Nonsense. Hormones are internal, genetic, hereditary. Soon as the embryo develops a sex, certain behaviours have already been pre-determined.
which ones?
Nonsense. Hormones are internal, genetic, hereditary. Soon as the embryo develops a sex, certain behaviours have already been pre-determined.
Considering that women, slaves, and some men weren't a part of it, I think today is much closer to the ideal.The US is a representative democracy, not a democracy, true democracy is what they had in ancient Greece.
You should read some testimonials by people who live under terroristic regimes. It's easy for us to think "oh, they could just overthrow them if they wanted to" (I admit I sometimes feel this way myself), but you really shouldn't judge. And btw I'm talking Korea, not China .I am well aware of the consequences of Communism, I do not agree with extreme politics, but it's simple if the Chinese people and Iranian people wanted to, they could over throw the regimes that opress them. However they do not want to and so these people exist, Bush and Blair are just as dangerous, there is no good vs evil in warfare, both sides are going to see the opposing leaders, regimes and countries as evil, wicked people.
I'm not a fan of any politician, but many of these problems have occured from the US interfering in other countries politics.
which ones?
Hatfull, what are you doing here?
Considering that women, slaves, and some men weren't a part of it, I think today is much closer to the ideal.
You should read some testimonials by people who live under terroristic regimes. It's easy for us to think "oh, they could just overthrow them if they wanted to" (I admit I sometimes feel this way myself), but you really shouldn't judge. And btw I'm talking Korea, not China .
And no, Bush and Blair could never be as dangerous because they have a people to answer to. Dictators do not.
Good question actually. But this is a Morrissey forum - you must know there are loads of women on here who like passive, gentle or effeminate men, one in particular, I would have thought.
I myself like men who have sensitivity; compassion, a love of nature, gentleness, passivity. I know lots of other women who like these kind of men, too.
i know, that many say that
then again ive been picking up goth girls and shoegazer chicks for almost 20 years now
and while 'they all say they want'
more passive guys
i know who gets the birds
EVEN IN OUR SCENE
and its not
wallflowers
and if that is true with a 'wimpy' scene like ours
then what do think regular women are after?
i mean cmon
give me a break
it is so apparent that women validate men acting out in violent ways
all the time
i really cannot believe anyone is nieve enough to think otherwise
I hope that was a facetious statement.
Oh dear, I'm not actually a fitness instructor; sorry to shatter your illusions. This is old news, I'm afraid.
Whilst watching some "Most Annoying People of 2006" thing on BBC3 or 4 last night, I was struck by how true Morrissey's remark was about TB resembling Larry Grayson more and more with every passing day.
I can only say I disagree. The majority of women take no joy from viewing violence.
Reverse the situation then. If it is true that women like violent men, then what kind of women is it that men seek?
ones that lie, cheat and steal
I sympathize with your sentiments Robby, I personally find myself having to look after a similar character on this board whom I won't mention.
I can only say I disagree. The majority of women take no joy from viewing violence.
Reverse the situation then. If it is true that women like violent men, then what kind of women is it that men seek?
I personally hate violence, however I will always defend myself, so if someone hits me, I'll hit them back, I don't like it, but I don't want to take a beating.
I personally hate violence, however I will always defend myself, so if someone hits me, I'll hit them back, I don't like it, but I don't want to take a beating.
Social behaviours, qualities which are in place from birth. Freud did a bit of research into this, if my memory serves me correctly.
Can't you just accept the simple fact that violence is more prevalent in males? Look around you, watch the news, read the papers. It's not a subtle issue - it's blatantly obvious.
i, certainly, accept that officially recorded acts of violence is higher for men than for females, in the u.k. (and, i'm sure, elsewhere, too), but that wasn't your proposition.
your proposition was that men are predisposed to violence & bloodshed etc., by their sex, and that the higher rates of violent crime and warmongering, by men, is "proof" of this alleged predisposition. you're simply pointing out a correlation - not causation. i don't accept that proposition and you've offered nothing to prove the biological determinism on which your argument rests.
The poverty of the working-class is down to exploitation and oppression, and the same can be said for women and black people. I'm keeping things simple for you, by the way!
Night, love.