wasn't working I would change. Water, fucking water man.

You still didn't tell us how you meet your girl. What are you afraid of this is the internet. Who's going to see it? Your wife? wait, she won't know it's you.

Regarding the naked photos, no, I don't think so

Free, sick. Just PM them to me and select the best ones and sell them on E-bay.

EDIT: Almost forget. My god, I'm a genius.

 

[Bobness]

How are you a genius? Do tell :uhhuh:

 

[ogmzergrush]

I guess a lot of the stuff prior to what I'm responding to doesn't really need a reply, you've explained what you think, and I've voiced my disagreement with some of it. I can definitely see where you're coming from though, and seeing as there's not likely to be anything resembling an agreement on it, I'll just skip over responding. I guess it just comes down to different strokes for different folks in the end, like so much else.

You still didn't tell us how you meet your girl. What are you afraid of this is the internet. Who's going to see it? Your wife? wait, she won't know it's you.

I didn't really see the relavence personally, but if it means that much to you we met through school, and after knowing each other only by merit of being in the same classes for a few years, actually started talking, got to know each other over a few months then things progressed from there. I hope that has satisfied your (inexplicable) curiousity

Free, sick. Just PM them to me and select the best ones and sell them on E-bay.
EDIT: Almost forget. My god, I'm a genius.

My inner moron is urging me to send you something foul, but I'll resist. In response to your request though, I must politely decline, I just don't do sharing

 

[Oddy Nocki]

My inner moron is urging me to send you something foul, but I'll resist. In response to your request though, I must politely decline, I just don't do sharing

Should have posted something foul. I would have posted it here and made fun of you and your ugly ass girlfriend for like ten pages.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Should have posted something foul. I would have posted it here and made fun of you and your ugly ass girlfriend for like ten pages.

Ahah, such creativity!

 

[Bobness]

People are not universal. They are machines so like a tractor or gravity and all things in the universe they obey laws. (Laws= design or coding) Now, if we define design as the parametes by which we like all animals operate. So in essences are like computers. Slaves to our coding. Some of this coding is pre-determined. (Our desire to reproduce for instances) upon on this we have bulit more code (this is the gift of learning) due to the social animals need to interact with others. This is the part where shit gets complicated. Human's are blessed with the ability of choice (people can if they choose overide certain desires, this is best exemplifed in self-sacrifice. Though even this isn't purely selfless. Due to the concept of glory and respect (you gain something)

Now that understanding that things, anything (motor, the sun) works from the core outwards. What is contain at the beginning (desire to reproduce) will ultimately effect the rest of the vessel. Now that we have established that we will be effected I bring the point of overriding desire which I mentioned last paragraph.

Now in my experience. (I think I'm going to be proven right again. But I won't shout it from the roof tops...yet) people (the vast majority) lack self awareness. (I'm actual researching whether physical features play a role in people personality. But this is a new thought, which I haven't really explore. But I divating) Now in order for this shit to be clear you have to define self-awareness. Self awareness is the ability to understand why you operate as you do. Not just on a biological level but on a value (what is important), moral etc. Basically all aspects. Once this is achieve you are able to miniplulate your path in order to not only accelerate, further your path but achieve what you want. (What you want will be different. And this is even more complicated and not realivent to the question at hand)

Now the questions that this raises is, everyone goes through this, what is so different? My answer is yes, but 99.99% of people do it without thinking, so not only the developmen slower, stunted and blind (stuff just happens) So without internal reflection. Which this basically is. People run on a kind of auto-pilot. Now on auto-pilot the body (both both and mind) will just use outside thoughts (social pressure, parent's teachings, media etc.) all of which will be filtered through the internal code that already exists. The primal thoughts; these of coarse have been filtered but the odds returning to jungle laws without social pressures and structure and laws are high. Look at murders and criminals. These people are usally of low intelligence (I've delt with a fair few) that lack the ability to function within proper society.

So people can ignore biological (primal) factors to an extent (cannot shut them out) But you can't operate around them. But this requires intelligence. And an application to becoming self aware.



They are not seperate. These things (Bio desire and self) are intertwined. True a people is ultimatly to blame but then again people aren't that smart. They no what they do, is a good way of thinking of it.



That because it flys in the face of everything that people have been saying for years.

Again, it more complex then just bad boy vs Nice guy. Basically a Bad boy, plays by no ones rules, not even his own. Now the only reason would play by his own rules is because his stronger (think cave man. He just takes what he wants) Now if we look at every other animal on the planet. They want to pass on their genetic to the strongest. Why are we any different? This is part of the appeal, second it's a cultural. (this is just a reflection of the bio element) there are other factors that are similar but I think you get the point.

Nice guys on the other hand are alot more passive and as such don't have the immedient attraction. They have alot more long term stablity. Fuck, you been with your girlfriend for how long? Both have their plus points and their minus ones but. Interestly, I'll have women more attracted to me at the same point in the cycle (their most fertile)



Yes. But the bio element will always be present. Go ask your girlfriend if Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Carribeen is hot. He in that film is a proto bad boy. But then that man has got ridiculus amounts of chrisma.



Hey, I'm was just explaining why an Asshole will win lots chicks. You're right some people won't like you no matter what. But what I'm saying to anyone who reads this long fucking post is that you shouldn't just go out be a dick. Because you'll fuck it up and look like a dead shit. I can, but I rock shit. I don't live like this for girls that's retarded. I live like this for me. I don't go out looking for sex. I go out looking for experience, fun and a good story.



I know. They are just too many nice people. It won't happen. Look I'm not a jerk all the time. I'm am more then most. But I'm smart so I know what's going on. If this wasn't working I would change. Water, fucking water man.

You still didn't tell us how you meet your girl. What are you afraid of this is the internet. Who's going to see it? Your wife? wait, she won't know it's you.


Free, sick. Just PM them to me and select the best ones and sell them on E-bay.

EDIT: Almost forget. My god, I'm a genius.

And actually you're not really a genius.

If you really think of yourself as a jerk or something other than a nice guy than i honestly feel sorry for you.

Because you typed up all that random cr*p it just goes to show that you need self-validation in terms of your own beliefs.

Now i may be wrong but don't go off and type up another 5 page essay outlining why you think that's so. Never a more nice guy in denial if i've seen one

 

[Oddy Nocki]

And actually you're not really a genius.

If you really think of yourself as a jerk or something other than a nice guy than i honestly feel sorry for you.

Because you typed up all that random cr*p it just goes to show that you need self-validation in terms of your own beliefs.

Now i may be wrong but don't go off and type up another 5 page essay outlining why you think that's so. Never a more nice guy in denial if i've seen one

Nice try. But you missed what I was getting at. He questioned my logic, I responed. I didn't invent the rules, I just pointed them out.

True, you could see it as validation but I don't care what people a message board think about me, it's not like your Justin timberlake or someoone cool. I don't need to defend my actions to anyone. If you ask I'll answer. If anything exstenalising internal thoughts allows a person to make a better reflection on where they stand, in term of values and beliefs.

But believe whatever.

 

[Bobness]

Nice try. But you missed what I was getting at. He questioned my logic, I responed. I didn't invent the rules, I just pointed them out.

True, you could see it as validation but I don't care what people a message board think about me, it's not like your Justin timberlake or someoone cool. I don't need to defend my actions to anyone. If you ask I'll answer. If anything exstenalising internal thoughts allows a person to make a better reflection on where they stand, in term of values and beliefs.

But believe whatever.

That was much shorter and succint, i like!

And yes because this is the interweb who the f*ck knows I MAY BE JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE. bitch. i don't even see how he's 'cool'?

And no you're not externalising internal thoughts you are overanalysing. How about you answer me this? How long have you been a nice guy in denial?

 

[Oddy Nocki]

And yes because this is the interweb who the f*ck knows I MAY BE JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE. bitch. i don't even see how he's 'cool'?

Are you raggin on the Justin? go get a life. Leave music to people who know not when a person gots da skillz. Like the Just.

And no you're not externalising internal thoughts you are overanalysing. How about you answer me this? How long have you been a nice guy in denial?

Are you sure? Perhaps you just aren't looking hard enough. This isn't reaching, I derived these ideas not from some crack pot talking about turning water in to wine but from mainstream people and cultural examples. Are you denying the concept of layers? Have you never seen an onion?

Four minutes.

 

[luscious-llama]

Hey bobster, completely off topic
Up here there's a town called Bobs Farm.
Yay.