MIG-TOW. Have you heard about it?

Homepage Forums Small Talk MIG-TOW. Have you heard about it?

This topic contains 104 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  _Robert_ 5 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 105 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #53970

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Simon,

    Surely a close relationship is the place for generosity rather than cynical bargaining. Some things are sacred or priceless (e.g., goodwill, trust) and can’t be bought with profane, worldly currency.

    Again, you have me wondering about my wherabouts. Is this a “Liberation Theology” Forum, because this is where I would expect this.

    “Transactional” does not have to be solely an exchange of monetary consideration, not that there’s anything wrong with that. It could equally be an exchqnge of other values, such as courtesy or division of labor in a household, exchange of favors, etc.

    #53972

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Enco

    You’re hypersensitivity over language is a bit overwrought and also silly. The word “sacred” has nonreligious uses and if an atheist uses “Oh God!” or “My heavens!,” they are just common expressions defined by their usage rather than their etymologies.

    Hell (LOL), I even celebrate Christmas because my family does. I don’t go to Christmas services, of course, but I do exchange gifts and enjoy eating at a Christmas holiday table with family and friends.

    There are times to be militant and times not to be militant.

    #53973

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    It could equally be an exchqnge of other values, such as courtesy or division of labor in a household, exchange of favors, etc.

    Yes, but if there’s an attitude of “if I do A for you, you’ll do B for me”, or vice versa, that’s not generous and freely given.  In some circumstances it’s appropriate.  If someone is bargaining for affection in some way, it doesn’t seem so appropriate.

    I picked up on the paradigm a few years ago among feminist circles, “nice guys aren’t so nice”.  The feminists were complaining that some guys think women are like slot machines where you feed in kindness and favours and get out sex.

    #53975

    Unseen
    Participant

    It could equally be an exchqnge of other values, such as courtesy or division of labor in a household, exchange of favors, etc.

    Yes, but if there’s an attitude of “if I do A for you, you’ll do B for me”, or vice versa, that’s not generous and freely given. In some circumstances it’s appropriate.

    “Appropriate” is a silly putty word you use when you want to say nothing at all.

    If someone is bargaining for affection in some way, it doesn’t seem so appropriate. I picked up on the paradigm a few years ago among feminist circles, “nice guys aren’t so nice”. The feminists were complaining that some guys think women are like slot machines where you feed in kindness and favours and get out sex.

    Well, some guys think it’s not so great to risk involvement in today’s lopsidedly pro-female legal climate. And if you don’t want entanglement, you can still want sex.

    How many women today are looking for a man who is well-read, who is intelligent, who is gentle and kind, rather than a man who can take her to nice places, has a lot of bling and drives an impressive and expensive car, who is tall and commanding?

    Still, there’s truth to the notion that “Men give love to get sex. Women give sex in order to be loved.”

    #53976

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    In some circumstances it’s appropriate.

    “Appropriate” is a silly putty word you use when you want to say nothing at all.

    In this context, it’s “appropriate”.  What I mean is, it’s expected, it works best, and nobody will mind.

    How many women today are looking for a man who is well-read, who is intelligent, who is gentle and kind, rather than a man who can take her to nice places, has a lot of bling and drives an impressive and expensive car, who is tall and commanding?

    How long is a piece of string?  How can we ever know this statistic?  Both are true.

    #53977

    Unseen
    Participant

    In this context, it’s “appropriate”.  What I mean is, it’s expected, it works best, and nobody will mind.

    Expected (by whom?) works best (for everyone?) nobody will mind (nobody?)

    So, you used “appropriate” instead.

    #53978

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Simon Paynton wrote:

    In this context, it’s “appropriate”. What I mean is, it’s expected, it works best, and nobody will mind.

    Expected (by whom?) works best (for everyone?) nobody will mind (nobody?)

    The context is close relationships, and the appropriateness of generosity therein.  In close relationships, we tend to be a lot more generous than in more distant relationships.  In close relationships, and in distant relationships, we use material tit-for-tat transactions as well.

    #53979

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Simon

    Marriage vows make marriage a transaction. Marriage is a legal contract, and no matter what the spoken vows are, only the legalese automatically attached to or implied by them are binding and enforceable.

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we decide to wed someone. It’s understandable men seek to avoid entanglements with a potentially greedy and devious person. It’s an easy way to avoid a nightmare scenario.

    #53982

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Marriage vows make marriage a transaction. Marriage is a legal contract, and no matter what the spoken vows are, only the legalese automatically attached to or implied by them are binding and enforceable.

    As I said, I think every close relationship has both transactional and generous interactions.

    #53984

    Unseen
    Participant

    As I said, I think every close relationship has both transactional and generous interactions.

    And in the case of marriage, and to some extent dating, ones which enmesh the male as well, threatening his freedom and well-being.

    #53985

    _Robert_
    Participant

    As I said, I think every close relationship has both transactional and generous interactions.

    And in the case of marriage, and to some extent dating, ones which enmesh the male as well, threatening his freedom and well-being.

    In fact, assholes, alcoholics, insecure, psychopaths, irrational morons, thieves, the extra lazy, violent, addict types, perverts, users, immature, and the unloving (I can go on) should all avoid marriage. Somehow even some of them succeed and have good marriages, LOL. The mechanics of complimenting each other’s weaknesses is powerful.

    #53991

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Robert

    A lot of these women are really looking for a guy they can bum a life off of.

    #53992

    _Robert_
    Participant

    @ Robert A lot of these women are really looking for a guy they can bum a life off of.

    If you can’t accurately read someone’s true nature and intent; stay single. Doesn’t mean there are not high-quality women available who are looking for real love, hoping to share a fullilling life. These MTGOW guys are simpletons. They should fess up; all they really think about is women, LOL. They are obsessed. A quality woman can sense these unacceptable guys from ten miles away.

    #53993

    Unseen
    Participant

    They are obsessed. A quality woman can sense these unacceptable guys from ten miles away.

    But, if he’s a “high quality” guy (high income, generous with his money, lots of bling and a nice car), they’ll probably get over the stench.

    #53994

    _Robert_
    Participant

    They are obsessed. A quality woman can sense these unacceptable guys from ten miles away.

    But, if he’s a “high quality” guy (high income, generous with his money, lots of bling and a nice car), they’ll probably get over the stench.

    Nah, that’s the MGTOW definition of a high-quality guy. Like I said, shallow simpletons. They are incapable of understanding depth.  They look to the dregs of womanhood to define what all women want. The women they showcase are the epitome of fake, brainless, moneygrubbers. If you want to define an entire gender using their lowest examples and then live your life as it that is all there is, then you will get what you deserve. In any event, their story is a broken record. I have seen that bitter blogger “better bachelor” and if you see one blog, you have seen them all. He is short, bald and of meager means, so he gave up chasing the mindless twits he craves because even they know a loser. I’d bet you if a really sharp, great catch looked his direction, he would be her “instant” simp and she would ditch him in a second.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 105 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.