brainygirl Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Then why do some women feel the need to constantly remind us how useless we are now that they make their own money? for example?
Woggle Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 for example? A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. A quote from Gloria Steniem who then went against everything she believed in.
brainygirl Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Then why do the behavior of women point that it is true? Which ones? Specific examples?
lucylove Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 You should look for these qualities in a man, but I wouldn't recommend picking a guy who has these qualities and does nothing for you. Pick someone you have deeper feelings for, whom you can fall in love with over time. That is deep love, and it is much better than the "love" some women refer to when they are talking about some really hunky, emotionally immature guy who uses them. So don't JUST marry for those reasons. But on the same token, don't go chasing around noncommittal types expecting that one day they'll "realize" they want to be your "hubby." Pursue men who have these qualities you mention and eventually you will find one you really care for. I'm not saying what is right or wrong because I don't think it's that simple. But just me, personally...if I married some guy I didn't have love for I think I'd get bored with him after a while and that could lead to unpleasant outcomes.
threebyfate Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. A quote from Gloria Steniem who then went against everything she believed in.Wrong. That quote belonged to Irina Dunn prior to 1980. It's now 2010, 30 years later. Shall we hold onto Darwin's blatant sexist stances on women, holding all men responsible for his beliefs and rejecting his "On the Origin of Species"? Come on. Start sourcing from reality.
brainygirl Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. A quote from Gloria Steniem who then went against everything she believed in. Are we talking need as in people need food and oxygen. Or are we talking need as in desire for love and companionship? Because I could technically survive. But as a human who desires love and a partner, yeah, a guy is part of that and until I find that guy, I'll be alone.
waynebrady Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 Which ones? Specific examples? For example women never take any initiatives with men, never approach men, infact they make it harder by playing hard to get when men try to pursue them, never puts in any effort, never initiates phone calls or any means of contact not just in the beggining but even in long term relationships, are always passive and let's the man do all the "work", never shows any intrest in sex or any form of physical intimacy and so on, I can bring more examples... To me it seems women kinda have to be "convinced" to agree to be in a relationship with a guy, the guy has to basicly work to win the woman over.
bac Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 What is marriage besides a financial agreement? Marriage is primarily about children. Children is the most important thing in marriage. Then, marriage is also about friendship, social support, emotional support, financial support. If marriage lacks friendship, social, financial and emotional support, the marriage will not survive. From what I know, when a man wants to get married, he has expectations that he is going to have sex with his wife. This idea stimulates him to get married. Possible economical benefits of getting married stimulate men to get married as well.
brainygirl Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 For example women never take any initiatives with men, never approach men, infact they make it harder by playing hard to get when men try to pursue them, never puts in any effort, never initiates phone calls or any means of contact not just in the beggining but even in long term relationships, are always passive and let's the man do all the "work", never shows any intrest in sex or any form of physical intimacy and so on, I can bring more examples... To me it seems women kinda have to be "convinced" to agree to be in a relationship with a guy, the guy has to basicly work to win the woman over. You're killing my argument with the specificity of your examples here . . . . . On, wait, not really. You're whining about the same vague, stereotypical outmoded BS as always. When women are interested, they make it known.
D-Jam Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 (edited) I won't seriously date a man who makes significantly less than I do, but I'm a teacher so its not like I'm ever going to be a millionaire. I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman wanting a man who makes a decent living and has a stable career. It's no more wrong than a guy who wants a woman who has a career and stable financial life. I've seen both sides reject marrying someone even because that other person has loads of debt...or they can't hold a job. Even guys who turn away women who clearly show they want to get married soon and quit working. I'll even go further...if a woman who makes **** money wants to marry a guy who is fabulously wealthy, then she has a right to try for it. Bear in mind though she might not get what she wants. That's the key, and why guys need to stop getting irked when a woman says she wants a hot wealthy guy. Why get mad or trash her? She's made her ideas clear and thus as a man you know she's not right for you. It's also her own fault if she doesn't find her ideal man. Move on. Same deal if a bland looking guy says he wants a hot trophy stepford wife. He can ask for anything he wants, but like the woman in the previous example, it doesn't mean he'll get it. No sense getting mad. I just think though in reference to this topic, when one suddenly decides they'll marry someone they are not really attracted to just because he/she will be a stable spouse, then they're missing the big point of it all...and they need to do the world a favor and rethink their own lives. To me, it's selfish and wrong for a woman to marry a guy simply out of convenience, when she can't fathom sleeping with him and/or doesn't enjoy it. When she lusts for other men or worse cheats on her stable husband to fulfill her secret desires. It's selfish and wrong for a man to marry a woman out of convenience either, or when he knows he can't be faithful. Marry out of love and only love. If you can't seem to find the "total package" you dream of, then really stop and wonder if you're asking for too much in this world. Like I always say: Standards for a mate are only good is you can actually attain such a person as your mate. Edited November 4, 2010 by D-Jam
dreamingoftigers Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman wanting a man who makes a decent living and has a stable career. It's no more wrong than a guy who wants a woman who has a career and stable financial life. I've seen both sides reject marrying someone even because that other person has loads of debt...or they can't hold a job. Even guys who turn away women who clearly show they want to get married soon and quit working. I'll even go further...if a woman who makes **** money wants to marry a guy who is fabulously wealthy, then she has a right to try for it. Bear in mind though she might not get what she wants. That's the key, and why guys need to stop getting irked when a woman says she wants a hot wealthy guy. Why get mad or trash her? She's made her ideas clear and thus as a man you know she's not right for you. It's also her own fault if she doesn't find her ideal man. Move on. Same deal if a bland looking guy says he wants a hot trophy stepford wife. He can ask for anything he wants, but like the woman in the previous example, it doesn't mean he'll get it. No sense getting mad. I just think though in reference to this topic, when one suddenly decides they'll marry someone they are not really attracted to just because he/she will be a stable spouse, then they're missing the big point of it all...and they need to do the world a favor and rethink their own lives. To me, it's selfish and wrong for a woman to marry a guy simply out of convenience, when she can't fathom sleeping with him and/or doesn't enjoy it. When she lusts for other men or worse cheats on her stable husband to fulfill her secret desires. It's selfish and wrong for a man to marry a woman out of convenience either, or when he knows he can't be faithful. Marry out of love and only love. If you can't seem to find the "total package" you dream of, then really stop and wonder if you're asking for too much in this world. Like I always say: Standards for a mate are only good is you can actually attain such a person as your mate. I think it is utter foolishness to marry for "convenience." Lots of times marriage is damn inconvenient. Money may come and go, houses and looks and much of what is here today may disappear. In fact at some point it probably will. What then? Marriage can be tough enough when you love and respect someone, imagine if you didn't even have that. What a crappy life. Can you imagine bearing a child of someone you don't even love. Ugh. If you want security, go to the mall and try to shoplift something.
PJKino Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 I never understood people who just want the hottest mate possible..That leads to nothing but headaches going for mostly looks.. I understand there needs to be physical attraction for a partner i think thats a must in a relationship i cant be with someone i have no physical attraction to i dont care how nice they are or how much we get along,without attraction its just a friendship but just to want the hottest mate possible will get you in trouble.. People who insist on that to me are insecure and think a really hot s/o will validate them in some way..
musemaj11 Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 I have always attended well-to-do schools and universities (although I am from a working class background), and my girlfriends were brought up to value financial and social position over look (since it can be cultivated). Let's just say...these women are much happier than the women in my community, who are forced to work multiple jobs and raise children in single homes because they are 'in love'. Personally I would rather work multiple jobs seven days a week and come home at the end of the day and get to see the woman I love with whom I enjoy talking to and I enjoy having in my arms than not having to work at all but at the same time Im trapped for the rest of my life with someone whom I have no physical and emotional connection with. Anna Nicole Smith looked happy. But in the end we all know what happened ... Money doesnt buy happiness and it is just a fact.
hearttobreak Posted November 4, 2010 Posted November 4, 2010 It really depends on what you need. What do you need to make YOU feel happy or at a bare minimum, content. Most of the women around here are pretty independent, so I do not believe they think that way. However, I did try settling once, it was all drama. I threw away my standards just to have someone. It was a nightmare I am still living. Have standards, just don't make them sky high.
stillafool Posted November 6, 2010 Posted November 6, 2010 Yep, he's a troll. They never come back when found out.
Jynxx Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 Read the op and skimmed through a couple of posts, and all I can think of is WAT? Seriously, don't you gals think it's morally wrong to exploit (really can't find another word for it) a guy you basically look down on and don't respect at all for you own selfish needs? Don't you think taking money and emotional support in return for an illusion is unfair towards the guy (or should I call him the victim) in question?
Akherousia Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 I have allot of friends who arent all that attracted or into their husbands but theyre husbands love them and give them love they need and financial security and they just go through the motions Im getting up there in age and afraid im gonna never find a husband thats amazingly hot and is a great guy will or should i settle for these average joes who are kinda ehh looking but love me and give me emtional and hopefully some financial security? Should we settle to get the family and white picket fence? This is a joke thread, right? So you're telling me that my ancestors fought and went through several more tribulations to allow the women of today to have rights, be independent and choose their own boyfriends and husbands; and you're saying that you want things to be like they were a 100 years ago? What is this? "I won't find an insanely hot guy." Do you want a husband or a trophy? Yes, your girlfriends are mercenaries. I feel bad for their husbands. You shouldn't settle. Spare the "average joes" the joy of having to deal with your princess mentality and with the fact that you've probably been the bed of many "insanely hot" guys and now they don't want you anymore as you're aging.
Akherousia Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 I agree with this. I honestly think the vast majority of all women have no intrest in men at all and would rather be alone than with a man, it defenitley seems that way after seeing how women behave when it comes to dating and relationships anyway. The fact that women aren't interested in you doesn't necessarily makes every woman a man - hater. Maybe that bitterness has something to do with women staying away from you, heh?
jean-luc sisko Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 the idea of only marrying for love is a recent notion, in the grand scheme of human history. Arranged marriages in some non-Western countries are not born out of love. it's best to let others live, and not concern ourselves with what they do.
SincereOnlineGuy Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 Is it wrong to marry for just emotional and financial security? That is much like asking whether it is wrong to call various competing brands of tissue paper "Kleenex". Technically it probably is, but because of so much and so many people having been so "wrong" over so many years, it is seen as being less 'wrong' than it once was.
Recommended Posts