capitald Posted April 8, 2004 Posted April 8, 2004 I have been observing women for a while and I have come to some conclusions. Besides looks which are so obviously skin deep, a woman likes a man when he is hot, in other words when he is on the trail of success, when he is using and improving his natural abilities and is really "getting out there" in the world. That is what women respect. A woman can respect a man that wants to set the trend, make a million, never follow. To all the guys on this site I offer two words: get ambition.
dyermaker Posted April 8, 2004 Posted April 8, 2004 Originally posted by capitald To all the guys on this site I offer two words: get ambition. Or a nice inheritance.
Author capitald Posted April 9, 2004 Author Posted April 9, 2004 Golddiggers are infinitely trite and boring.
dyermaker Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 Oh, but are they redundantly hackeneyed and cliche?
mintjulep Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 I don't think any woman who works hard herself wants a lazy ass guy who is going to sit on the couch all day while never working his way up in life. Golddiggers still exist, but the guys who date them can usually afford it - golddiggers don't go after lazy ass guys, either, and trust me, they can spot them a mile away. There's a vast difference between golddigging and not wanting to date a guy with no motivation. Guys don't need "ambition" in the way you seem to have observed that women need it. Women need a man who can respect himself, because, let's face it - we can take care of ourselves. We just don't want to be dragged down by an unambitious slob.
Arabess Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 Women may SAY those things, but just by reading the posts on LS alone, I think it's obvious when love comes along....sensibility goes right out of the window. I've dated a man or two who had a great deal of prestige and power....but guess what??? I've never fell in love with any of them. The only time I ever fell in love is with someone, who when he smiled....he turned my world upside down. There wasn't a thing about him career wise or physically that would have put him on the cover of GQ. I find this to also be true of men. We speak in shallow words.....but love overrides and runs deep in our hearts.
mintjulep Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 I find this to also be true of men. We speak in shallow words.....but love overrides and runs deep in our hearts.Wiser words have never been spoken. When I hear "unambitious", I usually think alcoholic-in-wife-beater-watching-the-game-with-chips-on-his-face. I have worked too hard in my life (and even at such a young age) to have to put up with that while I know that I want a career and I want to move up in the word myself. There are some things in a relationship that need to be equal - or close to it. For me, these things are intelligence and passion. Other things come into play, like trust, the "sweetness" factor, etc. I was with a guy once who didn't get any of my jokes, and was simply not as academically "ambitious" as I was (this was in high school - sorry, again, for being so young ). I thought I loved him, but after two years, we just stopped "working." My next boyfriend had a quick wit and a sharp tongue. It was refreshing, to say the least, and that's when I learned that the need to communicate had to exist, and that's what had been missing with the previous guy. Money has never been a factor, but a lack of similar goals would be. At this point in my life, if I were dating a musician with a quick wit, a passion for his music, and a kind soul...but no money - I could be with him if I loved him. Relationships are much more complex than people would like to make them.
rockstarmusician Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 Not every woman is the same, you know? Personally, yeah, I do like a guy if he looks nice, but I'm not talking about a guy who has to look like Brad Pitt. But he's got to look clean. Personality counts, too. If he acts like a total snob, then goodbye! But if he's nice, yeah, I would then get to know him better.
CurlyamI Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 Sorry, gals, must agree with capitald on this one. A man who has things going for himself, who has a this drive to be successful can be very attractive, even if only for the only reason that subconsciously women feel he can take care of them. It's more of a state of mind, the "winner" smell most women are crazy about! I am not talking about conceited Mr. CorporateGuy, I believe those are the worst . Not that personality wouldn't matter, I just feel better if the man I'm having coffee with can pay for his own cup. It also depends on the type of relationship one desires: who choses to be the strongest (emotionally speaking)... it always translates into more "pecuniary" aspects, believe me. It's about the attitude regarding the society (you know, men who don't let go 'cause they just can't face the "bitchy" world without your support). Sorry, not the type I want to father my children... or make any attempts in that direction
mintjulep Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by CurlyamI Sorry, gals, must agree with capitald on this one. I don't think anyone actually disagreed. But we noted the vast difference between golddigging b*tch, and someone who doesn't want her own lump of nothing (or sometimes the male equivalent of a golddigger) No one likes being taken advantage of. Plus, I'd like to think that you wouldn't have children unless you had a husband who could support them - emotionally as well as financially, but...I guess some women do. even if only for the only reason that subconsciously women feel he can take care of themMore and more, girls and women are realizing that this isn't true. If only we could convince the rest of the population that hearing another woman say this is offensive, and it simply should not fly in today's society. It's probably true, in the most primal sense of the phrase, but any woman who feels she needs a man to take care of her falls way below my respect radar. Men need someone who can take care of them, as well, be it emotionally, sexually, or even in this day and age, believe it or not, some men depend on women financially - and are not emasculated.
CurlyamI Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 I admit I wasn't too clear. First of all, should I decide to have children, I would want for my child to have the genes of a "winner".It offers no gurantees, but it is my personal choice. How do I recognise a "winner"? I simply trust my instincts Should we decided to get married first or afterwords, should I let him finacially contribute to his wellfare ar should I decide to raise him alone, it's of no importance to the subject. I'm speculating about this anyway I also find you twisted a bit the meaning of my sentence, but it doesn't bother me. I simply believe- and it may be a sterotype - that women prefer for a man to be financially liable to the opposite. And I don't believe that's dimeaning. Why? Look at another good thread subject! Contributing to the expenses is not the same with paying for the whole thing. My opinion is in the first case you share the burden, you feel a bit taken care of. Please don't tell me you find paying dutch when going to the restaurant below your standard,as in the woman should pay for the addition (see, I'm doing the same thing you did, twisting the words...not quite the same meaning, is it? ) If you find a good man who desirves being kept (gee, it sounds as if I were picking cars), it's a wise and mature decision to do so. FOR A WHILE, when times get tough. It's not the same thing to gain more than your man - and for him to financially depend on you. How the couple deals with the first scenario is their business, but the second scenario sounds like being taken advantage for... But the subject was weather women find succes attractive in a man. I am not going to apologise for shouting out loud "YES". I've worked too damn hard not to know what it takes to be a succes. Man or woman I find this attractive as hell!
jenny Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 curlyamI, you sound a great deal like capitald. perhaps you two should date.
moimeme Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 Here's a wild thought. Not everybody thinks exactly like everybody else. Some people like successful people and some successful people like to be liked for being successful. To each his own? Live and let live?
CaterpillarGirl Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 Personally, I have dated men with ambition in the past. Although it is an admirable quality, it is also time consuming, thus leaving the relationship a bit one-sided. I prefer a man with goals, but also the time to invest in a relationship with me. I definitely would not like a jobless man, unless a) he just lost his job today and is in a (short) time of transition, or b) he's at home keeping the house clean and taking care of our kids (which really, come to think of it, is an actual job, so just (a) then)
meanon Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 I'm married now but when I was younger I never went for very ambitious types tending to think they had allowed themselves to be defined either by materialism or by a cliched corporate agenda. I've mellowed a little with age. Like most people, I do find confidence attractive whether it is the self contained variety or is more overtly expressed.
mintjulep Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 I've worked too damn hard not to know what it takes to be a succes. Man or woman I find this attractive as hell! You'll find that I said this exact same thing prior to your posts.
HiDDeN PiGLeT Posted April 9, 2004 Posted April 9, 2004 actually its not always that why that the man has the money and that women prefer that. i'm very independent and i have the money in my relationship. my b/f has two jobs, but it doesnt add up to what i make and what my inheritence will be. well, i'm the one that wears the pants. sometimes yes it gets tiresome to be the one that takes care of everything, but you know that they say. " if you want something done right you have to do it yourself."
Author capitald Posted April 19, 2004 Author Posted April 19, 2004 Nice responses people. In response to hidden piglet, you have to be careful with the "I wear the pants thing", where "power" and "control" can be very effective tools in the corporate world, they can be very destructive in a interpersonal relationship. Maybe, it amuses your boyfriend, but I would get insulted if my gf thought she was the boss of the relationship. I know a jokes a joke but jokes can be a breeding ground for resent and grief and animosity. Money is just one kind of support and on your deathbed you may just come to the realization that it was the least important. I have been getting in alot of trouble lately with my discussions about the men and women and their roles/how they are seen by society, especially with feminists. My problem is: when did the push for equality (which is a positive goal) turn into a push for dominance (which is worrisome)? Remember once you are a tyrant you are no better than anyone else, as a matter you are worse than any decent people (and I know they are rare) that may exist in the world.
CurlyIam Posted April 19, 2004 Posted April 19, 2004 Originally posted by capitald Nice responses people. I have been getting in alot of trouble lately with my discussions about the men and women and their roles/how they are seen by society, especially with feminists. My problem is: when did the push for equality (which is a positive goal) turn into a push for dominance (which is worrisome)? Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ?!? As you said in a relationship it is hard to have an equilibrium. As women "asked" for their "equality", I believe it's just harder to stop once you've got there. It's always been a battle for domination between the sexes, I think women do it simply because now they can.
Author capitald Posted April 19, 2004 Author Posted April 19, 2004 Saying that power corrupts is not the truth. Power means that you have a constiuency, that you have choosen to be part of or to be the authority over a group of of people, so that you will have a greater ability to effectively push your agenda or achieve your goals. Power does not cause corruption. But as to corruption, it is often the case that when people get power, they then become corrupt because they have the ability to be corrupt (whereas they might not of had that ability to the same extent before). In other words, it is no so much due to the nature of power that people become corrupt, its more likely that corruption is due to a flaw or weakness in the person who acts corruptly. Its like saying that "money is the root of all evil" when its obviously the case that humans are responsible for their own actions and the problem is often more with the way society functions or is set up, then the means of exchange it uses.
CurlyIam Posted April 19, 2004 Posted April 19, 2004 Maybe you're right, maybe I am. I don't think any of is wrong, anyway, as this is a subjective point of vue on the matter. My 2cents I also give you my input related to your question, which you did not comment, by the way.
Author capitald Posted April 19, 2004 Author Posted April 19, 2004 If an objective truth is not possible than no truth is possible.
CurlyIam Posted April 19, 2004 Posted April 19, 2004 No one in this Universe is absolutely right or absolutely wrong! How about that!?!
Author capitald Posted April 19, 2004 Author Posted April 19, 2004 Don't confuse absolute (which you are probably quite right about) with objectivity. Objectivity is not the same as perfection either.
Recommended Posts