Korova Milkbar (no girls allowed)

[kathycf]

Good points Brigitte. I checked the girls thread and they were talking about how to paint their toe nails. I don't mind if you join in our conversation. The girls over there get into a hissy fit if any of the guys barge in.

Well, I think the pedicure talk was in the "Girl Chat" thread and the shoe talk was in the "Anyone for coffee, no boys allowed" thread. Hissy fits? I think that was just Opti. You are welcome to join the conversation (but Niamh will make you put on a wig first....)

[Bakiryu]

Hullo!!!


Am I allowed to write here *wonders* I certainly prefer to takl about cars than toe nail polish (what's the point of toenail polish anyway?)

[Redzeppelin]

Good grief...how tough is it to keep guys on the topic of women?

[Bakiryu]

I take it you're being ironic, red?

[Redzeppelin]

I take it you're being ironic, red?

Mayyyybe. We do actually seem to be shifting around from Turk's toes to cars...neither of which really holds much interest for me. We'll see where we go from here...

[kiobe]

Man this is a sad state of affairs. My 2nd car.

My guitars.

Stacy London from What not to wear.

[Redzeppelin]

Man this is a sad state of affairs. My 2nd car.

My guitars.

Stacy London from What not to wear.

I already made my feelings about cars pretty clear, but the second and third pictures speak an attractive language to me (though I'm a Fender Strat man myself).

[kiobe]

Sorry Red, I got into this late, what did you say about cars? The blond guitar is a drop top strat.

[Redzeppelin]

Post #909 - I basically said that cars don't "do it" for me as a discussion topic (though of course I'm still a guy and enjoy fast machines); when I revived the thread I asked for a topic and women came up () but in the last serveral posts, we'ver drifted elsewhere. Your fine illustrated post was a nice return to form (pun intended) - all the curves (metal, wood, flesh) are appreciated!

[kiobe]

Post #909 - I basically said that cars don't "do it" for me as a discussion topic (though of course I'm still a guy and enjoy fast machines); when I revived the thread I asked for a topic and women came up () but in the last serveral posts, we'ver drifted elsewhere. Your fine illustrated post was a nice return to form (pun intended) - all the curves (metal, wood, flesh) are appreciated!

Do you play guitar?

[the silent x]

....and she should have fifth degree black belt in karate.

and why would she need that, i have my first dan in taekwondo (1st degree black belt) and am testing in october for my first dan in hapkido, i will be able to take on almost anyone.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Am I welcome?? I like hearing both sides of the story...I promise not to attack anyone!!! I'm pretty laid back...and hopefully all of you are true gentlemen that wouldn't say horrible things

and why would she need that, i have my first dan in taekwondo (1st degree black belt) and am testing in october for my first dan in hapkido, i will be able to take on almost anyone.

I'm a black belt in Tae Kwon Do!?!

[the silent x]

why the question mark turk?

[Moira]

I think (and this is very much my opinion, though I've heard other writers voice it as well) that men become more masculine in the presence of a "feminine" woman. Some of the comments I made in the "Will feminism replace patriarchy?" thread were meant in this vein - that women who like being women - who like pretty, lacy things - who like things like nail polish and earrings and such - are very, very attractive (and this has little if anything to do with their actual looks - it has to do with their joy at being a girl). I think many women are disappointed in how men act these days - but I wonder if part of our "wimpiness" isn't due to the fact that many women attempt to be "masculine" (i.e. "I don't need a man - I'm self-sufficient") when, in reality, the woman who "needs" a man is very, very attractive to a man - it brings out our protective "white knight" nature. Anyway... thank you.

Indeed women are disappointed in how man act nowadays but i think it's a valid theory the other way around also...... and both sexes are to blame, that's for sure.

Women have been working on developing the masculine side sometimes at the expense of the feminine side, and this 'liberation' has placed men in the role of the enemy, and this has prevented many women from using their feminine side in interacting with men. That's where i believe we went wrong. Although i hate generalisations.....

I think the 'I don't need a man - I'm self-sufficient' theory is just a cover up or a myth ..... although it's definetly better being alone than in a bad relationship.

And just like you said about men being more 'masculine' in the presence of a 'feminine' woman, it does work the other way around, the sad thing is that although we seem to want the same things, there are not so many good examples out there...... not so many happy ' accidents'.

[papayahed]

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I think (and this is very much my opinion, though I've heard other writers voice it as well) that men become more masculine in the presence of a "feminine" woman. Some of the comments I made in the "Will feminism replace patriarchy?" thread were meant in this vein - that women who like being women - who like pretty, lacy things - who like things like nail polish and earrings and such - are very, very attractive (and this has little if anything to do with their actual looks - it has to do with their joy at being a girl). I think many women are disappointed in how men act these days - but I wonder if part of our "wimpiness" isn't due to the fact that many women attempt to be "masculine" (i.e. "I don't need a man - I'm self-sufficient") when, in reality, the woman who "needs" a man is very, very attractive to a man - it brings out our protective "white knight" nature. Anyway... thank you.

Indeed women are disappointed in how man act nowadays but i think it's a valid theory the other way around also...... and both sexes are to blame, that's for sure.

Women have been working on developing the masculine side sometimes at the expense of the feminine side, and this 'liberation' has placed men in the role of the enemy, and this has prevented many women from using their feminine side in interacting with men. That's where i believe we went wrong. Although i hate generalisations.....

I think the 'I don't need a man - I'm self-sufficient' theory is just a cover up or a myth ..... although it's definetly better being alone than in a bad relationship.

And just like you said about men being more 'masculine' in the presence of a 'feminine' woman, it does work the other way around, the sad thing is that although we seem to want the same things, there are not so many good examples out there...... not so many happy ' accidents'.

Interesting topic. I'll throw in my 0.02. I think you both are essentially right to a degree.