Ahh, Women...

[Pekka]

Ok, you didn't say men are simple. I said men are simple, as a common myth. If women are more complex than men, I assumed you accepted the premis of men being simple.

Yes, psychos gives suffering to others. Men having to say I love you all the time and getting into argumentsa bout it is energy drain. It's exhausting. Not the same kind of suffering though.

And why is it that men have to adapt to that? Why can't women adapt to the style men are accustomed to? And yes, fi I'm expected to fight that argument when going out for a week only, I don't care for her that much, not that I wouldn't care, but I don't care for all the coming up fights. Because it woudln't end there. I personally need someone who is not that charging all the time. She can charge, but not all the time, and if a girl starts that so early like that, it'll be like that forever too. I read her all right, but I just didn't like what I was reading. And no way did I love her.

And yes, it's a strong thing. I have never experienced it, only crushes. And yes, torture, who knows how you behave. And that's not even it, the test I mean is even more stronger. The torturers wouldn't hurt the girl you love. But they would take her away from you forever. The fact would be, you won't be seeing her anyway, so when they torture you for the phonenumber, you won't ever see her again anyway. THat's true love.

YOu see, there are different definitions of love. There is love.. then there is TRUE love. That's kind of BS.. so there are different levels of love? No, there is love, period. YOu either love or don't. If you don't love, you might have a crush, or just general caring. That crush might develop into arrangement where you live together. And then the crush dies, and it remains as an arrangement, or the crush stays and you live forever after. But that doesn't mean there's love involved necessarily. Or how come over half of every couple end up divorcing? was it love instead of true love? NOw, it was a crush with an arrangement. It was a solution.

Feeling alive in your heart? If you have a feeling in your heart, it means the feeling can go away too. It's only chemical reaction in your brain. If you are in love, the only thing you feel is NO! when they start gutting you. That's love.

[Pekka]

So you see, you say mens love is like a stone. Yeah, and it's one helluva stone. And womens love is a tree, with many branches growing and demanding weird things and few disfunctioning wings too. And yet you came up with more simple definition of love than me? Now that's complex, proving my point yet again, and destroying excuses for the complex behaviour of emotional women.

[Pekka]

And you can't hide it all, saying it's complex, women mean different things some times. That's BS. Things are simple. They are defined already. If you wrap up those things and call them something else, it's not complex, it's not being in touch with feelings, it's mixed signals, like I said earlier. Why should men be expected to learn read cryptic mixed signals, try to adapt to 'no way to win' arguments, when women could just learn the definitions of things and rules of arguing? You say well why not men learn. I say they shouldn't, because men base them on FACTS. The definitions are already there, no reason to scramble them into something else. IF you want to order eggs and beans, you order eggs and beans. Don't expect the cook to realize what you really mean and make his life harder. Because then you're just making someones life harder. And it's not an excuse, that well, he must love me enough so he can do the long hike. That's why I said women are sadistic in the first place. They make YOU take the long hike, and then scramble long enough, and wrap different things together and say it's something else and you should know it, and that's somehow OK? This is taking toll on men everywhere in the world! It's a crime..

Hey, If I like a girl very much, and she happens to be for example Japanese, I'll learn Japanese so I can talk with her. But damn her if she wants me to learn HER spesifical mixed signals language too. She has to come half way to meet me at least. There just is no excuse for it.

And the worst part is, even when you get frustrated, you're still wrong because she says so, and if you don't agree, well then you just don't love her, apparently.

[Snowflake]

First lets agree to disagree about whose definition is simpler. I believe you are right in saying that men prefer things that are simpler. You know, like a definition that can be tested once and for all. Your definition, in that case. Make things much easier.

I did not say men's love is like a stone. I said they think it as if it is a stone. They say since it is here yesterday it must have been here today. Then one day it disappeared and they think it is so complex that they cannot comprehend.

I don't know about TRUE love either. I would define crush as fake loves. The ones that you feel are empty when it is over. If it is real love, then you feel you have had something, even if when it is over. It alwasy resides in your heart.

"And why is it that men have to adapt to that? Why can't women adapt to the style men are accustomed to? " That is a very good question. In a relationship both have to adapt. The woman has to accept that the man won't tell her stuff not because he doen't value her, just because he wants to have his own space. The man has to accept that she always likes to talk to him, but she doesn't mean to ask him to solve everything for her. There are lots of things like that. Maybe one day, there would be a male supercitizen in a female dominated forum, explain things to them so that the women can understand men better. But again, this maybe counter characteristic for men.

Last, let me ask how the existance of complex as a fact destroys excuses for the complex behaviour of emotional women? We've got a helluva logic here.

[Japher]

complex behaviour of emotional women?

I didn't understand the begininng of the question, but

[Pekka]

And the fact is, it can never really work. A woman should be expected the same as is expected from men, AND vice versa.

So, woman should be independent, have good things going for her, and when you get together adn form a unit, she should give it all up? She would still have the skills and all that, just like everyone else, and all the men in the world, but she should jus tgive it up when baby comes into picture? Well, hell yes she should. Reason is, because someone needs to take care fo the baby 24/7 and during the day time someone needs to go and earn. And that shoudl be man. If the woman and the man really want the woman to earn and man to take care of the baby, fine by me, no reason to stop them doing that. But women take better care of the baby anyway. So now the woman is not satisfied, with the striving career just killed. Now she might feel like that yeah while this is great too, it's still not as satisfying as she would have been if she could have done all the things.

And they both can't work. Because if they would, who would take care of the baby? Baby sitter 24/7 so the parents can go and chase the career? Well that's not good. And besides, what does the home look like doing that.. it would look like crap, that's what it would look like. They can't both be expected to do huge loads of home work when they come back tired anyway.

So, the only way to really make it work is when they are super rich and don't have to necessarily work the time baby is growing. That's when it can work.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Pekka
And you can't hide it all, saying it's complex, women mean different things some times. That's BS. Things are simple. They are defined already. If you wrap up those things and call them something else, it's not complex, it's not being in touch with feelings, it's mixed signals, like I said earlier. Why should men be expected to learn read cryptic mixed signals, try to adapt to 'no way to win' arguments, when women could just learn the definitions of things and rules of arguing? You say well why not men learn. I say they shouldn't, because men base them on FACTS. The definitions are already there, no reason to scramble them into something else. IF you want to order eggs and beans, you order eggs and beans. Don't expect the cook to realize what you really mean and make his life harder. Because then you're just making someones life harder. And it's not an excuse, that well, he must love me enough so he can do the long hike. That's why I said women are sadistic in the first place. They make YOU take the long hike, and then scramble long enough, and wrap different things together and say it's something else and you should know it, and that's somehow OK? This is taking toll on men everywhere in the world! It's a crime..

Hey, If I like a girl very much, and she happens to be for example Japanese, I'll learn Japanese so I can talk with her. But damn her if she wants me to learn HER spesifical mixed signals language too. She has to come half way to meet me at least. There just is no excuse for it.

And the worst part is, even when you get frustrated, you're still wrong because she says so, and if you don't agree, well then you just don't love her, apparently.

Well if women have to learn to read men when they don't even talk, I say it is fair for men to learn to read women when they talk differently. You are supposed to be her SO right? When you walk into a bar that you frequent and ask for a "regular", the bartendars do not complain about it. And you may even complain if the bartender does not remember your regular, even if there are more people who use "regular" to refer to very different things. You expect him to get all of those. And he's not even in love with you. Or having a crush on you either, for that matter.

[Pekka]

I feel it destroys it, because I feel that my definiton of love is more complex than your traditional one, but when we say women are more complex than men, and if I come up with more complex definition.. and I have to say agian, you said that mens as if stone definiton is simpler, and mine is simular to the stone thing, but at the same time it woudl be more complex than the traditional one, just for the sake that it is traditional and simple defnition, then in fact if the simpler is more complex, then that situation is truly complex and not simple. So, at the same time if it is complex, then how can you justify the emotional complexity of women that makes their actions complex, where as my actions are simple and by definition? What's your excuse to step out of the definiton agreed worldwide anyway? It's fact, and if you step out of it, it's not a fact, and if you call it complexity, and I come up with simple definition, that is more complex than your traditional simple definition, then that situation is complex. Do you understand? And that DOESN'T mean that it proves that there are complex things. Because there are complex things and that is simple. But the complex things, the whole issue of complexity doesnt' explain the complex behaviour and make the other one simple. The simple follows the definiton, making it a fact, and when the other one is not a fact, it doesn't mean it's complex, it means it's BS. And when it manifests itself in action, well that's BS in action.

Simple.

[Pekka]

Right, because the bartender remembers your regular, because you have frequented there. The bartender has an idea of what is regular for you. Doesn't this mean women should realize the man loves him, I don't think the bartender forgets your regular EVERY DAY, or if he does, well then you don't order regulars anymore, but beer.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Pekka
And the fact is, it can never really work. A woman should be expected the same as is expected from men, AND vice versa.

So, woman should be independent, have good things going for her, and when you get together adn form a unit, she should give it all up? She would still have the skills and all that, just like everyone else, and all the men in the world, but she should jus tgive it up when baby comes into picture? Well, hell yes she should. Reason is, because someone needs to take care fo the baby 24/7 and during the day time someone needs to go and earn. And that shoudl be man. If the woman and the man really want the woman to earn and man to take care of the baby, fine by me, no reason to stop them doing that. But women take better care of the baby anyway. So now the woman is not satisfied, with the striving career just killed. Now she might feel like that yeah while this is great too, it's still not as satisfying as she would have been if she could have done all the things.

And they both can't work. Because if they would, who would take care of the baby? Baby sitter 24/7 so the parents can go and chase the career? Well that's not good. And besides, what does the home look like doing that.. it would look like crap, that's what it would look like. They can't both be expected to do huge loads of home work when they come back tired anyway.

So, the only way to really make it work is when they are super rich and don't have to necessarily work the time baby is growing. That's when it can work.

See you are showing your biase here again. "If the woman work and the man takes care of the baby, fine by me. But the woman really should take care of the baby because she does that better blah blah blah." I'd say different families would have different arrangement, whichever suits them the best. After the necessary period that a woman needs after she gives birth, she could go back to work and the man could stay home, if it is better for the entire family. And they can both go to work when the children are older, and can be taken care of by a care giver. That does not necessarily mean they are negalecting their children. They have to spend more time to be with their children after work, and it may mean that they have to sacrifice times to do other things, like to go to that new movie or go eat in that fancy resturant. But this is what comes with children. If you are going to complain about it, don't do it in the first place. You'll miss all the fun watching them grow up, and enjoy the unconditional love, yes love, but oh well, you can't be bothered with the responsibility, so well. Just don't expect the woman to take care everything for you. If a job for both of you.

[Pekka]

Yeah, but I said it can work if they're super rich, so they can spend all that time without spending all that tiem doing other things. THen there wouldn't be arguments over the issues I have brought into light.

But the earlier post about the complexity and simplicity is holding, even though it seems kind of difficult to read, it's a fact and it's not some jibberish I came up with, so if it's difficult to comprehend the first reading time, go over it again, it has a point. The whole post is a big point, so don't try to find hidden messages. I stay with definitions, facts.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Pekka
I feel it destroys it, because I feel that my definiton of love is more complex than your traditional one, but when we say women are more complex than men, and if I come up with more complex definition.. and I have to say agian, you said that mens as if stone definiton is simpler, and mine is simular to the stone thing, but at the same time it woudl be more complex than the traditional one, just for the sake that it is traditional and simple defnition, then in fact if the simpler is more complex, then that situation is truly complex and not simple. So, at the same time if it is complex, then how can you justify the emotional complexity of women that makes their actions complex, where as my actions are simple and by definition? What's your excuse to step out of the definiton agreed worldwide anyway? It's fact, and if you step out of it, it's not a fact, and if you call it complexity, and I come up with simple definition, that is more complex than your traditional simple definition, then that situation is complex. Do you understand? And that DOESN'T mean that it proves that there are complex things. Because there are complex things and that is simple. But the complex things, the whole issue of complexity doesnt' explain the complex behaviour and make the other one simple. The simple follows the definiton, making it a fact, and when the other one is not a fact, it doesn't mean it's complex, it means it's BS. And when it manifests itself in action, well that's BS in action.

Simple.

And I thought somebody said women is the ones who are more complexed. And you still haven't answered my question. Here's a hint, excuses? complex behaviour of emotional women?

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Pekka
Right, because the bartender remembers your regular, because you have frequented there. The bartender has an idea of what is regular for you. Doesn't this mean women should realize the man loves him, I don't think the bartender forgets your regular EVERY DAY, or if he does, well then you don't order regulars anymore, but beer.

Exactly. You have to say "regular" to the bartendar very often for him to remember. So don't complain when your woman speak their languages often to you. They are simply trying to help you.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah, but I said it can work if they're super rich, so they can spend all that time without spending all that tiem doing other things. THen there wouldn't be arguments over the issues I have brought into light.

But the earlier post about the complexity and simplicity is holding, even though it seems kind of difficult to read, it's a fact and it's not some jibberish I came up with, so if it's difficult to comprehend the first reading time, go over it again, it has a point. The whole post is a big point, so don't try to find hidden messages. I stay with definitions, facts.

Well my point is that they don't have to be super rich for it to work. They just have to be willing to sacrifice their own time for it.

About that big point, ok I'll read it again. Good to know that it is not some jibberish and has no hidden messages. But remember I'm a woman. You know, one of the species that are not very good at logics.

[Pekka]

I answered to that! Read it again! And that proves my point again, yes, complex to read, but in fact very simple!
Women complexity is not complexity by definition. In fact you have taken complexity OUT of the definiton, making my whole point. Complexity and simplicity can and do co-exist, like I said while my definiton was very simple, it was still more complex than your definiton, that was however simple too. And that situation is complex.

So, that said, you say simple, I say fact. Simple men, because they rely on facts. They rely talking with words that means like they're defined. When women don't follow the rules, you say it's because women are more complex. Simple, based on facts.. complex.. suddenly it's not only the opposite of simple, it's also the opposite of facts. We should concentrate on the facts and not facts, because if it's not a fact, then it's BS. But you wrap it and claim it's complex, when it really is just BS, by definiton, and fact, and fact is the same as right. So basically it's simple vs BS. And when simple proves itself right, the BS keeps on going, and that's draining for men. 'they don't understand us' translates into 'they don't feel like trying to understand all the non-factual BS'. So, why don't we just stick with facts but try to make the other one learn mixed signals aka mixed BS? And the only thing that really makes it complex, by definition, is that you're trying to wrap this complex thing, and change the definition of it. BS doesn't mean complex. BS means BS!

edit: Sorry forgot about the behaviour.
YEs.. when we now know, that what women mean by complex is in fact BS and not complex by definition (read: Fact), and then manifests this in action, doing things, saying things, demanding things.. it's ntohing but BS in action . Just no excuse!