shadowplay Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 I really disagree with this. Some men may go for bitchy women, but the majority are attracted to women who are confident but sweet and make them feel good about themselves. You can be kind and assertive. A bitch is somebody who's blatantly nasty to other people ...most men would want nothing to do with with such a woman.
shadowplay Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Boy....yeah...there are a LOT of those out there! It's a fetish, I swear. Tell me about it. I dated a younger guy once who liked to be dominated and had a superhero fetish. He jerked off to wonder woman and anime porn. Needless to say I discovered this way too late into the relationship...
shadowplay Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Just wanted to add that the minority of guys who seek out bitchy women are usually more inexperienced, insecure guys. Confident, level-headed guys go for nicer women. This is something I"ve observed many times. Also, it's true that in the short term you can sometimes hook a guy in by acting bitchy/treating him like ****, but it doesn't work in the long term. He may come crawling back to you in the short term out of insecurity, but he will also hold those bitchy things you did to him against you in the long term and eventually give you the boot. Also it's my experience that the guys who fall for you because you treat them like ****, that their love is cheap. They may idolize you out of insecurity, but it's a love that has no depth.
directx Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Why is reserved considered nice, and assertive with no fear of speaking up, dominating and control freak characteristics in women? This smacks of double standards. Read a little slower to fully comprehend what I wrote to answer your question: Originally Posted by directx I have been just as infatuated with a super nice woman who is very reserved as I have been with a very dominating, 'control freak' woman who doesn't hesitate to say exactly whats on her mind, be it nice or not. For me, its more than just a few characteristic traits that make a woman attractive to me. It has to be the whole package. Note the first line: 'infatuated with a super nice woman who is very reserved'. I specifically state she is a super nice woman. Then I continue describe her as reserved. In no way does it imply that because she is super nice she is reserved. They are not related. I am just describing the woman. Next, again I separate the characteristics of the second woman by describing her personality and how she talks by saying she 'doesn't hesitate to say exactly whats on her mind'. This, in my view, is the opposite of reserved. Now, I top it off with the 'be it nice or NOT'. So woman #2 definetly says stuff that is NOT nice. (and I am not complaining! I love this about her.) But I like them because of what and who they are, and how they behave is PART of who they are. I wouldn't want them any other way. Now I could have written the paragraphs as to say: I have been just as infatuated with a not very nice woman who is very reserved as I have been with a very dominating, 'control freak' woman who doesn't hesitate to say exactly whats on her mind, always being nice. If I wrote the above, are you going to be coming to the same assumption? Of course not. So it looks like you will have to try again to throw 'double standard' stones.
Trialbyfire Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Clarity is good. Consider it before posting next time. To use a generalized statement to sum up what I've learned on LS about this whole subject about treating them mean to keep them keen: "The person who is less invested, always has more control." Keep in mind that there are so many individualized and complex issues at play. Baggage, insecurities and environmentally manufactured foundations, drive many preferences, many times in unhealthy ways.
directx Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Clarity is good. Consider it before posting next time. To use a generalized statement to sum up what I've learned on LS about this whole subject about treating them mean to keep them keen: "The person who is less invested, always has more control." Keep in mind that there are so many individualized and complex issues at play. Baggage, insecurities and environmentally manufactured foundations, drive many preferences, many times in unhealthy ways. You are the only one that found it unclear. What does that tell you? Or does that need clarification as well? Do you have too much Dune spice in your system or what?
LoveLace Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Clarity is good. Consider it before posting next time. To use a generalized statement to sum up what I've learned on LS about this whole subject about treating them mean to keep them keen: "The person who is less invested, always has more control." Is it possible for the two to be equally invested?...or is this a rarity?
directx Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 "The person who is less invested, always has more control." Is it possible for the two to be equally invested?...or is this a rarity? I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of two people being equally invested is that same as happily married couples. Just a guess.
nicki Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 I think the goal of a good relationship is to have both parties equally invested. I don't see how it can really work any other way. How many times have you seen a woman commit herself to a guy who treats her badly? HE isn't commited to her. How many times have you seen a guy who is trying to please a woman who doesn't appreciate him? SHE isn't commited to him. BUT, if you have two people, equally invested in each other, then you will see a healthy relationship. I have spent so much time working on this myself! I no longer give and give to a guy who isn't able to give back. He may be a nice guy, but be very busy with a demanding job.....which makes him unable to commit much time or energy to a relationship. So, unless I don't need much time with him, it's not an equal relationship. I agree with Shadowplay. Guys who fall for you because you treat them like sh#t have a very superficial, if not dysfunctional idea of "love" and are insecure.
Trialbyfire Posted July 26, 2007 Posted July 26, 2007 Is it possible for the two to be equally invested?...or is this a rarity? I've rarely seen it but I personally won't settle for less.
Recommended Posts