There are some grains of truth in there, but as noted in this thread, I can't expect her to be using a good faith definition of the word "obsessed." And most modern women spend more time on useless vapid shit than guys do on their hobbies. A dude who is a little too into Star Wars but is otherwise a well functioning person with a stable job and life is generally going to be more than the average girl deserves today.
You've never run into manchildren who spend too much time, money, and attention on stupid shit like collecting funko pops? Personally, to each their own I guess but I could see how that is pussy repellent. That is the grain of truth, there are a lot of actual manchildren out there.
The problem comes when one notes that where she draws that line and where I or most reasonable people on this board would draw that line is probably very different.
If they are financially self sufficient enough to support their hobby while having their own place, transportation, job, food, etc, what on earth gives me or anyone else the right to set the measuring standard for what is 'too much'?
You are absolutely allowed to say "I don't like [thing]". You never have the right to say "[thing] is objectively bad because I don't like it". You can definitely say "I don't like when men spend X< amount of time or money on such and such". But that never gives you the authority to declare that it is actually a bad thing based on you not liking it.
I've never met a respectable man that likes funko pops. That shit is for single digit testosterone score cuckolds. Look up the classic "funko allowance" pasta.
Marvel, starwars? Similar shit. If you like games and movies, that isn't inherently bad. If you like gay modern audience slop made for lowest common denominator zombies, that's pretty pathetic.
Agreed. As I get older, I stopped giving a shit what others did with their time assuming they aren't living off the government tit. They have a job and live within their means, thdn what they do with their time is theirs.
That's all well and good, but how is it relevant to the post we're discussing? She just said her and her friends consider a lot of that stuff to be not desirable in a potential husband and father of their children.
Again, I would wager I would strongly disagree on where she draws that line, but the assertions she is making don't exactly run afoul of your rant there. A statement that they don't view it as desirable in a potential mate isn't some grand overarching claim that it's fundamentally bad, although I wouldn't be shocked if she would follow up with that if pressed on it.
I feel like the funko pop people are just into collecting IN GENERAL and the funko plays into and exploits that. Every funko head I've met was into something else, like startrek / star wars/ magic the gathering/ comics first, then got funko cross over stuff, then got more funkos to try to complete that collection...
There are some grains of truth in there, but as noted in this thread, I can't expect her to be using a good faith definition of the word "obsessed." And most modern women spend more time on useless vapid shit than guys do on their hobbies. A dude who is a little too into Star Wars but is otherwise a well functioning person with a stable job and life is generally going to be more than the average girl deserves today.
What precisely are those grains of truth?
You've never run into manchildren who spend too much time, money, and attention on stupid shit like collecting funko pops? Personally, to each their own I guess but I could see how that is pussy repellent. That is the grain of truth, there are a lot of actual manchildren out there.
The problem comes when one notes that where she draws that line and where I or most reasonable people on this board would draw that line is probably very different.
If they are financially self sufficient enough to support their hobby while having their own place, transportation, job, food, etc, what on earth gives me or anyone else the right to set the measuring standard for what is 'too much'?
You are absolutely allowed to say "I don't like [thing]". You never have the right to say "[thing] is objectively bad because I don't like it". You can definitely say "I don't like when men spend X< amount of time or money on such and such". But that never gives you the authority to declare that it is actually a bad thing based on you not liking it.
I've never met a respectable man that likes funko pops. That shit is for single digit testosterone score cuckolds. Look up the classic "funko allowance" pasta.
Marvel, starwars? Similar shit. If you like games and movies, that isn't inherently bad. If you like gay modern audience slop made for lowest common denominator zombies, that's pretty pathetic.
Agreed. As I get older, I stopped giving a shit what others did with their time assuming they aren't living off the government tit. They have a job and live within their means, thdn what they do with their time is theirs.
I can outline why being a manchild is objectively bad in society.
That's all well and good, but how is it relevant to the post we're discussing? She just said her and her friends consider a lot of that stuff to be not desirable in a potential husband and father of their children.
Again, I would wager I would strongly disagree on where she draws that line, but the assertions she is making don't exactly run afoul of your rant there. A statement that they don't view it as desirable in a potential mate isn't some grand overarching claim that it's fundamentally bad, although I wouldn't be shocked if she would follow up with that if pressed on it.
I feel like the funko pop people are just into collecting IN GENERAL and the funko plays into and exploits that. Every funko head I've met was into something else, like startrek / star wars/ magic the gathering/ comics first, then got funko cross over stuff, then got more funkos to try to complete that collection...