H,
Sadly one reads what one wants to regardless of what is written. I in no way was referring to the women on OLO.
I was in fact commenting on the overall impression that you believe that the differences between male and female as hard-wired and dominate male behaviour despite evidence to the contrary. [While it varies from person to person (context) culture (nurture) has been shown to have the greater impact on the individual.]

Logically then hard wiring would necessitate the male being frustrated in the number of attractive (desirable) women that the male would contact daily. Especially when clearly the greater majority would be both unattainable and potentially resentful the attitude. There is a big difference between appreciating a physical persona and extrapolating it to the bedroom.

Keep in mind very little that we do is ever a real secret as we give out subliminal signals.
One isn't what we say in one instance but what we are overall. Sooner or later if we practice deceit/deception or subterfuge it will show up. For that and other reasons I tend not to play mind games but TRY and be aware of others sensitivities.

Likewise it is selfish and short sighted to both ignore other peoples sensitivities and ongoing persona.

Most of the women on OLO tend to read my writing addition to the above but in context of me as a person.

Many of those who claim I dominate don't do so and read what is not there and react on half the available information. In which case there are more conflict than necessary.
As an observation many OLOers tend to do that with anyone who doesn't agree with them.

*Logically then hard wiring would necessitate the male being frustrated in the number of attractive (desirable) women that the male would contact daily. Especially when clearly the greater majority would be both unattainable and potentially resentful the attitude. *

Examinator, absolute nonsense!

Frankly Examinator, your theories are about 30 years out of date.
The tabula raza theory was all the go then. Liberal parents would
buy their sons tin public servants and teachers, rather then soldiers,
only to find the boys turning them into battlefields between the
two.

The point is, you cannot ignore the effects of hormones, on the human
brain!

I don't know a single male who goes around checking out every single
female and finding many of them attractive. But it cannot be denied
that normal males, unlike yourself, have a male instinct and
occasionaly come across some female which triggers those instincts.

Go to any shopping centre and there will be a whole lot of young
females, at the prime of their womanhood. Males will instinctivly
react. Why should that lead to frustration? It is simply an
acceptance of our instincts, all very natural. Young, attractive
females, at the prime of their fertility, will instinctively turn
male heads. Those females with a few miles on the clock, have less
to fear :)

Women can experience similar instinctual attraction. I know a female
who went travelling the world and landed up in Central America.
The mere smell of this guy, triggered her genetic instincts
and sadly for her, she followed up on it. To cut a long story short,
she landed up as an unmarried mother of two, after a fair bit of pain.

Instinct is natural and normal and hormones play a huge role.
We can then think about what we feel, but to deny human instinct
in the first place and its role in our behaviour, is downright
foolish.

Ah Yabby, don't you realise that male instincts are all to do with aggression and dominance, while female instincts are all to do with nurture and cooperation?

At least, that seems to be the upshot of the belief structure of many of the posters who contribute here. Naturally, in this schema, SOME exceptions are allowed, but "you can't trust 'em, you know"...

Total nonsense of course.

ginx, I'm glad you got all that off your chest. Do you now understand what an "insipid" personal comment is, or do i have to continue to demonstrate the alternative?

See, I don't get personal unless someone else does. I may argue forcefully, but not personally. Some of the posters here are so wrapped up in their own prejudice they can't see the difference.

What I find fascinating is that having commenced the abuse, in the face of someone who is better able to string a stream of invective together and more imaginative in the content of that invective the same people try to claim the moral high-ground. The principle seems to be "I'm not very good, therefore I'm exonerated". Do try that next time the police pull you up for speeding at some small increment over the limit.

As it happens, I don't find your posts offensive on the whole, except when you slip into that insipid personal abuse.

What I find most offensive here, on a discussion site, is the constant refusal to continue discussions or to broaden them. It doesn't matter what the subject, people ignore questions that make them think, or with answers they find uncomfortable, in favour of the pretence of offence at some other aspect of the post. It's intellectually dishonest (there's a perfect chance to get offended, knock yourself out) and it's as weak as a very weak thing.

I try to respond to posts and the questions raised, often quoting people extensively to do so, yet the same people have rarely chosen to do me the same courtesy. Who is being rude?

In short, I can't stand hypocrites.

examinator,

'the overall impression that you believe that the differences between male and female as hard-wired and dominate male behaviour'

'Sadly one reads what one wants to regardless of what is written. '

You seem to have proven your own point very well. You're very mistaken.

' in context of me as a person. '
Nobody knows each other as a person here. With how antiseptic is treated, most of his good points are ignored in an exercise of throwing the baby out with the bath water. That's because all the 'nice' posters don't treat him with any 'sensitivity'. Look at this topic. All the posters aghast at the lack of belief or sensitivity about womens' pressure to conform to a narrow and imposed ideal of femininity, and then blagging on trying to threaten antiseptics masculinity. Perhaps the tools antisptic uses are seen as more aggressive, so he deserves less sensitivity, but I see a TRUCK load of patronising, condescending, dismissiveness of genuine questions from the 'nice' (ie passive aggressive) posters.

'give out subliminal signals'
Like a woman thinking all men categorize women as fu&kable or not the instant the see them? Yeah I pick up the subliminal signals.

'One isn't what we say in one instance but what we are overall. '
I disagree. It's the slips of the toungue that are the most revealing. What people say overall is the conditioned correctness, the adaption to what will make them liked.

'many OLOers tend to do that with anyone who doesn't agree with them.'
No, I have disagreements with lots of posters. But there are a select few who I see as duplicitous or high and mighty by their 'subliminal signals' or who put themselves up as a moral example or hall monitor, or just the use of a tag like examinator.

'I can see that you are now trying to be a good boy'
Yeah I'm really nice. Nice use of 'good boy' by the way. Patronising and emasculating. I like your work;-)

'Authority figure'?
Bit of an in joke between me and Foxy

'I never look for the good side because I don't believe there is one'
I'm liking you more and more every day. I like Foxy a lot actually, and mostly I just tease her. But Foxy and examinator have put themselves up as the moral and etiquette Police of OLO, and that's an invitation for them to be meticoulously scrutinised on their own behaviour for ever more.

I have a strong sence of people on OLO who think they are 'better' than the other posters. I like to champion the Cols and the antispetics who are constantly castigated by people like this.

'admit something she didn't feel?'
Feelings don't come into it when there's hard evidence. Simple case really. She said a number of male posters denied something. I came up with a quote from every male poster that said the reverse. Remember she did call them all dishonest more than once, even after I pointed it out. I would say Fractelle is the only person on OLO I cant stand. The victim positioning, the passive aggressive behaviour, the demanding everyone play by her rules, the sooking when people don't go into raptures about her knowing about google, the judging and categorising posters at the end of each topic.

'(I have two in my garden Bonnie and Clyde, who have taken up permanent residence. I don't mind them, except for the incessant opening of their bowels ...'

See this is the sort of conversing that I cant/wont do. Haven't you got some girl friends to ring with this sort of chat? Although I did talk about doves and humoured the desire for corny small talk that seems to enable people to see my comments in the 'context of me as a person'. Silly me thinking people should read comments on the basis of the argument presented.

Wow, heading for the 150-post mark. Nice one, Fractelle.

But do I detect that the discussion has descended into the realms of "my stereotype is bigger than yours"?

>>male instincts are all to do with aggression and dominance, while female instincts are all to do with nurture and cooperation<<

It has all the hallmarks of one of those religious threads, where religionists and atheists talk at each other, rather than to each other. More about convincing themselves, than persuading anyone else.

Great fun. Probably for that exact reason.