I suspect there are quite a few men who would enjoy being pursued, unless it became "weird" or continued after they made a polite rejection. Personally, as a woman, though, I always prefer to allow men to show an interest in me first, apart from perhaps a smile across a room. I need to know they genuinely find me attractive, and that gives me a certain security. it gives me, I suppose, in a way, "the upper hand". I wonder if men are quite used to rejection, so are willing to risk it again and again in the hopes of success? And if this is the case (as I have been told by men) then something has gone terribly wrong with the statistics,because surely there must be an almost equal number of males and females seeking relationships?
I confess to still being confused over the way this works!!
What about American citizens? I bet they murder even more, especially with all those guns they love so much over there. What a redneck thread!! A murderer is a murderer, these statistics mean NOTHING out of context!! (But do seem typical of the paranoia you good folks seem to constantly be feeling)
Big John, I totally agree with you. I am an Australian, who has lived in Europe for many years, and the USA for a short while. Frankly, I believe the world breathed a sigh of relief when Obama was elected. Its about time this redneck attitude of "to heck with others, I'm alright and I'm looking after number one" stopped in the USA. Didnt the corporate greed that led to an economic crash (for the whole world) teach anybody a lesson?? The whole world had to suffer because of that. Fortunately, we are doing better than the USA here because we have a strong economy...and guess what!! We also look after out sick! Not only that, we dont have horrible shootings like you do over there....hmmm...here's an idea...get rid of the guns like we did...it does tend to solve the problem. Duh!! In spite of that, I like America and American people in general. I just wish more Americans would travel outside their borders and begin to understand that you can combine a compassionate society with a good lifestyle.
I think if it is life versus life in a situation like the above,a sense of honour would be a wonderful tribute. I think I would rather dies with honour than live with shame! This is now going into the realm of character and love for your fellow man rather than morality. Very few of us know whether we would be heroes in this kind of situation, but sometimes there are wonderful unsung heroes who simply care enough sbout others to be self-sacrificial. Have you read "an ordinary man" by Paul Rusesabagina, the man who is the hero of the story made famous in the movie "Hotel Rwanda"? He write in the introduction,
"My job did not change in the genocide, even though I was thrust into a sea of fire. I only spoke the words that seemed normal and sane to me. I did what I believed to be the ordinary things that an ordinary man would do. I said no to outrageous actions the way that I thought anybody would, and it still mystifies me that so many others could say yes."
This man appeared very ordinary before his heroism, as so many do, but when put into a terrible situation, he proved to be a hero. Why? That I cannot say....
Here, I dont think there is quite so much dilemma, if you are justifying your actions morally and not just acting out of sheer emotion. In the poll, the value of a human life is weighed against property rights; in your scenario, the value of a human life is weighed against the value of another human life; hence, no, you would stop far short of killing the pharmacist!
Sorry, thats obviously, "yes, his wife's life is more important than the law".....
it is only 6 am here in Oz, I need my coffee!!
Oh, and by the way, I think most of us if faced with a situation like this in real life may find our actions dont always follow our moral reasoning......
OK guys, here are the interpretations of the different answers, sorry it is a bit late, it has been nighttime in Australia, its now Monday morning here!
According to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, there are 3 stages of moral reasoning. It is not important whether you said yes he should steal, or no he shouldnt, it is the reasoning behind it that determines the stage of reasoning you may have reached (remember, this is only a theory!)In this poll, there is a "yes" and a "no" answer for each level.
The first level is Pre-conventional thinking; this is the level children function at, concerned with punishment and reward. Answering "yes, if he is careful not to get caught" or "no, he would face a possible jail sentence" both fit into this level.
The second level is Conventional thinking; most people, according to my psychology book and this theory, fit this category. This is connected with the approval of others and maintaining law and order. Answering "yes, or he would lose his friends' respect" or "no, stealing is always wrong" would fit this category.
The third level is called Post-conventional morality. This is the morality of abstract, self-defined principles that may or may not match the dominant morals of the time. Only 5% of adults are said to reach this level! (I questioned this..hence the poll...and from the poll it appears that far more than 5% think this way) A swering "no, his conscience will bother him" or "no, his wife's life is more important than law" fit this level..
Maybe, if this very unscientific and informal poll gives any kind of indication, our current level of moral reasoning acceptable in modern society has reached a post-conventional level?
Some very interesting comments, hope it got you thinking....
Guys, the important thing about this poll is there are no "right" and "wrong" answers...its not whether you say yes or no, its the reasoning behind your decision that indicates whether you or not you are a morally "conventional" thinker. Thats why obviously there could be much more said about whether you would steal or not, but its how you rationalise your choice that counts....
If we hit 50 votes I will explain the types of thinking each answer fits into.......you may find it interesting and we may be able to prove the psychologists wrong!! (you"ll understand what I mean later...)
My poll is obviously flawed..its not scientifically sound, I know. Its probably biased in favour of "intelligent but opiniated" as opiniated, although it has negative connotations, is probably valued by those who enjoy doing polls!! The results are not meant to be taken too seriously, but they are interesting to me anyway, and I find the comments most interesting too..... I certainly would pick intelligence with strong opinions for a man I wished to date, closely followed by "good listener but not much to say"!
Just that I didnt intend to influence the answers towards intelligence, as one comment suggested. That is my primary interest, but I am simply hoping for honest answers and some insight into what men think about qualites in women other than the physical. As a woman who considers herself strong and intelligent, and yes, sometimes opiniated, I feel that at times it has "gone against me" so its kind of encouraging to see that the guys who have answered this poll do not seem to have this attitude. Thanks for the comments!
wearytraveller Forum Posts (12)
RE: Do you men get put off if you are pursued too much by a woman?
I suspect there are quite a few men who would enjoy being pursued, unless it became "weird" or continued after they made a polite rejection. Personally, as a woman, though, I always prefer to allow men to show an interest in me first, apart from perhaps a smile across a room.I need to know they genuinely find me attractive, and that gives me a certain security. it gives me, I suppose, in a way, "the upper hand".
I wonder if men are quite used to rejection, so are willing to risk it again and again in the hopes of success?
And if this is the case (as I have been told by men) then something has gone terribly wrong with the statistics,because surely there must be an almost equal number of males and females seeking relationships?
I confess to still being confused over the way this works!!