Wicked Child Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Many times, majority rules. This is why the majority of men are douchebags, and the majority of women are gossips. People place too much emphasis on finding a man/woman in order to be happy. News flash: You have to make yourself happy before you can make anyone else happy. Duh. Having a bf/gf/husband/wife is NOT what is going to make you happy. so much concern for the aforementioned labels is drowning out the reality of lasting relationships: People need someone they are complementary to. Procrastinators need Punctuals, Dreamers need Realists, Artists need Scientists...Everyone needs (and has) someone who is their complement. Someone who excels in what they lack and vice versa. Someone who is willing to teach them and learn from them. You have to believe you can achieve greatness before you can go beyond that with someone close. When 2 people are happy with themselves and where they are at, and are confident that they can achieve anything, they can then surpass greatness by feeding off each other. Maybe if people viewed relationships like that, it would be easier to find a mate. i can be your typical girl in some ways...I'm a hopeless romantic, I want a family, a home, 2.5 kids and a dog, I like roses...But I am comfortable with the fact that I may never find my complement and will just have to achieve greatness on my own. No big deal. we come to love many people on many different levels throughout our lives. We worry so much about loving someone else and being loved by someone else that we forget the most important person to love: Ourselves.
mr.dream merchant Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Many times, majority rules. This is why the majority of men are douchebags, and the majority of women are gossips. People place too much emphasis on finding a man/woman in order to be happy. News flash: You have to make yourself happy before you can make anyone else happy. Duh. Having a bf/gf/husband/wife is NOT what is going to make you happy. so much concern for the aforementioned labels is drowning out the reality of lasting relationships: People need someone they are complementary to. Procrastinators need Punctuals, Dreamers need Realists, Artists need Scientists...Everyone needs (and has) someone who is their complement. Someone who excels in what they lack and vice versa. Someone who is willing to teach them and learn from them. You have to believe you can achieve greatness before you can go beyond that with someone close. When 2 people are happy with themselves and where they are at, and are confident that they can achieve anything, they can then surpass greatness by feeding off each other. Maybe if people viewed relationships like that, it would be easier to find a mate. i can be your typical girl in some ways...I'm a hopeless romantic, I want a family, a home, 2.5 kids and a dog, I like roses...But I am comfortable with the fact that I may never find my complement and will just have to achieve greatness on my own. No big deal. we come to love many people on many different levels throughout our lives. We worry so much about loving someone else and being loved by someone else that we forget the most important person to love: Ourselves. 2.5? Where's the other half?
Author boxing123 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Posted January 11, 2009 What would the world be like if women did not work? The 1930's. What would the world be like if men did not work? UMMM? Complete catastrophe. Women are not needed to be workers, They are needed and very important for families, and very important to men. When they drift over to become independent workers, society falls apart. So, if you want to land a man, be more old fashioned, as that is what he needs. If you want to be a worker, then everything 50/50, no special status.
Tomcat33 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 People place too much emphasis on finding a man/woman in order to be happy. News flash: You have to make yourself happy before you can make anyone else happy. Duh. Having a bf/gf/husband/wife is NOT what is going to make you happy. But who is to say someone is not happy? What if you are happy? What if you have already dotted all your i's and crossed all your t's? What if you want to fall in love and share all that with a partner and form a family? Or simply want to be intimately close and to care and be taken care of by someone you love? How is that not going to make you happy? Why is it assumed that if a person wants to find love they are insecure unhappy and trying to overcompensate for something? Humans have a basic need for close friendships and companionship we are animals we are not wired to live in solitude. Look at what happens to ceratain animals in the wild or at zoos when their partners die or are taken away, sometimes they fall into a depression and some will even die. If animals have feelings and need that proximity of intimacy to other animals how could WE not? In fact I don't disagree with the OP's post, it was delivered in a somewhat "curt way" but the gest of it is women do put on a a production to attract males and our main goal is to find love and to nurture and procreate. SO WHAT why does that offend so many? Why are we even having this discussion an relationship/ love discussion forum if that's not true!? Whether we choose to procreate or not at some point that is a very different story but most women do have the goals in mind, aside from career and personal social development, to find love and companionship is a very basic need of ours. I don't think the OP is too far off in what he said actually.
Wicked Child Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 But who is to say someone is not happy? What if you are happy? What if you have already dotted all your i's and crossed all your t's? What if you want to fall in love and share all that with a partner and form a family? Or simply want to be intimately close and to care and be taken care of by someone you love? How is that not going to make you happy? Why is it assumed that if a person wants to find love they are insecure unhappy and trying to overcompensate for something? Let's not mince words, or twist them for that matter. In addition to a compatible partner, humans also need other things in order to be happy. Encouragement, achievement, success, emotional and financial stability..and so on. My idea was merely stating that too many people sit around waiting for that special someone to come along before they even start their lives, and many people think that they NEED someone to be able to feel encouraged, or achieve a goal or success. You shouldn't depend on or rely on another for your happiness. in the end it's up to you. I never EVER said that someone who wants to find love is insecure or unhappy...sounds like an underlying issue there...Everyone wants to find love and be loved and love someone, I just think people go about it the wrong way, and place entirely way too much importance on having another person complete them.
Tomcat33 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Let's not mince words, or twist them for that matter. In addition to a compatible partner, humans also need other things in order to be happy. Encouragement, achievement, success, emotional and financial stability..and so on. My idea was merely stating that too many people sit around waiting for that special someone to come along before they even start their lives, and many people think that they NEED someone to be able to feel encouraged, or achieve a goal or success. You shouldn't depend on or rely on another for your happiness. in the end it's up to you. I never EVER said that someone who wants to find love is insecure or unhappy...sounds like an underlying issue there...Everyone wants to find love and be loved and love someone, I just think people go about it the wrong way, and place entirely way too much importance on having another person complete them. But you did say people place too much emphasis on finding a person to be happy. That's an assumption on your part and quite frankly it denotes underlying issues as well. If you are happy and feel like you have completed your goals in other aspects of your life it's only natural you would want to share that with someone else. Your tone was accusatory in your orginal post, now that you explained it it makes more sense what you meant. Having love does complete the picture, you can't deny that. That is what love is, a quest to find a person who can complete the left over inadequacies we carry from our childhoods.
Wicked Child Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Totally agreed. I tend to ramble alot, so I try to shorten my posts, which can in turn make them rather aggressive...I def have underlying issues, no doubt..Dating someone for 6 yrs with absolutely no reason to stay except for that 4 letter word that confuses the brightest of minds...That and being greatly underappreciated and taken for granted...I hafta admit, I'm still pretty jaded.
Tomcat33 Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 Totally agreed. I tend to ramble alot, so I try to shorten my posts, which can in turn make them rather aggressive...I def have underlying issues, no doubt..Dating someone for 6 yrs with absolutely no reason to stay except for that 4 letter word that confuses the brightest of minds...That and being greatly underappreciated and taken for granted...I hafta admit, I'm still pretty jaded. No worries that second post made a lot of sense actually! Thanks for explaining it better. As per your "issues" and 6 yr rel. we've all had one of those where we were afraid to let go and can't understand why we held on for so bloody long. But then once you do you will never do that again. Don't look back, ownard and upward. You are not alone.
movingonandon Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 So treat women well when with them, be generous, and you get all the action you want. Treat them as complete equals, and you will find yourself dateless quickly. As much as i deeply disagree with the original post, the above in my experience is basically true. Women *say* they want to be treated as equals, but when it comes to relationships, this is not, IS NOT true . They have fairly particular expectations, which do not include, for example, sacrificing emotional comfort in order to deal with some unpleasant practical problem. Ideally, the man will deal with it, shielding \them, while also providing them with continued emotional support, even while dealing with it . So yes, women continue to expect to be taken care of, which is true even if they are financially independent. Emotional support is hard work too, you know, (and men want it too, though rarely get it) :) Some guys become bitter after realizing this, some - i consider myself among those - merely realize that they'll easily find a woman in their life whi will be a fine partner, but she probably won't be their "sidekick for life". And therefore, have no choice but to find refuge in old school machismo. Properly applied (i.e. NOT literally), that's the only way to deal with this.
dreamergrl Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 What would the world be like if women did not work? The 1930's. What would the world be like if men did not work? UMMM? Complete catastrophe. Women are not needed to be workers, They are needed and very important for families, and very important to men. When they drift over to become independent workers, society falls apart. So, if you want to land a man, be more old fashioned, as that is what he needs. If you want to be a worker, then everything 50/50, no special status. Funny, I've landed myself a man, and have in the past, had a great status, was equal to them. I worked, he worked, I gave him emotional support, he gave me emotional support. It truly was 50/50 in my past and currant healthy relationships. Really, these days, many families can't afford to have just the man working. Next things your going to say is that women shouldn't vote either.
movingonandon Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Funny, I've landed myself a man, and have in the past, had a great status, was equal to them. I worked, he worked, I gave him emotional support, he gave me emotional support. It truly was 50/50 in my past and currant healthy relationships. Really, these days, many families can't afford to have just the man working. Next things your going to say is that women shouldn't vote either. Again, mostly talk, no walk. I think that the resentment of the OP (and i repeat - i really disagree with the extreme views there etc.) is based on the fact that although the sexes are supposedly equal, the expectations are not, particularly in relationships. If there was true equality, the expectations of men to be primary breadwinners atc. would have been relieved - to the point where both partners have equal fiscal responsibility - but they are not. Case in point - even my ex --> a career driven, future PhD rocket scientists (literally) has repeatedly told me how she wants to take at least a year off (!) to take care of each kid. Well, I don't think this is such a good idea. I'd rather have my wife take some maternal leave, of course, but then be back to work as soon as feasible, in order to keep the family secure, and yes, I'll do my part of the kid-care. But it doesn't work that way. As soon as kids appear, all of a sudden "the most important thing is that kid's have their mom" (who usually gets fat too ) So, although I keep disagreeing with the OP, I can see his point - if equality is not actually happening, let's at least stop pretending. Men are not threatened by women in the workplace in the least. They merely annoyed by the fact that in the new, supposedly equal world of the sexes, they have the exact same responsibilities as they did in the past, plus more **** added on top . Basically now I still need to take care of the fabiiy, just like before, your emotional needs, just like before, and on top of that do more housework and also worry about your career troubles too, while having less stable and less welcoming home . But what's in it for me? All that would be fine if more women actually took their careers seriously and indeed were equal financial pillars of the household. But how often is that?? I do not want a stepford wife, but I cen certainly see the appeal given the contemporary situation . Btw, this also speaks to another recent thread dealing with why so many succesful women are single. It's very hard to have it all (no matter if you're a man or a woman, you can't have it both ways).
Star Gazer Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Since the beginning of time, and still today men have built EVERYTHING. Every brick laid, tunnel dug, road built, energy source taken from the Earth, etc. Nearly every single invention is due to the male. Males are doers, and creators. What were women doing? Trying to find one of those men to take care of them, look pretty, and have babies. This is the biggest piece of crap I've ever heard. The list of accomplishments and inventions by women is a mile long. Even Kevlar was invented by a woman! And when the country went through the Great Depression, who stepped up to the plate to work? Women.
movingonandon Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 This is the biggest piece of crap I've ever heard. The list of accomplishments and inventions by women is a mile long. Even Kevlar was invented by a woman! And when the country went through the Great Depression, who stepped up to the plate to work? Women. Most of the above is true, except for the Great Depression part, when unemployment climbed towards 25%. I'm sure women wanted to help, but thir skills were probably better utilised at home given that job market :laugh:
Tomcat33 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 So, if you want to land a man, be more old fashioned, as that is what he needs. If you want to be a worker, then everything 50/50, no special status. I respect no one but a man can tell us how to "land a man" but can you be specfic? Let's get down to brass tacks. You guys keep throwing around these abstract requests of "be more old fashioned" "if you want equality then..." Can you please define: a) what it means for a woman to be old fashioned b) what is equality to you (pertaining to women wanting it) c) how do you think a woman will be/act if she stays home and doesn't work. Honestly what is this fantasy of a woman who is not into "equality", please outline what this woman is like in a clear and consise picture so that we could all understand what it is that you men are needing from today's women that you are not getting. Knock it off with these whimsical statements, let's lay specifics out on the table shall we?
spookie Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Yes, I completely agree. Women add to men, and men add to women. However, when women push to be "equal" they are nothing but an inferior version of a man. They are not the inventors, builders, fighters, conquerors, problem solvers. Once they enter those spheres, they are just inferior men. I have met so many women that could not put air in their tires. Could not cut their grass. They do not want to be equal. They want to be a special privileged class. As you can see, the idea of even paying for food they ate it repulsive. Lmao. So what is it that you "create"?
Author boxing123 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 UHHH.. During the great depression few people had jobs. Perhaps you are confusing this with ww2. Women then did work in factories that men built, with machines men invented, with a process of manufacturing also developed by men. Of course, the men then went to die, and get their arms and legs blown off. Just for arguments sake, you have to love these wild invention claims.. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Kevlar Developed at Dupont in 1965 by Stephanie Kwolekand Roberto Berendt, it was first commercially used in the early 1970s as a replacement for steel in racing tires. So, I guess we will leave the man and company out, and just say a woman made it, lol.
Author boxing123 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 Well Spookie, I started a business with nothing and employ people. I created that.
BubblyPopcorn Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I like how the topic of this thread went from "Dating in a nutshell" to the "great depression". Oh the irony! LOL
spookie Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Well Spookie, I started a business with nothing and employ people. I created that. And your accomplishments couldn't have been acheived by a woman?
Author boxing123 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 I respect no one but a man can tell us how to "land a man" but can you be specfic? Let's get down to brass tacks. You guys keep throwing around these abstract requests of "be more old fashioned" "if you want equality then..." Can you please define: a) what it means for a woman to be old fashioned b) what is equality to you (pertaining to women wanting it) c) how do you think a woman will be/act if she stays home and doesn't work. Honestly what is this fantasy of a woman who is not into "equality", please outline what this woman is like in a clear and consise picture so that we could all understand what it is that you men are needing from today's women that you are not getting. Knock it off with these whimsical statements, let's lay specifics out on the table shall we? A. I can tell you this. I dated a woman whom loved to cook. She was not the most beautiful I have dated, but when we were together she cooked 3 times a day. We did what I wanted, and there was little complaining or challenging. The things I wanted to do were things she would like anyway, but she let me be the man. She was the same person for more than 3 days in a row. Steady, Strong. She did not go on and on and on about only her problems. I would have married her, but she could not have children, and one day I do want them. So I consider her to be more old fashioned. B. Women want to be "equal" in some ways, but still have things old fashioned when it benefits them. Girls my age refuse to cook or do anything considered "women's work", but still expect men to pay, pay for trips, dates, make more money than them, fix things, listen to their problems, be chivalrous etc. Like they have to constantly be entertained, or they are "bored'. Unrealistic expectations. C. If a woman has children , I think she should stay home with them for a few years at least. If she is single no kids, she needs a hobby, job, passion, etc. However, I would NEVER marry a woman married to her career. And the woman I mentioned was married soon after we broke up. We are still friends. She was not on the market long. Women far more beautiful could never land the type of guy she did. She was selfless, understood team work, and let the man lead. She followed happily, and at the same time was very intelligent. So in a nutshell, she was submissive, yet strong. She could be relied on, but also knew how to treat a man and make him feel needed and aprreciated.
Tomcat33 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Cool that at least explains specifically where you are coming from thanks for explaining. Now, can you elaborate what you mean by "did things I like and didn't challenge me?" Because everything else seemed completely reasonable but when you say that it seems you want a lap dog. Do you happen to like being out a few nights a week running around with the boys while she waits for you at home? Do you happen to prefer that woman not go out to dinner with a few girlfriends if she feels the need to see some friends? Do you spend all nighters and benders drinking and going to strip joints and expect no complaints from your woman? Please explain this "we do what we like and I don't get challenged" bit. She was the same person three days in a row????? Can you also explain that, it sounds very weird. What are women your age?
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 We did what I wanted, and there was little complaining or challenging. And that explains your views of a woman's place quite nicely- in a nutshell.
Author boxing123 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 Cool that at least explains specifically where you are coming from thanks for explaining. Now, can you elaborate what you mean by "did things I like and didn't challenge me?" Because everything else seemed completely reasonable but when you say that it seems you want a lap dog. Do you happen to like being out a few nights a week running around with the boys while she waits for you at home? Do you happen to prefer that woman not go out to dinner with a few girlfriends if she feels the need to see some friends? Do you spend all nighters and benders drinking and going to strip joints and expect no complaints from your woman? Please explain this "we do what we like and I don't get challenged" bit. She was the same person three days in a row????? Can you also explain that, it sounds very weird. What are women your age? Women my age would be 27-32. By did things I like, I am speaking of little things when we are together. If we had a weekend off, we would go for a drive, go to the pool, go to the movies, go to a bar, etc. We liked to do similar things, and she was happy to do anything, as was I. So I picked, planned, and she came along. In contrast, many women want the man to plan, but often times voice displeasure in your choice of anything. Didn't like the restaurant, didn't like the weather, didn't like the movie, etc. Very annoying when people are very picky, and they didn't plan or pay. I was never the type to have a girlfriend and go out and get drunk all night, or go to strip joints. I am happy for her if she has friends to see, etc. So that was never an issue, as if I had free time, I would be with her. Same person 3 days in a row? Well you have not dated women, but I can tell you they can be very moody, needy, questioning, hot, cold, in love, bored, etc. Want sex, don't want sex. Drama.. Bring up something you said a year ago , etc. I have met women that are emotionally stable, but many are not.
Tomcat33 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Ok that's fair, so you want someone who is even keeled and who is into time with you as opposed to the entertainment value where by you are having to constantly pull rabbits out of your butt to keep them happy. That's reasonable. It sounds like the women who were not like that, it boiled down to compatibility issues. I really don't know that it's because one is more "old fashioned" than the other. I really don't see what is so "women if you want to land a man you need to be old fashioned" about that? That is not old fashioned that is compatible. Compatibility is as much as we want to make it. Maybe the other women just weren't all that into you?
dreamergrl Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 A. I can tell you this. I dated a woman whom loved to cook. She was not the most beautiful I have dated, but when we were together she cooked 3 times a day. We did what I wanted, and there was little complaining or challenging. The things I wanted to do were things she would like anyway, but she let me be the man. She was the same person for more than 3 days in a row. Steady, Strong. She did not go on and on and on about only her problems. I would have married her, but she could not have children, and one day I do want them. So I consider her to be more old fashioned. Sounds like you want someone to bow down to you. Oh, and you know if you truly did love her and could marry her, there are other forms of having kids (like adoption). Or fertility help, ect ect. B. Women want to be "equal" in some ways, but still have things old fashioned when it benefits them. Girls my age refuse to cook or do anything considered "women's work", but still expect men to pay, pay for trips, dates, make more money than them, fix things, listen to their problems, be chivalrous etc. Like they have to constantly be entertained, or they are "bored'. Unrealistic expectations. C. If a woman has children , I think she should stay home with them for a few years at least. If she is single no kids, she needs a hobby, job, passion, etc. However, I would NEVER marry a woman married to her career. And the woman I mentioned was married soon after we broke up. We are still friends. She was not on the market long. Women far more beautiful could never land the type of guy she did. She was selfless, understood team work, and let the man lead. She followed happily, and at the same time was very intelligent. So in a nutshell, she was submissive, yet strong. She could be relied on, but also knew how to treat a man and make him feel needed and aprreciated. How do you figure beautiful women can not land a great man?
Recommended Posts