What "Rules" Need To Be Revised Or Thrown Out? (kids, sex)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're trying to be condescending but my academic credentials absolutely destroy yours.
This is silly and smacks of some insecure person attempting to validate themselves. When you're educated, you don't have to announce it from the rooftops, it's like being a lady or being powerful, if you have to iterate it, you're probably not.
That being said, I highly doubt that, I'm guessing you'd feel absurd if you know where I went for undergrad. Not that it's like, relevant or anything.
I don't think you know any powerful people, or ladies for that matter. People at my school don't do post grad at u of cincy unless they really messed up. Let's get back on track shall we?
yes it speaks to the fact that you cannot or will not answer any questions posed in the thread.
You will however, comment on others spelling and grammar, resort to name calling, make outrageously general claims about your flawed view of human nature. commit multiple logical fallacies. Yep, anything but address the issue. Speaks for itself
yes it speaks to the fact that you cannot or will not answer any questions posed in the thread.
Stop cluttering the thread. People can see for themselves how I addressed the issue and how others have and make up their own minds. You're just pushing the discussion further back into the thread!
hahahaha, taking the high road now. I can see why you have so many relationship problems, you are completely morally bankrupt. Ok that's two offtopic posts, i'm just trying to catch up with you!
I'm just now reading this thread and there have some interesting points but even though i'm in my twenties, i still prefer for the man to ask me out, call me a southern old fashioned girl, but I find it very attractive and very much a turn on when a guy asks me out.......
I am the selector out of the pool of men who chose to approach me. So I do not have the entirety of the control. I may very well have my pick out of a horrible litter just because I'm not the one doing the initial selecting. So I said 'selector' as a general statement but it's obvious what I meant without clarifying. I can't choose the millionaire if the millionaire didn't first choose me. In fact, you can say the man has the control since he first selects who he will attempt to initiate a relationship with, and then he has the pick of whoever wants him.
You say that the man has control since he's the one who first decides whether he'll approach you. But who gave him that control? You did. By choosing to wait for him to approach you instead of approaching him yourself, you're still the one who's in control. You've simply chosen to defer to him. To say that you can't choose the millionaire if he doesn't choose you first is like me saying I can't choose to work for Google because they didn't choose me first. You and I both have a choice. But rather than pursue that millionaire, you've chosen to wait for him. So now you have to accept the consequences of that decision. There's a risk he may not approach you. There's a risk he'll find another women he likes better than you. There's a risk a woman may approach him. There a risk that the only people who approach you are the ones you have no interest in. I go back to my job search analogy. I'm in control of what jobs I pursue. If I want a job at Google, I'm free to apply. Whether they accept me is a different story. But if I sit back and wait for Google to contact me, then I run the risk of them never doing so. This begs the question "why maintain a set of practices that leave someone else in control?" Other posters on this thread have said that if you pursue a man, you risk intimidating and damaging his ego. So what? If a man's ego is that fragile where he feels like less of a man cause someone asked him out, I'd say you're a lot better off without him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
The point being if it were a lose-win situation for males or females the behavior would shift. That's blatantly obvious.
Just because behavior hasn't shifted doesn't mean the system works. Maybe the reason there hasn't been a shift is because people are afraid to break with tradition. But if you think the system we have now is win-win, think again. Half of all marriages fail, in large part because women pick the wrong guy to marry. I've lost count of how many times I've heard women say "I don't meet any quality guys" or "none of the guys who come up to me appeal to me."
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
I would be less attractive to that man because some men want in a women who is the aggressor and they aren't the aggressor purely because they'd rather meet a woman who fulfills that role.
But not all men who aren't the aggressive type fit this description. I don't consider myself a particularly aggressive person. But whether I find a woman attractive doesn't depend on how aggressive she is. If she isn't aggressive either, that doesn't make her less attractive to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
Have you ever tried to evaluate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of being attracted to blonde hair or loud vs. soft-spoken women? I really don't think so. And if you're going to ignore gender differences, who exactly has been driving the "culture' of how men and women interact since the beginning of time? Men.
I've never evaluated the "rightness" or "wrongness" of being attracted to blond hair. But I have asked how much of my attraction is based on cultural influences. Think about the current emphasis on extremely skinny women. Here in the U.S., most men would rather be with someone who's thin. But if you go to other parts of the world, they'd look at such a woman as being unhealthy. Instead, the men would prefer someone with a more voluptuous figure. Notice how much culture influences people preferences. As for who's been "driving" the culture of how men and women interact, you can't pin that entirely on men. Women have a great deal of power over how they're treated. The very fact that we have a rule that says men must approach first is proof of that. Who set that up? Do you think it was just men? Or maybe women were complicit in that because they liked the idea of being pursued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
There are men who are least partially blind to it. If such a situation arises, you will hear more derision aimed at the woman for being a "gold-digger" and much less, if any directed at the man who is exploiting her youth and beauty for status and standing. There may even be pity directed his way, as if he's gaining nothing, even though it's clearly a symbiotic relationship. The point I'm making is that even men who can acknowledge this are in gneral too thick to see that all relationships are part of a continuum of symbiosis, and that if they need an extreme example to demonstrate this they are really dense.
I don't know where you're seeing this, but I have NEVER met a man who thought this. The derision is equal. They label the woman a gold-digger just as much as they label the man "a dirty old man looking for a trophy wife". No one pities Michael Douglas or that old guy who married Anna Nicole Smith cause it was pretty obvious what he was after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
See above and cease oversimplifying. There are reasons why women are generally responsible for child-rearing and similar duties that have nothing to do with an explicit exchange of services. If you ask a woman who works full-time (like my sister does), you'd likely hear a range of responses from, "I don't like the way he does it" or "If I left it up to him he'd never get it done." This seems like the man is deficient, but remember, people engage in relationships that are ultimately psychologically gratifying and disengage themselves from ones that aren't. She concedes one thing to get another. And many women have housework as an expectation of themselves.
I'm not oversimplifying. You're just deflecting responsibility. If a woman who works full time complains that her husband doesn't do his fair share of the household chores and then does what your sister does and says "I don't like how he does it," then the fault lies with the woman. Like I said above, the woman can limit her options by only choosing among the men who pursue her. But she shouldn't be complaining about the quality of men in that subset since she's one who created it in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxbabeechick
There's a distinction in men who don't initiate that I'd like to make.
Those who actually prefer women to be the aggressors (the vast majority of them IMO).
And those who are reactively passive, who are frustrated with the process of intiating as it tests their sense of security. They don't actually truly prefer female aggression, they just are frustrated because they fear rejection.
I think you're buying into a stereotype with that last statement. Just because a man chooses not to be the pursuer doesn't mean that he's frustrated with the process, that it tests his sense of security, or that he's afraid of rejection. Many men simply find the whole "game" to be more trouble than it's worth. They're also confident that they don't need to play the game and that there are plenty of fish in the sea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
