Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
Hell even other girlfriends eventually get tired of hearing the exact same complaints…when the root of it all often comes back to the guys general failures…I wonder if the tables were turned and vented at their women in the exact same way if women would just sit and listen?
No.[/quote]
There’s the rub. Do you have a problem with feelings or complaints? In women’s Venn Diagram, communications representing “Feelings” are a big circle within which “Complaints” are a much smaller circle. Men would look at the same communications and see the second circle as filling the first. And I for one love talking to my girlfriends – and with the exception of one, and I don’t perceive them as complaining regularly.
Men want women to be happy all the time – they love being around happy smiling women. Of course, that is a completely unreasonable and unattainable expectation. But when women are anything but happy, even if their spouse/boyfriend is completely out of control of the situation, the husband/bf somehow perceives it as an accusation that they’ve failed. Could someone explain this to me?
I don’t complain about my husband to my friends – I wouldn’t want him to do that so I don’t. And contrary to all that I’ve heard here, I married him for a lot of reasons, including the fact that I respected him (and I still do). He makes more even-headed decisions than I do (in many cases), he has a knack for business that I don’t and when the kids were littler he had the energy to come up with funny stories for them at bedtime. I’m a happy camper.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]I guess I has jumped around reading old comments , CaRenter.
You can label the different bad acts by gender but it doesn’t change the water seeks it’s own level thing. Since you agree with me on the water seeks it’s own level, I find it odd, or perhaps hypocritical that you decidedly favor women on break-ups. I love you like a sister CaRenter,but like my real life sisters you are biased about these things weighing in favor of women. Probably as natural as treating men like they are permanently inadequate once the nest is full but demanding slave like responsibility from them just the same. Men don;’t get what they want and need to the degree that women do under these circumstances and I have not even mentioned sex yet. In this light looking for a newer model makes more sense and does not interfere with water seeks it’s own level or make men or women worse than the other one. It’s complicated.Abandonment is interesting. There are biological forces that apply here too.
The woman knows the kids are hers. The mother in law knows the kids are hers.
Up until a few years ago the man new he had to work with or without kids and often but not always gives child support. Those are cultural aspects.So, I am not saying this stuff is ideal but if you want to look like a broad minded person on this topic and not your basic man hater, you will have to look at this topic more broadly and express your views with a nuance that reflects that you have. But nobody changes the way they are , so carry on.
I think I am going to strut now.
I don’t usually like to stifle people but if you argue back at all you will be proving my point. Back to the aforementioned strutting.[/quote]
Can I just say it is a little funny that you have said (in different words, of course) that unless CA Renter lets you have the last word, she is a man hater? That sounds a little Fred Flintstone to me. And Fred was not a bad guy, of course, but I don’t think most men aspire to be him. He was a “star” though, a word that you’ve included in your screen name (also a little funny), and he also liked to strut, so maybe . . .
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]i would go so far as to say that the needier or more emotionally involved the man is, the more likely the woman is to seek divorce. it’s…unmanly….[/quote]
I would put needy (bad) and emotionally involved (good) in two different categories. My dad was what I would call emotionally involved long before it was normal for dads to be. He was very quiet about it and I respected him immensely. Parents were happily married for almost 60 years until he passed away in 2011.[/quote]
I respectfully disagree. Men should not fall into the vortex of women’s emotional states. Men should always be separate strong and apart. Women have friends for that.[/quote]
Maybe we are defining our terms differently. To me “emotionally uninvolved” was my grandfather who came home from work, ate dinner, read the newspaper and went to bed. Definitely separate, strong and apart. My mother (born 1927) said that he barely seemed to know she was alive. He didn’t seem to care – his emotions didn’t seem to be “involved”. What is your definition?[/quote]
Separate but not aloof.[/quote]
Hmm. Do you have a daughter – I can’t remember? If not, this would make more sense.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]It is 10x better to be the type of guy who offends others than who is easily offended.
You don’t need to treat women like dirt.
But you need to make them seek your aporoval.
and put your feelings away. Don’t take them out except on special occasuons.[/quote]
You wouldn’t be so worried about your abs and your squats if the approval thing didn’t work both ways. And to comment on a separate post – when I want to talk about “feelings,” which isn’t very often, I have to admit my husband thinks it works out best if I can chat with friends (or if the timing is right, go to book club) have a glass of wine and get it out of my system. Female friends can have conversations like that without feleling they have to fix something. He can’t. It doesn’t work if there is a decision we need to make together, of course.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]i would go so far as to say that the needier or more emotionally involved the man is, the more likely the woman is to seek divorce. it’s…unmanly….[/quote]
I would put needy (bad) and emotionally involved (good) in two different categories. My dad was what I would call emotionally involved long before it was normal for dads to be. He was very quiet about it and I respected him immensely. Parents were happily married for almost 60 years until he passed away in 2011.[/quote]
I respectfully disagree. Men should not fall into the vortex of women’s emotional states. Men should always be separate strong and apart. Women have friends for that.[/quote]
Maybe we are defining our terms differently. To me “emotionally uninvolved” was my grandfather who came home from work, ate dinner, read the newspaper and went to bed. Definitely separate, strong and apart. My mother (born 1927) said that he barely seemed to know she was alive. He didn’t seem to care – his emotions didn’t seem to be “involved”. What is your definition?
Participant[quote=Hatfield][quote=Blogstar]What is the benefit of using hot water in the laundry?[/quote]
Hot water is a better solvent than cold water.[/quote]
Not for protein based stains (blood, etc) as it causes them to set.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i would go so far as to say that the needier or more emotionally involved the man is, the more likely the woman is to seek divorce. it’s…unmanly….[/quote]
I would put needy (bad) and emotionally involved (good) in two different categories. My dad was what I would call emotionally involved long before it was normal for dads to be. He was very quiet about it and I respected him immensely. Parents were happily married for almost 60 years until he passed away in 2011.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]After the wedding-on-a-budget stories, I think people would be embarrassed to declare they spent big.
There’s tradition and most brides do want to a big wedding, I believe. And parents want them too. Anyone spent $100k or more?
I personally like the idea of a reception with 2 dozens or so close friends. That’s enough.[/quote]
I’m not embarrassed. I loved my wedding – it was big and fun and we had to pay the band to stay for an extra hour and a half because the dance floor was still full. We got married at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago (complete with random street person who came in and yelled “I have a bomb” – luckily it was before 9/11.) It wasn’t deliberately expensive, but it was downtown and my family has a tradition of inviting all the aunts, uncles, cousins, their families, etc. I wouldn’t have changed anything. Almost 17 years, three kids and two cross country moves later, I’m still happy . . . and I have great memories. Not to say that there is no other way to do it, but it was a blast.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Prostitutes?
Please buy and read PAYING FOR IT by Chester brown. Autobiographical very thoughtful comic strip about a guy who gives up on relatio in ships and buys sex.[/quote]
Freakonomics has a great riff on that, too, indicating that demand for prostitutes has declined with increasing supply of non-committed sexual relationships, so prices have gone down.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=CA renter][quote=svelte][quote=flyer]Not all beautiful women are vacuous gold diggers, just as not all handsome men are shallow trophy wife collectors, and I have to agree, to each his/her own when choosing a partner for all of the right
reasons–love, happiness, achieving life goals, etc., etc.The wedding, the ring, the fabulous honeymoon, the great house, and all of the “stuff” are nice, and we’ve all been there, but, IMO, what makes the relationship lasting and beautiful is the deeper bond that’s been forged by things that money can’t buy.[/quote]
Agree with every word.
That’s why alarm bells would go off if I even caught a whiff of a potential spouse that was marrying me for the money. To those who are together for the $$, that’s A-OK with me as long as it works for them. But that’s not what I want my relationships built upon.[/quote]
Should alarm bells go off when a woman catches a whiff of a potential suitor/spouse wanting her for her beauty? (I would say yes.)
It goes both ways.[/quote]
Hmmm – that’s a sexist thought!
By using the pronoun “she” and the phrase “it goes both ways”, you’re implying that my response was for women marrying men for money and not men marrying women for money. It was not – my sentences were gender neutral on purpose.
If your sentence was rephrased “should alarm bells go off when someone catches a whiff of a potential spouse wanting them for their beauty? (I would say yes)”, then I would agree that one should run if a suitor was after them only for their beauty. Keyword “only”.
The beauty thing is a slippery slope. You have to be physically attracted to your spouse for it to work – so yeah I partly married for beauty. But beauty alone would not have been enough for me to marry her. Not even close.
She had a nice dowry too.
(j/k)[/quote]
Wait, your sentence was talking about someone marrying you for your money. Unless you were open to marrying a man or a woman, you weren’t being gender neutral.
What if someone said they married their spouse partly for the money?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]today id be too much of a pussy to get married. you either have to be brave, deluded, optimistic or narcotically in love to overlook the potential for utter ruin.
im not really sure i see the point, rationally. whats the advantage?
well, with that attitude, id never get married…[/quote]
What we don’t realize is that we felt different when we were younger – less neurotic, less risk averse. Every now and then something reminds me, and I realize that I was a different person 25 years ago.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]In terms of risk, from guys point of view marriage just seems wildly risky.[/quote]
Talk to your wife – I’m sure she would see it as equally risky.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I hate top load machines. I get rid of them immediately.
I like angular euro design. American appliances look bad. I’m glad GE sold to Electrolux.[/quote]
The “euro design” looks good to people like Brian, I guess.
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar]
Symmetry is a good indicator of good genes…if you ever look at people considered physically beautiful you will notice that they have excellent symmetry. My wife said my hands appealed to her…I have five fingers on each one.[/quote]
I do agree that it’s all about our selfish, selfish genes.[/quote]
True, except for when it is not. In reproductive years more so but not even then…lots of men raise other men’s kids with amazing devotion. I have a very successful friend from a “good” familly. At 32 he married a woman of modest means, with serious life shortening health issues, a terrible past pretty much from childhood up to the point he met her. She had two boys from different fathers, a third boy from a yet another father had already committed suicide at a very young age. They were married faithfully until her illnesses finally took her down. There was no perverted ulterior motive , like getting at the boys or something evil like that. He is still close to them and a fully involved grandfather to be.You can say there might be a lot of rescuer enabler stuff or that he is a saint, but you can’t say his selfish genes ruled.[/quote]
His behavior is probably analogous to this cat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/cat-breastfeeds-nurse-duckings-kittens-video_n_3349676.html
Our genes tell us to be “altruistic” under certain circumstances. Most of the time those circumstances are indicative of a genetic relationship, but sometimes not. In the case of the cat, she apparently has instincts to protect small fuzzy things that come into her life when oxytocin (or some other hormone) is off the charts. Under almost all circumstances, those fuzzy things are going to be her children (especially since she’s a cat – other animals will normally keep their babies away from her at all costs – so the likelihood of her being confused is low.)
It’s the same reason that people tend to be nicer to others who look like them – similarity in appearance suggests genetic relationship. It’s still the genes – but they are not perfect. -
AuthorPosts
