</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ark^^:
<strong>

If he did ask me that question...it would send red warning flags to me about MY behavior...not some male friends intentions...

ARK </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I agree 100% with this statement. The responsibility for my behavior lies 100% with me regardless of my male friends' intentions. That being said, I am now very cautious with my male friends and make sure no one gets the wrong idea.

Woman may be naive, but certainly not more naive than men. I am living proof of how naive a man can be. I trusted my wife and a friend whose exterior credentials were excellent.

I totally disagree with this thread. Women know other women, and women know how to work men to where we look innocent and they look like the "sexual predators". For instance, men who are more sensitive or emotional want to help a damsel in distress and be their knight in shining armor. And women eat that up. Also, women know that men are attracted to physicalness, so they dress the part, and women also know how to work body language and laugh at mens jokes to where the man feels like the king in a castle.
Yep, all women are this way and all men are that way.
How do you like that generalization? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
Seriously, I think this thread is a little off base, and depending on the people, the situation, and the circumstances, some women are naive...some men are naive. Some WOMEN, yes WOMEN, want just sex, or just whoever will hold them and love them that particular day- and some MEN are the same way.
It all comes down to being responsible for your own behavior, instead of playing the blame game.

Melody,
Once again you said it the way that I meant.

To everyone else,
I realize that generalizations aren't popular these days. It's too easy to upset someone's sense of correctness. Regardless of this trend towards politcal correctness (or any other type of correctness) there are general trends in the way people behave in certain circumstances. It is facinating. It's called sociology.

I guess everyone's just a bit tense. Probably runs with our territory here at MB.

Didn't mean to offend.

Thanks again Melody,

cwmac

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by auto009988:

Woman may be naive, but certainly not more naive than men. I am living proof of how naive a man can be. I trusted my wife and a friend whose exterior credentials were excellent.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Amen brother!

mel,

you said...
However, when my last marriage ended he asked me out for a REAL DATE. This surprised me because I never thought of him in that light. He DID think of me in that light - and always had.

We all sexual beings....we all acknowledge both consciously and unconsciously...this to all those we encounter...

Your example in my opinion is much different then cw's broad generalization and overview of male friends...
your friend made these thoughts/feelings known to you only when you were potentially available...even though they may have existed...consciously or unconsciously throughout your friendship...I doubt they were the driving force in the friendship...
which is what cw's original post seems to suggest to me....
besides Melody how could you male friends help themselves from being attracted to you...duh!!??
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

cw's original post states
Men...how many times have you pretended to be "just friends" with a woman so that you could spend time with her and hopefully persuade her to become more?

and then the comparison of hormonelly driven teens to grown men...in my opinion don't equal each-other...

They want to have a relationship with someone "who likes me for me". I want them to like me for the ideas I have not for how I look or for sexual reasons. What they don't realize is that that friend should be a woman not a man.

I think all people want friendships with people who like "me for me"...male, female, other...
and I think this is more a driving force than male or female sexuality....in the pursuit of friendship...

I may not even disagree the generality ...but I don't believe it applies only to men...
both men and women have sexual thoughts about eachother...that does not mean deep fantasies but normal curiosity....and fleeting thoughts of I wonder what he/she is like in this or that situation...not even necessarily specific to me..

just the acknowledgement that we are all sexual beings...

What's getting me most on this post...is CW's jumping to that any disagreement or debating his post...must mean that we are just a bit "tense" and his comments to Oscar about being in a cave and about his wife....yuck....

I don't think this is a male/mars issue...
it's a human issue on both sides...

ARK

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ark^^:


We all sexual beings....we all acknowledge both consciously and unconsciously...this to all those we encounter...

Your example in my opinion is much different then cw's broad generalization and overview of male friends...
your friend made these thoughts/feelings known to you only when you were potentially available...even though they may have existed...consciously or unconsciously throughout your friendship...I doubt they were the driving force in the friendship...
which is what cw's original post seems to suggest to me....
besides Melody how could you male friends help themselves from being attracted to you...duh!!??
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

cw's original post states
Men...how many times have you pretended to be "just friends" with a woman so that you could spend time with her and hopefully persuade her to become more?

and then the comparison of hormonelly driven teens to grown men...in my opinion don't equal each-other...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ark, I just don't see that my example is different at all. Just because my friend did not push me in all those years, doesn't change the fact that his main interest was SEXUAL. I don't understand why that is so hard to see. I can give other examples where my "friend" did not wait until I was divorced.

We might all be "sexual beings" but men are generally more sexually driven than women and more aggressive. We can't pretend here like women are just guys without penises. We are not. The differences go FAR beyond that.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think all people want friendships with people who like "me for me"...male, female, other...
and I think this is more a driving force than male or female sexuality....in the pursuit of friendship...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think very few sociologists would agree that men and women think alike and are seeking the same things in friendships.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I may not even disagree the generality ...but I don't believe it applies only to men...
both men and women have sexual thoughts about eachother...that does not mean deep fantasies </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, no one said it applied only to men. Those are your words. But, we are TALKING ABOUT MEN here. Again, a generalization is NOT disproved by producing ONE EXCEPTION [or even 10] because a generalization does not profess to apply to 100% in the FIRST PLACE. It is expected that there are exceptions.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't think this is a male/mars issue...
it's a human issue on both sides...

ARK [/qb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I find it hard to believe that women are just men without penises and tend to believe what sociolologists affirm, women and men..........ARE DIFFERENT! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

<small>[ October 29, 2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

CWMac,

No, actually I wasn't in an especially bad mood yesterday. The first page of this post made me angry, however. I did not like what I saw as "male-bashing", and the implication that ALL men, in ALL their "friendships" (which aren't really friendships, because the MEN aren't being HONEST about their intentions) with women are all based on the sexual thoughts/drive/fantasies of the MAN.

I do not believe that this issue is as one sided as would appear in the beginning of this discussion. I am glad that some have some forward to argue the point that women can be just as deceptive as men in their roles in relationships, and that men, and women, can actually be friends. While it is an acknowledged fact that most men have a sexual thought every seven seconds or so, that does not mean that those thoughts are the BASIS for a friendship. Because I might at some point have a passing thought, of a sexual nature, about a woman, does not mean that I am only "acting" as her friend in order to "lure" her to some sexual lare. It is insulting to both MEN and WOMEN to believe that we are all this shallow and naive.

And Melody,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Again, no one said it applied only to men. Those are your words. But, we are TALKING ABOUT MEN here. Again, a generalization is NOT disproved by producing ONE EXCEPTION [or even 10] because a generalization does not profess to apply to 100% in the FIRST PLACE. It is expected that there are exceptions. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Generalizations cannot be disproven, because of their very nature. That is what makes them so dangerous and deceptive. As far as I'm concerned, the best use for generalizations is identifying the prejudices of the speaker. Generalizations are like opinions, and most of us know what opinions are like.

I welcome a good, honest debate as much as the next person. But I don't like "bashing" or "mob mentality".

Oscar <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Mel,

the difference that I see is that CW's post is pretend friendship...sexually motivated...from the onstart...which is how he is painting very broadly male friendships between women..
singularily ruled by sexuality alone...

I don't think your friend remained your friend all those years based soley on a sexual pursuit of you....which again seems to be what cw believes males intentions are within male/female friendships....

and women who don't see that in every male friend are naive...

I don't buy that generalization...

I believe men and women think and communicate differently...
I don't think they are the same...

and even the five or more times/men in your life....that's an small number compared to the other number of men who never professed a more intimate thought about you...

I certainly have experienced the same...people who professed attraction to me that suprised me....but it didn't lead me to conclude that men in general are all thinking those same lines...

while still acknowledging that men and women think/process differently...
I can't apply that to all men...

I think very few sociologists would agree that men and women think alike and are seeking the same things in friendships.

so do you believe all male friendships are sexually motivated??

my social male friends want the same things as I do......people to do social things with...

ARK

Desexualizing men AND women, is always a risky proposition no matter if its a woman OR a man doing it. We've seen how innocent friendships have mutated into full blown affairs simply because the man and the woman inititally treated each other as though they were of the same gender.

<small>[ October 29, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: T00MuchCoffeeMan ]</small>

Oscar, you have just made a sweeping generalization with this remark:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Generalizations cannot be disproven, because of their very nature. That is what makes them so dangerous and deceptive. As far as I'm concerned, the best use for generalizations is identifying the prejudices of the speaker. Generalizations are like opinions, and most of us know what opinions are like."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is that your opinion? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />


If all generalizations are invalid, then so is yours by default [according to you]. If all generalizations indicate a prejudice on the part of the user, then you have just indicted yourself with your generalization.

However, your generalization is not invalid BECAUSE it is a generalization, but because it is made on the basis on no evidence. That is called a SWEEPING GENERALIZATION. Your conclusion far exceeds what the evidence would support. [not to mention that it is self refuting]

But, all generalizations are not invalid. Generalizations are a very valid and relevant method of communication. Inductive reasoning is based on the ability to generalize from repeated experiences or observations. The soundness of an inductive generalization is based on whether there is a sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion and whether the conclusion supported by the evidence.

If we have no generalizations, we have no inductive reasoning and cannot function.

For example, take the generalization that "men like sports." We know that a sufficient number of men like sports in order to make that generalization. However, we also know that some men do not like sports and can even produce a few men who hate sports. Does that "disprove" or invalidate that generalization? Of course not.

A generalization, by its nature, does not preclude exceptions. A generalization is not an EXACT SCIENCE, doesn't pretend to be, and does not presume to identify 100% of its group. Therefore, it can't be invalidated with ONE example [or 1000] of a man who doesn't like sports.

Somehow, in the anti-intellectual political correctness movement, generalizations have been dismissed [usually by making sweeping or hasty generalizations!! lol] and I think partly because folks often can't discuss the issue at hand. Folks don't seem to understand the difference between a sweeping generalization and a valid generalization. However, generalizations are an absolutely neccessary, valid function of communication.

Generalizations are everywhere such as in the clothing industry, food industry, agricultural industry, magazine industry, film industry, insurance industry and on and on. The problem with generalizations is when some people try to make them into absolutes or when they are based on faulty information.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ark^^:
<strong>

so do you believe all male friendships are sexually motivated??

my social male friends want the same things as I do......people to do social things with...

ARK </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, ark, you are applying a standard here that is not appropriate and using it to dismiss a valid generalization because you can't relate to it. No one ever said that ALL MALE friendships are sexually motivated. I believe that most ARE.

Sociologists acknowledge that men seek very different things in relationships than women. One of the top EN's of men is sexual function.

Your anecdotes don't in any way invalidate my anecdotes. But I have seen enough of this phenomenom and know how men think well enough to understand that men are looking for different things out of a friendship than women. Where women get into trouble, is when they ascribe their OWN feelings to men. That is a big mistake. Men and women are wired differently. We can't pretend that men and women are the same. They aren't.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by T00MuchCoffeeMan:
<strong> Generalizations are everywhere such as in the clothing industry, food industry, agricultural industry, magazine industry, film industry, insurance industry and on and on. The problem with generalizations is when some people try to make them into absolutes or when they are based on faulty information. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agree. There are invalid generalizations, but a generalization, just by its nature, is not an absolute. It doesn't profess to be so.

toomuch says..

We've seen how innocent friendships have mutated into full blown affairs simply because the man and the woman inititally treated each other as though they were of the same gender.

I don't get it..
a man treating a woman like a man...would not lead to an affair...

nor would a woman treating a man like a woman...

friendships cross lines (never innocently) when people don't set boundaries within themselves...

I think we are all sexual beings in all activities in our lives..
I would never de-sexualize anyone...

mel said..

No one ever said that ALL MALE friendships are sexually motivated. I believe that most ARE.

i don't believe that...which is fine for you and me...and I don't believe that makes me naive...

and i don't think men and women think the same...

Sociologists acknowledge that men seek very different things in relationships than women.

relationships and friendships are very different things....

Where women get into trouble, is when they ascribe their OWN feelings to men.
I don't think ascribing their own feelings gets them in trouble..it is the lack of boundaries that gets them in trouble....

I don't believe in the generalization that men are sexually motivated in friendships..
necessarily and more or less than women are...

doesn't make you/me right or wrong like you said...

Again, ark, you are applying a standard here that is not appropriate and using it to dismiss a valid generalization because you can't relate to it.

I can't relate to it... not because I haven't had similiar experiences..I have...I just haven't drawn the same conclusion from them....

this is not to dismiss or deny that there can be great pitfalls and danger in male/female relationships when one or all are married...

I'm not against generalizations...atleast I never thought I was....
I just find this one not to be so one sided and generalized as originally presented...

it's a good thing I don't like to debate... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

ARK

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ark^^:
<strong>
it's a good thing I don't like to debate... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

ARK </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">lol! me either, Ark! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Many WW's want to stay "friends" with their BS after the A. Is friendship an indicator of a woman's feeling of self worth?
Hence they make "friends" with the OM to boost a flagging self esteem. The rest as they say is history.

Melody Lane,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> If all generalizations are invalid, then so is yours by default [according to you]. If all generalizations indicate a prejudice on the part of the user, then you have just indicted yourself with your generalization. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I never said generalizations were invalid; as to prejudices, we all have them. Yours is against men having women friends, mine is against people who paint an entire sex with the same brush.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> However, your generalization is not invalid BECAUSE it is a generalization, but because it is made on the basis on no evidence. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Really...now would that be a "sweeping generalization"?

As I stated earlier, and still believe, "generalization" is nothing more than a big word for "opinion". And your opinions AND generalizations are based upon life experiences, or in some cases, the experiences of others. So, because you have had different life experiences than I have, and because my "evidence" locker contains different items than yours, mine is moot? Hence the problem with generalizations.

As with opinions, they can't be proven wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as bad as it might be; the same with generalizations.

Someone growing up in rural Texas will have greatly differing "generalizations" about men and women than someone who grew up in New York City.

The other problem with generalization is that, at least in this case, it's exclusionary. Why aren't we talking about women, and only men? I still say women can be as predatory as men. And that is based on my life experiences, which provides the "evidence" for my "generalization".

I especially like when someone calls me names, and tries to camoflage it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Somehow, in the anti-intellectual political correctness movement, generalizations have been dismissed [usually by making sweeping or hasty generalizations!! lol] and I think partly because folks often can't discuss the issue at hand. Folks don't seem to understand the difference between a sweeping generalization and a valid generalization. However, generalizations are an absolutely neccessary, valid function of communication. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, this "stupid, p/c, sweeping generalizer" actually believes that the reason MOST people tend to discount generalizations is because they recognize that they are so "arbitrary". The "facts" change with every person and observation, so they are of little use, other than anecdotal.

JMO

Oscar the stupid, p/c Grouch <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

<small>[ October 29, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: OtG ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by OtG:
I never said generalizations were invalid; as to prejudices, we all have them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sure you did: [and you made another generalization in the bargain when you said we all have prejudices]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"That is what makes them so dangerous and deceptive. As far as I'm concerned, the best use for generalizations is identifying the prejudices of the speaker. Generalizations are like opinions, and most of us know what opinions are like."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If those comments are your attempt to VALIDATE generalizations then you sure have me fooled.

Or were you validating generalizations when you finished your most recent post with:

"Well, this "stupid, p/c, sweeping generalizer" actually believes that the reason MOST people tend to discount generalizations is because they recognize that they are so "arbitrary"."

Saying that they are no better than "opinions, which are like a**holes" is not validating language to this silly old gal. Nor is saying they are "arbitrary," "dangerous and deceptive." Call me a silly heart, but that does not sound like validating language to me.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Yours is against men having women friends, mine is against people who paint an entire sex with the same brush. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have no prejudices against men having female friends, so I haven't a clue where you came up with that conclusion because it's not based in fact. I have never claimed any such thing.

A generalization is a generalization, a prejudice is a prejudice. Words have meanings. Prejudice is not inherent in the practice of generalizing. If I say that women have breasts its not because I am "prejudiced," but the process of inductive reasoning tells me from past experience that women have breasts. If I say men like sports, its not because I am "prejudiced," but because I have a sufficient number of instances from which to draw a conclusion.

One MUST generalize if they use the practice of inductive reasoning, that has NOTHING to do with prejudice.

Nor does a generalization "paint an entire sex with the same brush." A generalization never claims to ascribe to 100% of its members. Let's take the generalization I gave above, that "men like sports." There is nothing "prejudicial" about that. Nor does it paint men with a broad brush, because it is simple common sense that with generalizations, it does not apply to 100% of its members.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

As I stated earlier, and still believe, "generalization" is nothing more than a big word for "opinion". And your opinions AND generalizations are based upon life experiences, or in some cases, the experiences of others. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Inductive reasoning is based upon the ability to generalize from repeated experiences or observations. The soundness of an inductive generalization can usually be determined if we have a sufficient number of instances to draw a conclusion and the terms are consistent with the terms of the evidence.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As with opinions, they can't be proven wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as bad as it might be; the same with generalizations. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Of course opinions can be proven wrong. There are right opinions and wrong opinions. There are stupid opinions. There are educated opinions. All opinions are not equal. If I say that I believe my dog is a cat, you could easily prove me wrong.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The other problem with generalization is that, at least in this case, it's exclusionary. Why aren't we talking about women, and only men? I still say women can be as predatory as men. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And you are making a "generalization" and being just as "exclusionary" when you say so. Of course we are being "exclusionary" when we are talking about women in this context. We are also not talking about dogs and the price of eggs. So what?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, this "stupid, p/c, sweeping generalizer" actually believes that the reason MOST people tend to discount generalizations is because they recognize that they are so "arbitrary". </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Isn't it dangerous, deceptive and prejudicial to make such sweeping generalizations? Or is it "arbitrary" as you state? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Ok by me.

Oh Boy!

I just love this. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Since logic, math, ect is my business, you guys are arguing in my alley. So do we talk about men and women, or do we talk about logic, math, and the need to be able to generalize?? What's it going to be folks? Pick your poison. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I guess I will start with men and women. I think the orginal question is valid. It is baised because it came from a male who was betrayed, but it is none the less valid. IT WAS NOT A SLAP AT MEN OR EVEN WOMEN. It was simply a question for people to consider.

Having said that, I think Melody got the jist that this is a question. Now I will make a "generalization" which I KNOW TO BE CORRECT. Men, are driven by sexual thoughts. Want data look up the research. In one paper I have read the claim was the men think about sex about every 10 seconds.

If you want to dispute the number I will spot you every 1 minute, or 10 minutes. Men think of sex when around women. That generalization is correct.

Are there exceptions?? Yes, gay men probably don't think much about women. Elderly men may not think much about sex depending on the state of their hormones. Men who have been castrated don't think that much about sex. Does it make the generalization less correct? No.

Now as to the question. It was not to seek an answer that women are dumb, naive, or stupid, and it certainly was not to illict the response that all men are sexual pigs that can not think of anything else (people forget that most corporations, most construction, and most everything was built by men) so clearly we do think about other things SOMETIMES. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> )

I think the question had a sublety that Melodey picked up. I could have rephrased this question as Melody effectively did.

Is it possible that women view male friends as they do female friends, thus leaving themselves vulnerable to those men that are willing to take advantage of that friendship?

Is that the question originally asked but slightly rephrased? If that were the question would Oscar be so offended? Would there be this debate about men being sexual pigs with only one thing on their mind. (Actually, that is why men compartmentalize so well, sex is always around, but we can think of other things and are capable of ignoring our sexual thoughts for more constructive actions.)

If the answer to this question was yes, they sometimes do treat men as they do female friends, the next part of the question is "do you think that is bad, good, or indifferent?"

So, yes the question had an implied generalization (men are more focused on sex than women), but does it naturally lead to "men are all pigs", that seemed to offend a few here? I don't think so.

So now about the Math of generalizations. When we talk about what men, women, people do or don't do, we are talking about distribution functions. These functions have height, and width, and they have what are call "tails". The "generalization" is a statement about the mean width of the distribution where much of any population of examples sit. The higher the distribution the more this width narrows and encompasses larger fractions of the stated population of examples. But, unless the distribution function becomes what is called a "delta function", there are always examples beyond the "generalization".

However, the "generalization" must be valid, and supported by fact for it to be a "generalization" (there would be no statistics if this weren't so). If it is not supported by fact, then it is just a "guess", an "assumption", or worse "wrong". But, it is not a "generalization".

I will spare you the pain of me writing equations and mathematically defining these terms, but suffice it to say, a "generalization" is based on facts, but it does NOT mean that all examples or statistics lie within the "generalization".

So I would like to suggest that you consider this question in the phrasology that I have mentioned, or perhaps you could rephrase the questions yourselves to represent what you think the original poster here was trying to learn or consider.

I personally think that women do end up in PA's because they fail to realize how men will want to exhibit a " deep friendship". However, I think that women's need for a "deep friendship" thus leading to an EA, has nothing to do with how men view friendships or how sexual men would like to make it.

I think that was what Adgirl was trying to address. She even implied that women might use sex to achieve what they really want: an EA.

But, I suspect that really wasn't the intent of the original question. I suspect this question was focused on those affairs that start out without ANYONE looking to have an affair, but end up that way, specifically in a PA.

OK folks, let'er rip. This is going to be fun and we all might even learn something. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

God Bless,

JL