So that the women, evolved and complex beings, they need the LOVE of men, simple and gross animals?

Question

Honestly.
It is enough to read some answers of this forum. It is almost always the same: the women say they are complex, generous and full of principles, whereas the men are unfaithful animals, that think with the penis, and simple and gross like a stone.
I am a little boring to listen to these topics.
Is not an absurd that one of the great illusions of a superior being, highly developed and evolved like the woman, were TO BE LOVED by those male specimens that she says to repudiate?

Answer 1

Dude, we are no more complex, convoluted or evolved than you guys are---just in COMPLETELY different ways! Anyone who tells you that it's that cut and dried is either pulling your leg, living on another reality planet, or talking to hear herself talk! Some of us 'get it' about guys more than others, but NONE of us is any better, or worse....just plain incredibly, discombobulating DIFFERENT!!!!

Answer 2

I don't see men as "simple and gross like a stone". While I have a great admiration for the species, I believe many of them DO think with their penis. Those are the ones we try to avoid. But since we think with our hearts more often than our heads sometimes, that doesn't always help us sort them out.

Complex beings that we are, we do not "need" the love of men so much as we want to earn it based on our personalities rather than how you feel we can service you. Which, I suppose, puts us all in a difficult situation until such time as we either learn to sort you out, men learn not to prey on our emotions, or we find something better to replace you with. :)

Answer 3

Well I guess that since many of us are told he need to be loved by a man is something we were told as a little girl growing up by our parents. Some of us women don't NEED to be loved by a man. Women generally show more COMPASSION than men because we are naturally more emotional due to our homones. Loving something that is ugly, gross, and simple takes compassion. Men have compassion too, but generally less. Thus this 'reputation' you talk of. Because we are so emotional and have compassion and love the simple, gross man...it does feel good to be loved back. Everyone in one form or another wants to be loved by something or someone. It doesn't alway have to be a man. One can love themself or feel love from God, another woman or child, even a pet or a group.

Answer 4

it relatively is definitely one of those questions the place one is not sure if the question is trustworthy, and crammed with this variety of loss of information of the suggestions the asker is rejecting, that one does not comprehend the place to start ... or is only somebody *pretending* abject lack of expertise as a parody. (look up 'Poe's regulation'.) So on the possibility of being fooled via a 'poe', i'm going to interpret this as a trustworthy question in keeping with loss of information of the easy theory-approximately evolution. there grow to be no "first guy", any greater than there grow to be a "first chimp" or "first eagle" or "first bullfrog." *Populations* evolve ... no longer persons. A species is a *inhabitants* of reproducing persons that evolves precisely by way of fact its contributors are making toddlers. No toddlers, no evolution. So a inhabitants of many human beings of pre-human species A (which has numerous men and ladies human beings) ... can evolve slowly right into a species B (which has numerous men and ladies human beings) that we call "contemporary human beings." None of them is the "first human." As an elementary analogy ... there grow to be not greater a "first human" than the evolution of language from Latin to Italian means that there grow to be a "first Italian speaker" who grow to be born talking a different language than mum, and had no person to talk to. ---- @long previous Fishing writes: >"no remember what human beings say not at all overlook evolution is in basic terms a theory & is yet to be proved." How does this "answer" the Asker's question, different than reinforcing the thought such undesirable arguments (which you renowned is "humorous", regardless of if the Asker might have meant it truly) are why human beings ought to reject a center theory of technological know-how? yet greater substantial, that word "in basic terms a theory" belies your declare which you're a scientist. So does the word "yet to be proved." so because it incredibly is a double-whammy refutation of your declare of being a scientist. hint: You "teach" issues in math ... no longer technological know-how. Even a 'fact' isn't proved to be real, it relatively is declared to be real. A 'theory' is a proof for information ... no longer a declare "yet to be proved." So overlook your rejection of 10th-grade biology ... you misunderstand 8th-grade *technological know-how*. So I have not got any theory in case you comprehend something approximately bugs. yet your use of those 2 words famous which you do no longer comprehend squat approximately technological know-how.

Answer 5

Everybody loves to bash everyone, but at the end of the day, the ones who say the most are still going home to their husbands...

Answer 6

I agree with you. This is getting so old. People are different from one another. It is so boring to always hear the same things over and over again",)

Answer 7

Hey, take it easy and do not read rubbish.There is more to do then wonder about this old boring stuff. Take care and get one with life.

Answer 8

lol, thanx for the 2 points.
And for whatever question you asked ( euh "simple and gross like a stone"? classic!!), I hope you find the answer!

Answer 9

Hell yea, right on!!

What?