Women at LPSG and no-win situations
- Thread starter Ethyl
- Start date
I'm still trying to puzzle out what exactly you mean, Big D, because your post is just barely coherent.
However, I do like like the appellation "flaming psychotic cunt" for myself, so maybe we're in some sort of strange agreement.
With that said, Madame Bliss, I think most everyone got it right-- a lot of men are pricks and are here to gallery surf/jerk off/get out frustrations etc. People love drama, love a fight, and love dumping on others. In real life, you can't do it because there are consequences. On the internet, you can do whatever you like and the worst you'll ever get is kicked off that particular site/chat/forum and move on to the next.
I got burned really badly by opening up on an internet forum once. I have some really freaky stories of friends that I know too. I try to stay wary, but it's not in my nature to think people can truly be as evil and spiteful as they are sometimes.
All right, my fault, I continue to overestimate the capabilities of this board. I should have learned by now. So, one step at a time, in small words -
"Psychotic". I have spotted what I suspect are clear symptoms of psychotic episodes in posts by some members - one or two specifically. (No, you will not be able to force me to say who - don't even try.) I think it's important to identify those. When I do, I take particular care to post nothing complicated, and nothing which could easily be misinterpreted, in those person's threads; or, better yet, post nothing at all. Someone suffering from psychotic episodes will almost certainly misinterpret even a simple post - that's what psychotics do - and tear into a gawdawful rant. Is that bad? Well, by the time someone has reached my age he's probably noticed that some people have serious stress-induced health problems. A part-time psychotic has enough trouble without me adding to the pile. So I back off. I'd feel like a first-class jerk if I ever learned that someone, even someone I don't know, had suffered an attack of apoplexy or even had a heart attack after dealing with one of my posts. So, that should explain the importance of the "psychotic" classification.
"Argues like a girl". I could also say argues like a teenager, or argues like a lawyer. The technique is to ignore the substance of an argument, and zoom in on some trivial aspect. Then, worry that to death. Attorneys use this in cross-examination technique, to rubbish a witness whose testimony is otherwise immaculate; it works if the jury isn't too sharp, and keeping the sharp ones out is something they try to do during jury selection. Teenagers do it just because they're teenagers. Many women retain it as a technique they think is useful. So do many men, but I wasn't talking about classification of men. In fact, most regular posters here can fairly be said to rely far too much on this technique, confusing it with more useful polemical forms. (Well, let's just say that Socratic inquiry it ain't, and leave it at that.) Now if I'm having a casual conversation about something specific, and ideally useless (economic causes of the Peloponnesian War, say) or abstract (does the precession of Mercury's orbit mean that space is positively or negatively curved; light fluff like that), and the other person (in real life or on a board such as this) veers off into something silly, like, have I spelled Peloponnesian right (no need to check, I probably have), or, that Albert Einstein probably beat his wife (his first one, maybe - I might have been tempted, myself), then I know that I shouldn't waste too much effort on the actual content of the conversation, as it's about to die a natural death. So, obviously enough, the way I handle a conversation, or write a post, depends on whether my correspondent is being serious, has good points to make, or wishes to learn something; or if it's all just a waste of time and effort. Hence the rationale for the diagnosis, "argues like a girl", vs. "other." It's a very useful distinction, and saves me no end of typing.
I trust this resolves any mystery about "argues like a girl". (Both of those hypothetical subjects are real ones, by the way, not just for show. In real life I talk about crap like that; the downside is that sometimes I don't get a lot of useful work done.)
"Other". I'll make the wild assumption that I don't have to belabor this concept.
______________
The people I talk to in real life have no trouble with things like this. It's all elementary logic to them. Perhaps I forget too easily that they're not typical.
"Psychotic". I have spotted what I suspect are clear symptoms of psychotic episodes in posts by some members - one or two specifically. (No, you will not be able to force me to say who - don't even try.) I think it's important to identify those. When I do, I take particular care to post nothing complicated, and nothing which could easily be misinterpreted, in those person's threads; or, better yet, post nothing at all. Someone suffering from psychotic episodes will almost certainly misinterpret even a simple post - that's what psychotics do - and tear into a gawdawful rant. Is that bad? Well, by the time someone has reached my age he's probably noticed that some people have serious stress-induced health problems. A part-time psychotic has enough trouble without me adding to the pile. So I back off. I'd feel like a first-class jerk if I ever learned that someone, even someone I don't know, had suffered an attack of apoplexy or even had a heart attack after dealing with one of my posts. So, that should explain the importance of the "psychotic" classification.
"Argues like a girl". I could also say argues like a teenager, or argues like a lawyer. The technique is to ignore the substance of an argument, and zoom in on some trivial aspect. Then, worry that to death. Attorneys use this in cross-examination technique, to rubbish a witness whose testimony is otherwise immaculate; it works if the jury isn't too sharp, and keeping the sharp ones out is something they try to do during jury selection. Teenagers do it just because they're teenagers. Many women retain it as a technique they think is useful. So do many men, but I wasn't talking about classification of men. In fact, most regular posters here can fairly be said to rely far too much on this technique, confusing it with more useful polemical forms. (Well, let's just say that Socratic inquiry it ain't, and leave it at that.) Now if I'm having a casual conversation about something specific, and ideally useless (economic causes of the Peloponnesian War, say) or abstract (does the precession of Mercury's orbit mean that space is positively or negatively curved; light fluff like that), and the other person (in real life or on a board such as this) veers off into something silly, like, have I spelled Peloponnesian right (no need to check, I probably have), or, that Albert Einstein probably beat his wife (his first one, maybe - I might have been tempted, myself), then I know that I shouldn't waste too much effort on the actual content of the conversation, as it's about to die a natural death. So, obviously enough, the way I handle a conversation, or write a post, depends on whether my correspondent is being serious, has good points to make, or wishes to learn something; or if it's all just a waste of time and effort. Hence the rationale for the diagnosis, "argues like a girl", vs. "other." It's a very useful distinction, and saves me no end of typing.
I trust this resolves any mystery about "argues like a girl". (Both of those hypothetical subjects are real ones, by the way, not just for show. In real life I talk about crap like that; the downside is that sometimes I don't get a lot of useful work done.)
"Other". I'll make the wild assumption that I don't have to belabor this concept.
______________
The people I talk to in real life have no trouble with things like this. It's all elementary logic to them. Perhaps I forget too easily that they're not typical.
The good guys are key in making this site worthwhile. You included. :smile:
Quoted for truth. Thanks, Kotch.
I know everyone is riding your ass about this statement and I understand why. But you are on to something here. It is all about how you define "bitch". If you're assertive and flatly refuse to tolerate bullshit from anyone, these are positive characteristics if you're of the male persuasion. If you're female, it can be a different story, depending on whom you talk to.
When I first began lurking, I read a bunch of MZ's posts. I couldn't believe the amount of misogyny and idiocy that came her way and she was one of maybe a handful of women at the genesis of this site. She literally paved the way for the rest of us who are here now and I have the highest respect for her. I thought since she and a few other women found their niche here that I could create one for myself.
But, as a few of the women here have pointed out, there are men who have certain expectations of us. We're supposed to reply to every idiot PM, request for cam, every thread that begs us to look at their pics, and apparently, as NJQT so aptly noted, we're viewed as free phone/IM sex for many. I don't feel obligated to do anything I don't want to. Something else i've just recently discovered is that it's perfectly fine for men to "out" a faker but it's a witch hunt when women do it, even if it's for the right reason. Everyone is supposed to feel sympathy for the straight guys when they discover they've been wanking to fake pics of Miss Valentine, but heaven forbid the women try to help each other on this site when they're bombarded with all the sick shit some guys try to pull.
The double standard is alive and well. How refreshing.
I won't rawb. I promise.Don't change, Cheryl.
Your friend Cherise is a wise woman. Please tell her that for me, willya?
Your cock is larger than my fire extinguisher, DC. Of course i'll fuck you. :biggrin1:
Well, my time is precious and I certainly don't want to waste it, Davey. Although one might argue that's exactly what i'm doing here at LPSG. :biggrin1:
Speaking of fire extinguishers....:biggrin1:
You're right, YAG. These guys are a stain on your wonderful gender, but at least we have the shining examples like you here with us. :smile:
I appreciate that thought, CG, but my goal is for everyone to think about this long and hard. I didn't want this to be another "I want guys to stop PMing me" thread, but a discussion on the part we play here at LPSG. I'm definitely glad you're here. :smile:
Good attitude. I like it.
LOL.
You'll love this - my mother was often mistaken for Barbara Eden when she was younger. She even had a couple guys ask her for her autograph. Wild, huh?:biggrin1:
DaveyR
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 5,422
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 30
- Points
- 268
- Location
- Northumberland
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
also...why would a woman be on the internet if she doesn't want to cyber?
I assume you are joking otherwise you will be getting a lot of anwers from the women on this site.
also...why would a woman be on the internet if she doesn't want to cyber?
You're missing the point and I think it's because you couldn't be bothered to finish reading the 'rants'.
I was about to ask you about your sig and saw your above post. So scratch the above.
By referring to it as "argues like a girl," one automatically assumes (incorrectly if I'm reading your explanation in the manner you meant it) that you're contrasting it with arguing like a boy/man. The reason for this is probably that the phrase that it's derived from is "throws like a girl" which is used against men (and women) derisively. I'd rather you call it something else, but hey, it's your headspace, not mine.
At any rate, I do see what you're saying. One would hope that you'd have some good categories in there to balance out the bad instead of just "other."
If I'm not making sense even moreso than usual, it's because I've had a fever for three days. Will someone please come rub me or something?
DaveyR
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 5,422
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 30
- Points
- 268
- Location
- Northumberland
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
I think it's more a case of getiing so used to the signatures on people's posts that you tend not to read them after a while. You will see though from my post that I did not assume you were serious.
I didn't take offense at all (my skin is not that thin) and i've used the phrases "runs like a girl" or "screamed like a little girl" myself. "Psychotic" is self-explanatory, IMO, and has nothing to do with gender. Everything else I already explained in my previous post.
rawbone8
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Posts
- 2,827
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 295
- Points
- 303
- Location
- Ontario (Canada)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Posts
- 494
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 57
- Points
- 273
- Location
- North Carolina
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
We need to find you and MagicTounge a job on the east coast (NC to be exact) haha. Of course, there are many others whom would be shining stars here, too!
I love your attitude, MB, and your frankness about situations and topics. It does help shed light amongst intolerable topics and the complacency some of us have when thinking more critically about the stupidity that goes on here... Sometimes turning a blind eye is not necessarily the best policy to have.........
I love your attitude, MB, and your frankness about situations and topics. It does help shed light amongst intolerable topics and the complacency some of us have when thinking more critically about the stupidity that goes on here... Sometimes turning a blind eye is not necessarily the best policy to have.........
rawbone8
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Posts
- 2,827
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 295
- Points
- 303
- Location
- Ontario (Canada)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Similar threads
