The Student Room Group

Nice girl V Bad girl

Scroll to see replies

Original post by shadowdweller
Of course, the lock and key analogy is fundamentally flawed in that a key will only open one lock

Erm, analogies are hardly ever identical. Mainly because two situations are hardly ever identical.

Analogies work by comparing a single key similarity between events.

You're focusing on a very minor point and using it to criticise an analogy, which is why the criticism is silly.
Reply 121
Original post by shadowdweller
Of course, the lock and key analogy is fundamentally flawed in that a key will only open one lock

Posted from TSR Mobile


U wot m8? Do you even know how the analogy goes? If a key opens more than one lock, it's a master key. If a lock opens with more than one key, it's a ****ty lock.

Master keys do exist in real life.
Original post by Sisu
U wot m8? Do you even know how the analogy goes? If a key opens more than one lock, it's a master key. If a lock opens with more than one key, it's a ****ty lock.

Master keys do exist in real life.


I'm aware of the existence of master keys. I've always thought the use of 'master' in this a analogy seems a little arrogant

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by A Perfect Circle
Erm, analogies are hardly ever identical. Mainly because two situations are hardly ever identical.

Analogies work by comparing a single key similarity between events.

You're focusing on a very minor point and using it to criticise an analogy, which is why the criticism is silly.


Well, it's a silly analogy, the criticism is no more silly. I could list a number of other criticisms, but it doesn't seem worth the effort

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by shadowdweller
Well, it's a silly analogy, the criticism is no more silly. I could list a number of other criticisms, but it doesn't seem worth the effort

Posted from TSR Mobile


The fact that the vast majority understand the analogy says that you're wrong.

Cable has already explained what I believe to be what everyone understands by the analogy.

If it's as silly as you think then you should have no problem explaining why so?
Original post by A Perfect Circle
The fact that the vast majority understand the analogy says that you're wrong.

Cable has already explained what I believe to be what everyone understands by the analogy.

If it's as silly as you think then you should have no problem explaining why so?


Not at all, just because people understand it doesn't mean it's good, it's fairly easy to understand

As I said earlier in the thread, anyone can make an analogy and relate it to sex, it's possible to skew said analogy in favour of either gender. Additionally, 'master key' is a fairly ambiguous term, a master key won't open any lock, just a predefined set, which can be as little as 2 locks.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Surely the easier it is to understand an analogy the better it is? If you disagree then explain why?

The fact that it's easy to make analogies about sex doesn't mean a specific analogy is a poor one.

It's pretty obvious that you're nitpicking and possibly playing dumb in order to make the analogy seem poor. Not really working too well if you don't mind me saying.
Reply 127
Original post by AreebWithaHat
I'd personally not rather be with a girl with a loose vagina from having sex with every man possible.

Self respect and integrity is important to me


Achieving both at the same time isn't possible? I think I'd feel pretty accomplished. :biggrin:
Original post by A Perfect Circle
Surely the easier it is to understand an analogy the better it is? If you disagree then explain why?

The fact that it's easy to make analogies about sex doesn't mean a specific analogy is a poor one.

It's pretty obvious that you're nitpicking and possibly playing dumb in order to make the analogy seem poor. Not really working too well if you don't mind me saying.


I just did explain why I disagree with it. Whether or not an analogy is understandable doesn't affect the accuracy or legitimacy of it. Hence an analogy can be understandable but also silly

No, but attempting to relate said analogies to sex doesn't make them accurate. This includes the lock and key one.

Also, the lock and key analogy is fairly misogynistic, what with men supposedly having the 'key'

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by shadowdweller
I just did explain why I disagree with it

No, but attempting to relate said analogies to sex doesn't make them accurate. This includes the lock and key one.

Also, the lock and key analogy is fairly misogynistic, what with men supposedly having the 'key'

Posted from TSR Mobile


No, I meant "explain what makes an analogy good if not the fact that it's easily understandable?".

I still haven't seen anything from you that shows that the analogy is inaccurate.

It's only misogynistic if you want it to be. After all, what use is a key without a lock?

You appear to suffer from "Key envy", quite a few feminists also do.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by A Perfect Circle
No, I meant "explain what makes an analogy good if not the fact that it's easily understandable?".

I still haven't seen anything from you that shows that the analogy is inaccurate.

It's only misogynistic if you want it to be. After all, what use is a key without a lock?


See the edit, I realised what you meant just after I posted

As in, in relation to people? Because I think that's fairly clear...

To bre fair, the entire premise is misogynistic, it put men in a position of power, and reinforces the 'lad' vs 'slut' culture

Key envy? What even?

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by shadowdweller
See the edit, I realised what you meant just after I posted

As in, in relation to people? Because I think that's fairly clear...

To bre fair, the entire premise is misogynistic, it put men in a position of power, and reinforces the 'lad' vs 'slut' culture

Key envy? What even?

Posted from TSR Mobile


Fair enough, personally I do think the analogy holds. Agree to disagree.

One could very easily argue that locks are in the position of power. Only the right key may enter and in fact there may not even be a key for some locks.

Again, looking for any reason to get offended. It's quite sad.

"Lad vs slut culture"? Now you're just throwing feminist nonsense catchphrases my way.

Key envy was a joke about girls having penis envy. It's kind of reinforced by the fact that you're looking to make the lock inferior to the key even though people who understand the analogy don't make it so.

It's as if you hate being female and are looking for ways of showing us how much it sucks. I do think girls have it tougher than guys in most ways but self-loathing isn't the answer!
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by A Perfect Circle
Fair enough, personally I do think the analogy holds. Agree to disagree.

One could very easily argue that locks are in the position of power. Only the right key may enter and in fact there may not even be a key for some locks.

Again, looking for any reason to get offended. It's quite sad.

"Lad vs slut culture"? Now you're just throwing feminist nonsense catchphrases my way.

Key envy was a joke about girls having penis envy. It's kind of reinforced by the fact that you're looking to make the lock inferior to the key even though people who understand the analogy don't make it so.

It's as if you hate being female and are looking for ways of showing us how much it sucks. I do think girls have it tougher than guys in most ways but self-loathing isn't the answer!


What meant by the lad comment was the double standard where women are sluts for sleeping with lots of guys, but a man isn't for sleeping with loads of women

Penis envy? I honestly still have no idea what you're talking about

I don't hate being female, I just hate the double standards. But then, I hate the double standards that favour women as well. It's not self loathing to want equality

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 133
Not surprised this thread has being derailed by feminists.

Why do we all have to agree on one view? People may not like people who sleep around (boys and girls EQUALLY), people have these preferences, you feminists can't mold personalities into your own.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by shadowdweller
What meant by the lad comment was the double standard where women are sluts for sleeping with lots of guys, but a man isn't for sleeping with loads of women

Penis envy? I honestly still have no idea what you're talking about

I don't hate being female, I just hate the double standards. But then, I hate the double standards that favour women as well. It's not self loathing to want equality

Posted from TSR Mobile


Tough.

Men and women aren't equal. Deserve equal opportunities and rights sure but we are not equal.

All the feminism in the universe isn't going to stop promiscuous women from being unattractive to men.

The quicker you accept that, the less you'll be let down in the future.
Original post by A Perfect Circle
Tough.

Men and women aren't equal. Deserve equal opportunities and rights sure but we are not equal.

All the feminism in the universe isn't going to stop promiscuous women from being unattractive to men.

The quicker you accept that, the less you'll be let down in the future.


We should be equal though, that's the point

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by shadowdweller
We should be equal though, that's the point

Posted from TSR Mobile


And I should be as handsome as Johnny Depp and as smart as Stephen Hawking...But I'm not.

Not really sure what to say to you now...
Original post by Anonymous
This topic has always intrigued me and I was wondering what you're thoughts are.

I have been going out with my girlfriend for close to 2 years. I would describe her as "nice girl." By this I mean stable, loyal and not a history of sleeping around. This obviously isn't the initial connection lol, but it's something I always look for after I like someone. Only then will I consider them long term material.

So it makes me think of "bad girls." Do they have issues so they sleep around? For a guy sleeping around it's natural and in built-the motive is just sex. But in my limited experience of being with 3 bad girls I felt they all had some issues emotionally. Major turn off that they would be resort to this to deal with it.

Girl 1: We were **** buddies and she wanted more. I knew she was unhappy and it turned out a guy had broken her heart before. Now she was "letting lose" to get over the pain.

Girl 2: Desperate for attention of any kind. She was willing to do anything to please :smile:

Girl 3: Can't find "the one" so just enjoying herself in the mean time. Felt lonely.

I just think it wold be difficult to date some of these girls and I feel sorry for the guy who ends up with them as well as these girls. How can someone call her his princess when she has no standards?

What are you experiences of being in a casual relationship as a guy/girl?


Your poor girlfriend.

If you are attracted to someone and you like sex sleeping with them in no way reflects bad character. Why should it be ok for guys to do that but not girls?
Original post by A Perfect Circle


All the feminism in the universe isn't going to stop promiscuous women from being unattractive to men.



I agree.

Miss Lannister : Don't worry so much about trying to justify the actions of women around you, they would do that themselves if they felt the need.
You know. I'd never even heard that stupid key analogy until I started using TSR. In real life people are far less interested in the sexual habits of others, and a lot less judgemental too!

Quick Reply

Latest