I think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself, honestly. Though first and foremost, "asexual" does not mean "doesn't like girls." That means, doesn't like sex, at all, doesn't like boys or girls or anything. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asexual . That's too wide a term.
You completely missed my point, again. I was saying that you asexual, in the context (that is, being sexually attracted to women), would include homosexual guys. I'm not using it by it's common meaning. I'm saying that they are asexual towards women.
.... If I say "steel" but I actually mean bronze whose fault is it if you don't understand I mean bronze? If you say "asexual" but don't really mean asexual, only not attracted to women without providing a definition, who has missed what point?
Use words in their common meaning, or provide a definition if you expect anyone at all to understand you. Your vagueness is not the fault of others. You're being completely and absolutely unreasonable expecting people to guess nonstandard word uses.
Basics:
The purpose of the "5 groups" was to have males self identify their comfort level with women and the underlying reasons why they feel as they do. If I'm determining comfort, then "comfortable and uncomfortable" work for broad categories. Go deeper, see the reasons why a person feels a given way. This is the overarching reason for the last three categories: sexists, gays, and "huh?". It makes sense to group them broadly as such, because of their different, general underlying motivations, problems etc. Sexist, has a whole slew of problems special and apart from the other groups. Gay, also has a whole slew of problems special and apart from the other groups. Huhs simply aren't aware, at all. See how my categorization works?
That doesn't make sense. So "comfy" and "uncomfy" are broad categories, but the three others are supposed to "go deeper" and see the reasons why people feel the way they do? I must be misunderstanding, because I don't really think that is what you're trying to say.
Regardless, my whole point has been that being gay does not automatically give you different underlying reasons for being uncomfortable or comfortable around women - this is just you assuming all such "underlying motivations" are sexual in nature, and that gay and straight people can't have the same reasons. They are not, and they can. Most of them are social. Hence it makes no sense to group a gay guy who is uncomfortable for non-sexual reason X in a different group than a straight guy who is uncomfortable for non-sexual reason X.
Which is what you are doing.
Overarching:
The goal is to help males feel more comfortable around women and to do that, you need to get into nuts and bolts as to why they feel a certain way. The categories are soft, mixable, overlapping and beyond all else about identifying common themes to help people work on reaching the goal of just being comfortable around the opposite sex.
What? That was never the point of your list - it's just to bunch people together. You can't use that to "help people reaching the goal of just being comfortable around the opposite sex", it's oversimplified nonsense. If you wanted to change people you'd have to examine everyone on their individual basis - you know, just like therapists do.
Respectfully, you have a ton of logical flaws and organizational problems: So, you know the point of my ideas better than I do? Moreover, you know how psychologists don't actually use frameworks like this as a starting point, to work towards people's individual characteristics? Figures, you expect other people to read your mind to determine you are using non standard (wrong) definitions, because you can read the minds of others? You don't understand me enough to call what I say nonsense, and you're not making points so much as you're deriding things for the sake of deriding them. I'm not 100% in love with your tone. Did you miss the part where it now says, "Chill and Relaxed" in the title? Chill out and discuss things without the assumptions.
By the way, do you think this is to "bunch people together" and not "help them?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders . Psychologists and physicians group people for the purpose of helping them. Tone down the judgments; they aren't making effective arguments.
There seems to be a lot lost in translation here, so I'll take this opportunity to write an essay example.
Here's my argument in simplified format: [A certain shy someone asked me to work in counterarguments to an example. Here it is. Thus it becomes CRACCC Conclusion, Rule, Analysis, Counterargument, Counter Counter Argument, Conclusion. Same as the first lesson but now we're adding to it.
].
[Opening Sent] The 5 groups method fairly contains a general assessment for aiding males in coexisting comfortably with females. [Optional qualifier] Human nature is far too complex to ever accurately summarize, but this does a fair job of doing so with one area. There are many reasons why males often have difficulty getting along with females and this essay does not presume to cover this topic exhaustively, but only presents four points on topic.
[1st P] First, the 5 groups method broadly sets forth 5 categories. [2nd P] Second, the first two of the five groups are "comfortable" males and "uncomfortable" males around women. [3rd P] Third, the last three of the five groups are "sexists" "gays" and "huh?." [4th P] Finally, we consider the overarching concerns of the method, [5th P] facts of an example application, [6th P] and the analysis of it, which provide an example conclusion. [Note again how the first paragraph corresponds to "1st P" but is not an exact mirror of it, as are the others See then how I explain each of the sub parts of, merit, ability and qualifications?]
[1st Pb] As its name implies, the 5 groups method sets forth 5 broad groups of how men relate to women. These groups are broad and meant as an informal self diagnostic tool to raise awareness of specific strengths and weaknesses. These categories present soft lines, as opposed to hard lines. As will be shown later, the answers provided can be revealing, assuming of course the person in question chooses to be honest with themselves.
[2nd Pb] The difference between the first two groups "comfortable" and uncomfortable" is fairly obvious, though these two groups may actually bleed into one another somewhat. These are general statements, and one does not have to be "comfortable 100% of the time" to be placed in the "comfortable" category. Indeed, this would be highly irregular, as would someone being 100% uncomfortable. Rather, these two catagories provide a general "yes or no" answer with a qualifier explaining exceptions such as "comfortable, except when I find a woman attractive," or "uncomfortable, unless I know or am related to her." The point is to make someone aware of their situation that they may change it if they so desire.
[3rd Pb]The last three of the five groups are "sexists" "gays" and "huh?.". These groups are specifically set apart from the "comfortable and uncomfortable" general categories, because they present specific considerations not otherwise found in most people in those general categories. A sexist, for example, is not only uncomfortable, but extremely so and probably because he holds negative ideas about women that someone who is merely "uncomfortable" does not. A "gay" (which for simplicity includes all non strict heterosexuals) also has concerns not found in the general categories. These might include the very specific fear of being inadvertently or even maliciously outed by a female. In the same breath, the gay often does not have the common romantic concern of the "uncomfortable" towards women, and explaining this to others is often difficult for the gay in societies that aren't accepting. Finally, the "Huh?" don't fit into any other category, because they aren't comfortable or uncomfortable, they simply don't know or care and that presents its own issues. If these people were not set apart from the general population they might miss one of those special considerations and thus not address it.
[4th P] Finally, we consider the overarching concerns of the 5 groups method. The 5 groups are general and flexible categories. Someone in the "sexists" category, is probably also in the "uncomfortable" category, but is placed there because a sexist has additional problems like irrational, negative views of women to contend with if they want to become comfortable. In the same breath, a "gay" person might be "comfortable" with the usual exceptions, but because they have or lack certain circumstances than many in the general population they are specifically addressed. See paragraph 3. While one might spend time teaching a non gay, "uncomfortable" how to better deal with romantic urges around women, this effort would be wasted upon the gay if they are not attracted to females. Thus, it is a different concern group, though again, the method is general and flexible to adapt fit the individual.
[5th Pb] In the present case example," "sciver" has suggested a gay individual who has discomfort around women for non sexual reasons. Quite common. [Central Question] "sciver" raises the doubting question of if this person properly fits into the 5 groups method. Facts are sparse, but it appears a the gay individual suffers from discomfort around females for non sexual reasons, which may be alleviated if the individual addresses these issues. It should be noted that this individual is listed as "gay" to alert them to specific issues commonly faced by gay individuals so as to address them. [Insert other facts, which you gain by research or investigation].
[6th Pb] [Conclusion] "Here, though it is difficult to reach a conclusion without specific facts, the gay individual's may find some relief through the 5 groups system if that individual faces things that specifically cause them discomfort around females." [Rule] In examining this,
proper categorization,
general level of comfort and exceptions to that general level ,
special factors such as sexism, gayness or lack of awareness ,
general overarching concerns and category overlap, and
specific individual facts must be
considered. [Qualifier] It should be noted that we lack specifics required to reach a proper conclusion and this is preliminary, subject to revision. [Analysis]
Our information about this person is from "scriver's" short report and rather limited, but it appears the person is gay and thus might want to think about considerations commonly effecting that community. Evidence of general level of comfort is not fully presented and we do not know if the individual is generally comfortable or uncomfortable around females or specific exceptions to that general state. Again, we know the individual is gay, though we are uncertain if they hold sexist attitudes that need to be addressed, if so, then they would also fit into that category; more information is required. General concerns may apply because we do have have sufficient information about this individual. Finally, many of the individual facts are not known specifically, though generally, "scriver" states the individual has been uncomfortable around females and if that person were to examine their own instances of being comfortable and uncomfortable around females, while acknowledging that they might need to take certain problems commonly faced between gays and females into account, then they might experience improvement. [Counterargument] Opposing views may hold we lack sufficient information about this individual to determine if he can be aided by the 5 groups method, that sex and sexual orientation has nothing to do with this, or that the categories are too ill defined. [Counter to counterargument] In answer, one could merely gather more information about the individual, point out that categorizing the individual as "gay" is merely to draw his attention to special problems he may face as a gay person that others might not, and note that the 5 groups method is merely a framework and good starting point, not an all inclusive ending point [Conclusion]Thus, the 5 groups method may help this individual become more comfortable around females if more information were known.
[
Summary Commentary on the counterpoint and counter to the counterpoint: See how "Opposing views" is a visual cue that a counterargument is being presented. A busy judge or reader will see this and know what you intend. Be sure not to put a strawman argument in here and address a legit concern. See also how "In answer" or "This opposition can be addressed with" is also a visual cue letting the reader know you are addressing the counterargument with a counter of your own.
See also, how each of the three points in the counterargument is met with a counter and specifically addressed. Three counterpoints; three answering counters to them.
1.)
Counterargument: We lack sufficient information....
Counter to that: Get more
2.)
Counterargument: Categorizing this guy as "gay" makes no sense, because sex has nothing to do with this.
Counter to that: It just lets him know that he might face special problems faced by gays when dealing with women that most other people do not.
3.)
Counterargument: The categories are too ill defined.
Counter to that: They aren't meant to be crystal clear but only a general starting framework.
Special Note: Notice how he didn't really say the categories were "ill defined," rather he called them "nonsense." When your opponent uses an insulting or quasi insulting word to describe your idea, you can use a synonym or substitute that is not insulting, but do so carefully. Here, "ill defined" works better and is more polite than "nonsense." Most teachers and debater coaches will give this to you. Excellent job on your last paper; you really shouldn't be afraid to post here. Though you'll only get gentle nudges and never pushes from me. You're improving; see if you can break my points down into an outline to better see how to do it yourself.
]
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 870288 times)