Is there a double standard for being submissive? (boyfriend, guy, dance)

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

I don't understand this either. Ok, allow a free society instead of legislating equality. That's pretty general and loaded. I cannot read your mind gwyn.


I read your posts. I just don't always understand them.


I've fixed your post here by posting the first definition of submit. Guess what? Women do not give over or yield to the power or authority of another and still marry. I'm living proof. You can keep your Black Jack, your smartalx, and whoever else, and have a party. I don't want to go. A lot of women don't want to go. Honestly, based on the track records of many on this forum who desire a woman to give over or yield to the power or authority of another, the selective pressure isn't in their favor.

Not typically with the act of sex itself. Also many women settle for providers and companionship because powerful dominant men are not always worth the trouble even though they are a big turn on. They also tend to attract other women in droves and often cheat. The lesson I learned was simple. Ignore everything modern feminism ever taught me and I was never dumped by a woman again. I am also an anecdote. I was not going to be the settle for guy. I can certainly pull that off for one women. The trade off for maintaining composure is often to love less.

The idea that a man may be better than you seems to bother you. Why the insecurity? Why do you care? That is just another thing I fail to understand. Any women is free to think they are better than me because of what they do. I wish they would. They can even think they are better at every human endeavor. Though I still am beholden to the facts. Why do you need my(men's) approval? I don't care a bit if a room full of women, or men, think they are angelic beings while I am a golem made of pig flesh.

This is how I felt when I was girl. I was swooned over scientists thinking they were all that (in a sense), tho, it was more about respect. And the fact that I was too uneducated to know any better. I loved their intellect. In the end, I have simply found that this view is shallow. It lacks depth. And perhaps most people do. If the selective pressures only allows for non-thinking ninnies to out breed the prized among us, so be it. If idiocracy is our future lol, well, that's pretty sad.

Well can sure tell you most of your sisters did not swoon over my geeky childhood. I stopped selling it. I had the highest science aptitude up to my 8th class. I don't know what it was since but I thought high school was a crock. I got a lot of yawns. I still do. I wore my brothers burn out clothes because geeks don't know the difference. That mattered more. I guess I am just as shallow. I like (decent)beautiful women.

Brass tacks is that all of the men I know at work except one, all accomplished scientists, are married to other scientists. The one outlier is married to a teacher. Sure, that's a small sample, but it's telling. Every friend I have that is educated is partnered with a like. As well as the few friends I have that are not, are partnered with likes. Statistics show that educated men marry educated women. This is no secret, and it does not fit with your assertions. Your brass tacks here is another quip in the male erotica theme you guys have going.

If your idea of education is a college education then yes. Our universities churn out a fine crop of idiots. I can't even touch MBAs brain washed beyond help in the financial forum.

Yes, you are correct. The thing is, being male does not make one superior. It once did. Those days are over in the west.

Take down the top male chess player and then get back to me. Otherwise its female erotica. No one is even close.

It is rare to see a female auto mechanic. I can't imagine that changing any time soon. But, as stated, women are entering college in droves. They now out number men in medical school, and have a significant presence in the biolocial sciences. And these superior women, as you would say, will marry and do. They simply will marry men at their own level.

No they won't. You fail to read the news about career women who cannot find mates. They think they are looking for equals but in reality are looking up. No one is there for many of them.

Don't like what? I'm not concerned about unix. If it's something I need to learn for work, it will become a priority. And not prosper? I think I'll manage.

Of course you are not concerned about Unix unless it is useful to you if you follow female pattern behavior. That is what I have been saying. Men do it for fun.

So, when a man fixes a car, it's a nature element. When a woman does the same, it's a nurture element. Gotchya. What you don't realize is that to fix a machine in the lab, you have to grasp the chemistry. An auto mechanic, OTOH, does not have to grasp how oil is rendered, or the physics of his machine.

Again the defensive emotional response. I point out a fact that I never see female auto mechanics, and here we are.

Again, when men do it, it's something entirely different. That's so lame.

If the introduction states a desire for women to enter the arena, logic tells the introduction would actually include an introduction. If you are interested in exposing women to the subject, which I suspect you really aren't, an introduction is a reasonable request. Instead, you're huffing and puffing out your corner of the world. Excuse me while I'm not impressed.

I don't really care if women like Linux or not. Why do you keep trying to break my heart over this? I don't care about that. It was an example of women being offered every opportunity. Women just do not currently show aptitude for every male dominated field. It does not surprise me because I am not the kind of idiot that believes in the flat earth society of human evolutionary psychology.

[Huckleberry3911948]

just please dont spank me ok?

good night.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by smartalx

Leader/follower is alll about equality, if done right. Leader serves the led. He gets to make the decisions and she gets taken care of.

Depends on the guy. I can take you to a church full of hundreds of women who are blissfully submissive towards their husbands, because their husbands lead with love to benefit the wife and family..

What, is she a dog or a child?

Ignorance is bliss. And people who act like these women often do so because they enjoy not really having any real responsibility in the real world. It's so much easier letting someone else make the hard choices and decisions, whether it's your husband or your church - it's like you never really have to grow up. Pathetic.

[smartalx]

And yet a very large percentage of the women of the world are this way. Pathetic or not, it works. And just because they choose to defer to their husband doesn't mean they aren't capable human beings. They contribute to the family. They are involved in the leadership of the family. They do tell the kids what to do, right? Leadership. They do have a say in how things are run. Just not the final say.

I can't help but notice that you ignored the reason I gave for the women submitting. It wasn't out of fear or laziness. It was because their husbands have proven their love. Because the wives TRUST their husbands. Submission is trust.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by smartalx

And yet a very large percentage of the women of the world are this way. Pathetic or not, it works. And just because they choose to defer to their husband doesn't mean they aren't capable human beings. They contribute to the family. They are involved in the leadership of the family. They do tell the kids what to do, right? Leadership. They do have a say in how things are run. Just not the final say.

I can't help but notice that you ignored the reason I gave for the women submitting. It wasn't out of fear or laziness. It was because their husbands have proven their love. Because the wives TRUST their husbands. Submission is trust.

I think saying that they choose to do this is ignorant. Most of these women are forced to do so or have been raised in a culture where anything else is either unacceptable or just too hard.

The second paragraph just makes me laugh hysterically. You do understand that most women who act like this don't really think they have a choice, don't you? If you don't get that, don't reference what goes on in the rest of the world until you do a lot of traveling.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Not typically with the act of sex itself. Also many women settle for providers and companionship because powerful dominant men are not always worth the trouble even though they are a big turn on.

Perhaps, tho, I have more faith in people rather than to reduce them to teenage girls whooping it up over the pop star. Are relationships generally this shallow? I have no idea. Again, I only have my small sample to go on, and maybe my life is just charmed, but pretty much everyone I know is successful. I've mentioned burning man, and burns, in the past to you. One of the unspoken rules is that careers are not discussed. These people, physicians, scientists of every breed, artists, etc. are not about peac*ck displays. It's unnecessary.

Although, maybe I don't know what you mean by powerful and dominant men. I certainly wouldn't describe the folk in my circle as powerful/dominant or reduce them to that. But, at the same time, they are at the heart of what make this country tick in many ways. My ex, who is a computer scientist from Brown, with all his unix stuff lol (our apartment was filled with all his tinkering), a former Lincoln Labs employee, etc could probably considered a prize by all this criteria. A guy that should be snatched up. I'm sure he would impress you. In the end, it wasn't enough.

They also tend to attract other women in droves and often cheat. The lesson I learned was simple. Ignore everything modern feminism ever taught me and I was never dumped by a woman again. I am also an anecdote. I was not going to be the settle for guy. I can certainly pull that off for one women. The trade off for maintaining composure is often to love less.

You must keep in mind the type of women that would be attracted to you in the first place. Not all women will hurtfully dump someone and not all women are interested in gender roles. It seems that you have been left with the yearning to have one leg up on your female counter parts. I don't see how this can be fullfilling for you.

The idea that a man may be better than you seems to bother you. Why the insecurity? Why do you care?

I think I've explained this to you in the past. I was raised with strict gender roles. I was reminded by father all my life that I simply lacked aptitude due to being a woman. He said all the same stuff that you do. It was difficult to over come. Now, to be clear, I assume most people are smarter/better than me until proven otherwise. That has always been there, but the unintentional (maybe intentional, who knows) impedement by my father and culture I was raised in, was simply abuse imo.

That is just another thing I fail to understand. Any women is free to think they are better than me because of what they do. I wish they would. They can even think they are better at every human endeavor. Though I still am beholden to the facts. Why do you need my(men's) approval? I don't care a bit if a room full of women, or men, think they are angelic beings while I am a golem made of pig flesh.

When it comes to message boards, it's rarely the scientists or mathematicians piping in about the lacking in women; the shining stars. It's those attempting to ride their coat tails. That's annoying. So, it's not men, but particular kinds of men. It's never the guys at work telling me I cannot juggle my technical daily activities. It's men like my father, the uneducated or undereducated, telling me I can't figure out how to work the remote. I have little patience for it.

Well can sure tell you most of your sisters did not swoon over my geeky childhood. I stopped selling it. I had the highest science aptitude up to my 8th class. I don't know what it was since but I thought high school was a crock. I got a lot of yawns. I still do. I wore my brothers burn out clothes because geeks don't know the difference. That mattered more. I guess I am just as shallow. I like (decent)beautiful women.

Well, when I stated girl, I meant my late teens/early twenties. I don't remember HS too well, but I agree that it was a crock.

If your idea of education is a college education then yes. Our universities churn out a fine crop of idiots. I can't even touch MBAs brain washed beyond help in the financial forum.

Likes attracting likes covers a large scope. Be it travel, experience, whatever. The point that you're glossing over, is that fine men are not marrying idiots. As far as MBA's go, that's nothing I'm familiar with. And there's enough battles in the education forum about "worthless degrees" and similar. I stay out of those arguments.

Take down the top male chess player and then get back to me. Otherwise its female erotica. No one is even close.

Hang onto your chess, gwyn. You need it far more than I.

No they won't. You fail to read the news about career women who cannot find mates. They think they are looking for equals but in reality are looking up. No one is there for many of them.

I haven't read the news. I only know my experience. All of the female scientists, physicians, attorneys, etc I know are married or in a relationship. OTOH, this is not necessarily corporate America. I suspect that is an arena onto itself.

Of course you are not concerned about Unix unless it is useful to you if you follow female pattern behavior. That is what I have been saying. Men do it for fun.

I can fit only so much into my day, gwyn. It may or may not become an interest. Who knows? What interests me now is my research. That's my passion. That's what I do at work and outside of work. In the end, it doesn't matter that I love chemistry, camping, photography, or whatever else I do. It will always be reduced to woman's work by people like you.

[quote]Again the defensive emotional response. I point out a fact that I never see female auto mechanics, and here we are. [/qoute]
You point out your vacuum quip. You have no idea how insulting you are. You are trying to box me into your worldview. I refuse to enter, and you find that emotional.

I don't really care if women like Linux or not. Why do you keep trying to break my heart over this? I don't care about that. It was an example of women being offered every opportunity. Women just do not currently show aptitude for every male dominated field. It does not surprise me because I am not the kind of idiot that believes in the flat earth society of human evolutionary psychology.

Well, at least we can agree on something.

Any way, I must have missed the boat on this offer. Perhaps I was sleeping or drunk, because I don't recall it.

[RamCharger1985]

Originally Posted by Kele

Yet research shows that most boys who are the victims of sexual abuse are victimized by male pedophiles--not women.

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Claims of sex abuse by women grow

Wrong.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Perhaps, tho, I have more faith in people rather than to reduce them to teenage girls whooping it up over the pop star. Are relationships generally this shallow? I have no idea. Again, I only have my small sample to go on, and maybe my life is just charmed, but pretty much everyone I know is successful. I've mentioned burning man, and burns, in the past to you. One of the unspoken rules is that careers are not discussed. These people, physicians, scientists of every breed, artists, etc. are not about peac*ck displays. It's unnecessary.

Hi Braunwyn,

Its probably why I found walking encyclopedias of the flesh boring. I am still a sensual being. Being a "scientist" is not the highest human endeavor. I suppose that is why I am enjoying Cat's Cradle so much. I have "scientists" to thank for the corn blubber we call margarine. I have no desire to polish the marble around the busts in the great halls of pedantry. If you would so kindly step aside so I may defenestrate myself into the peat of the forest floor. Then I can watch the angiosperms peacock themselves with flowers.

Although, maybe I don't know what you mean by powerful and dominant men. I certainly wouldn't describe the folk in my circle as powerful/dominant or reduce them to that. But, at the same time, they are at the heart of what make this country tick in many ways. My ex, who is a computer scientist from Brown, with all his unix stuff lol (our apartment was filled with all his tinkering), a former Lincoln Labs employee, etc could probably considered a prize by all this criteria. A guy that should be snatched up. I'm sure he would impress you. In the end, it wasn't enough.

You know it when you see it. A yes is a yes and a no is a no. You will not see them whining or blubbering. And no you don't quite get it. Nerd does not sell to women. A man's brain should hum under the hood. The nerd pulls over to the side of the road and pops the hood to show her the rocker arms. She is bored.

You must keep in mind the type of women that would be attracted to you in the first place. Not all women will hurtfully dump someone and not all women are interested in gender roles. It seems that you have been left with the yearning to have one leg up on your female counter parts. I don't see how this can be fullfilling for you.

I have never found intellectual fulfillment from one person. Even a certifiable genius cannot do this. I am constantly interested in different things. It is not me making this decision. Its the women who make these selections. You run the risk of not loving much. Would you really consider yourself the equal of Nikolai Tesla? I suspect a women who recognized his dominance would fall madly in love seeing the opportunity to status jump. I am not the god of bio-mechanics. What I cannot have except from a women is human touch I can stand and passion. I also "put up" with a bi-lingual classical pianist who is one of the most rational women I have ever met.

I think I've explained this to you in the past. I was raised with strict gender roles. I was reminded by father all my life that I simply lacked aptitude due to being a woman. He said all the same stuff that you do. It was difficult to over come. Now, to be clear, I assume most people are smarter/better than me until proven otherwise. That has always been there, but the unintentional (maybe intentional, who knows) impedement by my father and culture I was raised in, was simply abuse imo.

I guess I would tell anyone to get over it. If it were a man, I would tell him to knock it off and look at the white crosses of poor saps mowed down on the beach. I was kicked around my whole life by bigger and better. I kicked back. Its a good thing I did not go into counseling.

When it comes to message boards, it's rarely the scientists or mathematicians piping in about the lacking in women; the shining stars. It's those attempting to ride their coat tails. That's annoying. So, it's not men, but particular kinds of men. It's never the guys at work telling me I cannot juggle my technical daily activities. It's men like my father, the uneducated or undereducated, telling me I can't figure out how to work the remote. I have little patience for it.

Its because they are typically anti-social and are built to succeed in the absence of human interaction. You also keep failing to understand the concept of an anecdote. I don't see women having desire to enter the technical fields in any number close to men. Engineering is at 20%. Its almost always what they learn in school. I have rarely seen a women tinker. All women need to do is do it and stop talking about it if it is what they want.

Well, when I stated girl, I meant my late teens/early twenties. I don't remember HS too well, but I agree that it was a crock.

Likes attracting likes covers a large scope. Be it travel, experience, whatever. The point that you're glossing over, is that fine men are not marrying idiots. As far as MBA's go, that's nothing I'm familiar with. And there's enough battles in the education forum about "worthless degrees" and similar. I stay out of those arguments.

Most intelligent men like to marry intelligent women but not career status seekers. I keep telling you the difference, and you keep ignoring it. My general education, such as when I read the Wealth of Nations, had already apprised me that my career in a modern society will make me a drone idiot if I let it. So I am no career status seeker either. Why would I want one as a wife?

Hang onto your chess, gwyn. You need it far more than I.

I do like you. You can at least keep a civil conversation. Why do you ruin it here? Can you not agree to disagree? I explained to you several times it is an example of the different cognition between males and females. Chess is applicable to any algorithm and logical sequence which is also applicable to my profession. Yet you aim at the foundations to sink my swamp house. Do I just casually insult you? Please point it out so I may offer an explanation or, if necessary, an apology? Please retain the class you have typically upheld or allow me to revise my opinions of your conduct. My anthropological opinions do not seek approbation nor are they political pap issued to create a healthy glow in the cheek for one's personal goals.

I haven't read the news. I only know my experience. All of the female scientists, physicians, attorneys, etc I know are married or in a relationship. OTOH, this is not necessarily corporate America. I suspect that is an arena onto itself.

It a real problem that affects real flesh and blood.

I can fit only so much into my day, gwyn. It may or may not become an interest. Who knows? What interests me now is my research. That's my passion. That's what I do at work and outside of work. In the end, it doesn't matter that I love chemistry, camping, photography, or whatever else I do. It will always be reduced to woman's work by people like you.

Just as it is one of my passions to study sociology since 25 years ago. I do "women's" work all the time. I made the Thanksgiving dinner. You find shame in it, not me. Thanks for yet another personal attack. I'll need a sack for them.

Again the defensive emotional response. I point out a fact that I never see female auto mechanics, and here we are. [/qoute]
You point out your vacuum quip. You have no idea how insulting you are. You are trying to box me into your worldview. I refuse to enter, and you find that emotional.

You are angry at another fact? The prototypical house wife using a vacuum cleaner is an insult? If it is, then the problem is not with me and at worst, by your own admission, by ignorance.. I use vacuum cleaners and I can crab apple jelly like a grandma. See personal insults above and compare.

Well, at least we can agree on something.

Any way, I must have missed the boat on this offer. Perhaps I was sleeping or drunk, because I don't recall it.

If you cannot keep a civil intelligent conversation without it becoming personal, I am not longer interested. Decide.

[Kele]

Originally Posted by smartalx

Hmm... Interesting... Ever heard of ? It and Hinduism are the oldest religions in the world. Though there is admittedly some debate as to whether or not there were older religions. There was apparently a discovery of people that worshipped a serpent 70,000 years ago. Definitely not "goddess worship" there. Anyway all of that is beside the point. Both zooastrianism and Hinduism were older than Judaism and both were patriarchal in nature. Kind of contradicts your "truth" doesn't it? Even the Egyptian religion goes back further than 1800 BC.

Goddess worship dates back to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic times. Many anthropologists speculate the first "God " or gods of the peoples were feminine. This coincides with ancient creation myths and beliefs that creation was achieved through self-fertilization. Within the concept of creation the participation of the male principle was not known or recognized yet. The Goddess was believed to have created the universe by herself alone. That means that Goddess Worship first came about somewhere between 300,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE.

Zoroastrianism is the ancient religion of Persia. It was founded about 3500 years ago by the prophet Zarathushtra. Arising out of the polytheistic traditions of ancient India and Iran, he was one of the first monotheists (this does imply numerous monotheists) in human history. Zarathushtra preached that there was one God, whom he called Ahura Mazda. Ahura means "Lord," and Mazda means "Wise," so Zoroastrians call God the "Wise Lord." Zarathushtra has been known in the West as Zoroaster, from the Greek transliteration of his name; in Persia and India he is known as Zarthosht. No one knows exactly when Zarathushtra lived. Zoroastrian tradition places him at around 600 B.C.E., but this date is thought by modern scholars to be far too late. The modern estimate of Zarathushtra's date is anywhere from 1500 to 1000 B.C.E. -- Right about the time of Abraham.

Sorry...Goddess worship continues to predate Zoroastrianism by a good 20,000 years.

Archaeology is my field of study. You can rest assured that I will do the research or know of whence I speak before I post historical fact.

[TKramar]

I make the money, she makes the decisions on how to spend it. She interacts and does whatever social activities are necessary, without me. She gets plenty of control--I only ask that she does not work outside the home, so that she actually has time to spend with me.