Trialbyfire Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 The bolded part can mean many things. And one can be can be self-supporting, fiscally responsible at various income levels.Refer to my previous posts for clarification. There is nothing wrong with wanting somebody who shares your ideals and appreciates the same lifestyle. What I didn't and still don't understand is what intelligence has to with that. That is what confused me. It's not like all intelligent people are driven by monetary motives. At the very least, ambition and financial success don't always go hand in hand. In looking back at the men I've been serious about, they've all been highly intelligent men, primarily in business or technology, with the drive to succeed, hence advance. This does tend to equate to financial success but truth be told, equalled but none that has exceeded me yet. I've been asked out by men who far exceeded me in financial success. Most were self-entitled smucks. Pass...
Author MaxManwell Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 Max, I take it you mean serve in the sense of waiting on, taking care of, doing for and so on. No, I don't do things for my man past the point of being considerate. For example, if I get to the door first, I hold it open for him. If I'm making myself a snack, I ask if he would like to share. Carrot I wouldn't want a wife or girlfriend to wait on me because it would be demeaning. I mean like doing my ironing and cooking me dinner and dishing it up on the table then insisting on doing the washing up kind of thing. Something nice, a favor but done in a nonsexual and feminine way.
KenzieAbsolutely Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 "My only weakness is a list of crimes; My only weakness is well,....Nevermind, Nevermind..." Shoplifters of the world unite - The Smiths "hand it over, hand it over, hand it over...." best song ever. thanks for that, lol. and......hang the dj, hang the dj... but in keeping on-topic, i would like to say that i think couples should 'serve' each other. duh.
carrotgirl Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I wouldn't want a wife or girlfriend to wait on me because it would be demeaning. I mean like doing my ironing and cooking me dinner and dishing it up on the table then insisting on doing the washing up kind of thing. Something nice, a favor but done in a nonsexual and feminine way. A favor done in a non-sexual and [yet] feminine way? I suppose I could put his toilet seat UP after I'm done. Carrot
KenzieAbsolutely Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 A favor done in a non-sexual and [yet] feminine way? I suppose I could put his toilet seat UP after I'm done. Carrot LOL! :lmao: good one.
Author MaxManwell Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 A favor done in a non-sexual and [yet] feminine way? I suppose I could put his toilet seat UP after I'm done. Carrot Thats alright I'll remember to piss on the seat anyway I left out the "yet" because it implies that a non-sexual feminine way is somehow out of the norm therefore objectifying women.
carrotgirl Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Thats alright I'll remember to piss on the seat anyway I left out the "yet" because it implies that a non-sexual feminine way is somehow out of the norm therefore objectifying women. Is it really possible to ignore sex or objectification of women given the nature of the question? Here's the problem I have with the idea of serving (in any romantic relationship, it's not just a boy-girl issue): Service is proxy for transaction. I do for him because he did or will do for me. It sounds reasonable right? What happens if I do for him and then he doesn't do for me? It's not so reasonable now. There's an inequality in response. Most people consider this inequality to actually be a deficit. I did for him, he didn't do for me so now he owes me. Take it a step further: I did for him and he didn't do for me so now I will withhold _______ until the deficit is repaired. Take it further still, I did for him and he didn't do for me so now I will withhold _______ until he repairs the deficit AND performs these other extra services. People transact with all kinds of things in their relationships, sex is arguably the currency used the most. Carrot
Author MaxManwell Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 Is it really possible to ignore sex or objectification of women given the nature of the question? Here's the problem I have with the idea of serving (in any romantic relationship, it's not just a boy-girl issue): Service is proxy for transaction. I do for him because he did or will do for me. It sounds reasonable right? What happens if I do for him and then he doesn't do for me? It's not so reasonable now. There's an inequality in response. Most people consider this inequality to actually be a deficit. I did for him, he didn't do for me so now he owes me. Take it a step further: I did for him and he didn't do for me so now I will withhold _______ until the deficit is repaired. Take it further still, I did for him and he didn't do for me so now I will withhold _______ until he repairs the deficit AND performs these other extra services. People transact with all kinds of things in their relationships, sex is arguably the currency used the most. Carrot Fair point but isn't that what leads to women believing that the only thing they have to do is sex ? Leading to all sorts of other problems.
carrotgirl Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Fair point but isn't that what leads to women believing that the only thing they have to do is sex ? Leading to all sorts of other problems. I don't understand your question. I think I was rendered senseless by the blatant, sweeping sexism. Carrot
Stockalone Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 In looking back at the men I've been serious about, they've all been highly intelligent men, primarily in business or technology, with the drive to succeed, hence advance. This does tend to equate to financial success but truth be told, equalled but none that has exceeded me yet. I don't doubt that the majority of financially successful (which can also mean different things to people) people is intelligent. And financial success will also be influenced by the field of work people choose. There are people with different ambitions. Not all intelligent people are driven by monetary motives. I know highly intelligent people who became teachers, others chose public service over the private sector, etc.
Trialbyfire Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I don't doubt that the majority of financially successful (which can also mean different things to people) people is intelligent. It's just that I know that there are people with different ambitions. Not all intelligent people are driven by monetary motives. I know highly intelligent people who became teachers, others chose public service over the private sector, etc. It's a matter of attraction and environmental exposure. I'm in the finance side of business with a technology spin of which it's very much my interest, including politics and Econ. A lot of my friends are the same. I tend to meet men through business and through my friends. I rarely if never, date anyone I don't get to know first.
carrotgirl Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Stockalone, what's key to remember is that each person's concept of the "whole package" is conditional and subjective. Carrot
Stockalone Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 It's a matter of attraction and environmental exposure. I'm in the finance side of business with a technology spin of which it's very much my interest, including politics and Econ. A lot of my friends are the same. I tend to meet men through business and through my friends. I rarely if never, date anyone I don't get to know first. Most of the people I went to University with went into acccounting or consulting, many of them are now self-employed. You sound like them, and I don't mean that in a bad way. That line of work was never for me though. I totally get the environmental exposure thing. In my case, I am the only one in my circle of close friends with a business degree and that usually means the women I get to know through friends are more likely to have different backgrounds. No entrepreneurs, none of them self-employed.
Trialbyfire Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Most of the people I went to University with went into acccounting or consulting, many of them are now self-employed. You sound like them, and I don't mean that in a bad way. That line of work was never for me though. I totally get the environmental exposure thing. In my case, I am the only one in my circle of close friends with a business degree and that usually means the women I get to know through friends are more likely to have different backgrounds. No entrepreneurs, none of them self-employed. You've pegged me since I'm a self-employed consultant. It was a natural progression for me since the world domination corporate attitude started wearing on me and I was prepping to start a family with my ex-H. Thank goodness the family part never happened!!!!!!! Yes, you do understand. Unless you're prepared to branch out by using online dating sites or asking strangers out, you're not going to find someone of similar background.
Stockalone Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Stockalone, what's key to remember is that each person's concept of the "whole package" is conditional and subjective. Carrot I know that. I was just curious about TBF's situation, because I didn't completely understand her reasoning.
Stockalone Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 You've pegged me since I'm a self-employed consultant. It was a natural progression for me since the world domination corporate attitude started wearing on me and I was prepping to start a family with my ex-H. Thank goodness the family part never happened!!!!!!! Not about the family part but the work part. Yes, you do understand. Unless you're prepared to branch out by using online dating sites or asking strangers out, you're not going to find someone of similar background. Women with the same background usually consider me to be not ambitious enough. Being not ambitious enough never seems to come up with women that work in other professions. So I don't mind meeting women through friends at all.
carrotgirl Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I know that. I was just curious about TBF's situation, because I didn't completely understand her reasoning. Whatever. I don't really understand why her reasoning is so important to you. She has a preference. It's her preference and thus, inarguable. Carrot
Trialbyfire Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Women with the same background usually consider me to be not ambitious enough. Being not ambitious enough never seems to come up with women that work in other professions. So I don't mind meeting women through friends at all. Ah, gotcha! Then you have the perfect niche to appeal to! Same goes for me. I'm a niche player (not a playah ). There's a very small target audience that appeals to me and I want to appeal to. I don't buy into the need to universally appeal. It's a losing proposition if you buy into an ever-moving rise and fall bar.
Trialbyfire Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Whatever. I don't really understand why her reasoning is so important to you. She has a preference. It's her preference and thus, inarguable. Carrot It's okay Carrot. If you read his last post to me, you'll see why he was curious about my reasoning.
carrotgirl Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 It's okay Carrot. If you read his last post to me, you'll see why he was curious about my reasoning. Yah. I'd gotten the personalizing bit two pages ago! To be with me a guy has to have all that you described (developing nation is optional) and very, very strong self-confidence! I liked the serving question because it so closely tracks what I think is wrong with a lot of relationships. The whole giving what isn't desired bit.... and not giving what is desired.... having so much of one's identity wrapped up in another.... Carrot
Trialbyfire Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Yah. I'd gotten the personalizing bit two pages ago! To be with me a guy has to have all that you described (developing nation is optional) and very, very strong self-confidence! I liked the serving question because it so closely tracks what I think is wrong with a lot of relationships. The whole giving what isn't desired bit.... and not giving what is desired.... having so much of one's identity wrapped up in another.... Carrot Yes, a healthy relationship isn't a competition of who gets/gives more/less, in the only way that's considered valid currency. You either mesh with similarities or you don't.
mental_traveller Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 I think everyone should serve me. I can't believe it's taking them so long to come around to my point of view.
Author MaxManwell Posted June 16, 2008 Author Posted June 16, 2008 Ah, gotcha! Then you have the perfect niche to appeal to! Same goes for me. I'm a niche player (not a playah ). There's a very small target audience that appeals to me and I want to appeal to. I don't buy into the need to universally appeal. It's a losing proposition if you buy into an ever-moving rise and fall bar. Most of that just begs the original questions. I don't think you'd ever hear that coming from a man. You're acting on something primal, the need to be with a superior man and women don't historically marry down. Its actually amusing to see you try to twist it into something else. Thats alright though you are what you are. There's a very small target audience that appeals to me and I want to appeal to. Yeah me too, six foot tall blonde's with long legs and large breasts.
D-Lish Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 I'd never embark on a relationship where any person expected me to be subservient... I'd prefer to keep that sort of unbalanced power to the bedroom only- where it serves my needs nicely! When it comes down to day to day interactions- I like reciprocal. I want someone that will put me in my place when I am being a jerk and can and should hope the same from me! I'll cook and clean- I'll wash his smelly socks and make him his favorite meal ----- when I am not busy working.
Trialbyfire Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 Most of that just begs the original questions. I don't think you'd ever hear that coming from a man. You're acting on something primal, the need to be with a superior man and women don't historically marry down. Its actually amusing to see you try to twist it into something else. Thats alright though you are what you are.I sense a little condescension in your comments. Since when did I mention needing a superior man. More than anything I need a man who is my equal in all things. If I were looking for a superior man, I would say so. Yeah me too, six foot tall blonde's with long legs and large breasts. If that's all your criteria, you've got some pretty simple standards.
Recommended Posts