Is Chloe's friendship a "runner-up prize"?

[coldpower27]

What? No, of course not.

All feeeeeemales are manipulative witches who only want to cook me some dinner wrap men around their fingers and kick us in our emotional, psychological, and physical crotches with their feminine wiles. I also think that, after they have us, they will eat us to provide for our young. I'm pretty sure that's what happens.

At least, that's what I think happens now that I have projected onto Chloe all my feelings of rejection by women who are kinda like Chloe and whom also treat me like I'm Eli, because women are all the same.

I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

[jelgate]

I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

I can't believe you just said that. People are diverse regardless of the gender. Some women are mantipulative. Their is no denying that. But I refuse to believe that all do things for others to further their agenda. Its never all or none when you talk are people. Their is more of a mixture between the kind and mantipulative.

And he was sarcastic

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

coldpower,

I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

There's an incredibly significant amount of bitterness dripping off of your post.

[Kaiphantom]

What some call "bitterness" other people can call "realistic objective viewpoint." Recognizing that everyone is selfish and wants things, is the first step toward reality.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

that is sad on so many levels
sad that you think that way about women, but also sad in that, because you hold this attitude, I wonder if you would ever be able to enjoy a simple thing like the joy of a meal cooked for you without wondering what the catch was.

This woman cooks dinner for a man because she likes to. No agenda.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kai,

What some call "bitterness" other people can call "realistic objective viewpoint." Recognizing that everyone is selfish and wants things, is the first step toward reality

Saying:

Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way

is a "realistic objective viewpoint"? Come on... it's a viewpoint but hardly an objective one. That is opinion pure and simple. He can't know every woman on the planet and as such he can't objectively know that women "only" cook dinner as part of some agenda.

[Starbux]

[QUOTE. Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".[/QUOTE]

What if the agenda was to make her man happy, would that be a bad thing?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Starbux,

What if their "agenda" is to end the feeling of hunger they are experincing. The height of manipulation there.

[Starbux]

I don't understand how fulfilling a need is manipulation and chances are, I would be wanting some dinner myself. Now, there may benefits that occur from the act of cooking, depending on your abiliity to cook, that is, but that doesn't mean it's the primary motivation. I don't bake a chicken to get a leaky pipe fixed...I just don't work that way, I guess. Are we saying the same thing? The agenda for cooking is eating, right? It's the manipulation part that I'm confused about and the generalization that every woman, everywhere, works the same way.

[Blackhole]

What some call "bitterness" other people can call "realistic objective viewpoint." Recognizing that everyone is selfish and wants things, is the first step toward reality.

But your blanket generalization that “everyone is selfish and wants things is the first step toward reality” is clearly not true. I don’t know if you are serious in your view or are making an extreme generalization just to stir up a debate? If you are arguing because every action everyone does benefits the person doing it in some fashion either directly or to fulfill some psychological need does not understand the meaning of the word selfish. The logic of the statement may technically be accurate but can’t be given as evidence of selfishness.

Selfish means:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

There has to be a norm beyond which is considered selfish. The term by definition is reflective of an “excessive or exclusive” focus with oneself and “without regard for others”. The meaning of the word has to be viewed with an understanding of the intent behind the person performing the action and in context of whether any reciprocity is sought for or expected from the action and is a matter of degree.

An example would be someone who gives a homeless person money when nobody is looking vs. someone who does it only when with someone because they want to appear magnanimous and would never do so if alone. The former would be an altruistic or unselfish act the later would not. Both acts involve the giving of money but the intent behind them is completely different.

[Blackhole]

Kai,

Saying:

is a "realistic objective viewpoint"? Come on... it's a viewpoint but hardly an objective one. That is opinion pure and simple. He can't know every woman on the planet and as such he can't objectively know that women "only" cook dinner as part of some agenda.

I agree.

[Blackhole]

that is sad on so many levels
sad that you think that way about women, but also sad in that, because you hold this attitude, I wonder if you would ever be able to enjoy a simple thing like the joy of a meal cooked for you without wondering what the catch was.

This woman cooks dinner for a man because she likes to. No agenda.

Hopefully he is arguing what he thinks is point of logic and is not expressing a misogynistic viewpoint. If it is the latter then it sounds like he may hold a lot of bitterness towards women or hasn’t picked the right ones in the past to have dinner with.

Not all “women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way”; just as not all men take out a women just so they can have sex with them.

[Starbux]

Hopefully he is arguing what he thinks is point of logic and is not expressing a misogynistic viewpoint. If it is the latter then it sounds like he may hold a lot of bitterness towards women or hasn’t picked the right ones in the past to have dinner with.

Not all “women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way”; just as not all men take out a women just so they can have sex with them.

Yeah, what about if a man cooks for a woman or takes her out? Does that automatically imply there is "re-payment" due? Am I that naive or should I be saying, I'll bring my own dinner, thank you very much?

[FallenAngelII]

Basically I think Chloe was just trying to say to Eli that she goes by the motto of 'Bro's b4 Hoe's' so to speak

Let me elaborate, essentially she was saying to Eli that while she would never have a sexual relationship with him cos well, she loves a guy with ab's and an ass that won't quit, that Eli is still her best friend and infact he's really closer to her then Scott is, that they'll always be friends, and that no matter how much she loves scott, she loves Eli more, her love for him being a platonic one.

And on a squeesy cheesy note, a close friendship is never a runner up prize.

I was gonna add this to the thread, but you beat me to it. Curse you!

I am not sure if this is sarcastic, but I agree with this.... Women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way....though it's can be shown in a much more "beautiful light".

Do you believe this because you've only ever dated crazy people or because you've never actually dated someone/dated someone who wanted to cook for you? Or maybe you're just 15.

What is this, I don't even... some people want their significant other to be happy because they're not selfish pricks who only care about themselves.

Others, like me, like cooking, especially for more than one. If I cook, I get to decide what gets made and how it's made. I'm also a reasonably good cook, if I say so myself. Furthermore, cooking for more than one allows you to cook "bigger" courses because it takes just way too much effort to cook a 4-course meal for just one person. If you cook for two or more, it won't feel like such a waste. Furthermore, most people enjoy dining with company as opposed to dining alone.

So I guess my horribly selfish agenda would be... I enjoy cooking and eating with company, especially larger meals as opposed to 15 minute meals like spaghetti and meatballs and such every single day? Wow, how horrible of me.

And if you're gonna argue that it doesn't matter because I'm a man (which would make your argument even more ridiculous and misogynistic), I'm gay, so when I cook for my partner, it's a man. And gay men are just effeminate little women-wannabes, right?

Hopefully he is arguing what he thinks is point of logic and is not expressing a misogynistic viewpoint. If it is the latter then it sounds like he may hold a lot of bitterness towards women or hasn’t picked the right ones in the past to have dinner with.

Not all “women only cook dinner for a man so that they can further their agenda in some way”; just as not all men take out a women just so they can have sex with them.

He specifically said that [women only cook for their men to further their own agendas in some way] (not verbatim). He singled out women. In my opinion, that indicates misogyny, even if it might be subconscious such.

[Kaiphantom]

is a "realistic objective viewpoint"? Come on... it's a viewpoint but hardly an objective one. That is opinion pure and simple. He can't know every woman on the planet and as such he can't objectively know that women "only" cook dinner as part of some agenda.

Not opinion at all. Every action you do, is because it benefits you somehow. Even the hypothetical "I give $100 to a homeless person with no one watching" gives you an endorphine boost; you did it because it made you feel better. I fail to see what's wrong about this, which I think is the biggest fear here. No one wants to think that they are selfish, because they associate it with a negative.

Stop for a moment, and separate the word "selfish" from the word "negative." A hammer isn't a good or bad thing; it's just a tool. How it is used determines whether it is good or bad. Same thing with "selfish." By changing parameters and the environment, you can get people to do the right thing for selfish reasons. This is generally how the free market is supposed to work (it has problems, but that's because it isn't regulated well-enough).