Oops! Millions of years of evolution didn't turn out that way. Yeah, some chicks will be characters for whatever reason. Some will *think* they're characters when actually they're dull, unfunny, and unoriginal.

The reason men have personality as she describes is because without it men DO NOT EXIST and are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE. Men who fail to pass on their genes go extinct. Everyone is descended from a long line of men who were good at something (hunting, fishing, amassing wealth via financial Jewery, SOMETHING!). Women don't have to be good at anything to reproduce they just have to have a nice body and lie there like a starfish.

What bjork is espousing here is the same feminized cultural nonsense that produced the Charlie's Angels reboot flop where a bunch of otherwise hot chicks look as dikey and unfuckable as possible while complaining about men being wrong. That's the alternative, folks.

Women can have personalities... they just also have to be women. Period. And it's a total luxury to be hot and desired enough to say, wouldn't it be cool if I could gain 100 lbs and curse like a sailor. Hey guess who never actually followed through on her plan to be judged solely by her personality? Bjork. Still thin, pretty, and white! Still using her beauty to sell records, I see!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48174481)

because she presents herself in a traditionally feminine way she clearly doesn't see anything wrong with embracing that. all she's saying is that women are individuals and shouldn't be judged, either positively or negatively, on their identity as women.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48174569)

acknowledging that women are individuals is not the same as rejecting traditional femininity completely. that's basically the opposite side of the same coin as 3rd wave feminism. the schism between traditional and modern feminism is whether it's good or even acceptable for women to feminine. a modern feminist will accuse a woman who wants to be a SAHM a traitor to their gender in the same way you accuse anyone that doesn't completely embrace their traditional role as women as being a gender traitor.

because bjork embraces her beauty and incorporates that into her performance she obviously doesn't complete reject femininity. and she also rejects the modern feminist movement here by saying that women should not be treated specially because they are women.

i find that HEROIC women like bjork, rowling, jcm, fizzkid, gtttr, etc. tend to embrace their femininity and reject the idea that it's *bad* that women behave like women. they neither want to be forced to pretend that men and women are identical nor be forced to completely conform to a gender role. i notice that ARE heroic fempoasters neither run from their femininity nor try to be defined by it by getting acclaim through shit like thirst traps. i suspect are fempoasters tend to enjoy xo because they can participate in banter and their thoughts through faceless anonymity it a way that can be difficult to find irl.

your poast is primarily about how seeking to completely escape gender roles is impossible and stupid, but you also are saying people should reject the idea that they are anything but their gender role. that seems equally impossible and stupid to me. everyone wants to be viewed as an individual -- men and women. that doesn't mean that they reject gender roles completely. in fact, people like bjork and are fempoasters tend to embrace and enjoy being women. but acknowledging that they enjoy being appreciated for beauty, caretaking, emotional intelligence etc. in a way that men aren't isn't the same as accepting a role as a thoughtless tradwife. likewise, i think most men enjoy being masculine and like to be appreciated for their physical strength and ability to provide, they also don't want to be defined solely by their height and net worth.

being dishonest about gender and their motivations is what shitlibs do. i don't see any of that in the bjork vid. you are saying any desire to be seen as anything but your gender role is stupid and destructive, which seems equally as naive as "there is no difference between men and women" types. you certainly don't, otherwise you wouldn't be doing something faggy like poasting your thoughts online. you'd spend 100% of your time on stuff like exercising and making money. poasting certainly isn't conducive to being attractive to women and increasing your odds of successfully procreating, so why do you engage in it, other than express your thoughts as an individual and read those of others?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48174860)

STRIVING is what advances humanity in positive ways. Working until you die is essential and starting families and providing is necessary. We are here because of strivers which is why nearly everyone has it in them to strive on some level unless you're a genetic dead end. I am making an argument here against naval gazing in general. MOST PEOPLE regardless of gender don't have ANYTHING interesting to say or contribute. JCM is a rarity ipso facto and her collection of art, music, and movies is not the norm. But even still she's a far cry from Francis Ford Coppola it's not like she's going to buy a film camera and start writing and directing a la Kathryn Bigelow. The gap between a normie and a culture enthusiast is substantial and it's something you really only see from whites (Maine is more ethnically white than Norway at this point) or Asians who are hyper Americanized (think Steve Aoki). But the gap between an enthusiast and a genius is like the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire.

I don't know where I'm going with this but I disagree completely and I think you're massaging the point at any rate and the fact that two fempoas bumped this gleefully thinking that you have sorted all their emotions imho is proof positive that you are wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175092)

i also don't see think a person's desire to be seen as an individual beyond their gender role is determined by their talent. everyone wants to be appreciated for who they are beyond their ability to create more children. if you disagree, then why should i consider anything you say unless you've proven your superior talent or masculinity? are you a billionaire, professional athlete, or famous artist?

for as much as you talk about "human nature" you seem to be ignoring that all the stuff i'm saying *IS* human nature and what separates us from animals. we aren't just baby machines. while we are obviously also animals who are biologically programmed to continue the human race, we also did shit like make art and live for things that have nothing to do with procreation. it's odd that you even mention art it is completely unnecessary in terms of creating more babies and the conditions that'll allow them to make babies -- why does someone's talent in making art matter in your conception of the world?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175143)

Similarly "women having personalities" (though rare, and it can happen) is sort of a milquetoast way do define oneself absent any real drive or motivation to conquer. And it's sad when boring guys do it too. But to my earlier points ITT a guy may have to get a green mohawk, a couple tattoos, and do some jail time to "get a personality" because without it he's invisible to women and society at large. Women don't have this downward societal pressure to be something if they don't feel like it. Fempoas on XO are in themselves 99th percentile masculine-brained rarities to begin with (and they all seem to be on some universal level BPD + creative types to some greater or lesser extent).

Btw in response to another comment you made earlier I actually HAVE gotten laid from poasting fwiw. It's got a low ROI as a social investment but it's not a zero!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175174)

i think this existing is precisely what og feminism is about

also, you're lamenting that men need to impress a woman to get her attraction is the only thing itt that is the "human nature" denial shit you're complaining about. the whole reason women are gatekeepers of sex is about creating kids, dude. you complained that "women don't have to be good at anything to reproduce they just have to have a nice body and lie there like a starfish" which is untrue in terms of actually passing along their genetic line. a man's investment in creating a child is a few seconds of fucking. a woman must then raise them to maturity. that's exactly *WHY* they are programmed to be attracted to things like being strong and producing resources.

you act like this dynamic hasn't existed throughout all human history. when thousands of years ago men would be fighting each other to the death and only a few were able to procreate, often the social alphas with harems of women. you're the only one lamenting about the reality of human biology itt. and men are way better off today on average than thousands of years ago when you were at risk of a neighboring tribe killing all the men and taking all the women back to their village.

poasting to a woman got you laid. poasting to me might too, but not in a way that can result in a child. i know you're just being glib, but i sincerely hope your purpose in poasting is not to get laid. you're engaging in an activity that has a negative impact a person's ability to reproduce (while a few people might have met on here way more men have become internet addicts and less likely to start a family).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175201)

nearly every sexually dimorphic creature has evolved this way. this is why evolution resulted in male birds developing bright plumage to dazzle plain females. if you want to complain that women have an easier time attracting a man because there are lots of men that will fuck anything, take it up with god. again, this is the only "i wish human nature wasn't what it is!" ranting about something baked into our biology that has transpired in this thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175242)

Your entire argument is predicated on twisting what I'm saying into a complaint that women have an easier time finding a mate than men, and that I'm pissed at biological reality. This could not be further from the truth. I have no issue with biological reality. I don't get mad for women being the way they are any more than I get mad at an alligator when it eats somebody -- it's an alligator.

The only thing I'm mad about is culture, something humans actually control (hint: Victorian is best!). Studies show women were happier in the 50s when they couldn't divorce, get an abortion, and had no rights. That's culture, not biology.

My point about women and their need for recognition (read: attention) for things that aren't related to their feminine guile is that it simply does not exist. For instance, there are no female pop stars who are not also hot (in addition to clamoring about how they ought to be more respected as an artist). When David Gilmour (the highest selling artist of the 70s) was crafting Dark Side of the Moon it was because if he didn't do it he'd've been an insurance salesman or something and live in a bloody Council Estate. But Taylor Swift could have just married a guy with money. She didn't *have to* become famous to obtain wealth and status.

Unless you're an extreme shut-in nerd type like Joan Didion or something all women use their sexuality as an advertisement for their art, that I'm aware of. This isn't me being angry at them for doing so. Just pointing out that they all do it. Women would NEVER turn in their woman card for an ounce more of respect/credibility for their personality. It's IN ADDITION TO. They crave nonsexual attention in addition to sexual attention.

All women that I have ever met, be they beautiful or ugly or in between, have a cadre of platonic orbiters who want to fuck them but they're not attracted to in return. And no woman ever turns these orbiters away. Again, I am NOT raging against biological reality. Low status males orbit higher status females. This doesn't make women bad people for doing this, it's just how they are. It does make loser guys chumps for orbiting but they really can't be helped and can't change most of the time. There's nothing about observable reality that anyone ought to be angry at. But we should be angry at culture. If a woman wants to be a great artist with a rich inner life she ought to lock herself away and churn out the next Frankenstein (which her husband wrote anyway). But they DON'T. They don't actually do this. Including Bjork.

They trot around with their STINKER in the air. And with Gen Z now they poast LEWDS online and then kvetsch about all the attention they get. It's so disingenuous! There are two dozen think pieces in major publications right now about Gen Z pop stars mental health and their unhealthy relationship with stalker fans who they ensnared with thirst traps on the gram. This is all about women having their cake and eating it too, which we should be against. This is all because marriage doesn't exist anymore and in the past a woman's husband was supposed to be her whole world and now women view men as sperm donors but they're all going to go off and becum Nobel laureates once everyone realizes what a special snowflake they are. Society ought not endorse this worldview. It's disgusting and sad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175266)

Have a good one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175354)

i responded here and even ended with a pointed question that went unanswered in an attempt to engage you on it

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&mc=39&forum_id=2#48175143

1) the desire to be appreciated for things beyond their gender roles is shared by both men and women.

2) you have not explained why this desire should be ignored because of any talent gap between the genders.

2a) you have not explained why this desire is ruinous for society to tolerate with women as a class but not amongst individual men.

2b) you have not explained why society aught only to tolerate expression by the greatest.

3) even if women were lacking in the way you're describing, they would want to be appreciated anyway, just like men, who are unlikely to be great genius in anything they do.

4) your focus on art specifically is ironic as there is no biological reason to produce art.

4a) especially your focus on singing. for the sake of argument if men were better singers, none would be superior female vocalists.

4b) you often cite fleetwood mac as an objectively great band, and it's lead by a woman.

***

summary: the desire to be appreciated for things beyond your gender role is universal between men and women. your reliance on art is odd since there is no human procreation reason for creating art. both genders enjoy expressing themselves through art even though very few could ever claim to be great at it. and the art you're talking about, singing, is fundamentally different between the genders and enjoyable for distinct reasons.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175481)

Let's circle back to my initial poast ITT. FizzKidd and jcm are lauding bjork for being a kind of female platonic ideal they worship in a nonsexual way. Nothing wrong with that taken at face value. Bjork goes on to make a statement about how women ought not to feel obligated to be feminine if they don't want to. I consider this malarkey. Bjork is someone who used her looks and a variety of visual effects to get famous, none of which had anything to do with her unlistenable music. (Cf. Hardly anyone knows what Bach looks like or if he wore a weird outfit when he composed but his compositions are considered UNESCO in every culture that has been exposed to it).

So initially, I am refuting Bjork's statements. I don't believe her. She made a career out of capturing an audience who wanted to witness a twee Scandinavian woman in unnatural regalia making bizarre sounds as some sort of New Age performance art. This apparently has an audience although whom exactly patronizes it, I shudder to know.

The male equivalent of this same sex platonic hero worship is like a guy who's obsessed with baseball statistics. The type of guy who plays rotisserie baseball and travels to see the All-Star game. In essence, for man, to get stuck in this loop is extremely sad and pathetic providing he doesn't have the rest of his life in order and it's a manageable hobby. For most, I'm sure, it's not. Imagine a guy showing up on a date and talking about Ohtani's WAR. 9/10 times you're in genetic dead end territory. It's not the same for women who can be weebs and still have a ton of guys chasing them just because they're women. It's much sadder when guys do it because when a guy wastes his own time engages in hobbies he's actively losing whereas women can get picked up the next day with ease. The sexual value doesn't dip day to day. A guy could lose his job and careen off the mountain top.

If you want to come to some kind of consensus here it's in acknowledging that both genders have inner lives and concerns that are not explicitly rooted in seeking a mate. Is that what you want me to admit? That everyone has something platonic concerns? Yes, this is is ostensibly true. I don't know what greater point you're trying to make beyond that.

In my opinion the reason why Fizz anders jcm and countless other birdbrains like Bjork, is for exactly the same reasons guys do: that she's pretty. It's all so tiresome women pretending like they would just shave their heads and become rappers if not for the pressure to conform to femininity. Bjork didn't rejected femininity, she embraced it. Her act it's incredibly feminine, almost to the point where no hetero guy could possibly enjoy it except as another poasters stated ITT, to beat off to her music videos at 4am.

My point is that women who claim to not want to be women are lying, possibly to themselves, but certainly to others. They enjoy the status that's being attractive provides them. No billionaire would be want to be poor, either.

If your entire argument boils down to sometimes women do things that are not to seduced or appease men, I would agree with that. In fact, I think women chase their own dreams far too much. I think their dreams suck most of the time and are stupid. What can I say? I think most modern women are generally pathetic and I have to lie to them (and myself) to be in a functional relationship.

I really don't think you're catching on to anything I'm saying whatsoever but it's very simple to understand. Men have to be useful in some way and women generally do not. The societal pressures are not the same. Men typically have to obtain some sort of personality. Women do so at their leisure. The two are not the same. I don't know what else to tell you.

Stevie Nicks actually wrote some good songs and was hot and to my knowledge never made any bullshit feminist statements although I'm fully prepared to be corrected on that one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175612)

i think our disagreement stems from what i think is a misunderstanding of what bjork is saying and what fizz is endorsing. what she is saying is very conservative in modern times: that woman should be judged on their merits and not treated specially because of their gender.

"Men have to be useful in some way and women generally do not. The societal pressures are not the same"

i did address this already and agreed, and pointed out that this can be observed in most creatures and is biologically baked in to successfully reproduce. i just don't see how gender coupling dynamics has anything to do with what bjork is saying here. it's only because you've somehow misinterpreted her advocating for some radical shift in women being women when she is literally pushing back against shitlib radfem stuff back in the mid 90s here.

all she is saying is "women should be judged on their merits just like men" and it was in response to a question about women being venerated specially because they're women. she wants to rise and fall on her merits as a musician, not because she's a woman. and i think that would include people like you that apparently thinks she (and all women) suck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175858)

The dangerous rhetoric comes into play when radical feminists take the extreme position that women need not be feminine at all. That's when you get women who look like boys and that's plastered all throughout modern woke media. Women who are intentionally ugly. Women don't actually look up to these women. They tacitly defend their life decisions and call them brave but they don't actually look up to the lezbo phase Kristen Stewarts of the world. This is all rooted in man hate and trying to make a point that gender is interchangeable. It's a really slippery slope. The foundation Bjork laid quickly unraveled in subsequent decades.

To wit, even bull dykes are noticeably more decorated than men are. They cannot overcome the feminine impulse of self adornment. Check out any masculine dyke, they're always covered in extraneous bits and bobs. Women cannot overcome their nature. Neither can men. If anything Bjork is hyperfeminine. She's an idealized form of femininity which incorporates both the traditional notion of female attractiveness with feminist characteristics. It is not an abandonment of tradition, but an entwinement. She's weaving in and out of being a stereotypical Hot Chick, which men want and women want to be. But she also has this rebellious other dimension that men can't really relate to i.e. being an objectively bad songwriter and wearing bizarre costumes in lieu of actual talent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175870)

i assume it's because it conflicts with your worldview that there is an invisible hand that ensures merit always comes out ahead in the end. which is why you believe the only reason there are no fleetwood mac tier rock bands today is because for some reason the talent no longer exists.

you simultaneously believe:

a) the meritorious always rise to the top, and

b) all women suck at art

the fact you use stevie necks-led fleetwod mac as an example doesn't cause to you reflect on how these things are irreconcilable. or that adele, an overweight woman, is the best selling musician of this millennium. the fact that your beliefs are irreconcilable with each other is made even funnier by the fact they're both obviously untrue. it's like simultaneously being a flat-earther and a hollow-earther.

women SUCK at music and only get popular by shaking their DISGUSTING SLIMEPITS AND OAFISH PROLETITS on stage! they should get back to the kitchen and let TALENTED MEN with GIRTHY COCKS GYRATE FOR MY PLEASURE!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175911)

Katy Perry is world famous and her calling card has always been being one of the hottest people in human history.

Both are talented. They're talented in different ways. Ruth was also somewhat cute although it wasn't central to her act. Most women have never heard of her and couldn't care less.

There are lots of talented female artists. Most of them are really hot and used their looks to get famous. We can go through them all some time. The really ultra famous ones are all really hot or were at one point. That doesn't mean they're not talented. Bjork specifically was a shit tier songwriting talent her music is unlistenable and her whole act was about visual art and fashion choices. I don't make the rules. Things be how they are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175920)

Is it that I didn't explicitly say, yes, women obviously face more societal pressure than men to be beautiful? This is empirically true. I don't know what piece to the puzzle you're missing. Be direct.

I provided various examples of famous women, some of whom succeeded because of their looks, some in spite of them. Some with a mix of both. I've given countless examples.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175931)

In a debate you don't necessarily have to respond to the other side word for word. In fact, it's a well known tactic in debates to create an impossibly long list of demands from the other side. One time a decade ago I was debating a guy about the veracity of the Torah and he made some esoteric argument about how because I hadn't read X, Y, and Z and didn't understand the true nature of theological concepts alpha, beta, and gamma that I was unqualified to refute him. This is in fact not the case rhetorically speaking. I can still assert the other person is wrong without going down the entire rabbit hole of studying their views on their own terms.

Furthermore as evinced by your screed attacking me for not being a careful enough reader you have convinced me that you, too, are unable to distill exactly what gunner's point is, else you would have broken it down plainly. I truly believe that virtually any cogent argument can be distilled into a simple sentence or two. Everything I have proffered herein is extremely simple and easy for anyone to understand while we are still divining gunner's meaning like Joseph Smith's seeing stone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48176688)

Take for example the evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. The creationist asked Bill Nye to break down exactly why it was impossible that Noah's Ark didn't exist and there weren't two kinds of every animal on this boat. You can imagine how asking someone to disprove this all and breaking it down into your precious contingent questions would do nothing more than bog down the other side.

To wit you are free to come away from this exchange believing me a fool but I stand by my own argument like I would for the theory of evolution. I don't have time to disprove every conceivable refutation of my treaties and rely on the average reader to glean that my argument was more persuasive. If I have in fact forestalled a necessary response to my opponent then the audience will have ample opportunity to hold it against me.

In the end debates are never won outright but audience members are persuaded one way or the other and a 60/40 split is considered dominant. I can only hope that my views stand unshakeable on their own foundation such that a passerby would grasp what I was saying, should I be so fortunate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48176757)

If I have failed it is insofar as not doing enough to ask you to elucidate your views in a way that could provide me further understanding, but given the arsenal of barbs that were sent my way forgive me for retreating into the Hamas tunnels of debate prep 101.

If you want to take it down a notch and refrain from calling me a fool I am happy to give you the floor and hear out your views on your own terms. Educate me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48176779)

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&mc=61&forum_id=2#48174860

your response didn't address any of my clearly laid out assertions, aside from the end where where you said:

"I don't know where I'm going with this but I disagree completely and I think you're massaging the point at any rate"

which admits you're just ranting ("I don't know where I'm going with")

then flatly disagrees ("I disagree completely")

with the only explanation criticizing the form, rather than the substance, of what i'm saying ("I think you're massaging the point at any rate"

after that it was just retards scuffling with me trying to wrangle the debate into some order, even asking questions trying to give you specific points to engage, which were never answered.

then you kept asking to rephrase my argument for clarity, and when i attempted to several times, there was never an attempt to actually engage with the substance.

if you want to continue in good faith i suggest responding to the poast i linked. i don't think we got anywhere after that. and i don't think i ever called you an idiot even after you called my writing unreadable, convoluted, etc. and other dismissive and insulting descriptions of the form to excuse you from even attempting to tackle the substance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48176867)

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&mc=61&forum_id=2#48174569

and followed up in my second. and repeated afterwards that i think this stands for a fundamental disagreement with what she's asserting. re-read my second poast where i told about how women can enjoy being appreciated for their femininity and other things.

to summarize:

1) you're interpreting her statement in an extreme way, and if that's still your position then we can end the debate here because we have very different ideas on what she is even saying.

2) you have a zero sum approach to conforming to gender roles. it is possible (re: inevitable) for people to enjoy being appreciated for how masculine/feminine they are *AND* things outside of their gender role. (explaining my argument here is essentially my entire 2nd poast).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48176969)

Just for some added historical context, studies show that women in Scandinavia have the most traditional gender roles of any western nation despite also having a high rate of people who identify as feminists. In essence, Bjork comes from a society that broadly embraces both feminist ideals and tradwifery.

It's no surprise that one of the world's most highly educated and pacifistic societies which have been isolated from much of the world's problems for centuries would develop into a major embrace of feminism. These factors go hand in glove. To wit, Maine is basically the Norway of America. I would say there's a lot in common in general between New England and Scandinavia. Where you have educated women and economic prosperity you're going to develop strong ties to feminism. You see this in Switzerland and France and shit too. But you also see these same women marry men who make more money than them, SAHMs who cook and clean, etc. It really is a have your cake and eat it too scenario. So yes, smart wealthy women do have rich inner lives but they also prefer to be kept women living with 19th century mores.

I still have absolutely no idea what, if anything you're asserting and I don't feel like you have in any case refuted a single thing I have said. "Bjork didn't say what she said" is a bizarre tack but there's nowhere it can go.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48176997)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL7hsvPPQzE

a 180 artist friend of mine painted an incredible portrait of bjork for me, its hanging in my bedroom.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48174548)

Im sure you enjoyed your whacking 🤣

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48174637)

It's not about sex (though obviously I would admittedly DEFINITELY sex bjork if a magic fairy waved a wand and made her interested in me), it's about her being a fucking goddess and incredible woman. I'd rather put her on a pedastal than just bang her.

This is something that 90%+ of men will never understand because they are ruled by their dicks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5413569&forum_id=2#48175185)