"your eyeliner looks nice!"

"I'm not wearing eyeliner. Do you mean eye shadow?"

"Maybe?"

"Are you just saying that because you can tell I'm wearing eye shadow?"

"Well, I see sparkles."

This made me laugh out loud as the perfect representation of countless conversations with my exDH. After a while, I just quit trying to correct him and smilednoddedhead. He always wanted to say something nice, but could never quite. get it. So sweet.

From earlier: Uma's dad.

I'd be shocked if she wasn't a fairly brainy person, herself.

Most guys I've met like shaved legs and pits, and I went to a hippie college. I feel safe with that generalization.

But, you see, I don't believe that "Most guys like sports" is valid. I just think it's way, way, way too big and broad a set to say anything more precise than "Most guys like food and sex and entertainment".

I'm sorry, I'm being difficult, but I'm trying to explain myself. If you have a way-general premise, all you can reason to is a way-general consequent. A LOT of guys like guys. A LOT of guys like naked women. But women in underwear? I think you're already out beyond the regions where predictions can be made.

I'm not sure most men put a lot of thought into the specifics of how that look gets created.

That's what I figured too. And, as such, some (many?) protestations of "I don't care about those things" may be suspect, since it might have been a while (and it was their mother) since they saw "raw" woman.

It's smirking:

[link]

If you have a way-general premise, all you can reason to is a way-general consequent.

True. But if my way general premise is about the prevalence of right-handedness, I'm okay with that. It doesn't mean I insist no one be left handed, nor even that I'll be startled at people who aren't right handed. Just that, nine times out of ten, my students will need to step forward with their left foot to get into fighting stance, and that every now and again I'll have a class where I don't have to flip anything for anyone.

Generalisation? Yes. Useful? Yes. Damaging? Don't see how it is. It's just reporting numbers. It's just statistics, with a wee bit of not-set-in-stone prediction as a result.

I don't see the general problem with it, although it's patently obvious that overzealous application/adherence is not recommended.

I'm with the suspecting protestations. I've had a couple of genuine "I really, truly don't care/notice" guys but more who made noises along the SNAG agenda but subtly supported scrape/pluck/tug.

Generalisation? Yes. Useful? Yes. Damaging? Don't see how it is.

This isn't about morals for me.

It's just that universal statements itch me. I think it's the math training; whenever I hear "All A are B", I IMMEDIATELY start trying to think of a counterexample. It's reflex. Not because I disapprove of stereotypes, but because I'm a geek.

I think it's the math training; whenever I hear "All A are B", I IMMEDIATELY start trying to think of a counterexample

Okay. I went back and edited in the "most." So although I'm insisting continually I didn't think anyone would take it as 100%, now I've SAID it that way from the start. Otherwise, I got nothing.

Okay. I've got plenty o' nuthin', too.