Ask the 2+2 Ladies Your Questions

[Anacardo]

Katy,

Since a good bit of your 'bad' list might as well have my name beside it, I guess I'll g'head and take a crack.

I like to analyze women / their motives because I like to analyze everything. I have very little in my toolbox besides observation and rational criticism; I apply these things to nearly everything. Much of observation is a nonrational, intuitive process, and I have a great deal of faith in that too. That's just how I roll.

You, on the other hand, pretty much hate rational criticism, as applied to everything, not just you. Direct, incisive observations seem to make you very uneasy; anything not warm and supportive is interpreted as deliberately insulting. As you read this you no doubt think I'm being cruel or arrogant or whatever. Well, I'm not. I'm stating things as I see them. Very little emotion is involved and I do not intend to offend; I'm just not terribly interested in whether I do.

And I feel perfectly justified in exercising my judgment. I retain and process lots of information, and in our jargon I 'trust my reads.' I'm comfortable making decisions quickly, that in other people might constitute a rush to judgment, but that in me reflects the ability to squeeze a lot of juice from few facts. Do you hate me yet? This is confidence, and it's allegedly what all you ladies are swooning over. I would now like to refer back to an earlier and as-yet unanswered question of mine: Why does my [censored] make women so much angrier than the average dude's?

You grew up in an essentially all-female household, no? That explains a lot. I remain incredulous at your very narrow conception of what 'manhood' is, and find it interesting that it's described mostly as things that I'm not. Anyway, there's a lot of 'my' variety around here - you may have met Blarg, [censored], tdarko, etc. - so your horizons must of needs have expanded. For my part, I would say that my experiences with 2+2 women have - I hesitate to say 'lowered' - made my opinions of women more realistic. I really don't know what to think of 'women,' the group, anymore, and it's probably a good thing to be divorced from that concept entirely. I think it would certainly do you good to separate yourself from the notion of 'men' as some kind of monoblock of attributes.

[Anacardo]

Katy,

Your ZeeJustin list makes me somewhat ill. I have nothing comparable. Are you into bondage? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

To elaborate: What I admire in women tends to line up with what I find sexy in women on a pretty much 1:1 basis. I certainly don't have any 'God I hate you but oh God take me' notions, and find the whole idea ludicrously adolescent.

[katyseagull]

alright, alright. I knew that was a mistake. sheesh. Shall i edit it or leave it? I just KNEW you would not understand.

Clearly I don't want a guy who is a total jerk. I thought the exercise was to be honest and say stuff that we don't really like but that we can admit we find oddly appealing SOMETIMES...not ALL the time. Oh my god. Gah.

[Anacardo]

NO BACKPEDALING.

What I'm saying is that nothing comparable to this exists in my sex life. I can name no set of qualities that would cause me to admire a woman personally but want nothing to do with her sexually, or vice versa. The only thing that comes close is sluttiness, but there are far hotter variations of libido-expression.

This all plays into the notion of 'ladder theory' and the idea of men you wanting to befriend and men you want to screw belonging to entirely separate categories, which is something that, to me, just isn't for grownups.

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]


The only thing that comes close is sluttiness...


[/ QUOTE ]


AH-HA! You see, you see! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[egocidal]

am i hot/cute/good looking. just making sure, ive heard Im a heartbreaker.

[Anacardo]

But that's not really true. Unconscious sexiness is far hotter. The 'closet freak,' the sweet girl in glasses and a paisley skirt who's nice to the neighbor kids, doesn't like cursing and needs it on the kitchen counter five times a day - that's way more my style.

[Stuey]

Edit: I'm staying out of this it is not my business.

[Anacardo]

Ego,

I'd do you.

That said, shut the [censored] up.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Direct, incisive observations...interpreted as ... deliberately insulting.


[/ QUOTE ]

Being direct and being insulting pretty naturally go together. It's sometimes doesn't take a stretched interpretation to get there.

[ QUOTE ]
As you read this you no doubt think I'm being cruel or arrogant or whatever. Well, I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm stating things as I see them.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no necessary dichotomy here, and this seems to be shirking some responsibility. It's certainly possible to be even overwhelmingly negative while still stating things as one claims to see them.

[ QUOTE ]
... I do not intend to offend; I'm just not terribly interested in whether I do.


[/ QUOTE ]

This disclaimer casts doubt on any further claims of reasonableness in the face of misunderstanding.

Anacardo, you're a great guy, but your approach here seems a bit unnecessarily wolfish. Katy is acknowledging that there are contradictions involved in what she thinks and says, and that's right in line with the original question she is addressing. That she's honest enough to answer the question, and in some detail, speaks well for her. The other women have largely stayed away from this question, for reasons that are understandable and not hard to imagine.

My only concern is that when addressing these kinds of tricky questions that involve a sort of confession of one's own unintentional hypocrisy and normal human shortcomings, the female respondents brave and honest enough, and of enough goodwill, to answer those questions don't feel like they will be shot down for it, either over particular answers or just as people in general. These questions were very interesting, and there's not much reward in answering them when one might fear negative responses. How much more so, then, is an object lesson in harsh responses a disincentive toward participation?

On another note, I agree that neither men nor women should be thought as if they were some sort of monolithic "other." I think Katy should be commended, however, for admitting some of her own inconsistencies, especially since some of them by her own knowledge and admission don't paint a stereotypically flattering picture. In this she is simply a human being, but a bit braver than a good many. By being open that she is not either a perfect nor always consistent creature, she lets a little air in the forum for others to be themselves, too. I'm grateful that she has the nerve to do this, as it paves the way for others, but particularly for female participation in this thread. Which is what the thread is all about.