Cypress25 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Those things are important no doubt (though women tend to grossly overestimate the significance of the "emotional connection"). However, a self-made man with a good job is the one you'd want to marry even if money is not important to you (which it shouldn't be). Such a man possesses intelligence, practicality and motivation, which are all very important qualities in a long-term partner. An emotional, romantic, perpetually unemployed (and unemployable) writer or painter may tickle your fancy but you'd be crazy to marry such a guy. Such a man is simply incapable of being a good father, let alone a head of the household and a source of stability and support. In fact, he is not really a "man" at all...more like a woman in a man's shell. It's not one or the other. You don't have to choose between an emotional connection or a stable job. It's possible to find both of those things in one partner. Just because a guy has a great personality and an emotional connection with me doesn't mean he's unemployed. It also doesn't mean he's overly emotional or sappy. Allow me to define "emotional connection," since you clearly don't know what it means. When two people have an emotional connection, it means they get each other. They understand each other, they can relate to each other. They can talk for hours or sit together in companionable silence because they're so comfortable with each other that they're on the same wavelength and they feel good together. They often care about the same things and have a similar sense of humor. It's the kind of bond that you have with your best friend. It does not require excessive emotionality, nor does it render a person unemployable. Excessive emotionality is not a hallmark of a masculine man. Men are supposed to guided by logic and reason, not emotions. When you date a sappy, emotional dude you are basically engaging in a semi-lesbian relationship. Ugh, not this dumbass stereotype again. I got news for you. Everyone has emotions. Men and women. And everyone is capable of logic and reason. Men and women. I know you like to think that men are logical and women are emotional, but it's simply not true. All humans are guided by logic AND emotions. Nobody is purely logical or purely emotional. Because the title of this thread should be "hard time getting good gf" because if you just want any old gf theres always a cypress or two ready for the snatching. Ready to devote yourself to the priest hood of cypress. Dust, if you have a problem with me, put it in a PM. Stop complaining about my lifestyle choices in every thread. You don't like what I do with my boyfriend? Too bad. He's happy, I'm happy, and every boyfriend I ever had in the past was happy, so I'm inclined to think I'm a damn good girlfriend. I've never had any trouble keeping my man happy. What can a guy do? Accept that having a good paying stable job is just not enough. Words of wisdom! A good-paying, stable job is great, but it's not the most important thing. An emotional connection is womanspeak for mutual attraction, no more and no less. Wrong. Physical attraction is not the same as emotional connection. Both are important. One without the other will never result in a fulfilling relationship. Most women want a partner that they are physically AND emotionally attracted to.
Oxy Moronovich Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Why not? I'm interested in interpersonal relationships. That's why I post here. I believe you post about women you're not dating. A lot. This is what you posted: "There is an interesting crossover between the fellows who like to trash talk women for NOT appreciating "good" guys who have good jobs and income, and also trash talk women for going after guys BECAUSE they have good jobs and income." The vast majority of posts from men in this thread have not trash-talking women in the way you stated above. You've stated you think it's pathetic for Woggle, a guy in a happy marriage, to always try to make negative posts against the opposite sex. Yet you, a woman in a supposedly happy marriage, do exactly the same thing. Why try to start a gender war in this thread? This thread has been quite peaceful and calm. If you want to talk about that stuff in your post then start your own thread about it.
sweetjasmine Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 You guys who are very confident about dissing the idea of emotional connection haven't experienced it, I'm sure. And most any man reading this who is happily married, or in a fulfilling relationship that has progressed beyond the honeymoon stage will acknowledge that an emotional connection is a part of it, I bet. Not just the women. Absolutely. One of the things that can be frustrating about this section of the forum is that people only ever think of relationships in terms of "this person I've known for a few months and probably won't be with anymore a few months down the road." Some people provide a more long-term perspective, but it's often sorely missing. In my life, I've seen several married couples go through the ordeal of one partner falling ill and dying. In the latest situation, the husband passed away about two months ago. I watched them deal with the hospitalizations, cancer diagnosis, treatment, and eventual hospice care. I saw both of them love each other while suffering. I saw them trying to savor each moment as much as they could. I saw them eventually arrive at the decision to go home and let nature take its course. I have rarely seen such a strong connection between two people. This overrated womanspeak emotional connection is all you have left when your spouse is lying in bed, going in and out of consciousness as his frail body slowly shuts down. I feel terribly sorry for anyone who doesn't realize how important it is until that last moment when there's nothing they can do except watch them slip away.
Mme. Chaucer Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 This is what you posted I … know what I posted. I wrote it all by myself. The vast majority of posts from men in this thread have not trash-talking women in the way you stated above. Whether they are in the majority or minority, I am addressing posts that are here on this thread in a pertinent fashion. It's what we do here, Mr. Moronovitch. If you don't like it, why don't you put me on ignore? You've stated you think it's pathetic for Woggle, a guy in a happy marriage, to always try to make negative posts against the opposite sex. Yet you, a woman in a supposedly happy marriage, do exactly the same thing. Why try to start a gender war in this thread? This thread has been quite peaceful and calm. If you want to talk about that stuff in your post then start your own thread about it. Ha. I don't think anyone, even my many dislikers, would claim that I post in a similar fashion to Woggle, or that I try to start gender wars. That's pretty funny. But you're way off topic. If you want to talk about Woggle and the timbre of his posts, why don't you start your own thread about it?
Oxy Moronovich Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 why don't you put me on ignore? Consider it done.
Mme. Chaucer Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 An emotional, romantic, perpetually unemployed (and unemployable) writer or painter may tickle your fancy but you'd be crazy to marry such a guy. Such a man is simply incapable of being a good father, let alone a head of the household and a source of stability and support. In fact, he is not really a "man" at all...more like a woman in a man's shell. I have to speak up for the artists, writers, musicians and other creative men. They are just as likely to be a good father and partner as a lawyer or a stonemason, and just as likely to be a bad one. And some of us women like to be with an emotional, romantic man, and can thrive with him much better than with an unemotional and unromantic one. People find what they need in their partner, if it's a good fit.
GoodOnPaper Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 And some of us women like to be with an emotional, romantic man, and can thrive with him much better than with an unemotional and unromantic one. Everything is always the man's fault . . . if a woman finds that a man is unemotional and unromantic, I'd argue that the problem could just as easily be that she doesn't make him feel comfortable enough to bring out his emotion and romanticism . . .
Mme. Chaucer Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Everything is always the man's fault . . . if a woman finds that a man is unemotional and unromantic, I'd argue that the problem could just as easily be that she doesn't make him feel comfortable enough to bring out his emotion and romanticism . . . I certainly don't think everything's the man's fault. My post was in response to a man who said that emo and romantic men were not men at all. I was sticking up for the emo artsy guys! I agree with you 100%. A good and healthy relationship will allow the people in it (whatever gender) the safety to reveal their vulnerabilities, which would likely include emotions and romanticism.
Jane2011 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I have to speak up for the artists, writers, musicians and other creative men. They are just as likely to be a good father and partner as a lawyer or a stonemason, and just as likely to be a bad one. And some of us women like to be with an emotional, romantic man, and can thrive with him much better than with an unemotional and unromantic one. People find what they need in their partner, if it's a good fit. Definitely... I'm really fond of the liberal arts/artistic guy. Most, i have found, have varied interests and are just awesome.
musemaj11 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Exactly! Personality and looks are everything to me. I make no bones about it. There was a thread on this board recently about people being too picky. I'm not picky about jobs and money. I'm picky about personality. I want someone who's intelligent and fun to talk to and be with. I'd marry a waiter if he were charming and attractive (and caring, loving, with good relationship skills). And "charming" doesn't mean some glib, smooth-talking guy necessarily. Even shyer, less boisterous men can be -- and often are -- charming. It's hard to put one's finger on what makes a person charming, but it manifests in various ways. The only women who say they dont mind dating/marrying down financially are women who realize that they dont have what it takes to get a financially desirable man in the first place. So they rationalize their situation by thinking that its their own choice when its not in order to feel better about themselves. Its the same with men who say they dont care about looks. They dont care because they know they dont get to choose anyway.
musemaj11 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 But I don't get what this has to do with the thread... Women like sex just as much as men. Yea well, science disagrees with you.
quietGuy13 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Well i want to say something. I dont have a good job, and i dont make money and yet i dont have gf/date. And yet i see all the guys in suits with great jobs, they have tons of women and talking to lots of women and possibly have GF's. So yeah, don't even tell me how they can't get GF/Dates. that's just BS.
kaylan Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Yea well, science disagrees with you. No it doesnt. Libido is different from sexual enjoyment. Sexual enjoyment cannot be measured. But with how much more powerful female orgasms look compared to male orgasms, I woudlnt be surprised if women did enjoy sex more then us. Just because men want sex more on average, doesnt mean we enjoy it more. It simply means we have more testosterone in our bodies.
kaylan Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 The only women who say they dont mind dating/marrying down financially are women who realize that they dont have what it takes to get a financially desirable man in the first place. So they rationalize their situation by thinking that its their own choice when its not in order to feel better about themselves. Its the same with men who say they dont care about looks. They dont care because they know they dont get to choose anyway. Because you read minds? Maybe some people fall in love and dont care about money? Maybe they have money of their own? Awesome unproven generalizations though bro. In this day and age where women can make their own cash, more are not caring about a guys finances eclipsing their own. And the caring about looks thing...Sometimes when you meet the right person, you like them for them. I could show you pictures of my ex girlfriends. Ones got model looks, the other is your average gal. The latter was the one I was really in love with, and I didnt just settle for her because I couldnt get the "hot" girl. I just worry about if Im attracted to someone and if we click...doesnt mean I cant get someone with stereotypical good looks just because I end up with a pretty,cute, but average girl.
Jane2011 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 The only women who say they dont mind dating/marrying down financially are women who realize that they dont have what it takes to get a financially desirable man in the first place. So they rationalize their situation by thinking that its their own choice when its not in order to feel better about themselves. Its the same with men who say they dont care about looks. They dont care because they know they dont get to choose anyway. Haha. That's what you think. I guarantee you that I, and most other women like me who say they prefer the artistic and "not necessarily financially set" type have also had men who fit the "financially desirable" definition want to date them and have exclusive relationships with them. All of my actual boyfriends have been the former type, but I've certainly had the "financially set" guys pursue me as well. As a matter of fact, in general I'd say the financially set men are easier to get. I have a close friend who's hot with multiple degrees and is considered kind, caring, considerate by everyone she knows, who also prefers the more artistic, "cultured" type. She has a "financially set" business guy who's been pursuing for her years and telling her he'll take care of her for life. But she wants actual love.
KathyM Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 The only women who say they dont mind dating/marrying down financially are women who realize that they dont have what it takes to get a financially desirable man in the first place. So they rationalize their situation by thinking that its their own choice when its not in order to feel better about themselves. Its the same with men who say they dont care about looks. They dont care because they know they dont get to choose anyway. I think ambition and goals in life are the mark of a desirable man--he doesn't have to have already reached those goals in order to be desirable. Both my past serious bfs and my husband were college students when I dated them, and they were not financially stable because of that. But with my husband, I saw a man who had goals and ambition, as well as someone who was romantic, sweet, attractive, intelligent, etc. I think women look at the total package and take everything into account when selecting a bf. If he happens to be strong in other areas--personality, character, appearance, etc., then I think there are plenty of women who would want to be with that guy, even if he isn't making a lot of money, because he is bringing so many other things to the table. Financial capability is not going to be the determining factor for these women if a man has so many other things going for him. Who we fall in love with is decided by our emotions, not by logic. Financial standing does not carry the weight that it once did with women, now that women have their own good jobs. It's just one thing, and I venture to say most women value other things above a guy's finances. They look at the total package, and a lot of times, a guy who has a lot of other things going for him, other than finances, is going to seem more desirable than a guy who's main strength is his wallet.
musemaj11 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 No it doesnt. Libido is different from sexual enjoyment. Sexual enjoyment cannot be measured. But with how much more powerful female orgasms look compared to male orgasms, I woudlnt be surprised if women did enjoy sex more then us. Just because men want sex more on average, doesnt mean we enjoy it more. It simply means we have more testosterone in our bodies. You are right. I was confusing enjoyment with desire. But I believe what most women enjoy is more the intimacy rather than the sex itself if that makes sense. B I just worry about if Im attracted to someone and if we click...doesnt mean I cant get someone with stereotypical good looks just because I end up with a pretty,cute, but average girl. What does that even mean? Thats like saying its white but black. I think ambition and goals in life are the mark of a desirable man--he doesn't have to have already reached those goals in order to be desirable. Both my past serious bfs and my husband were college students when I dated them, and they were not financially stable because of that. But with my husband, I saw a man who had goals and ambition, as well as someone who was romantic, sweet, attractive, intelligent, etc. I think women look at the total package and take everything into account when selecting a bf. If he happens to be strong in other areas--personality, character, appearance, etc., then I think there are plenty of women who would want to be with that guy, even if he isn't making a lot of money, because he is bringing so many other things to the table. Financial capability is not going to be the determining factor for these women if a man has so many other things going for him. Who we fall in love with is decided by our emotions, not by logic. Financial standing does not carry the weight that it once did with women, now that women have their own good jobs. It's just one thing, and I venture to say most women value other things above a guy's finances. They look at the total package, and a lot of times, a guy who has a lot of other things going for him, other than finances, is going to seem more desirable than a guy who's main strength is his wallet. All women say that. Even women who married for money believe that they married for love. Haha. That's what you think. I guarantee you that I, and most other women like me who say they prefer the artistic and "not necessarily financially set" type have also had men who fit the "financially desirable" definition want to date them and have exclusive relationships with them. All of my actual boyfriends have been the former type, but I've certainly had the "financially set" guys pursue me as well. As a matter of fact, in general I'd say the financially set men are easier to get. I have a close friend who's hot with multiple degrees and is considered kind, caring, considerate by everyone she knows, who also prefers the more artistic, "cultured" type. She has a "financially set" business guy who's been pursuing for her years and telling her he'll take care of her for life. But she wants actual love. All kinds of stories exist on the internet. But to me truth is something that I see in reality and I have yet to see it.
spiderowl Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 And if all you have is an emotional connection, he's just a lover. And such relationships don't last because no matter how much you may fancy him and how much he may be into you, these feelings are bound to change over time. In fact, the stronger the initial attraction, the sooner it will fizzle out. A successful long-term relationship will inevitably be based on more than just emotions and butterflies. Actually, I have to disagree on some of this again. My understanding of a lover is that he is a sexual partner, not necessarily someone on the same wavelength. I'd understand a lover to be someone who I'd be happy to have sex with but it needn't mean any more than that. An emotional connection is more than that: it is feeling the person understands you and that they interest you. I have thought of taking a lover (assuming they wouldn't mind that, lol) because I can't find that emotional connection but I still have physical needs. I haven't done it yet though, can't bring myself to just be with someone for sex. I do agree that initial attraction doesn't always last, especially if it was purely physical, but we were talking about an emotional connection. I still don't feel women underestimate the importance of this. If that's what women say they want, why can't guys accept that?
kaylan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) You are right. I was confusing enjoyment with desire. But I believe what most women enjoy is more the intimacy rather than the sex itself if that makes sense.Have you ever had sex with a woman? Or talked to many women about sex? Because I doubt youve done either if you believe that many women dont have sex for physical pleasure. The generalized thinking that women have sex for emotional reasons, and men have it physical reasons, I find doesnt apply much in this day and age. I have met enough girls to know that plenty will have sex just to get off, and without much emotional involvement. And conversely, I have met dudes who arent into having sex like that and only want it with girls they really like. The way my ex used to orgasm was more powerful than my reactions, so that right there showed me that a woman is capable of enjoying sex as much, if not more, than a man. Honestly I think it varies person to person, not that its a gender thing. What does that even mean? Thats like saying its white but black. Average girls can be pretty and cute. Thats what it means. Pretty and cute are run of the mill terms used for most run of the mill people. Such as myself....girls usually call me cute. I never get called handsome which Ive only ever seen reserved for dudes of greater looks. Girls with model looks are generally called beautiful, hot, gorgeous, etc. As was my first ex, and also the last girl I hooked up with. However, empirical attractiveness doesnt matter to me. What does matter is how much a girl turns me on. I couldnt care less if everyone else thought she was a 10. In my eyes and heart, my cute ex was a 10. She got me going more than the typical hot girls Ive had. All women say that. Even women who married for money believe that they married for love. Because you can speak for every couple out there and know why they married? Its not like all dudes marry for love either. You can usually tell which couples marry for love based on how they interact with one another. You cant just generalize and try and paint everyone with the same brush however. All kinds of stories exist on the internet. But to me truth is something that I see in reality and I have yet to see it. And what you type to us are stories as well. Everyone has their own anecdotal evidence. Yours does not trump someone elses simply by the virtue of it being your own personal experience. Capisce? Edited January 28, 2012 by kaylan
Jynxx Posted January 29, 2012 Posted January 29, 2012 Funny how the answer to the op was given in post #3 and this thread keeps on going. The fact that there was a discussion here not so long ago about if someone is a "real street criminal" or someone trying to look like one by getting a tattoo is indicative to this. Some of the most interesting people I've met can be described as vagabonds, aka people travelling the world full time for years while living more or less by their own rules and financing their lifestyle themselves, and all of them did really well with females as well. The reason is simple: being able to survive and thrive under those circumstances means you have to be smart, social and driven enough to finance your lifestyle, and people who excel at those things are a genetic goldmine. Because of the high correlation between those awesome qualities and the free lifestyle, evolution has programmed females to find that lifestyle attractive. Unfortunately nowadays, there's many people not caring about anyone elses rules, doing only what they like and sleeping till noon. They aren't smart, interesting or driven, they live off government handouts, smoke pot all day and are a drag to society. Even worse is females who are biologically programmed to find the above lifestyle attractive (attraction is not a choice) get fooled by this recent phenomenon and end up with those losers and leave decent hardworking ambitious smart guys to themselves.
Mme. Chaucer Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Some of the most interesting people I've met can be described as vagabonds, aka people travelling the world full time for years while living more or less by their own rules and financing their lifestyle themselves, and all of them did really well with females as well. The reason is simple: being able to survive and thrive under those circumstances means you have to be smart, social and driven enough to finance your lifestyle, and people who excel at those things are a genetic goldmine. Because of the high correlation between those awesome qualities and the free lifestyle, evolution has programmed females to find that lifestyle attractive. Unfortunately nowadays, there's many people not caring about anyone elses rules, doing only what they like and sleeping till noon. They aren't smart, interesting or driven, they live off government handouts, smoke pot all day and are a drag to society. Even worse is females who are biologically programmed to find the above lifestyle attractive (attraction is not a choice) get fooled by this recent phenomenon and end up with those losers and leave decent hardworking ambitious smart guys to themselves. Your ideas about the "biological programming of females" are pretty funny.
Mme. Chaucer Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Funny how the answer to the op was given in post #3 and this thread keeps on going. Sorry, Son, but just because you and 2 or 3 other guys want to nurture your skewed views about "females," what we like, how we are programmed, etc., does not make your perspective the "answer" to the question posed by this thread. The real answer is simple: a good job / earning power is not sufficient to attract most women, though they are great. Other attributes are required.
Jynxx Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Sorry, Son, but just because you and 2 or 3 other guys want to nurture your skewed views about "females," what we like, how we are programmed, etc., I suppose if I said that males are biologically programmed to find a symmetrical face and a certain hip to waist ratio attractive you would be in tears laughing at my crazy skewed views about "males" as well? No need to get verbally aggressive btw, I've had infractions for less.
Cypress25 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I suppose if I said that males are biologically programmed to find a symmetrical face and a certain hip to waist ratio attractive you would be in tears laughing at my crazy skewed views about "males" as well? Yes, because it's not universally true. Not all men are attracted to women with an hourglass figure. That's why evolutionary psychology is a load of crap. Because the basic assumption is that everything we do and everything we feel is driven by the urge to reproduce and create healthy offspring. But if that were true, gay people wouldn't exist, childfree people wouldn't exist, and everyone would be attracted to the same physical type. Since preferences vary so widely from one person to another, it should be obvious that men are not all programmed the same and women are not all programmed the same.
Jynxx Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 That's why evolutionary psychology is a load of crap. Because the basic assumption is that everything we do and everything we feel is driven by the urge to reproduce and create healthy offspring. But if that were true, gay people wouldn't exist http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolutionary+theory+why+do+gay+people+exist I would appreciate it if you did at least a 20 second research on things you put down as facts. People much smarter than you have often spent a significant portion of their carreer researching those phenomenons and their conclusions are easy to find and free to read.
Recommended Posts