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 right, it doesn't. I thought of this already when I was responding. I answered her question anyway, not to open myself up to being judged for how valuable my opinions are (which is the probable case), but to play out a sort of wishful thinking that someone is kind enough to want to get to know me as a person (the less probable case). So I shared something about my life for that reason. Even if no one else here appreciates my gesture, at least I can appreciate it in my imagination.
Predictably, we see that the "probable case" (as specified above) was actually the case. I was being judged for the relevance of my contribution to the topic. Well, that's OK, it's what I expected.
If I may add another observation to this discussion, it is this:
Men often overestimate the degree to which a man's character (as opposed to superficial/materialistic/etc. factors) plays a role in attracting a woman sexually (partly due to wishful thinking, and partly due to hearing what women have to say about this).
I think this misunderstanding is part of what's causing a disconnect over and over again in this thread, and across the relationships forum, and in life.
For example, some women talk about being attracted to a man as soon as she met him, and one of the reasons was his "confidence". Confidence means believing in oneself, and this is something you can't necessarily see on the outside, at least not before taking the time to get to know a person. It's like faith in one's religion, there's no way to tell anything about that upon just meeting a person. Perhaps women want to believe they are looking at something deeper, so they use the word "confidence" to describe what they see. The result is a divergence in the meaning of the word.
Perhaps women delude themselves, to some extent, about whether they're looking at a man's character vs. something more superficial. Maybe they don't even know it.
And as I said already, I'd rather hear truthful relating of bitterness and anger than expressions of fake confidence, fake warmth, etc. The former is indicative of the more solid character. I respect it, even if overdone, because it's truthful. But because it doesn't make a pretty sound, women see it as evidence of a flawed character. In many cases (perhaps not all), they're not even looking at the character behind the presentation (and maybe they can't, without knowing the man well personally). What they know is that it doesn't make them feel good, and they use that as the basis for assessing the man's character (and that's probably happening at this moment, as some of them are reading this). It's a bit of a leap.
Relative to women, men don't indulge in this kind of self-delusion. If they like nice bazongas, they'll just say they like nice bazongas, and that's that.
Another example is to compare Woody Allen to George Clooney, or rather the characters they play. Allen's characters are more confident than Clooney's, because they are not afraid to show themselves. They confide. A typical Clooney character, while being more appealing, would be afraid to show sides of himself, say, some human, neurotic tendencies, that break that consistent appealing image. And therefore it is also true that, as actors, Allen is the more confident one, because he's willing to portray those more human roles. I don't know if there are many women who would rate Allen as being more confident than Clooney, but I'm guessing it would be rare.
Now, here's another interesting disconnect:
In this exchange, the man and the women don't really get each other, and probably never will.
For the man, it might help to understand the women as being consumers, more or less. (To the women: I'm not saying that's what they are, it's just a metaphor.) Say you're running a fruit stand. For many years, a bunch of hot babes would walk past your shop and go to the liquor store. Years later, more sober and saggy, they notice your shop and decide they want some fruit. In their view, there's nothing wrong with that. They wanted booze before, and they want fruit now. You should be OK with that. They would not for one minute think about how they treated you coldly all those years while expecting you to give them a warm welcome now.
As for how to help women deal with the man's position on this issue, I haven't got a clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans63
First, I choose to assume that the reason for your inquiry is to make a kind gesture (even if it's just my imagination -- as we saw last time, the inquiry was for some other purpose -- but that's ok, my imagination is a comfortable place).
Second, I never said that I think poorly of women (and you might benefit from some introspection on why you projected that onto me -- just a friendly suggestion, not to say I hate you for it). People are people. I appreciate the positives, while also noticing that some things work in a less than ideal way. It's just normal.
What would make me happy (in the area of male/female relations)?
1. A Hugh Hefner lifestyle. Tons of hot babes with good figures and nice, natural bazongas.
2. I would like it if women made as much effort as men do to show something positive in their personalities (for example, we see how much effort some men are putting into learning and practicing Game). Kindness would be a good choice, but I don't hear much about women trying to improve their "kindness game." There's probably not even one thread on C-D where women discuss how to do that. I haven't seen it on TV, or on any Cosmo covers. Yes, I do notice how pretty or sexy women make themselves, but if they put as much effort into kindness and other positive personality traits, I'd probably find them much more attractive. I should mention that this is something that varies by culture, and America does not have the reputation of being a place where women are particularly kind, warm, or hospitable (other than in a superficial way) compared to some other cultures. Nothing personal.
3. For women in their more casual phases (hookups, FWBs, open relationships, etc.), I would like it if women would shift more toward the guys who are more sober, bookish, polite, and clean cut, and get rid of the thugs. Support your local nerd.
4. I would like it if I could find more support for being FWB-oriented. That means meeting more women who are open to that, and having friends and acquaintances who are willing to introduce me to women while knowing that I'm of that orientation.
5. I would like it if more women had what I call a classic elegance, meaning no tattoos, body piercings, or the habits of smoking, drinking, drugs, foul language, or wearing flip flops! These all make women (and men) look low-class to me. Oh, and I'd like more of them to be physically fit. (Again, nothing personal.)
6. I would like it if, in these discussions, people didn't keep imagining that I'm saying something that I'm not saying (see clarifications both above and below).
That's the top 6, it's enough for now. (I'm not saying I can't be happy without the above, I can. It's just that the above would be an improvement, if it were possible.)
Post #351 in this thread. Find the word "bite".
I never said you're dishonest. But it's possible that you have some misunderstandings. And sometimes people are dishonest with themselves, but I don't know if that's you or not.
What we can say is that we see people on this forum being treated harshly, and I see women doing it to men on this forum just as much as the other way around; for example, a certain female member who uses ad hominems like "undereducated lemmings" and "mental defect", and people who harshly accuse each other of being dishonest or having some kind of character flaw. Even when I'm the target of it, I don't necessarily see it as hate. So, again, it may be worth doing some introspection to see why you interpret it that way. I'm not saying you're wrong, maybe it is hate. I'm just not sure about that.
I don't remember doing that, did I? I think I was careful not to say I was talking about all women. At the same time, if there's a large enough subset of women doing a certain thing that it has a significant effect, then it's worth talking about. It's like saying Americans like hamburgers. Sure, not all of them do, maybe not even a majority. But a large enough subset do that it becomes meaningful to discuss it.
And I don't remember expressing any resentment toward anyone. If I did, it wasn't my intention, and I'd be interested to know where it was. If I didn't, then, again, you might want to do some introspection on why you thought I did.
As far as I've seen, nobody has said that about all women. But some men may have found that some subset of women are like that, or at least act like that. So they need to talk about it. My suggestion is to try to understand the reality that they've experienced, and see that maybe their way of describing it is a little rough (for example, when a man says "women" it probably doesn't mean "all women", perhaps "many or most women that I've dealt with or were interested in"). Then you can deal with the person from the point of view of understanding, and maybe even compassion.
You've said you've had some great relationships with men, so you must know some, or all, of what I've said already. Just apply it here on C-D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans63
Survey question (for anyone who might care to answer):
If you ask someone a personal question, like what would make them happy in the area of male/female relations, and they oblige your request, is it better to:
(a) give them a polite acknowledgment, or
(b) say nothing to him, and tell others that he isn't "worth your time" (as if he's not even in the room to hear it)?
Just curious.
I want to add a number 7 to my list, but I can't decide between "politeness" and "sense of humor".
By the way, contrary to popular belief, I never said that women who don't fit my preferences have something wrong with them. So let me say now, for the record:
I don't view anyone as having anything wrong with them. I'm OK, you're OK. There are some women I prefer over others, and there are some men I prefer over others as friends. And there are people with whom I have differences of opinion. That's all. They're all OK. And it's all good.
Now... can we all just get along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans63
Is it polite to accuse me of selling something? I guess your choice is (c) impolite response. In that case, thanks but no thanks for filling in for the person who made the request to me. There's no need for people who didn't make the request to acknowledge my response, much less make an impolite one. But if anyone wants to make a sincere response to my survey question, I'm interested in that. If no one does, that's also OK. Good day.
You asked - here it is. The bolded parts are the parts that I found offensive to me personally. The blue parts are the parts that I found offensive to me as a woman. The purple parts are where it seems that you really would like women to change - even though you said you were perfectly satisfied and have found many women that fit all the categories that you described. If so - why do you want more women to do anything?
For the record - my dear little doggie had surgery yesterday - and I was tired and worried about her - and so responding to your post really wasn't worth my time.
You may think you are being polite - but sugar coating insults doesn't make them any less insulting. I have no problem with you wanting a FWB. I have no problem with you having your own taste in women. We all have different taste. But while I am taking issue with your opinions on women - which like I said, I find offensive to me since I am a woman and you make many blanket statements about them - you are taking issue with me as a person, my sincerity, my honesty in viewing myself, my politeness, etc. It's hard to carry on a cordial conversation that way.
You have also called other posters a-holes and the like. I don't mind a good debate - but the name calling and personal insults are not that fun for me. Since I probably have a limited time left on this forum - I'd prefer it to be spent more beneficially and in a more friendly manner!
To be clear, I think there should be a line drawn regarding the depth of the question. Keep in mind that we all, well, some of us at least, obviously look at ourselves with full knowledge of our bizarre peccadilloes; stuff that's unknowable to others. It's definitely not attractive all of the time, but I think it's worth considering and it can possibly lead to activities in self development. This can also temper unrealistic expectations we might have for a mate. Or, at least that was a lesson I learned along the way.
Oh, and the last one I was talking about even asked me (and I don't think he was joking...) if my ex could find him a decent job! That's right! That's what I'm gonna ask my ex for! A job for a prospective lover! C'mon...
As noted by other posters, I don't see remarkable differences. At the core we're still the same. My values really haven't changed, rather priorities have changed. Is that what you guys are meaning? I always figured priorities do change for a lot of folk as they get older where they are age appropriate (marriage, kids, college, responsibilities in general). I'm also curious where maturation comes into play here.
Hi Braunwyn,
To answer your question, I don't think the issue is changing priorities. I think the issue is changing the type of person chosen for dating vs. the type chosen for marriage, children, and/or help with her existing children.
In my main example, I believe these guys would have less of a complaint if they weren't meeting so many women who dated jerks in their youth (while rejecting decent guys) and then want the decent guys once they are ready for marriage and family (or for someone to help raise the kids they created with the jerks). It's not difficult to discover one's past dating choices in a conversation, especially when they use "bad ex's" as a goal to make themselves look better (or as a victim). In the end, they reveal their own bad choices.
Here's the problem from these guys point of view:
1) It's an issue of risk, because there's no guarantee this "reformed person" is not simply marrying the "safe" person, and they may revert back to their real object of attraction (jerks) once the kids are out of the house or problems arise in the relationship.
2) Why would they want to be with someone who rejected their type when they were younger? Wouldn't they prefer to be with someone who always saw them as their type? I'm sure even an good woman would be skeptical if her potential husband only dated bad girls in his youth but now wants her for marriage and help raising the kids he created with the bad girls.
Nothing here is meant to say these women are reformed bad girls. Many can be good girls who simply dated jerks/thugs/players/bad boys but now want a good guy. My statement "reformed" is referencing the change of dating choices in their youth from jerks to decent men. Even good girls who dated jerks are a risk because of examples 1 and 2 above.
Once again, this is not ALL women, but there is definitely a significant trend, otherwise I wouldn't see evidence of it in studies, hearing it from men in real life, and hearing it from men online on many different sites of different ethnic backgrounds and interests. It can't be a media hype or conspiracy, since the media would catch hell for criticizing some women in this manner.
But are you really saying that if a woman in her 20s turned down or broke up with a guy who wanted to settle down because she wasn't ready, that the guy she dates in her 30s when she is ready to settle down should hold that against her?
But are you really saying that if a woman in her 20s turned down or broke up with a guy who wanted to settle down because she wasn't ready, that the guy she dates in her 30s when she is ready to settle down should hold that against her?
Hi fleetiebelle,
Thanks for the question, but that's not what I meant. It's about the type of guy chosen over them in her youth, not the stage in life that matters.
As I've used in different posts, I think these men would have less of a complaint if the woman was having fun with good guys, nerds, etc instead of jerks, players, thugs and bad boys who broke their heart.
It can leave a bad taste in one's mouth upon discovering the person they are marrying would have never dated them in their youth and might only be marrying them because they are a "safe" choice. Who would want to be someone's backup plan? Wouldn't you marry someone who always found your type ideal, even during youth when long term relationships didn't matter as much? Not to mention, marrying a "safe" choice could be a higher risk of divorce since he's not truly her type.
So, because of all of these reasons, yes, he should hold that against her.
I would definitely understand if a good woman held it against a man if he dated party girls, bad girls, hookers and strippers in his youth (and admitting he rejected women like her).
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.
That's right! That's what I'm gonna ask my ex for! A job for a prospective lover! C'mon...
