Just what does a 30 year old woman want?

A

auric

FOSS
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
881
Reaction score
0
According to her nine inches in today's Guardian it would seem that La Cox just wants to be an object of lust every now and then. Will chaps ever understand the way a thinking woman thinks?
 
bob's right, she wants a baby or four, so she can be supported while she pushes a pram around, has coffee with her friends, and shows off in the 4x4 on the school run or the sports car/merc., whilst we do all the hard work earning the cash so she can spend it, all for a bit of sex....not worth it.
cynical? I reckon its the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Methinks that half the time, they dont know what they want themselves, so we've got no chance.

And when a woman finds a man who gives her everything she wants, she finds it wasnt what she wanted. :D :D :D
 
Ever wonder if maybe, just maybe, all women are different and individual and so all want different things? And thus defy our pathetic attempts to "work women out" when really what we should try to do is "work woman out".

Also accept that since a woman is a person, she is constantly growing and updating her opinions, and ideas of what makes life good - just like you. Therefore you actually have to keep paying attention, not turn off once you reckon you've got her sussed. If you don't pay attention for 5 years, then guess what? She'll have changed.

<ahem>
 
I have been reading a book lately about understanding women....

it seems you have to try to adapt to them, and get on their level, ie not 'be a man' by finding a solution to her problem, which apparently is what men do, but by simply supporting and listening.

the whole book is all about getting on to their level, and adapting to HER moods, but there is absolutely no mention whatsover about her doing the same for us....seems totally one sided.

shoes... :D yes indeed, to show off her painted toes in the summer

short skirt, to draw your eyes up to the kunt in between, is that the person or the genital :D

wavey hair, skimpy tops, heavy eye makeup(eyes half shut), all which give sub-concious images of a darkly lit room when aroused.images of coitus.

watch for all this in adverts, even postures that mimic it, arched backs, other pics. including tensed feet(yes I have seen ads with girls on beds like that, mainstream ones)
Its all sub concious I am just briging it to the fore. These are my theories.

attention from men, but on a woman's level, ie not unwelcome, to do this, she wears lipstick which says,wouldn't you love to put your member here. :D

and attention from other women to make her feel better about herself.

I reckon women are seriously insecure, that's why they congregate and confide with other women.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again with the generalisations.

Open your eyes - everyone is different. Yes there are women who don't want you to solve their problems because they want to whine about them and have a shoulder to cry on. There are men like this too.

But there are also women who are practical and solution oriented just like "all us men" :rolleyes: You want to meet one? Talk to prematuremango, a member here and my gf. I can guarantee she'd have a crisis under control before most of us could say "oh crap, the kitchen's on fire"

Not all women are useless lumps of emotion who are obsessed with shoes, and not all men are dynamic rational problem solvers. And what the hell is wrong with being obsessed with shoes? We're on a internet forum populated by men who spend upwards of £10,000 on stereo equipment, who freeze cables and paint CDs green. Glass houses anyone?

It's about time we learned to accept people's individuality and stop applying the stereotypes like they are gospel. And accept that just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it irrational.

Sheesh, are you even aware of the strereotypes leveled at men, hi-fi enthusiasts, computer enthusiasts, car enthusiasts, etc... categories that we all fall into at least one if not all of? Is everything that is said true? Does everything apply to you? Are you happy being described that way? No? Then stop flipping doing it to others!!!! There's a name for that behaviour, it sounds greek and the first half is large mammal.

...and relax...
 
Lt Cdr Data said:
I reckon women are seriously insecure, that's why they congregate and confide with other women.
Click to expand...

3 billion people summed up in one sentence. Am I the only one that spots a problem with this?

I reckon all men need constant re-assurance about their virility, which is why they never settle down and try to have sex with every girl they meet.

Everyone happy with that statement?

We may as well have the entire population of the earth described in this thread.

The ironic thing being that if a woman said this to one of us, the next day you can be sure of a thread entitled "why do all women think we are just sex crazed idiots?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well she told us!! :cool:

Generalizations are called generalizations for a reason, they are general. Of course there are woman who don't fall under it, in fact I doubt any do perfectly.

Had a bit of a 'discussion' with my girl last week as she was pissed off about something and I was trying to console her, say hey you are right its crap but this is a good thing about it? She tells me she would much rather I just said 'yeah' and shut up letting her moan with no actual thought out reply as such. If she did that to me I would feel like she was placating me and didn't care about what I was saying or going through! So I think the thing about not trying to solve their problem is true.
 
Tenson said:
Well she told us!! :cool:
Click to expand...

Actually I'm a "he" but never mind.

Generalizations are called generalizations for a reason, they are general. Of course there are woman who don't fall under it, in fact I doubt any do perfectly.
Click to expand...

My point is that generalisations have absolutely no value outside of statistics. You can say that within a group of 20-25 year old males there were more accidents per 1,000 miles driven than in a comparable sized group of 50-55 year old females(I think that's true, but it's not important). This is valuable for an insurance agent as they now know that if they want a low risk business they just insure 50-55 year old women.

However, it does not mean that every single 20-25 year old male will have more accidents than any 50-55 year old female. The problem comes when you start to apply the generalisations to actual people, and that's when I see red and the vein starts to pulse in my forehead. What started it up this time was the picking of a single woman's words and then using it as fodder for a "what do women want?" thread.

Women is just the plural of woman, not an entity in it's own right. Therefore "women" can be neither irrational, intelligent, emotional, sensible, mental, etc... Only a woman (singular) can be any of those things and therefore it only makes sense to talk of them in the context of an individual, or a group chosen for the display of said trait in each of it's members.

The same applies to "men", "the working class", "computer geeks", "asians", "the youth of today", et al.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to disagree, generalizations are useful. In general chavs are rude, irrational youths looking for a fight. It's not true to all but when you meet one you have never met before it's best to remember he's (or she's) more likely going to be as described i the generalization than not.

I try not to judge people on sight or apply generalizations but perhaps unfortunately I have found I need to apply them in some small way for my own good, or I just get taken advantage of again and again giving everyone the benefit of the doubt.
 
Tenson said:
I have to disagree, generalizations are useful. In general chavs are rude, irrational youths looking for a fight.
Click to expand...

But "chav" is a name for a person displaying certain characteristics, rather than a biologically determined grouping. The problem with the generalisation that has been applied here is that it attributes traits to a group that they are not inherently linked with.

Typically "rude, irrational youth looking for a fight" is part of the definition of a chav, and so of course they will meet the generalisation. The image of "burberry wearing, pot smoking, white lightening drinking, argos shopping, rude, dirty, oik looking for a fight" is exactly what the word chav is being used to define.

Taking a pre-defined (or biologically determined) group and applying generalised behaviours that are outside of our original definition - bad.

Taking pre-exisitng behaviours and applying a group descriptive to all that display that behaviour - 'social grouping'. There's probably a proper name for that, but I don't know it. And I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong, just that it's different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay that was admittedly a bad example! My point was it seems better to use the generalization when meeting someone you don't know and who looks like they would fit it as a starting point and then adapt your view of them when you get to know them better. You have instincts for a reason and if they tell me someone is probably going to fit into a generalization, I will listen to them to a degree.
 
hey guys, lets stick to generalising about HiFi...

...all vavle kit is warm and fuzzy....
...dac64s are brash and hard.....
...Levinson gear is dull.....
...women arent interested in hifi.....
...consortiums are trolls....
...Naim gear is for flatties....
...Meridians are soft....
...chord is bling.....
...7oaks dont offer good service....
...epay is more hassle than its worth...
...NOS DACs are interesting...
...hifi industry is dying...
...HiRes formats will die...
...CD will die within 10 yrs...
...vinyl will be with us forever...
...etc etc etc...
 
Tenson said:
Okay that was admittedly a bad example! My point was it seems better to use the generalization when meeting someone you don't know and who looks like they would fit it as a starting point and then adapt your view of them when you get to know them better. You have instincts for a reason and if they tell me someone is probably going to fit into a generalization, I will listen to them to a degree.
Click to expand...

So, it sounds to me you are judging someone based on past experience. Seeing evidence of parts of the stereotype, and assuming to a greater or lesser extent that the rest of it probably applies too. You remain open to the fact that they may not be a perfect fit however. I think we all do this, either consciously or sub-consciously as part of the process of learning about a person. Correct me if I've incorrectly interpreted your statement.

That's not really what I'm ranting against. It's more just the ridiculous statements covering an entire group of people based on the words or actions of a small subset of them, or at worst only 1 member of the group. The implication of this thread originally was -

"Jeese, all this time Women(tm) have been complaining about being letched at, but now they want to be letched at!!!"

errr, no Sara Cox wants to be letched at. The individuals that said they don't want to be letched at probably still don't. The individuals that didn't mind either way, well guess what - they probably still don't mind either way.
 
Ok I didn't actually read the article, just this thread, so fair enough you are right its stupid to generalize based on a comment / article like that.

Is there much difference between a stereotype and a generalization that covers a group of people?

Would you say its alright to make a generalization about a group of people based on passed experience? Most women are pretty irrational. In my experience this is true. I think you are better off expecting them to be irrational than not making that generalization, presuming nothing about their rationality and finding out in a bad experience that this one is, in fact, irrational.

In general, generalizations are useful, but I see from this, that ones made from only one comment or experience are stupid and useless. :D
 
Tenson said:
Would you say its alright to make a generalization about a group of people based on passed experience? Most women are pretty irrational. In my experience this is true. I think you are better off expecting them to be irrational than not making that generalization, presuming nothing about their rationality and finding out in a bad experience that this one is, in fact, irrational.
Click to expand...

I think it's unavoidable, it's human nature. Ideally we'd go into every relationship with a clean sheet, but perhaps that position is completely untenable. I guess there is a degree of common sense about when reasonable assumptions (like the fact that a girl is considerably less likely to find lighting certain bodily functions amusing than a guy is) become unreasonable generalisations (all women are light weights and will end up crying in the night club toilets by the end of the night).

Of course this is all just my opinion, and we live in a free country so you're all allowed to think and say what you like. Even if it's bigotted, ill informed or downright rude ;)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top