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.
I respond and the trolling brigade ensues. My position is very clear. If one's sure about a relationship, go for it! However, don't ever "settle" even if it takes you forty or fifty years to find the right person. Being singles not so bad; a person can be just as or even lonelier in a relationship.
First of all - the first part of your post doesn't make sense so I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say…
I see nothing wrong with being single. I see nothing wrong with not settling. I do, however, see much wrong with this article. I hope I have made myself clear.
You are free to keep insulting me though - if it makes you feel better!
You say that like it is a bad thing... Nagging, whining, superficial and stuck-up girls haven't given me the time of day. FYI, I haven't given them the time of day.
This is exactly it, American women are married to the careers first, friends second and husbands third. Why on earth should see sacrifice her career and friends to appease the whims of some man?? American women are not loyal and are generally self-absorbed. My advice is to find an Eastern woman, who will follow you anywhere you go and will sacrifice her career to serve her leader, her husband. That's right, IMO, the man is the head of the house. When two people are kings of the house, they end up divorce, hence the case of hindsight here. I feel for you and glad you made the right choice. In a way, she divorced you, you did not divorce her, because you did what you had to do to survive and she being the woman, should have submitted to her husband. I know you don't agree with what I am saying maybe, but somehow I think, inwardly, you do.
I'm sorry, I am not going to let some selfish woman take my children from me because she found a good career somewhere else and now needs a divorce. I want a hard-working, humble and modest woman who can accept sacrifices in a career to stay married. And no, being the man, I will not submit to the woman and let her support the family.
SERVE !!! serve her leader !!!!! what happens when you get tired of her? perhaps with your attitude i think the women will probably get very tired of you first...hopefully.
Bullying whom? From what I read Dewdrop quoted one of my post as linked:
Yea, and so? That's what people do in threads. They respond. She doesn't bully. That's not her MO. You, OTOH, have been bullying her. And what's funny about the whole nag conversation, specifically when your complaint about nagging is the strict definition of nagging (ultimately to harm), where hers is that of conventional understanding, is that you display what you don't like. Further, her syopsis was/is correct. That's evidenced in this thread. People who are at peace with themselves and their choices do not need to insult and belittle opposing lifestyle choices.
Quote:
I respond and the trolling brigade ensues. My position is very clear. If one's sure about a relationship, go for it! However, don't ever "settle" even if it takes you forty or fifty years to find the right person. Being singles not so bad; a person can be just as or even lonelier in a relationship.
Your position is completely about you and your issues. It also has nothing to do with her position, which is actually "be happy where you're at". You are obviously not happy where you're at. God knows why, but you definitely appear to be trying to convince yourself of something. I imagine that is why the article holds value for you.
Granted women look at everything from a totally different perspective. There's no point in even trying to comprehend.
The article offers excellent advise in what types of behavior single guys should NOT TOLERATE in potential partners. Women who disagree are welcome to continue to do so.
Thirty pages later I learn that Dewdrop and many other women's concept of nagging isn't the same as my own. Or even vaguely resembles what I perceive other males are speaking of in the article.
Dewdrop calls herself a nag. Then in later post twist the context stating that I called her a nag vs. summarizing the content of her own post. And yes Men who tolerate nagging are WEAK.
I'm very happy in my own life; especially being appreciative of the peace and serinity of not having the wrong woman in my life. The wrong partner can make one's life miserable and a living hell.
For the record, my fiance died of leukemia in 1992. It took me five years to get over it. I've been best man two times; and served in twelve weddings as a groomsman.
I'm starting to accept there simply isn't another woman on the planet; who doesn't play "mind games." Doesn't engage in manipulative and/or controling behavior. Doesn't have some weird sense of entitlement going on. One who doesn't twist words, or tell you how you feel...or what your life is like. Nope, she was emotionally, mentally, spiritually, balanced. Capable of authentic adult intimacy.
When I initially posted the article I didn't see it as being representive of all women. Only a good filter of things to "what out for" in today's world. Issues guys talk about routinely.
Granted women look at everything from a totally different perspective. There's no point in even trying to comprehend.
The article offers excellent advise in what types of behavior single guys should NOT TOLERATE in potential partners. Women who disagree are welcome to continue to do so.
Thirty pages later I learn that Dewdrop and many other women's concept of nagging isn't the same as my own. Or even vaguely resembles what I perceive other males are speaking of in the article.
Dewdrop calls herself a nag. Then in later post twist the context stating that I called her a nag vs. summarizing the content of her own post. And yes Men who tolerate nagging are WEAK.
I'm very happy in my own life; especially being appreciative of the peace and serinity of not having the wrong woman in my life. The wrong partner can make one's life miserable and a living hell.
For the record, my fiance died of leukemia in 1992. It took me five years to get over it. I've been best man two times; and served in twelve weddings as a groomsman.
I'm starting to accept there simply isn't another woman on the planet; who doesn't play "mind games." Doesn't engage in manipulative and/or controling behavior. Doesn't have some weird sense of entitlement going on. One who doesn't twist words, or tell you how you feel...or what your life is like. Nope, she was emotionally, mentally, spiritually, balanced. Capable of authentic adult intimacy.
When I initially posted the article I didn't see it as being representive of all women. Only a good filter of things to "what out for" in today's world. Issues guys talk about routinely.
I'm beginning to change my mind.
First of all - I'm so sorry for your loss. I can't even begin to comprehend what you had been through.
Secondly - just for the record - I said that I sometimes nag my husband. In no way shape or form did I call myself a nag. I would call myself "a nag" for sometimes nagging any more than I would call myself an author because I sometimes write little stories. Why would I do that? And in terms of nagging - we seem to have different ideas of what that is anyway.
Thirdly - We disagree. I disagree with the article. You don't. You keep trying to get at me - while I keep trying to talk about the article. If I have somehow led you to suddenly think that all women are manipulative, self entitled, whining, nagging, evil people - I truly am sorry.
Oh - and the article doesn't talk about what not to tolerate in a partner or what to avoid - the article says that by remaining single you won't have to deal with that kind of behavior because you are single. There is a difference. If the article was instructive on how to avoid whiners, nags, gold diggers, etc. - then I would see the merit of the article. The article talks about how great it is being single because you don't have a deal with a wife who nags, a fiancee who makes you buy an expensive ring, a wife that wants to spend all your money. The article says nothing about avoiding those types of women in the first place. Big difference.
The opinions you espouse as your own are different from those of the guy that wrote the article. Maybe you don't see that. I have no problems with guys wanting to avoid certain types of women - just like I have no problems with women wanting to avoid certain types of men.
So it only took 23 pages to identify our concepts of nagging differ. It's perfectly ok to disagree. I don't expect for your perception of the article to change; and my own certainly isn't.
The opinions I espouse as my own is that of a highly socialized male; interpreting and translating what other males have written. Hell, I was born with balls. I've played sports, and still participate in a wide range of activities. Went to university, and pledged a fraternity. Have a highly successful career. Last week when I caught up with my oldest friend didn't seem like I had any problems reading between the lines at all. I don't expect for women to "get" it. Any more than I doubt my ability to accurately gage what another individual of my own gender; is saying...
i.e. "I need to go in and "beg" to go play soccer." Heard that one last week. Have no doubt I comprehend exactly what that guy means. How would you interpret that?
Granted women look at everything from a totally different perspective. There's no point in even trying to comprehend.
Again, this is just more generalizing boloney. Women are not a single entity. Men are not a single entity. We're all individuals and we vary. The men on this forum don't like negative, male generalizations/stereotypes either, rightfully so.
Quote:
The article offers excellent advise in what types of behavior single guys should NOT TOLERATE in potential partners. Women who disagree are welcome to continue to do so.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with advice about not tolerating poor behavior from partners. I haven't seen anyone state that an individual should not wait to find the right partner if they want a partner. Please, show me these posts. But, this article really isn't about that as you read further on. It's largely irrational. Beyond relationships, approaching life with this article's MO is not reasonable. Going a bit from back to front...
1. You don't have to compromise. Well, guess what, we all have to compromise everyday, all day. We do so at work. We do so with our friends and families. We do so with our personal finances. It's just an aspect of being a mature adult. So, married or single, you don't get out of having to compromise.
2. You get to hang on to your toys. They all get tossed once married. Really? Does that make sense to you? First of all, the vast majority of men do not have a pot to p*ss in or a window to throw it out of. Any man wealthy enough to own a boat and classic cars is not going to be selling off his belongings. The assertion is absurd. Of course, being in a marriage may thwart the buying of toys in lieu of paying the mortgage/rent, but I tend to give people/men more credit than that.
3. You can enjoy your serenity. If it's in your nature to have discord in your relationships, than being alone will certainly bring greater serenity. Keep in mind that this is dependent on the individual. OTOH, given the intended audience of this article, single men who spend time online, I really don't know for sure. I'm only going on my experiences online, but quite a few do not appear serine at all. I mean, having to disparage an entire gender to reconcile a choice of being single isn't about serenity.
4. You can build wealth. Factually incorrect. Married people tend to be wealthier than their single counterparts. That's not to say a single person cannot build wealth, but as general advice it's off the mark.
5. You can enjoy a sexual smorgasbord. Really? Again, when considering the target audience, what we read here on this forum, and what the research shows, that's really not the case. It's false advertising, which is fine, but it's not up there in the great advice column.
Quote:
Thirty pages later I learn that Dewdrop and many other women's concept of nagging isn't the same as my own. Or even vaguely resembles what I perceive other males are speaking of in the article.
You're being intentionally obtuse. Conventionally, a nag can be anything. You know it. I know it. As stated, I nag my husband to go to the dentist. It's no secret that this is not "To torment persistently, as with anxiety or pain." My husband coming into my office tonight to tell me about the new Nissan electric car only being 21k, or whatever electric car he likes to talk about that we can possibly buy, may be a nag, but it's not to torment persistently, etc.
Quote:
Dewdrop calls herself a nag. Then in later post twist the context stating that I called her a nag vs. summarizing the content of her own post. And yes Men who tolerate nagging are WEAK.
You are the one twisting. It's transparent and lame. Given your state you really don't have any business calling any man weak.
Quote:
I'm very happy in my own life; especially being appreciative of the peace and serinity of not having the wrong woman in my life. The wrong partner can make one's life miserable and a living hell.
The partner you have is a reflection of you. People don't like to hear that, but it's often the truth. Perhaps you're happy, but I suspect it's relative.
Quote:
For the record, my fiance died of leukemia in 1992. It took me five years to get over it. I've been best man two times; and served in twelve weddings as a groomsman.
I'm sorry for your loss. I know how it goes. I lost my twin 2 years ago this coming December. There's nothing like it.
Quote:
I'm starting to accept there simply isn't another woman on the planet; who doesn't play "mind games." Doesn't engage in manipulative and/or controling behavior. Doesn't have some weird sense of entitlement going on. One who doesn't twist words, or tell you how you feel...or what your life is like. Nope, she was emotionally, mentally, spiritually, balanced. Capable of authentic adult intimacy.
I don't know. Maybe you have some lingering issues with your loss and present perception. That's understandable, but it doesn't make you correct. You have every right to deal with your loss how you see fit, but I don't think that extends to charges against millions of people you don't know and will never meet. I can't imagine that being a healthy space to reside in any way.
Quote:
When I initially posted the article I didn't see it as being representive of all women. Only a good filter of things to "what out for" in today's world. Issues guys talk about routinely.
I'm beginning to change my mind.
I don't think you're changing your mind at all. You're attracted to the venom in that article for reasons that existed before you posted it, to state the obvious.
1. You don't have to compromise. Well, guess what, we all have to compromise everyday, all day. We do so at work. We do so with our friends and families. We do so with our personal finances. It's just an aspect of being a mature adult. So, married or single, you don't get out of having to compromise.
Sure, compromise is a life skill, as well as setting healthy boundaries.However I have total control at home, which I percieve is what the article speaks of.
2. You get to hang on to your toys. They all get tossed once married. Really? Does that make sense to you? First of all, the vast majority of men do not have a pot to p*ss in or a window to throw it out of. Any man wealthy enough to own a boat and classic cars is not going to be selling off his belongings. The assertion is absurd. Of course, being in a marriage may thwart the buying of toys in lieu of paying the mortgage/rent, but I tend to give people/men more credit than that.
Yes, that makes sense to me. I've known many men who gave up their sport cars, not long after getting married. Some the wife didn't want them riding a street bike. Among a litany of various other things. If they had a place of their own, the "man cave" items usually disappear unless they're fortunate enough to have extra designated space. The "higher status" males I agree usually get to keep all of their toys. Others? Well it's part of that compromise trade-off thing you spoke of.
3. You can enjoy your serenity. If it's in your nature to have discord in your relationships, than being alone will certainly bring greater serenity. Keep in mind that this is dependent on the individual. OTOH, given the intended audience of this article, single men who spend time online, I really don't know for sure. I'm only going on my experiences online, but quite a few do not appear serine at all. I mean, having to disparage an entire gender to reconcile a choice of being single isn't about serenity.
Seems odd to me anyone would view the article as disparaging an entire gender. Again, the article was written based upon reviewing post of young single males on the website askmen.com. Do a little market research and one can find out what the more specific demographics are.
4. You can build wealth. Factually incorrect. Married people tend to be wealthier than their single counterparts. That's not to say a single person cannot build wealth, but as general advice it's off the mark.
I disagree. I know a young man through work. He had $44 Grand saved before he married at 25. Then he got engaged. The 44 grand went quickly for the wedding of her dreams. He wrote check after check. His original intent was to use the money for a down payment on a home. He compromised, and they're currently still working toward that goal. He's rarely getting laid. And he never knows whether he's going to get "yelled at" when he wakes up in the morning. A female at work who knows them both well, thinks he was crazy to marry her. But he made his choice, he got "skin" err.. "skinned" in the game.
I make the same salary as my best friend who has a wife, three kids, two new cars and a McMansion sized house. She doesn't work. Who do you think has more wealth?
Sure there are many couples who build wealth together over time. They have two incomes. They also have twice the expenses. There are also couples who go year to year living paycheck to paycheck, as there are single folks who do the same. It doesn't make the point infactual.
5. You can enjoy a sexual smorgasbord. Really? Again, when considering the target audience, what we read here on this forum, and what the research shows, that's really not the case. It's false advertising, which is fine, but it's not up there in the great advice column.
Research from a sociological perspective shows that 20 to 25 percent of singles; report having regular sexual activity. Where married individuals report around 40 or more percent, depending upon what study you read. The difference is one of convienance, and agreement for married people. Considering the article was written based upon post by young men. It's not difficult to comprehend what some of them are speaking of in using the slang.
Again, it's ok you don't "get" it. From my own frame of reference.
Sure, compromise is a life skill, as well as setting healthy boundaries.However I have total control at home, which I percieve is what the article speaks of.
The paragraph on compromise specifically notes outside events (going to movies, going to fairs). Unless you're going out alone you're still going to have to compromise with your family and friends, just as they compromise for you. It doesn't mention total control in the home. I have lived alone and have lived with my husband for >10 years and I'm not sure what this total control at home is about. What do people do at home? Hobbies are the first thing that comes to mind. We cook and eat. We have friends over and parties. We watch movies. We sleep. What am I missing?
Quote:
Yes, that makes sense to me. I've known many men who gave up their sport cars, not long after getting married. Some the wife didn't want them riding a street bike. Among a litany of various other things. If they had a place of their own, the "man cave" items usually disappear unless they're fortunate enough to have extra designated space. The "higher status" males I agree usually get to keep all of their toys. Others? Well it's part of that compromise trade-off thing you spoke of.
There are entire HGTV shows dedicated to man caves. You may know men that had to give up items, but for the vast majority? They acquire more items because married people tend to have greater wealth. My marriage fits the stats. When I married my husband drove an older car and back then he didn't have a computer. He has a new car, a couple of computers, a flat screen, electronic toys coming out the wazoo, etc. So, I think you're off the mark here. But, maybe I'm wrong. Provide the stats (those stats do not include blogs).
Quote:
Seems odd to me anyone would view the article as disparaging an entire gender. Again, the article was written based upon reviewing post of young single males on the website askmen.com. Do a little market research and one can find out what the more specific demographics are.
askmen.com (I was a member there) is a b*tch fest. And yes, the article disparages an entire gender. For example, "When you don't live with a woman, you're not subjected to her never-ending mood swings and emotional storms, or her blaming you for everything that she screws up in her life."
C'mon. Yes, some people have mood swings. If you think mood swings, emotional outbursts, and the blame game (which is funny given that the article is all about the blame game) are confined to one gender you're wrong. As far as the demographics go, I believe single men who spend time online b*tching about women, and vice versa to be clear, hold commonalities that stretch beyond typical demographics. It's insulated bitterness that results in hyperbole, but it's probably very real for some guys while they're in net space. Given enough time, I bet the lines between online and offline blur for many.
Quote:
I disagree. I know a young man through work....
I make the same salary as my best friend who has a wife, three kids, two new cars and a McMansion sized house. She doesn't work. Who do you think has more wealth?
Sure there are many couples who build wealth together over time. They have two incomes. They also have twice the expenses. There are also couples who go year to year living paycheck to paycheck, as there are single folks who do the same. It doesn't make the point infactual.
A. It doesn't matter who you know or who I know. The stats are what they are. Married people have more money. B. Your second paragraph is an argument about how some men choose to spend their money. That's a matter of personal preference. Some guys choose to spend their money on family, home, etc, and other guys choose to spend their money on boats, whatever. That makes no difference. C. It's not twice the expenses. My husband and I are not paying two mortgages (many singles choose to have roommates to share expenses, as if that needs to be mentioned). We don't pay two sets of insurance premiums. We don't own two sets of furniture. When we travel we don't go in two cars (not usually at least). When we camp we don't have two tents, two stoves, two canoes. Food is more expensive, but given that married couples are more likely to cook at home compared to singles, it's a wash. And god knows what men spend while dating. Based on threads here it appears to be too much. A majority of married couples pay less in taxes as well. Those who pay more tend to be the poor, unfortunately.
Any how, your point is not factual because..."studies have shown that married people tend to earn more money". Source
Quote:
Research from a sociological perspective shows that 20 to 25 percent of singles; report having regular sexual activity. Where married individuals report around 40 or more percent, depending upon what study you read. The difference is one of convienance, and agreement for married people. Considering the article was written based upon post by young men. It's not difficult to comprehend what some of them are speaking of in using the slang.
Again, it's ok you don't "get" it. From my own frame of reference.
Slang? What are you talking about? As has been repeatably shown/linked, singles have less sex. There is no sexual smorgasbord for the vast majority of single men. It's simply a fib to convince.
Any how, none of the out right lies in your article should be an argument to marry or remain single. Each individual comes to their own decisions based on their actual life experience. Nor should this article cause you to throw rationality out the window. It is hyperbole.
Last edited by Braunwyn; 11-13-2011 at 08:39 AM..
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.
You say that like it is a bad thing... Nagging, whining, superficial and stuck-up girls haven't given me the time of day. FYI, I haven't given them the time of day.
