Cherry Blossom 35 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Subservience is very unattractive to me. It is to most people. If I were a guy, I wouldn't want a woman to be with me because she had no other options, or because I was somehow forcing her to stay with me. I'm watching a movie right now, The House of Mirth. It is set in the 1800's in America, and the main character is losing her fortune. She has no ability to earn her own income, therefore must marry. The man she loves won't marry her because her family is not in good standing, or something like that. Some of the women in the movie are married, but they don't love their husbands, they just need them. The women in this movie are not free, and they are not happy. Neither is the woman's lover. Societal restrictions prevent him from being with the woman he truly loves. Yes, I know this is just a movie, but it describes a certain place and time where these situations were common. There is a reason that the women's movement occurred. It is not because women were content with their stations in life. Yes, life is messier in some ways now. Lines are blurred, and neither gender fully understand what is expected of them at times. Just read some of the threads on this forum. What is the proper way to approach a woman? How do I act on a first date? Do I go full force or hold back a little bit? Yet, for all its messiness, we are all more free to create the worlds that make sense to us. We cannot be fully human without the ability to fully realize our potentials. And yes, that includes making mistakes. Perhaps there is a woman who waited to have children, and now she regrets that decision. What does she do now? Maybe she adopts a child from China. Maybe she decides to pursue that art career she always wanted. Maybe she mentors in her community and brings opportunity and possibility to a young child with limited means. To say that a woman who does not have children is not fully human is insulting. What about the woman who desperately wants to have kids but her body won't comply? This woman does not have the ability to cash in her human card? Freedom is what humans will always work towards. That will not change, and indeed it shouldn't.
burning 4 revenge Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 It's like the guy who loves to think he's a great horseman even though the reality is that he hasn't developed the necessary affinity with horses, or the confident and competent approach that wins their respect. He clambers onto an animal that's not a novice ride, starts yanking aggressively and incompetently at the reins....flapping his legs, gets thrown off and blames the horse for not being properly trained. "That's not a proper horse. Get me a docile little Shetland pony. Now that's a real horse, as a horse should be. A horse that can be in proper partnership with a man...." Go Daizey does this have something to do with pricksize?
Isolde Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I think the issue of authority in a relationship is different from the issue of owning someone else. Within freedom of women comes a choice: you can choose to be in a traditional relationship, where the man makes more decisions and asserts a slightly dominant role, or in a modern relationship, where both partners have an equal say, or anything in between. It's all about choice here. I don't think most women want to be the "man" in a relationship, not by a long shot. We like to be protected. By the right man.
Storyrider Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Men can only feel big if they have someone smaller to dominate, men are nothing more than scared little boys who want to marry their mothers, men may think they are somehow demonstrating masculinity by sitting at desks typing on computers, but any pansie can do that, even a woman. Blah, blah, blah, blah. See how ridiculous it sounds.
clv0116 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 It's all about choice here. I don't think most women want to be the "man" in a relationship, not by a long shot. We like to be protected. By the right man. That's been my experience as well, many women want this but they have to be with someone they respect before they can feel confident in handing over the reins.
Storyrider Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 clv, Why are you and boxing both so insistant on telling women what they truly want and feel? I'm not being sarcastic, I just honestly don't understand it. You both repeatedly argue that women cannot think like men or relate like men. Fine. But why do you assume you can think like a woman?
Isolde Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Yet, for all its messiness, we are all more free to create the worlds that make sense to us. Beautifully written there.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 clv, Why are you and boxing both so insistant on telling women what they truly want and feel? I'm not being sarcastic, I just honestly don't understand it. You both repeatedly argue that women cannot think like men or relate like men. Fine. But why do you assume you can think like a woman? This is so true. They say that we cannot possibly understand what it means to be a man. They say that we are arrogant for even thinking we can. Yet they not only know what we feel, but what we should feel, felt 200 years ago, feel today, feel really deep down because we just don't know what's best for us...
clv0116 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Why are you and boxing both so insistant on telling women what they truly want and feel? I'm not being sarcastic, I just honestly don't understand it. Don't drag me into his crap-flinging contest. I agree with a small subset of what he says, don't assume we're interchangeable cogs. At most all I've done is share my observations and a few opinions.
pollywag Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Don't drag me into his crap-flinging contest. I agree with a small subset of what he says, don't assume we're interchangeable cogs. At most all I've done is share my observations and a few opinions. Nice cop out answer. You dragged yourself into this conversation by making blanket statments speaking for women and then in other instances you tell women not to speak for men. Why don't you address the question that was asked of you instead of getting caught up in semantics of defending character association, which was not by any stretch the main point of the question? Here I will repost the question it incase you missed what was being asked of you: clv, Why are you and boxing both so insistant on telling women what they truly want and feel? I'm not being sarcastic, I just honestly don't understand it. You both repeatedly argue that women cannot think like men or relate like men. Fine. But why do you assume you can think like a woman?
clv0116 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Nice cop out answer. You dragged yourself into this conversation by making blanket statments speaking for women and then in other instances you tell women not to speak for men. I just reread every one of my posts in this thread and I really don't see what you're talking about. Please show me where I dragged myself into this conversation by making blanket statments speaking for women.
elaina Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I totally agree with Ariadne's quote after she quoted Boxing123: "Originally Posted by boxing123 I think women really would prefer being owned. They are a man's possession. He does not stray. He gives her love and great sex. He takes the lead. He supports her, and she knows he always will. She trusts him. She has no worries. When I read this and think of the right guy, it sounds like heaven. But when I imagine this scenario with any other guy, I'm already thinking of how to run away from there." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- That is so true! If the man is the "right" one, then sure gracias a Dios! (thank God) If he's not a good man though or the chemistry or whatever isn't there, then yikes let me out of here!!!! Seriously! I also 100% agree with stockalone about that the woman also "owns" the man. Both "own" each other, but it is not the most appropriate verb: to own... there's got to be a better verb than that. Maybe, to cherish? Men and women usually cherish in different ways. My Papaw and Mamaw (Grandfather and Grandmother) got married when she was 16 and he was 17. He was the kind of Irish guy who he would just raise his coffee cup and Mamaw would fill it. Both worked in factories since they were kids and when they got married in their midteens, both continued to work both outside the home and in the home. In the home, Papaw would take out the trash, fix appliances, mow the yard, go fishing to supplement their groceries, take care of their car, and so forth. Mamaw would cook and clean and run errands and pay the bills. Both would take care of the kids... my Mom, their oldest child, would go and help her Dad cause she liked outdoor work better than indoor work. Anyways, Mamaw just passed away 3 weeks ago from Bone Cancer. Papaw is inconsolable because for almost 55 years, he and Mamaw have been best friends. Their marriage was one of the only ones I've personally known in where they loved each other AND didn't try to change each other and worked together. Now Papaw is starting to come out of his pain by helping others, but we know Mamaw is in Heaven with God and is also a part of Papaw. Long story I know, but you could say that when Papaw calls Mamaw "his" wife, it is true that he and she completely "owned" or as I would say, cherished each other.
JerseyShortie Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Perhaps I am. I do see shades of grey on many topics, but when it comes to sex, males, females, and how they relate, and what both TRULY seem to want from one another, I feel simplicity is best. Defined roles. Yes, trying to decipher mixed messages and signals is difficult. You do not date women. I do. I actually feel women LOATHE men that see them as equals. Yes, LOATHE them. Women do not want to make half the decisions, plan the future, pay for half, hear about the man's problems, physically protect a man, etc. Women do not want to be viewed as inferior, but also do not want to be truly equal. TRULY equal. They want some mix of a chivalrous man, who takes care of them, but seemingly also does not expect much in return. Through all of this they also claim to want their independence.. Or they are told they SHOULD be independent. So what women want, and say they want, are often times completely different. Okay well you keep on telling us women what we want and we will keep on going about our business about what we really want. We might not date women, but we are women and deserve to have a say in the matter. Why don't you stop telling us what you *think* is right and try listening to what some women here are telling you *is* right. I suspect with your current thought process, you will have a rocky relationship anyway. Some things you say would be more understood if your viewpoint wasn't so extremist. It's about balance frankly. And if you think men are no more confusing or don't send mixed messages themselves, you don't have a clue.
clv0116 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Okay well you keep on telling us women what we want .... Where is this quote from?
clv0116 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 No one should own anyone. One of the girls I date keeps saying "You are mine 116" .... that sounds like ownership to me.
burning 4 revenge Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 No one should own anyone. yes they should hippie
Author boxing123 Posted March 14, 2009 Author Posted March 14, 2009 I totally agree with Ariadne's quote after she quoted Boxing123: "Originally Posted by boxing123 I think women really would prefer being owned. They are a man's possession. He does not stray. He gives her love and great sex. He takes the lead. He supports her, and she knows he always will. She trusts him. She has no worries. When I read this and think of the right guy, it sounds like heaven. But when I imagine this scenario with any other guy, I'm already thinking of how to run away from there." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- That is so true! If the man is the "right" one, then sure gracias a Dios! (thank God) If he's not a good man though or the chemistry or whatever isn't there, then yikes let me out of here!!!! Seriously! Well of course with the right one.. I mean any form of relationship with the "wrong one" would seem to be pretty miserable. All I am saying is women need to be open to letting the right one act as he should. None of you independent women like "submissive men". You want to be taken care of and in a way "owned" by a benevolent, caring, strong and charismatic man, but modern society is telling you that you should not want this. All I am saying is go with your gut, more natural instincts. Let the feminists be miserable on their own.
Woggle Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I would not call it owning but you are right that strong and independent women tend to fall for the man that can put them in their place even if it is on a subconcious level. These submissive and sensitive men get dumped on constantly in the relationship world.
Isolde Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I would not call it owning but you are right that strong and independent women tend to fall for the man that can put them in their place even if it is on a subconcious level. These submissive and sensitive men get dumped on constantly in the relationship world. Strong and sensitive are not mutually exclusive, Woggle.
burning 4 revenge Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I would not call it owning but you are right that strong and independent women tend to fall for the man that can put them in their place even if it is on a subconcious level. These submissive and sensitive men get dumped on constantly in the relationship world.well yeah, of course physically women are the submissive sex that is penetrated, so of course they want a partner that is more dominant, but not to the extent of a being a possesive, jealous a**hole
You'reasian Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I would not call it owning but you are right that strong and independent women tend to fall for the man that can put them in their place even if it is on a subconcious level. These submissive and sensitive men get dumped on constantly in the relationship world. Never mistake kindness for weakness, but I agree with you otherwise. The strength of a relationship depends on how attracted the woman is to a man, for whatever reason. If a woman is strongly attracted to a man whom is luke-warm to her, she will persue, defend him and make the relationship easy for him. In the reverse case, the woman will generally avoid, be complascent or just not that interested. When a man can put her in her place, it generally works out.
burning 4 revenge Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Never mistake kindness for weakness, but I agree with you otherwise. The strength of a relationship depends on how attracted the woman is to a man, for whatever reason. If a woman is strongly attracted to a man whom is luke-warm to her, she will persue, defend him and make the relationship easy for him. In the reverse case, the woman will generally avoid, be complascent or just not that interested. When a man can put her in her place, it generally works out.yes true whether or not a man is a jerk or a protector oftentimes depends on how attracted the woman is to him more than anything he does himself
You'reasian Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 yes true whether or not a man is a jerk or a protector oftentimes depends on how attracted the woman is to him more than anything he does himself Same could be said in response to sexuality. If a woman is attracted to a man with a high sex-drive, he's a sex-machine who has the potential to rock her socks off and the sex is usually amazing. If she isn't attracted to him, he's just an annoying perv.
Storyrider Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Of course women sometimes like to be dominated by men. I'm sure Marie Curie got turned on when Pierre took her on the lab table.
Recommended Posts