Men As "Success Objects" & Women As "Sex Objects"
John Cooley
Bogbody <bog...@aol.com> wrote:
>I, too, am impressed when I hear that a man has a nice car or owns his own
>house. I am not overly impressed when I hear that a man lives with five
>roommates in a run-down flat and rides a second-hand scooter. As several
>women have pointed out, however, it is not the WEALTH that is impressive,
>it is the indication that the man is a responsible, stable adult. If
>wealth were the issue, then I would be impressed by men who drive Ferari's
>(spelling, sorry) - as it is, I wouldn't be interested in a man who drove
>such a vulgar, flashy thing. If a man is too wealthy, I might become
>uneasy. (I'm not sure why.) However, if a man has a NICE car and a DECENT
>place to live, then my weird female instincts say "Ah! Now, he might just
>turn out to be a wonderful father for my children." At the very least,
>even if I'm not looking to have babies, I still feel re-assured that this
>guy might not be the type to borrow money and be flighty.
That's funny: these are almost the exact same words my fireman friend said
when he got the house on Cape Cod and the Jeep. (I went to his wedding
yesterday.) He used to say he could almost hear the women go into this
"maternal mode" when they saw his car and heard he owned a house. He
got a hell of a lot of dates and really enjoyed himself this way!
>I hope that men are using similar, parrallel criteria when they are
>evaluating a woman they have just met...
That's a little more complicated these days, Katy. It used to be that
men were purely judged as "success objects" and women as "sex objects"
(to very grossly oversimplfy things)... but with women's equality and the
economic pressures we're all under, it's gotten kind of muddied. I must
admit that most guys still have to be physically attracted (at first)
for a relationship to even begin and I don't think this is really going
to change much....
I have an aquaintance (more like a friend of a friend) who I've known for
the past three years whose name I'll say is "Barb". Barb has been going out
with Ben for over 9 years and desperately wants to marry him. He said no
because of a mix of reasons plus the fact he wanted her to lose some weight.
Barb was kind of bullshit about the whole thing so started to try dating
other men. She has a fairly good job, her own condo, but she was 5'6"
and wore size 22 clothes. She couldn't get any guys to date her. Over
about 6 months she lost about 30 lbs and plateaued at size 18. For the
past 1 1/2 years she's been doing everything to get a steady
boyfriend -- stuff like paying big bucks to answer personal ads and
joining dating services. And every weekend the friend of a friend tells
me how poor Barb had a great date with some new guy -- but they *never*
call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
can't get a second date!
- John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
__)) "Glass ceilings? Name ANY ex-goat farmer who's made management!"
/_ oo
(_ \ Holliston Poor Farm - John Cooley
%// \" Holliston, MA 01746-6222 part time Sheep & ex-Goat Farmer
%%% $ jco...@world.std.com full time contract ASIC & FPGA Designer
Robert Becker
rec.org.mensa trimmed out - what the hell was that doing there?
In article <DrBL7...@world.std.com>,
John Cooley <jco...@world.std.com> wrote:
>I have an aquaintance (more like a friend of a friend) who I've known for
>the past three years whose name I'll say is "Barb". Barb has been going out
>with Ben for over 9 years and desperately wants to marry him. He said no
>because of a mix of reasons plus the fact he wanted her to lose some weight.
>Barb was kind of bullshit about the whole thing so started to try dating
>other men. She has a fairly good job, her own condo, but she was 5'6"
>and wore size 22 clothes. She couldn't get any guys to date her. Over
>about 6 months she lost about 30 lbs and plateaued at size 18. For the
>past 1 1/2 years she's been doing everything to get a steady
>boyfriend -- stuff like paying big bucks to answer personal ads and
>joining dating services. And every weekend the friend of a friend tells
>me how poor Barb had a great date with some new guy -- but they *never*
>call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
>dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
>can't get a second date!
Wrong again, sir. I married someone that size. We are no longer
married, but her size has nothing to do with the divorce. There are
lots of men who like big women. I happen to know two, besides myself,
who either dated for a respectable period of time or married big
women. You just don't happen to know any.
Our approaches are clearly quite different. When I'm looking, I find
plenty of dates with women of all sizes. Size doesn't matter very
much to me, you see. Brains and personality do. And, just in case
you want to ask, yes, these women *do* get second dates. And third
and fourth and fifth if we find we have something to talk about.
I do not know how your aquaintance is approaching the dating aspect of
her life. And since you don't know her very well at all, her being a
friend of a friend, you aren't qualified to say that it's merely her
size that makes the difference. Now, if you had personal knowledge of
how she talks with people, what her personality is, you might not say
what you did above.
Frankly, I find your comments amazing because you assume so much. You
would be well advised to speak from personal experience only.
Lastly, I think you're posting outrageous remarks like the above
merely to start a topic.
Robert
--
--------------------------
Robert Becker rob...@world.std.com
Erstwhile bicyclist, avid father, longtime breather
Steve Chaney
>>I, too, am impressed when I hear that a man has a nice car or owns his own
>>house. I am not overly impressed when I hear that a man lives with five
>>roommates in a run-down flat and rides a second-hand scooter. As several
>>women have pointed out, however, it is not the WEALTH that is impressive,
>>it is the indication that the man is a responsible, stable adult. If
>>wealth were the issue, then I would be impressed by men who drive Ferari's
>>(spelling, sorry) - as it is, I wouldn't be interested in a man who drove
>>such a vulgar, flashy thing. If a man is too wealthy, I might become
>>uneasy. (I'm not sure why.) However, if a man has a NICE car and a DECENT
>>place to live, then my weird female instincts say "Ah! Now, he might just
>>turn out to be a wonderful father for my children." At the very least,
>>even if I'm not looking to have babies, I still feel re-assured that this
>>guy might not be the type to borrow money and be flighty.
>
>That's funny: these are almost the exact same words my fireman friend said
>when he got the house on Cape Cod and the Jeep. (I went to his wedding
>yesterday.) He used to say he could almost hear the women go into this
>"maternal mode" when they saw his car and heard he owned a house. He
>got a hell of a lot of dates and really enjoyed himself this way!
If I weren't engaged now, that's what I'd be shooting for. I'm almost
close enough financially to get a good car and a modest flat (hell, I
coulda taken one in Santa Monica but the rent controls were just lifted -
oops, that's not owning, that's renting... owning's the point here :).
Game over. No more "you're a nice guy, BUT!" bullshit.
>>I hope that men are using similar, parrallel criteria when they are
>>evaluating a woman they have just met...
>
>That's a little more complicated these days, Katy. It used to be that
>men were purely judged as "success objects" and women as "sex objects"
>(to very grossly oversimplfy things)... but with women's equality and the
>economic pressures we're all under, it's gotten kind of muddied. I must
>admit that most guys still have to be physically attracted (at first)
>for a relationship to even begin and I don't think this is really going
>to change much....
To hell with that. The best position to be in, is an affluent man who
ISN'T attracted to a woman just for her looks. A man who keeps a firm
reign on his hormones (and general impulses), is both fairly hard to crack
(the usual feminine charms can't break open his wallet), and also attractive
because, despite a few predictably clueless thoughts to the contrary, a man
with self-control is, to the degree of his proficiency, highly popular dating
material. So basically he attracts the worldly women (the easiest to
attract if you've got what it takes), but they find it hard to leech off of
him. :)
Assuming, of course, that you're into that scene.
>I have an aquaintance (more like a friend of a friend) who I've known for
>the past three years whose name I'll say is "Barb". Barb has been going out
>with Ben for over 9 years and desperately wants to marry him. He said no
>because of a mix of reasons plus the fact he wanted her to lose some weight.
>Barb was kind of bullshit about the whole thing so started to try dating
>other men. She has a fairly good job, her own condo, but she was 5'6"
>and wore size 22 clothes. She couldn't get any guys to date her. Over
>about 6 months she lost about 30 lbs and plateaued at size 18. For the
>past 1 1/2 years she's been doing everything to get a steady
>boyfriend -- stuff like paying big bucks to answer personal ads and
>joining dating services. And every weekend the friend of a friend tells
>me how poor Barb had a great date with some new guy -- but they *never*
>call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
>dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
>can't get a second date!
She's a real rarity.
-- Steve
Mark Evans
John Cooley (jco...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Bogbody <bog...@aol.com> wrote:
: >I, too, am impressed when I hear that a man has a nice car or owns his own
: >house. I am not overly impressed when I hear that a man lives with five
: >roommates in a run-down flat and rides a second-hand scooter. As several
: >women have pointed out, however, it is not the WEALTH that is impressive,
: >it is the indication that the man is a responsible, stable adult. If
More the flaunting of wealth.
Taking up excessive living space and generating air pollution are hardly
the most socially responsible of actions :-)
: >wealth were the issue, then I would be impressed by men who drive Ferari's
:
Jennifer R Lind
In <DrBL7...@world.std.com> jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley)
writes:
>Bogbody <bog...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I, too, am impressed when I hear that a man has a nice car or owns
his own
>>house. I am not overly impressed when I hear that a man lives with
five
>>roommates in a run-down flat and rides a second-hand scooter. As
several
>>women have pointed out, however, it is not the WEALTH that is
impressive,
>>it is the indication that the man is a responsible, stable adult.
This is so true. I do like a man who owns a home or even rents his own
apt. This is because I take care of myself and I like to know a man
can take care of himself.
If
>>wealth were the issue, then I would be impressed by men who drive
Ferari's
>>(spelling, sorry) - as it is, I wouldn't be interested in a man who
drove
>>such a vulgar, flashy thing. If a man is too wealthy, I might become
>>uneasy. (I'm not sure why.) However, if a man has a NICE car and a
DECENT
>>place to live, then my weird female instincts say "Ah! Now, he might
just
>>turn out to be a wonderful father for my children." At the very
least,
>>even if I'm not looking to have babies, I still feel re-assured that
this
>>guy might not be the type to borrow money and be flighty.
I've been involved with men who hadn't left home yet and I won't get
involved with them because they don't know how to be responsible. If I
life with a man I don't want to take over the role of "mom"
>
>
>That's funny: these are almost the exact same words my fireman friend
said
>when he got the house on Cape Cod and the Jeep. (I went to his
wedding
>yesterday.) He used to say he could almost hear the women go into
this
>"maternal mode" when they saw his car and heard he owned a house. He
>got a hell of a lot of dates and really enjoyed himself this way!
>
>
>>I hope that men are using similar, parrallel criteria when they are
>>evaluating a woman they have just met...
>
>That's a little more complicated these days, Katy. It used to be that
>men were purely judged as "success objects" and women as "sex objects"
>(to very grossly oversimplfy things)... but with women's equality and
the
>economic pressures we're all under, it's gotten kind of muddied. I
must
>admit that most guys still have to be physically attracted (at first)
>for a relationship to even begin and I don't think this is really
going
>to change much....
This goes both ways.
> - John
>
When your overwieght I don't think dating services are the way to go.
She needs to meet men and let them get to know her. These men aren't
getting a chance to see her personality. It's like going on a blind
date. The only way any of us will do it, is if the person is
attractive. When you meet someone for the first time and your even a
little disappointed that sets the stage for the rest of the date. You
don't allow yourself to relax and get to know the person from the
inside out. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just how it is in
most cases.
Just my opinion
Jen
asg...@usa1.com
The way I heard it is that men look for younger women who are more likely to
bear him children, and women look for successfull men who are more likely to
provide for them.
Gus
In article <DrBL7...@world.std.com>, jco...@world.std.com says...
>
>Bogbody <bog...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I, too, am impressed when I hear that a man has a nice car or owns his own
>>house. I am not overly impressed when I hear that a man lives with five
>>roommates in a run-down flat and rides a second-hand scooter. As several
>>women have pointed out, however, it is not the WEALTH that is impressive,
>>it is the indication that the man is a responsible, stable adult. If
>>wealth were the issue, then I would be impressed by men who drive Ferari's
>>(spelling, sorry) - as it is, I wouldn't be interested in a man who drove
>>such a vulgar, flashy thing. If a man is too wealthy, I might become
>>uneasy. (I'm not sure why.) However, if a man has a NICE car and a DECENT
>>place to live, then my weird female instincts say "Ah! Now, he might just
>>turn out to be a wonderful father for my children." At the very least,
>>even if I'm not looking to have babies, I still feel re-assured that this
>>guy might not be the type to borrow money and be flighty.
>
>
>That's funny: these are almost the exact same words my fireman friend said
>when he got the house on Cape Cod and the Jeep. (I went to his wedding
>yesterday.) He used to say he could almost hear the women go into this
>"maternal mode" when they saw his car and heard he owned a house. He
>got a hell of a lot of dates and really enjoyed himself this way!
>
>
>>I hope that men are using similar, parrallel criteria when they are
>>evaluating a woman they have just met...
>
>That's a little more complicated these days, Katy. It used to be that
>men were purely judged as "success objects" and women as "sex objects"
>(to very grossly oversimplfy things)... but with women's equality and the
>economic pressures we're all under, it's gotten kind of muddied. I must
>admit that most guys still have to be physically attracted (at first)
>for a relationship to even begin and I don't think this is really going
>to change much....
>
>I have an aquaintance (more like a friend of a friend) who I've known for
>the past three years whose name I'll say is "Barb". Barb has been going
out
>with Ben for over 9 years and desperately wants to marry him. He said no
>because of a mix of reasons plus the fact he wanted her to lose some
weight.
>Barb was kind of bullshit about the whole thing so started to try dating
>other men. She has a fairly good job, her own condo, but she was 5'6"
>and wore size 22 clothes. She couldn't get any guys to date her. Over
>about 6 months she lost about 30 lbs and plateaued at size 18. For the
>past 1 1/2 years she's been doing everything to get a steady
>boyfriend -- stuff like paying big bucks to answer personal ads and
>joining dating services. And every weekend the friend of a friend tells
>me how poor Barb had a great date with some new guy -- but they *never*
>call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
>dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
>can't get a second date!
>
> - John
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Chaney
In article <DrBsH...@world.std.com>, Robert Becker <rob...@world.std.com> wrote:
>rec.org.mensa trimmed out - what the hell was that doing there?
>
>>the past three years whose name I'll say is "Barb". Barb has been going out
>>with Ben for over 9 years and desperately wants to marry him. He said no
>>because of a mix of reasons plus the fact he wanted her to lose some weight.
>>Barb was kind of bullshit about the whole thing so started to try dating
>>other men. She has a fairly good job, her own condo, but she was 5'6"
>>and wore size 22 clothes. She couldn't get any guys to date her. Over
>>about 6 months she lost about 30 lbs and plateaued at size 18. For the
>>past 1 1/2 years she's been doing everything to get a steady
>>boyfriend -- stuff like paying big bucks to answer personal ads and
>>joining dating services. And every weekend the friend of a friend tells
>>me how poor Barb had a great date with some new guy -- but they *never*
>>call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
>>dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
>>can't get a second date!
>
>married, but her size has nothing to do with the divorce. There are
>lots of men who like big women. I happen to know two, besides myself,
>who either dated for a respectable period of time or married big
>women. You just don't happen to know any.
NOT wrong again. He even stated he was grossly oversimplifying things
(something you snipped) which means it doesn't apply to ALL men and women,
that looks is what draws a man's attention. The situation does exist where
men will reject women for looks; it is not a denial of all other
possibilities. How to deal with that situation is indeed a very important
issue.
>I do not know how your aquaintance is approaching the dating aspect of
>her life. And since you don't know her very well at all, her being a
>friend of a friend, you aren't qualified to say that it's merely her
>size that makes the difference. Now, if you had personal knowledge of
>how she talks with people, what her personality is, you might not say
>what you did above.
Then again he might still. These people and situations do exist - yours is
not the only reality, nor is his.
>Frankly, I find your comments amazing because you assume so much. You
>would be well advised to speak from personal experience only.
That was what he was doing. Learn to read.
>Lastly, I think you're posting outrageous remarks like the above
>merely to start a topic.
The outrage was in what YOU depicted of his remarks. The topic is quite
valid, as is your point about how you (and, assuming many men who you know)
treat women. But there is a chance that she may not be among men as
enlightened as you, and as such it is a valid point to discuss what their
mental outlook is, and how to deal with it.
You have no idea if it's their attitude, or hers, that's causing her
problems. But he has a right to start a topic and at least HOPE that he
can learn some advice to help him discern which; or to start a topic and
fuck it up, or do something in between. People say outrageous shit around
here all the time to start topics.
-- Steve
John Cooley
John Cooley <jco...@world.std.com> wrote:
>I have an aquaintance (more like a friend of a friend) who I've known for
>the past three years whose name I'll say is "Barb". Barb has been going out
>with Ben for over 9 years and desperately wants to marry him. He said no
>because of a mix of reasons plus the fact he wanted her to lose some weight.
>Barb was kind of bullshit about the whole thing so started to try dating
>other men. She has a fairly good job, her own condo, but she was 5'6"
>and wore size 22 clothes. She couldn't get any guys to date her. Over
>about 6 months she lost about 30 lbs and plateaued at size 18. For the
>past 1 1/2 years she's been doing everything to get a steady
>boyfriend -- stuff like paying big bucks to answer personal ads and
>joining dating services. And every weekend the friend of a friend tells
>me how poor Barb had a great date with some new guy -- but they *never*
>call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
>dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
>can't get a second date!
Robert Becker <rob...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Wrong again, sir. I married someone that size. We are no longer
>married, but her size has nothing to do with the divorce. There are
>lots of men who like big women. I happen to know two, besides myself,
>who either dated for a respectable period of time or married big
>women. You just don't happen to know any.
>
>Our approaches are clearly quite different. When I'm looking, I find
>plenty of dates with women of all sizes. Size doesn't matter very
>much to me, you see. Brains and personality do. And, just in case
>you want to ask, yes, these women *do* get second dates. And third
>and fourth and fifth if we find we have something to talk about.
Robert, what do you do for a living? How old are you? I'm asking because
I may be able to set up a date between you & "Barb". (You seemed to have
made a great deal about how you don't care about a woman's weight here. I
don't know if this is some sort of Internet persona you're using in hopes
of attracting dates by showing how sensitive & caring you are (there are
guys who try this) or the real you. If you really don't care about a woman's
weight, perhaps you should go out with Barb. It would be good for her and
evidently good for you..... Do you live near Boston or what?)
- John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cooley
Jennifer R Lind <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>When your overwieght I don't think dating services are the way to go.
>She needs to meet men and let them get to know her. These men aren't
>getting a chance to see her personality. It's like going on a blind
>date. The only way any of us will do it, is if the person is
>attractive. When you meet someone for the first time and your even a
>little disappointed that sets the stage for the rest of the date. You
>don't allow yourself to relax and get to know the person from the
>inside out. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just how it is in
>most cases.
Jen, what I was trying tp point out is that in our youth-oriented culture
overweight women are treated very differently compared to slim women.
I think it more than just the dating scene; I'm talking in all sorts of
situations. (This reminds me of when I was in college of how I went
to visit a female friend I had known from high school at her all girls
Catholic college. We were friends, not romantic. After noting how
well dressed and well groomed all the girls were all the time (even
when they were "bumming" around) I asked my friend Michelle what was
up. (This was after one girl had refused to go to Sunday morning
breakfast because she didn't want to take all the time to "make herself
up" even though there were only other women around at this cafeteria
on a Sunday morning.) She said: "We don't dress up and put on all
the make-up for guys -- it's mostly for the other women! It's
how we judge each other.")
Robert Becker
In article <DrGAr...@world.std.com>,
In another thread, Steve wrote that it was outrageous that I flamed
you. After a couple days of thinking, I think he is right about that.
I apologize. The topic of weight and dating is important.
At another time I might be interested in dating. Unfortunately, right
now I'm not. My willingness to date has nothing to do with being put
on the spot; it has everything to do with getting over a divorce and
trying to build myself a future.
On the other hand, I have no problem meeting people socially in
groups. When the next singles gathering is posted, let her know when
and where it is.
On the weight issue, though, it's more important to me *why* the
person is overweight. Eating habits are some of the hardest to break,
so becomming overweight might be a matter of not being as active as
one used to be, or simply a matter of enjoying food a lot. It could
be stress related, or it could also just be that person's metabolism.
Sometimes being large is a sign of personality disorder (eating
compulsively), and that's the only situation that really concerns me.
-=Weezel=-
On Wed, 15 May 1996, John Cooley wrote:
...snip
> breakfast because she didn't want to take all the time to "make herself
> up" even though there were only other women around at this cafeteria
> on a Sunday morning.) She said: "We don't dress up and put on all
> the make-up for guys -- it's mostly for the other women! It's
> how we judge each other.")
Oh so THAT's what went wrong. I went to Oberlin College, where we learned
how to think. Damn the bad luck! I should've gone to Our Lady Of Perpetual
Makeup to prepare for life in the real world.
;-)
--Louise
Allison Turner
Steve Chaney wrote:
<all kinds of context snipped>
> To hell with that. The best position to be in, is an affluent man who
> ISN'T attracted to a woman just for her looks. A man who keeps a firm
> reign on his hormones (and general impulses), is both fairly hard to crack
I always love a challenge.
> (the usual feminine charms can't break open his wallet),
Oh. Nevermind. Wasn't paying attention to the prize between door number
three.
and it's close enough to midnight so that I'm in the wrong thread anyway.
-Allison
(who never really was a night owl, and gets kinda foggy at this time of
night, just in case you were wondering why this makes so little sense).
valk...@netcom.com
(Snip)
but they *never*
> >call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
> >dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
> >can't get a second date!
>
> She's a real rarity.
>
>
> -- Steve
>
I don't think "Barb" is all that much a rarity, Steve. There are plenty of
"plentiful" women out there who can't seem to get past the idea that men are so
visual when it comes to women. I've got the house, the expensive car, no bills
and have been told I'm attractive, but can I get a date with the same person
more than once? I think not. Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
woman's body?
-- Val
Mark Sobolewski
jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
> Robert, what do you do for a living? How old are you? I'm asking because
> I may be able to set up a date between you & "Barb".
If those are the first two questions "Barb" asks a man, no wonder she's
still single...
Mark
takworld
Mark, being single is not a punishment or disgraceful or a hardship of
any kind. I know we are programmed to want to propagate but some of us
have learned, with out big brains, how not to because we don't feel the
need to -- there are enough folks in this world mindlessly popping out
kids galore to insure the human race continues. Being single doesn't
mean being alone, or lonely, anymore than being "mated" means you never
get lonely or are alone. And, as hard as it may seem to you, some women
actually choose to remain single -- which doesn't mean we don't have
people who love us and enjoy our company and are in our lives constantly
and make love with us and share our time here on earth.
No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB
[note followups set to just the singles groups from the earlier post]
Mark Sobolewski <ma...@flashpoint.com> wrote:
>jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>> Robert, what do you do for a living? How old are you? I'm asking because
>> I may be able to set up a date between you & "Barb".
>
>If those are the first two questions "Barb" asks a man, no wonder she's
>still single...
>
OK, Mark, you've inspired a new thread.
For Mark specifically, and anyone else who cares to answer:
What are the first two questions *you* would ask a third party
(e.g. a mutual acquaintance) about someone you might be interested
in meeting?
Bob O`Bob
--
Ciccio
obr...@netcom.com (No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB) writes:
>[note followups set to just the singles groups from the earlier post]
My Bobo Bob, how conscientious of you...
>What are the first two questions *you* would ask a third party
>(e.g. a mutual acquaintance) about someone you might be interested
>in meeting?
I can narrow it down to one question... Does she nag?
But since you asked for two, and gawd knows, I don't want to be subjected
to some Bobo Bob droning for violating the call of your question, I'll add
another.... Is she seriously involved with anybody?
A "yes" to either of those questions would put any babe outta the running
in my book.
Ciccio
Anne P. Mitchell Esq.
In a recent message valk...@netcom.com tells us:
*
*(Snip)
*
* but they *never*
*> >call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
*> >dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
*> >can't get a second date!
*>
*> She's a real rarity.
*>
*>
*> -- Steve
*>
*I don't think "Barb" is all that much a rarity, Steve. There are plenty of
*"plentiful" women out there who can't seem to get past the idea that men are so
*visual when it comes to women. I've got the house, the expensive car, no bills
*and have been told I'm attractive, but can I get a date with the same person
*more than once? I think not. Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
*woman's body?
Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
then it just compounds things.
It may have a lot less to do with your looks (you after all say you have
been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
self esteem] you probably are!) - it may have more to do with the
attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
being intimidated by you, can be tough.
--
I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
*--> Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
To join the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange: free...@vix.com
1996 - a great year to be F.R.E.E.!
Brendan Perry
> : Bogbody <bog...@aol.com> wrote:
> : >I, too, am impressed when I hear that a man has a nice car or owns his own
> : >house. I am not overly impressed when I hear that a man lives with five
> : >roommates in a run-down flat and rides a second-hand scooter. As several
> : >women have pointed out, however, it is not the WEALTH that is impressive,
> : >it is the indication that the man is a responsible, stable adult. If
> : >wealth were the issue, then I would be impressed by men who drive Ferari's
> : >(spelling, sorry) - as it is, I wouldn't be interested in a man who drove
> : >such a vulgar, flashy thing. If a man is too wealthy, I might become
> : >uneasy. (I'm not sure why.) However, if a man has a NICE car and a DECENT
> : >place to live, then my weird female instincts say "Ah! Now, he might just
> : >turn out to be a wonderful father for my children." At the very least,
> : >even if I'm not looking to have babies, I still feel re-assured that this
> : >guy might not be the type to borrow money and be flighty.
Hey, I resemble that remark! I live in a *nice* group house and I
drive a '65 Ford Falcon by CHOICE! See, I _enjoy_ messing with that
car on occasion, driving down the highway with my arm on the window,
wind in my hair, playing kooky music on it's 8-track player. I wear
thrift shop clothes on occasion, jeans & t-shirts, and Converse All-
Stars, but I also look damn fine in a suit.
Oh, but this all demonstrates my lack of responsibility!?! Never mind
that I'm saving to start a business, saving for my retirement NOW,
saving for my future family if I have one, saving for my real passions
like travelling and music. It's the 'look' that matters!
I have a good job with good pay that've I've been working for 5 years.
Everyone I know with children tells me I'm great with kids. I cook I
clean I sew. I can cut a rug, understand opera, speak furrin' languages,
mix a mean martini and play Devil's Advocate with the best of 'em. But
the fact that I paid $400 for my car, fixed it up, have driven it
EVERY DAY for almost 3 years and sock away the $200/month I COULD
be spending on a generic rice rocket "proves" I'm unstable? Boo hoo,
I thought it proved I had my priorities straight.
I and many young men like me are in a state of flux. I want to find
the right person and settle down, but I don't know where I want that
to be yet. So why buy a house? If I save money now on cars and clothes
and mortgages I'll have that much more to start a family off right. If
I found Ms Right in a far off city, I could pack up my stuff in a
small van and bring my friggin' Bank Account with me! So don't judge
a book by it's cover!
--
cheers,
Brendan Perry
Richard Harter
B David < br...@lee.house.gov, bb...@hr.house.gov> wrote:
Okay folks, why not cross post to comp.lang.c while you're at it or
alt.hairy.ass or spam all of the newsgroups in the world.
[followups set to talk.origins where I read this.]
Richard Harter at c...@tiac.net | All staff happy and working hard
The Concord Research Institute | All projects under control
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri | All deadlines being met
1-508-369-3911 | All pigs fed and ready to fly
Ken Smith
In article <NEWTNews.665.832...@pkaia6.syntex.com>,
<valk...@netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>"plentiful" women out there who can't seem to get past the idea that men are so
Let me give a partial answer to your question. Are men attracted by a
good looking body? You bet, but the body is far from the whole story.
Your opinion about your self is very important. If you think you are
undesirable, "presto changeo" you will be undesireable. Men react to
body language and if you think your body is ugly your body language will
say that your body is ugly. Noone, that I know, sets out to be with an
ugly person. The range of body forms that are considered good looking
is very large, so men dont really know if you're good looking or not
unless you tell them.
Just my opinion.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
Ross Williams
valk...@netcom.com wrote:
: but they *never*
: > >call her back for a second date. Barb's even joined one of those pricey
: > >dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
: > >can't get a second date!
: > She's a real rarity.
: >
: I don't think "Barb" is all that much a rarity, Steve. There are plenty of
: "plentiful" women out there who can't seem to get past the idea that men are so
: and have been told I'm attractive, but can I get a date with the same person
: more than once? I think not. Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
: woman's body?
*Some* men do. Some men, conversely, put almost *no* emphasis on her body.
It is well-known and oft-observed that most men will go for the "average"
women with a compatible personality.
If you are running across only, or mostly men who (in your opinion) are
selecting only on looks, then I would suggest you
1) determine which kind of men you are screening out -- and *why*; or,
2) determine whether or not your personality may be more of a turnoff
than you perceive it to be.
Or do both.
-rw
Michael D. Porter
In article <4nrkkr$l...@gw.home.vix.com>, shed...@vix.com (Anne P.
Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
> *more than once? I think not. Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
>
> *woman's body?
>
>
> Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
> by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also
attractive,
> then it just compounds things.
I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
for them.
I have also heard a few guys say that the strong, intelligent,
successful, attractive women are more willing to dump them because the
woman thinks she's too good for him, or that she can find another man
easily. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I've heard.
--Mike
Mark Evans
Anne P. Mitchell Esq. (shed...@vix.com) wrote:
: In a recent message valk...@netcom.com tells us:
: *
: *(Snip)
: *
: * but they *never*
: *> >dating services where it worked out to $120.00 per date -- and she still
: *> >can't get a second date!
: *>
: *> She's a real rarity.
: *>
: *> -- Steve
: *>
: *"plentiful" women out there who can't seem to get past the idea that men are so
: *visual when it comes to women. I've got the house, the expensive car, no bills
: *and have been told I'm attractive, but can I get a date with the same person
: *more than once? I think not. Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
:
: Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
: by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
: then it just compounds things.
Is this really the case or is it a "too good to be true" effect, where they
suspect that there is a catch somewhere.
Mark Sobolewski
> by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also
attractive,
> then it just compounds things.
>
> been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
> self esteem] you probably are!) - it may have more to do with the
> attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
> perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
> who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
> being intimidated by you, can be tough.
I'm not sure what you are talking about Anne. Are you talking about
men who "can't hold their own" and _be as successfull_ as a "strong"
woman or men who are simply intimidated regardless of the man's
own personal success?
I've dated career women and I can see where you are coming from.
It gets rather tiring always having to compete with her. (Of course,
I get a big laugh when the same woman complains that men are,
on average, more successfull than she is. She can't accept us
otherwise and complains about it...)
Mark
Word Warrior
pe...@lheavx.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brendan Perry) wrote:
>--
>cheers,
>Brendan Perry
Hey, Brendan: got any gifs of that Falcon?
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ gr...@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nestor J. Presas
However, if a man has a NICE car and a DECENT
>>>place to live, then my weird female instincts say "Ah! Now, he might
just
>>>turn out to be a wonderful father for my children." At the very
least,
>>>even if I'm not looking to have babies, I still feel re-assured that
this
>>>guy might not be the type to borrow money and be flighty.
>>
There is something scary about the way a woman lays in waiting,
spining a web, like a predatory spider. Who else but a pasive predator
will weight my value according to some future plan for MY LIFE. It
seems a man is being valued solely as a tool of this already completed
vision. The man is not a participant, but a mere provider for the
accomplisment of some dream that was formed previously even to his
selection, totally in his absence. This women have decided long
ago(possibly with the help of their mothers) how our life is going to
be shaped. By doing this they(unbecomingly) are an important element in
the repressive regulatory side of western society.
It is troubling how little self-criticism some woman may have. A
real gentleman on the other hand, is always sensitive to the needs of
others.
Joe Long
shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
>Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
>by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
>then it just compounds things.
I suspect that phenomena is overrated -- but I can relate to it.
While I was single I had a "blind date" with a woman doctor. When we
met at the restaurant, she took my breath away -- she was gorgeous!
Now, normally on a first date I tried to get the lady to talk about
herself and her interests, and avoided dominating the conversation.
But this time I was thinking "she can have her pick of men" and so I
spent the whole time talking about myself, trying to "impress" her.
You can guess the result. She politely but firmly declined my
invitations for a second date.
--
Joe Long
jl...@hiwaay.net
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jlong/home.shtml
Jennifer R Lind
(snipped to include what Br...@lee.house.gov posted to my comments)
In <4nqoll$c...@neon.house.gov> B David < br...@lee.house.gov,
bb...@hr.house.gov> writes:
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>---------------------------------226462360129028
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>be...@ix.netcom.com(Jennifer R Lind ) wrote:
>
>>This is so true. I do like a man who owns a home or even rents his
own
>>apt. This is because I take care of myself and I like to know a man
>>can take care of himself.
>
>This may sound very insightful. Do you know that sometimes
>very bad things must be done in order to own a home or rent
>an apt ??? As a result, you must not be suprised if you find
>yourself in a bad relationship with a man who owns a home or
>rents and apt.
I will admit however that the last guy I dated did own a home and he
was the most irresponsible guy I ever met. He didn't take care of his
house, his yard or pay any of his bills on time.
>
>>
>>I've been involved with men who hadn't left home yet and I won't get
>>involved with them because they don't know how to be responsible.
>
>You base his responsibility upon his living at home (and saving,
>what, $400 - $900 dollars a month) ???
As I just said above, owning a house doesn't mean someone is
responsible, so yes I am changing my view here. There is more to
responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I went
out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
lived with and I'm not doing it again.
>
>>Jen
Y Ng
Jennifer R Lind (be...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I will admit however that the last guy I dated did own a home and he
: was the most irresponsible guy I ever met. He didn't take care of his
: house, his yard or pay any of his bills on time.
: >
: >>
: >>I've been involved with men who hadn't left home yet and I won't get
: >>involved with them because they don't know how to be responsible.
: >
: >You base his responsibility upon his living at home (and saving,
: >what, $400 - $900 dollars a month) ???
: As I just said above, owning a house doesn't mean someone is
: responsible, so yes I am changing my view here. There is more to
: responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I went
: out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
: how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
: cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
: take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
: lived with and I'm not doing it again.
: >
: >>Jen
could you list the things that a man suppose to do to be
considered as a responsible man? or maybe list the things
that a woman should do as a wife?
one question for your men out there, how many times that your
partner initiate sex? and how many times you have to beg for
it? the successful rate, or the unsuccessful rate, please.
John Fereira
so that we can make an informed determination as to whether it's better
when the man initiates or the woman.
--
John Fereira
fer...@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY
Eugenia Horne
In article <mdporter-210...@pool050.max18.san-francisco.
>ca.dynip.alter.net>,
[crossposted...really need soc.gender.relations or
something...]
>Michael D. Porter <mdpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <4nrkkr$l...@gw.home.vix.com>, shed...@vix.com (Anne P.
>Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
>
>> *more than once? I think not. Why is it that men put so much
>> *emhasis on a woman's body?
>>
>> Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very*
>> intimidated by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that
>> woman is also attractive, then it just compounds things.
>
> I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
>man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
>want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
>for them.
And why not?
Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
to become "strong, intelligent, successful" and THEN
the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
"WHY are you interested NOW, when none of you were before?"
> I have also heard a few guys say that the strong, intelligent,
>successful, attractive women are more willing to dump them because the
>woman thinks she's too good for him, or that she can find another man
>easily. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I've heard.
Maybe, it's just suddenly the "balance of power" shifting
or the perception of the "balance of power" changing.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ernst has walzed at one or two Court balls and I have eaten macaroni,
neither of them feats that would justify a triumphal procession."
- Prince Albert
Anne P. Mitchell Esq.
Timothy Ferguson <Timothy....@jcu.edu.au> write:
*On 20 May 1996, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
*
*> Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
*> by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
*> then it just compounds things.
*
*This is a self-serving delusion, that allows you to blame your lack of
*dates on the fact that the men around you are insensitive and insecure.
Wow, Tim (may I call you "Tim"?), that's a great theory - but you might want
to have tested it before positing it, as the fact is that I have
no lack of dates.
>Most of the men I know would prefer a strong, successful partner.
Ok, now, I realize this is a silly question, but: is this something you have
actually polled most of the men you know about? And, is that a very high
number of men? And, would it not be true that your friends would generally
be the same sort of men as you, which may well be hardly a representative
sample? Whom to you propose as your control group?
>Why are they not dating you?
Probably because they are down under, and I'm in the USA.
>God knows. Maybe your culture is different to mine.
Interesting that you offer this explanation, but still felt driven to the ad
hominem attack which you opened with.
>Maybe, thought, you have something else about you that drives others away
>and instead of confronting yourself about it you prefer to blame men and
>say it's because they are scared of how good you are.
Nice theory, but again, it doesn't hold water in this instance.
You also seem to completely ignore that I was offering a possibility to
explain the *other* poster's situation, not holding court about my own
life, see?:
*> It may have a lot less to do with your looks (you after all say you have
*> been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
*> self esteem] you probably are!) - it may have more to do with the
*> attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
*> perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
*> who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
*> being intimidated by you, can be tough.
>
>Anne, I think this is laughable and slightly pathetic. Think it through.
Aw darn..does this mean you wouldn't date me (if I were available?)
>I know very few men who wouldn't prefer a successful woman with her own
>interests to a clingy woman who was dependant virtually as if she were a
>child.
>
>I, personally, used to think the reason women didn't date me was because
>they were shallow and didn't see my good inner qualities despite my ugly
>exterior.
Anyone else with me in thinking that maybe it's because he's a presumptive
idiot?
> I've since thought it through and worked out that it's actually
>that I'm too aloof
Oh yes, that is obvious.
>and private, which gives people no way of connecting
>with me on an emotional level.
Wow, I find that hard to believe, given your display of open emoting here!
Seth Breidbart
In article <mdporter-210...@pool050.max18.san-francisco.ca.dynip.alter.net>,
> I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
>man get close to her.
I've met quite a few. In some cases, I was the man. Maybe you're not
doing something right.
> I have also heard a few guys say that the strong, intelligent,
>successful, attractive women are more willing to dump them because the
>woman thinks she's too good for him, or that she can find another man
>easily.
That doesn't correspond too well with your first sentence.
Seth
Michael D. Porter
In article <4nv8a8$t...@cwis.isu.edu>, horn...@cwis.isu.edu (Eugenia
Horne) wrote:
> In article <mdporter-210...@pool050.max18.san-francisco.
> >ca.dynip.alter.net>,
>
> [crossposted...really need soc.gender.relations or
> something...]
>
> >Michael D. Porter <mdpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
> >man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
> >want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
> >for them.
>
> And why not?
I don't know. I don't even wish to find out these days: I'd rather
spend my time looking for an emotionally available woman who isn't out to
get revenge on the world.
> Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
> high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
> the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
> to become "strong, intelligent, successful" and THEN
> the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
> unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
> has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
>
> "WHY are you interested NOW, when none of you were before?"
As one of the male "nerds" who wasn't given a second look until AFTER
high school (when for some strange reason women started to notice me), I
can relate to the statement above. I've known gorgeous women and average
looking ones. The average ones are harder to deal with for some reason. I
think I need to move to a place where people are more friendly than San
Jose.
Ciccio
mdpo...@earthlink.net (Michael D. Porter) writes:
>In article <4nrkkr$l...@gw.home.vix.com>, shed...@vix.com (Anne P.
>Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
> I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
>man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
>want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
>for them.
They let men get close to them, it's just that the man has to be at least
as strong, intelligent, and successful. Overall, women in all classes tend
to "marry up" more than men do. Though there are certainly exceptions.
> I have also heard a few guys say that the strong, intelligent,
>successful, attractive women are more willing to dump them because the
>woman thinks she's too good for him, or that she can find another man
>easily. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I've heard.
Hmmmm. I don't think that they are more willing, but they are probably more
capable.
Ciccio
>--Mike
Michelle D Harris
In <4nu2jj$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com(Jennifer R
***Well I just want to point out that women are increasingly looked
at as success objects (at least, much more so than 10 yrs ago).
Ask any (attractive) 35 year old woman with no wedding ring to
drive a MBZ 500SL to the grocery store, golf course, etc. I have
a friend in this situation and I can tell you she has a collection
of bus. cards from some attractive men that have tried to meet her
almost *anywhere*. The reason she is interesting to them is that
she possesses the trappings of success - or at least the perception
of it - in this case the car.
Personally I think this is a sad fact of life that people are so
shallow. But they are.
DMH
James Buster
In article <4nv8a8$t...@cwis.isu.edu>,
Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
> Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
> high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
> the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
> to become "strong, intelligent, successful" and THEN
> the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
> unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
> has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
>
> "WHY are you interested NOW, when none of you were before?"
Tell me why this is any different for a man? The boys in HS who were
"nerds" were similarly told that they were not attractive or desirable,
but now that they're making the big bucks in engineering they've suddenly
become desirable mates. Go figure.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking atomsphere of
poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not much like Earth.
-- Calvin
Geryon
In article <4nviv4$c...@transfer.stratus.com>, fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) says:
>
>In article <4nv4l6$b...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> y...@firefly.prairienet.org (Y Ng) writes:
>>
>>Jennifer R Lind (be...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>: I will admit however that the last guy I dated did own a home and he
>>: As I just said above, owning a house doesn't mean someone is
>>: responsible, so yes I am changing my view here. There is more to
>>: responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I went
>>: out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
>>: how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
>>: cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
>>: take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
>>: lived with and I'm not doing it again.
>>:
I rent a small house from my betters, but it still somewhat comes to
the same thing 'living at home'. And much as I hate to admit it,
I am afraid your right on this one. Although I pretty much run my
little place as an independent entity now, for a long time 'ol Ma
and Pa wanted to keep taking care of me like I was a teenager. [I'm
the youngest in the family-*danger danger danger*]
This made my own responsibility a bit slow in coming.
Usually the old folks wanna keep there last lil' darling around for ever,
even though the do it subconciously. Always finding reasons why 'junior'
should stick around. And often these reasons are very *good* reasons,
at least financially...except junior, already being the youngest and
not having had to carry quite as responsibility as his/her senior
siblings, is still kept from learning the full rigors of independent
life...
>>: >>Jen
>>
>> could you list the things that a man suppose to do to be
>> considered as a responsible man? or maybe list the things
>> that a woman should do as a wife?
>>
>> one question for your men out there, how many times that your
>> partner initiate sex? and how many times you have to beg for
>> it? the successful rate, or the unsuccessful rate, please.
>
>And while you're at it could you describe in detail the actual act
>so that we can make an informed determination as to whether it's better
>when the man initiates or the woman.
>
>--
>John Fereira
>fer...@isis.com
>Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY
On behalf of Grolm everywhere,
We of the Grolm pack give you the standard farewell
and blessing:
--------------------------------------------------------
We already know what the d*mn grolm have to say, now tell
the buggers to keep their beaks shut!
--------------------------------------------------------
Just call me a pchyzophrenic self-flaming grolm :)
-=Weezel=-
On 23 May 1996, Geryon wrote:
> I rent a small house from my betters, but it still somewhat comes to
> the same thing 'living at home'. And much as I hate to admit it,
> I am afraid your right on this one. Although I pretty much run my
> little place as an independent entity now, for a long time 'ol Ma
> and Pa wanted to keep taking care of me like I was a teenager. [I'm
> the youngest in the family-*danger danger danger*]
> This made my own responsibility a bit slow in coming.
>
> Usually the old folks wanna keep there last lil' darling around for ever,
> even though the do it subconciously. Always finding reasons why 'junior'
> should stick around. And often these reasons are very *good* reasons,
> at least financially...except junior, already being the youngest and
> not having had to carry quite as responsibility as his/her senior
> siblings, is still kept from learning the full rigors of independent
> life...
Um. Not necessarily. I moved out at age 22, travelled 500 miles away to my
new job, supported both myself and the guy I was with, and never went back
home. I bought a house at age 26 and was STILL the main income.
Sometimes the youngest (of 4, in my case) is really royally sick of having
people try to run his/her life. And I am glad I did. I don't have the
built-in social fallback of having my family in the area. But I can look
down and see my feet under me.
I think we've regressed evolutionarily. Birds have no trouble denesting
their young. That old clawed foot on the butt trick - works every time.
Much better for the young than wrapping them in cotton (or duct tape).
--L
Stefan J. patejak
Decent MM with own apartment, computer, and IRA seeks FM for
companionship in DC area.
-=Weezel=-
The problem is.... ok, you have two currently successful ex-nerds. They
meet. They look at the other and two simultaneous thoughts run through
both heads: 1) s/he is so attractive and successful s/he won't be
interested in me and 2) Why is s/he interested in me NOW? Where was s/he
when I had zits and didn't go to my prom?
The past is the PAST! Yeah, it colors who we are. But it doesn't have to
be a head-to-toe dye job.
--Louise
Jim Clark
Anne P. Mitchell Esq. (shed...@vix.com) wrote:
" Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
" by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
" then it just compounds things.
While I don't doubt that some men are intimidated by such wonderful women,
I don't believe they are in the majority.
Also, some people (both men and women) do not hesitate to describe themselves
as "intelligent" and "attractive" while just a cursory examination shows
that it's all delusion.
" It may have a lot less to do with your looks (you after all say you have
" been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
" self esteem] you probably are!)
I see: vitalism in dating at work!
" - it may have more to do with the
" attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
" perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
" who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
" being intimidated by you, can be tough.
Note that she was complaining that she could not get a second date, not
that she did not want because the men were not able to hold their own
with her.
If she's intelligent she will be able to see right away that they are
not able to their own with her, so why does she want to stick around
them?
Alex Lam
>fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) wrote:
>In article <4nv4l6$b...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> y...@firefly.prairienet.org (Y Ng) writes:
>>
>>Jennifer R Lind (be...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>: I will admit however that the last guy I dated did own a home and he
>>: was the most irresponsible guy I ever met. He didn't take care of his
>>: house, his yard or pay any of his bills on time.
>>
>>: >
>>: >>
>>: >>I've been involved with men who hadn't left home yet and I won't get
>>: >>involved with them because they don't know how to be responsible.
>>: >
>>: >You base his responsibility upon his living at home (and saving,
>>: >what, $400 - $900 dollars a month) ???
>>
>>: As I just said above, owning a house doesn't mean someone is
>>: responsible, so yes I am changing my view here. There is more to
>>: responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I went
>>: out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
>>: how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
>>: cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
>>: take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
>>: lived with and I'm not doing it again.
You're absolute correct here. Owning any thing, home, business, Prosche,
Ferrari doesn't mean responsibility. It only means the guy know how
to make the $$$$$$$$!
>>: >
>>
>>: >>Jen
>>
>> could you list the things that a man suppose to do to be
>> considered as a responsible man? or maybe list the things
>> that a woman should do as a wife?
>>
>> one question for your men out there, how many times that your
>> partner initiate sex? and how many times you have to beg for
>> it? the successful rate, or the unsuccessful rate, please.
>
>And while you're at it could you describe in detail the actual act
>so that we can make an informed determination as to whether it's better
>when the man initiates or the woman.
No need to go into detail, unless all involving parties wanted to.
Some netters might object and cry foul here. (I don't care. I can talk
about anything. )
It's perfectly okay that either the male or the female to initiate sex.
I believe either side should try to initiate sex if / when he/she feels
the needs to have it. And the other side should try to accommodate
whenever it is possible.
I believe some do, but please don't use sex as a weapon to get
what you want; or you'll be degrading yourself to street walkers' level!
Alex Lam.
>--
>John Fereira
>fer...@isis.com
>Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY
--
//Alex Lam's Virtual Studio. http://www.alexlam.com/users/lampas/
// U.S. Air Power : http://www.alexlam.com/users/lampas/airpower.htm/
// Looking for original art, story, etc to be published on my web site.
// Please reply by email to <lam...@alexlam.com> if interested.
//Think For Yourself.Question Authority(T. Leary)-Give Peace A Chance.(J. Lennon)//
Y Ng
Alex Lam (lam...@alexlam.com) wrote:
: It's perfectly okay that either the male or the female to initiate sex.
: I believe either side should try to initiate sex if / when he/she feels
: the needs to have it. And the other side should try to accommodate
: whenever it is possible.
alex, you must be a regular reader of Ann Landers or watching
too many infor-mercial TV on how to make a marriage like second
honeymoon. did you spend $29.99 on those tapes? :) try to put
the theory into practice is a different story. i do hope you
will find your self a dream mate who will accommodate your
sexual needs whenever possible. keep dreaming!!!!
when you become old and unable to erect and she wants three
times a day, can you accommodate?
: I believe some do, but please don't use sex as a weapon to get
: what you want; or you'll be degrading yourself to street walkers' level!
by the way, if you don't get it, do you masturbate?
would the partner feel offended? i hope Joan would answer
this question.
: Alex Lam.
PRaymo
In article <obrienDr...@netcom.com>, obr...@netcom.com (No parking
EXCEPT FOR BOB) writes:
>[note followups set to just the singles groups from the earlier post]
>
>Mark Sobolewski <ma...@flashpoint.com> wrote:
>>jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>>> Robert, what do you do for a living? How old are you? I'm asking
>because
>>> I may be able to set up a date between you & "Barb".
>>
>>If those are the first two questions "Barb" asks a man, no wonder she's
>>still single...
>>
>
>OK, Mark, you've inspired a new thread.
>
>For Mark specifically, and anyone else who cares to answer:
>
>What are the first two questions *you* would ask a third party
>(e.g. a mutual acquaintance) about someone you might be interested
>in meeting?
>
>
>
> Bob O`Bob
Just did this yesterday: 1) "What's he like (temperment/personality)?"
2) "Does he have kids?"
Patty
Patty
John Fereira
In article <fdpDrM...@netcom.com> f...@netcom.com (Ciccio) writes:
>obr...@netcom.com (No parking EXCEPT FOR BOB) writes:
>
>>[note followups set to just the singles groups from the earlier post]
>
>
>>What are the first two questions *you* would ask a third party
>>(e.g. a mutual acquaintance) about someone you might be interested
>>in meeting?
>
>
>But since you asked for two, and gawd knows, I don't want to be subjected
>to some Bobo Bob droning for violating the call of your question, I'll add
>another.... Is she seriously involved with anybody?
Does she swallow?
Vixen
ST>Decent MM with own apartment, computer, and IRA seeks FM for
ST>companionship in DC area.
Is DC close to the San Francisco Bay Area? as in ba.singles?
^^^^^^^
RUSS RODRIGUEZ
>
>As I just said above, owning a house doesn't mean someone is
>responsible, so yes I am changing my view here. There is more to
>responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I
went
>out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
>how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
>cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
>take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
>lived with and I'm not doing it again.
>>
>
>
A son is a son until he gets a wife,
but a daughter is a daughter forever!
Old American Proverb
Simbah
charles rich
>*
>*(Snip)
>*
> There are plenty of plentiful" women out there who can't seem to get past
the idea that men are so
>*visual when it comes to women. I've got the house, the expensive car, no
bills
>*and have been told I'm attractive, but can I get a date with the same person
>*more than once? I think not. Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
>*woman's body?
>
>Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
>by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also
attractive,
>then it just compounds things.
>
>been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
>attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
>perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
>who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
>being intimidated by you, can be tough.
>
>
are right that many men are uncomfortable in this situation, but I think it
has a lot to do with their perception of their own success, i.e. self-esteem
and the reaching of their life's goals. I don't think its to unreasonable to
say that we all think about these things (men and women). The trick is finding
someone who is comfortable with what they've got.
I'm a poor college student on his way to graduate school soon. I have a
pretty good sense of who I am, just no money. Where did you say solvent women
hang out again? Just kidding :-)
Chaz
-----------------------------
Having been told I could not
take the tiger by the tail
I proceeded to try.
Now what do I do with him?
jba...@inferno.com
Int:y...@firefly.Prairiene wrote
ÕÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ͸
>INAlex Lam (lam...@alexlam.com) wrote:
>
>IN: It's perfectly okay that either the male or the female to initiate sex
>IN: I believe either side should try to initiate sex if / when he/she feel
>IN: the needs to have it. And the other side should try to accommodate
>IN: whenever it is possible.
>
>IN will find your self a dream mate who will accommodate your
>IN sexual needs whenever possible. keep dreaming!!!!
>IN when you become old and unable to erect and she wants three
>IN times a day, can you accommodate?
>
>IN: I believe some do, but please don't use sex as a weapon to get
>IN: what you want; or you'll be degrading yourself to street walkers' leve
>
>IN by the way, if you don't get it, do you masturbate?
>IN would the partner feel offended? i hope Joan would answer
>IN this question. ^^^^
>
>IN: Alex Lam.
ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ;
I wonder how many Joans you will capture with that. Well, this Joan
does not say no to the significant other so the rest is pointless.
Oh and no, he doesn't say no to me either. <G>
---
þ TLX v3.30 þ New book: 101 Ways to Brown-Nose to Success.
---
þ SLMR 2.1a þ
Brad Templeton
In article <4ntj6e$5...@leasion.demon.co.uk>,>:
>: Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
>: by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
>: then it just compounds things.
>
>suspect that there is a catch somewhere.
I suspect so. I think lots of guys are attracted to strong, intelligent,
good looking, successful women. (Yum!) But guys, like all humans, are not
totally self confident. When we meet a woman who meets such intellectual
ideals, we tend to wonder if we deserve such a woman, or if she will stay
attracted to us.
--
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp. in...@clari.net
The net's #1 E-Newspaper (1,400,000 paid sbscrbrs.) http://www.clari.net/brad/
Brad Templeton
>
> Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
> high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
> the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
> to become "strong, intelligent, successful" and THEN
> the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
> unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
> has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
>
> "WHY are you interested NOW, when none of you were before?"
The answer is obvious. Then, we were immature, puberty-angst-ridden
teens. Now we are more mature, know who we want and can relate to her.
Women are far more interested in the 35 year old me than they were in
the teenage me or even the 20s me. I'm not better looking than I was
then, I'm more mature, and so are the women. I don't think for a second
of blaming them for it.
heck
In article <4o0fa9$j...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James
Buster) wrote:
> In article <4nv8a8$t...@cwis.isu.edu>,
> Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
> > Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
> > high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
> > the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
> > to become "strong, intelligent, successful" and THEN
> > the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
> > unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
> > has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
> >
> > "WHY are you interested NOW, when none of you were before?"
>
> "nerds" were similarly told that they were not attractive or desirable,
> but now that they're making the big bucks in engineering they've suddenly
> become desirable mates. Go figure.
Confidence.
Self-confidence.
It helps.
Followups set. and why is this in rec.org.mensa? (SpotThePeeve)
- heck
Ross Thompson
In article <31a27343...@news.HiWAAY.net>,
Joe Long <jl...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>While I was single I had a "blind date" with a woman doctor. When we
>met at the restaurant, she took my breath away[....]
<snort> Some doctor!
- Ross
--
Office: 37 degrees, 25.212' N, 122 degrees, 04.965' W
"Happy shall be he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"
- Psalms 137:9
Chris (Chris) Carrell
Jennifer R Lind wrote:
-
- In <4o2c2d$9...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> ru...@ix.netcom.com(RUSS
- RODRIGUEZ) writes:
- >
- >A son is a son until he gets a wife,
- >but a daughter is a daughter forever!
- >
- >Old American Proverb
- >
- >Simbah
-
- Can someone please tell me how this ties into my above comments.
Can someone please tell me how this ties into talk.origins?
t.o. removed, as well as a host of other groups,
soc.culture.african.american being listed twice.
Chris Carrell
Vixen
BI>In article <4nv8a8$t...@cwis.isu.edu>,
BI>Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
BI>> Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
BI>> high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
BI>> the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
BI>> to become "strong, intelligent, successful" and THEN
BI>> the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
BI>> unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
BI>> has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
BI>>
BI>> "WHY are you interested NOW, when none of you were before?"
BI>Tell me why this is any different for a man? The boys in HS who were
BI>"nerds" were similarly told that they were not attractive or desirable,
BI>but now that they're making the big bucks in engineering they've suddenly
BI>become desirable mates. Go figure.
BI>--
I wonder if maturity has anything to do with this phenomenon.
Marjeta Cedilnik
In article <fdpDrt...@netcom.com>, Ciccio <f...@netcom.com> wrote:
>mdpo...@earthlink.net (Michael D. Porter) writes:
>
>>man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
>>want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
>>for them.
>
>They let men get close to them, it's just that the man has to be at least
>as strong, intelligent, and successful. Overall, women in all classes tend
>to "marry up" more than men do. Though there are certainly exceptions.
I'm strong, intelligent, and on my way to success (hopefully). I can't
immagine being in a serious long-term relationship with somebody
whose intelligence is signifficantly higher or lower than mine.
(We can be close in one way or another, though.)
The other two criteria, strenth and success, don't matter to me at all.
--
Marjeta Cedilnik mar...@cis.udel.edu
University of Delaware http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~marjeta/
No situation is so bad that it couldn't be solved by a decent miracle.
Nobena situacija ni tako zavo"zena, da je ne bi mogel re"siti en po"sten "cudez.
Alex Lam
>y...@firefly.prairienet.org (Y Ng) wrote:
>:Alex Lam (lam...@alexlam.com) wrote:
>: It's perfectly okay that either the male or the female to initiate sex.
>: I believe either side should try to initiate sex if / when he/she feels
>: the needs to have it. And the other side should try to accommodate
>: whenever it is possible.
> alex, you must be a regular reader of Ann Landers or watching
> too many infor-mercial TV on how to make a marriage like second
> honeymoon. did you spend $29.99 on those tapes? :) try to put
> the theory into practice is a different story. i do hope you
> will find your self a dream mate who will accommodate your
> sexual needs whenever possible. keep dreaming!!!!
> when you become old and unable to erect and she wants three
> times a day, can you accommodate?
I do not process, or have seen any of the video tape you mentioned.
In fact, I don't even know who Ann Landers is! No, I don't watch that
much t.v.
I understand that it's not always possible to get it everytime you want it.
But, it doesn't mean it is impossible either. No, I'm not dreaming. But it
doesn't hurt to try either ! As long as either one of the partner does not
turning down the request/initiation on a regular basis, then I think they'll
be alright afterall.
Sorry. I'm not that old yet ! : )
It's all up to the involving parties. It's entirely THEIRS decision in
how to approach sex. But either gender do the initiation should be
fine.
When you get older, and when physical ability is becoming an issue,
then the couple SHOULD work out other means to satisfy the other
partner. Again, they should both do fine IF they are both open minded
people, and are willing to try alternative means.
>: I believe some do, but please don't use sex as a weapon to get
>: what you want; or you'll be degrading yourself to street walkers' level!
> by the way, if you don't get it, do you masturbate?
> would the partner feel offended? i hope Joan would answer
> this question.
I haven't encounter this problem yet.
But I'll let you know when I do.
Hey Joan. Where are you? : )
We need your med opinion here!
Alex Lam.
>: Alex Lam.
Jennifer R Lind
In <4o2c2d$9...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> ru...@ix.netcom.com(RUSS
RODRIGUEZ) writes:
>
>In <4nu2jj$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com(Jennifer R
>Lind ) writes:
> t, $400 - $900 dollars a month) ???
>>
>>As I just said above, owning a house doesn't mean someone is
>>responsible, so yes I am changing my view here. There is more to
>>responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I
>went
>>out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
>>how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
>>cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
>>take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
>>lived with and I'm not doing it again.
>>>
>>
>>>>Jen
>>
>
>
>
>Simbah
Can someone please tell me how this ties into my above comments.
Jen
Don F. Ridgway
In <4o2ngp$c...@fugue.clari.net> br...@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
writes:
>In article <4ntj6e$5...@leasion.demon.co.uk>,
>Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Anne P. Mitchell Esq. (shed...@vix.com) wrote:
>>:
>>: Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
>>: by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
>>: then it just compounds things.
>>
>>Is this really the case or is it a "too good to be true" effect, where they
>>suspect that there is a catch somewhere.
>
>I suspect so. I think lots of guys are attracted to strong, intelligent,
>good looking, successful women. (Yum!) But guys, like all humans, are not
>totally self confident. When we meet a woman who meets such intellectual
>ideals, we tend to wonder if we deserve such a woman, or if she will stay
>attracted to us.
I think the day-to-day situation can best be thought of in the context of the
Zero-Sum Game. Experience has taught us all that if someone is extremely attractive,
there must be a lacking in some other quality. The dumb blonde is one stereotype;
the rich nerd is another. The idea is that there could be a finite number of
qualities that people possess and one improves at the detriment of another. We've
seen that a lot of people are like that, and the stereotype persists because it's
constantly reinforced in real life experiences.
I'm happy to report there are exceptions who break out of the Zero-Sum Game mold.
These people excel in many areas and have few faults. My wife and I are a good
example of this match-up. It *is* possible. The key is matching up.
Sad ballads thrive on tales of mis-matched lovers. If a Zero-Sum-class person
gets the hots for a Super Chick--then, you guessed it, after a while it's Heartbreak
Hotel because she's continuing to look for her match.
Just because a man is successful, does that make a perfect match
with a sexy female? Movies and literature are replete with
blow-by-blow accounts of how this is not automatically a sure thing.
I guess what I'm really talking about is compatibility of
personality and the "real" person inside as being the true and lasting
bond. If the woman marries for money or success or even power that
wears off and she won't necessarily be genuinely happy. If a man
marries for sex that wears off and he won't necessarily be genuinely
happy.
So, in closing, in my experience, whereas the two subjects of this
thread are not necessarily compatible in and of themselves,
nevertheless they serve their purpose (the purpose Intended for them,
I'd say) by attracting two people together in the first place--then
they'd better check out the compatibility of other qualities, too.
But then you knew all this anyway, didn't you?
Ciccio
fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) writes:
Nope John, not good enough. Does she nag about swallowing?
Ciccio
Nestor J. Presas
Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
>
>
> -- Val
>
We can maybe apply the same lame excuse used by some women to
justify their exploitation of men: "Because the way a woman takes care
of her body is an indication of her future ability to take care of my
children."
(sounds crappy doesn't it?)
There are plenty of men who like women with some meat in them.(If
you believe otherwise explain Russia) the only reason why a woman
cannot get a second date has nothing to do with looks. Looks is what
gets them the first date.
Nestor J. Presas
>I and many young men like me are in a state of flux. I want to find
>the right person and settle down, but I don't know where I want that
>to be yet.
>
>Brendan Perry
Stop dreaming immediately Brendam, she gets very upset when people
refuse to fit the mold.(Unconventional people threaten the mental peace
of insecure humans with limited intelligence)
Ross Williams
RUSS RODRIGUEZ (ru...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4nu2jj$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com(Jennifer R
: Lind ) writes:
I'm leaving in Jenny Lind's attribution line just to piss her off.
Hope it works.
: A son is a son until he gets a wife,
: but a daughter is a daughter forever!
A son is a son until he takes a wife,
But a daughter's a daughter for all of her life.
: Old American Proverb
American provebs rhyme.
Silly rule, I know, but there you have it.
-rw
brian odom
horn...@cwis.isu.edu (Eugenia Horne) writes:
>In article <mdporter-210...@pool050.max18.san-francisco.
>>ca.dynip.alter.net>,
>> I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
>>man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
>>want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
>>for them.
neither have i. a successful man will choose any ol bimbo. as long as
she's pretty, that's all he really wants. look at your millionaires in
the media nowadays. looks mean a lot, especially to a successful man.
a successful woman, however, is more apt to be lonely. she is not the type
to wave money around to have men clamor at her feet (like a man would).
she is very picky. and when she does try to date, the men have to think
that they are above her, so they try to impress and overdo it to the point
where they can't get along. a successful woman is usually looking for a
successful man herself. she does not want to be the "provider" that men
usually are willing to accept. to paraphrase a successful, attractive,
etc. woman friend of mine (who just so happens to be dateless also),
<i did not go to school and graduate from college and get a good job and
come this far to provide for a man...). and i'm sure most successful
women are like this. they did not become successful only to be taking care
for a man. she would be better off dumping him (which she usually does).
there's nothing wrong with this, i just attribute it all to gender
differences. and with more prominently successful women, they tend to
choose men who are older than them for they feel that they are much more
mature and "can handle the responsibilities of a successful woman". she's
25 and seeking a guy 30-35, whereas i'm a guy doing positive things also,
but i'm 24. and usually when one partner is more successful than the
other (man or woman), the age gap tends to widen (aka, the anna nicole
smith syndrome)
but many times, successful women become too wound up.
> And why not?
> Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
> high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
> the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
what the hell does HIGH SCHOOL has to do with this? get off of this.
more often than not, it is the men who are ignored the most in high school
(many high school girls seek men in their 20's and usually it is the jocks
in high school who ultimately get the girls). high school is a totally
different scenario. and yes, there are many pencil pushing geeks in high
school who have become very successful and now all the women want them
because now they're successful and making money. it happens with both
men and women. but these "nerd" guys who are making it now are not usually
wound up once they've matured. women tend to do that. once again, a
gender difference.
> to become "strong, intelligent, successful" and THEN
> the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
> unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
> has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
the same with women wanting to date the high school nerd now that his hard
studying has paid off. i see no difference and you are not proving
anything at all here.
> "WHY are you interested NOW, when none of you were before?"
i wonder the same thing about high school male nerds...
success changes how people look at you, regardless of gender.
>> I have also heard a few guys say that the strong, intelligent,
>>successful, attractive women are more willing to dump them because the
>>woman thinks she's too good for him, or that she can find another man
>>easily. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I've heard.
> Maybe, it's just suddenly the "balance of power" shifting
> or the perception of the "balance of power" changing.
it's not the balance of power or whatever. a strong, attractive,
successful, intelligent (sasi for short) woman will almost always want
a man who is on her level. a sasi woman is not looking for that stud
type of guy whereas a sasi man will look for a sasi woman, but if he
can't find her, he'll settle for that young, pretty blonde. it's a gender
difference. women look for success first, then looks second. if he's
a stud, but isn't very successful, she will not provide for this guy and
he will be history. and sasi women are very picky about who they date.
they won't settle for someone far below them, even if that means they will
have to be lonely for a very long time, whereas a sasi man is particular
but not too particular (which is why you hear the screams of women saying
that "all the good men are taken").
--
brian odom
brian odom
f...@netcom.com (Ciccio) writes:
>mdpo...@earthlink.net (Michael D. Porter) writes:
>>In article <4nrkkr$l...@gw.home.vix.com>, shed...@vix.com (Anne P.
>>Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
>> I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
>>man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
>>want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
>>for them.
>They let men get close to them, it's just that the man has to be at least
>as strong, intelligent, and successful. Overall, women in all classes tend
>to "marry up" more than men do. Though there are certainly exceptions.
EXACTLY!!!! and successful men are more than willing more times than not
to be a provider whereas women usually only want to "marry up". then once
the successful men are taken and couple this with the fact that everyone
isn't successful, these women tend to be lonely and "no man is godd enough
for them". they lose in the romance department and their careers become
increasingly important to them.
>> I have also heard a few guys say that the strong, intelligent,
>>successful, attractive women are more willing to dump them because the
>>woman thinks she's too good for him, or that she can find another man
>>easily. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I've heard.
>Hmmmm. I don't think that they are more willing, but they are probably more
>capable.
yeah, capable is a better word to use. in other words, the successful
women usually have the say-so.
--
brian odom
Geryon
In article <4nv8a8$t...@cwis.isu.edu>, horn...@cwis.isu.edu (Eugenia Horne) says:
>
> And why not?
>
> Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
> high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
> the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
> the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
> unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
> has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
>
You don't suppose this works both ways, do you? *blink* ;)
>
>> I have also heard a few guys say that the strong, intelligent,
>>successful, attractive women are more willing to dump them because the
>>woman thinks she's too good for him, or that she can find another man
>>easily. I don't know if that is true or not, but that is what I've heard.
>
> Maybe, it's just suddenly the "balance of power" shifting
> or the perception of the "balance of power" changing.
- Prince Albert
On behalf of Grolm everywhere,
We of the Grolm pack give you the standard farewell
and blessing:
--------------------------------------------------------
We already know what the d*mn grolm have to say, now tell
the buggers to keep their beaks shut!
--------------------------------------------------------
Just call me a pchyzophrenic self-flaming grolm :)
yoipu
On 1996 May 24 Friday, Nestor J. Presas wrote...
: > Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
: >woman's body?
: >Val
In my opinion, it's because women are not safe emotionally.
Men can no longer afford to open up to women emotionally
so all we have left is the physical attribute. This is not to
say that a woman's physical attribute is otherwise unimportant.
I believe physical attractiveness is very important. For me,
sex is the consequence (hopefully) of lust, not love.
Moreover, women are just as superficial in my experience,
not only judging men on their attractiveness, but also their
wealth.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
yoipu
On 1996 May 23 Thursday, RUSS RODRIGUEZ wrote...: >responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I
: went
: >out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
: >how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
: >cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
: >take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
: >lived with and I'm not doing it again.
: >>
: >
: >>>Jen
More proof that women are not good at parenting. Their inability to teach
boys self-esteem, self-sufficience, plus their brainwashing of boys into
believing they have to subordinate their needs to the needs of women,
have thoroughly damaged their self-esteem. Mothers' strong tendency to
smother and cling to male offspring stifles the males ability to seperate
and develop a sense of independence.
Robert H Ruskin
... and that folks is why this country is in such DEEP trouble: When
someone comes on the net and says they do no know who Ann Landers is,
it says they do not read very much. While I hardly ever read her ADVICE
COLUMM [that is for clueless Alex], even I know who she is. For Alex:
pick up almost any newspaper, and you will find her advice column in it
-- and if not hers, then her SISTER'S -- "DEAR ABBY".
--
Tom Bevan
In article <NEWTNews.665.832...@pkaia6.syntex.com>,
valk...@netcom.com says...
>
>
>(Snip)
>
>There are plenty of
>"plentiful" women out there who can't seem to get past the idea that men
are so
bills
person
>woman's body?
Could you be coming on too strong to a poorer male? I like women to be
intelligent but willing to follow my lead. Using money to impress can also
intimidate. If you are more successful than he is you do not fit the
cultural mold. Your success is irrelivent only if you clearly make it
irrelivent during your date.
--
Tom Bevan West Virginia's Best Man t...@citynet.net
Ayrton Senna
Robert H Ruskin (rus...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
" ... and that folks is why this country is in such DEEP trouble: When
" someone comes on the net and says they do no know who Ann Landers is,
" it says they do not read very much.
You can read a lot and still do not know who Ann Landers is. It's just
that what one reads is more valuable than the pathetic newspapers sold
in large numbers in this country, as you put it.
If someone had predicted to me that I was going to see Ann Landers
used as a gauge for reading levels I would have thought it a joke.
" While I hardly ever read her ADVICE
" COLUMM [that is for clueless Alex], even I know who she is.
Congratulations...
Scire
rus...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Robert H Ruskin) wrote:
>... and that folks is why this country is in such DEEP trouble: When
>someone comes on the net and says they do no know who Ann Landers is,
No, it says that they do not read the newspaer very much. I cannot blame
them. The mass-media has become a corporate and govermental device used
to color peoples beliefs. I do not feel that the information that I get
from a newspaper is consistantly accurate, or unbiased. I also feel that
they are a waste of paper. I would rather get my news from other sources.
And there are times... that I'd really rather not know.
On the other hand, I have a rather extensive library for someone of my
age, and tend to read *something* each and every day.
Bright Blessings,
Scire
yoipu
On 1996 May 24 Friday, brian odom wrote...
:
: >> I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would
let a
: >>man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man
would
: >>want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good
enough
: >>for them.
:
: >They let men get close to them, it's just that the man has to be at
least
: >as strong, intelligent, and successful. Overall, women in all classes
tend
: >to "marry up" more than men do. Though there are certainly exceptions.
:
: EXACTLY!!!! and successful men are more than willing more times than
not
: to be a provider whereas women usually only want to "marry up". then
once
: the successful men are taken and couple this with the fact that everyone
: isn't successful, these women tend to be lonely and "no man is godd
enough
: for them". they lose in the romance department and their careers become
: increasingly important to them.
Personally, I applaud any successful businesswoman, just as
I applaud any successful businessman. It takes a lot of work
to succeed in business.
I think most people, both men and women, tend to marry someone
who is in the same socio-economic class. I've also found that
success tends to breed fear that others will want to marry the
successful individual for money.
Finally, I believe for the successful individual, dating problems
are as much a matter of the individual's fear and cautiousness
(combined with the usual insecurities) as it is about the
insecurities of the date.
jba...@inferno.com
Int:yo...@pipe.Net wrote
ХНННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННё
>INOn 1996 May 23 Thursday, RUSS RODRIGUEZ wrote...
>IN: In <4nu2jj$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com(Jennifer R
>IN: Lind ) writes:
>IN: >responsibilty than saving money though. The proble with the men I
>IN: went
>IN: >out with is that since they never lived on there own they didn't know
>IN: >how to take care of themselves. Mother did laundry, bought food,
>IN: >cooked, etc. When I get married I'm not going to work full time and
>IN: >take care of the house. I already played that game with one guy I
>IN: >lived with and I'm not doing it again.
>IN: >>
>IN: >
>IN: >>>Jen
>
>INMore proof that women are not good at parenting. Their inability to teac
>INboys self-esteem, self-sufficience, plus their brainwashing of boys into
>INbelieving they have to subordinate their needs to the needs of women,
>INhave thoroughly damaged their self-esteem. Mothers' strong tendency to
>INsmother and cling to male offspring stifles the males ability to seperat
>INand develop a sense of independence.
ФНННННННННННННННННННННННННННННННѕ
POPPYCOCK!!!!!!
---
ю TLX v3.30 ю New book: 101 Ways to Brown-Nose to Success.
---
ю SLMR 2.1a ю
Jennifer R Lind
In <4o53au$a...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
writes:
>RUSS RODRIGUEZ (ru...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4nu2jj$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com(Jennifer
R
>: Lind ) writes:
>
>
>Hope it works.
Hey Russ, it might have worked if I was the one who posted that.
Someone else had posted that after I had posted a comment about momma's
boys expecting there wives to do all the work. My question to the
poster was how does that tie into what I wrote.
Nice try though, you get an F for failed attemt.
Jen
Ross Williams
In article <4o7t0c$3...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Jennifer R Lind wrote:
>In <4o53au$a...@explorer.csc.com> rwil...@csc.com (Ross Williams)
>writes:
>>RUSS RODRIGUEZ (ru...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In <4nu2jj$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> be...@ix.netcom.com(Jennifer
>R
>>: Lind ) writes:
>>I'm leaving in Jenny Lind's attribution line just to piss her off.
>>Hope it works.
>
>Hey Russ, it might have worked if I was the one who posted that.
Hey Russ, she's talking to you.
>Someone else had posted that after I had posted a comment about momma's
>boys expecting there wives to do all the work. My question to the
>poster was how does that tie into what I wrote.
>
>Nice try though, you get an F for failed attemt.
Betcha wish you could get this one back, doncha?
-rw (the one and only - limited supply, act now)
Tin_...@news.kincyb.com
jmw
In article <4nrkkr$l...@gw.home.vix.com> shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) writes:
>In a recent message valk...@netcom.com tells us:
>*
>*Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a >*woman's body?
The appearance of physical health has a lot to do with it. Acculturation
to a society that worships youth, vigor and beauty is another.
[Anne wrote:]
>Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
>by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
>then it just compounds things.
That is certainly one symptom, but does nothing to describe a root cause.
And you should be careful not to confuse 'intimidation' and 'personal
interest' -- I argue that just as often you will find that a person who
appears to be intimidated is actually interested in developing a more
personal relationsip and may appear shy or quiet simply because he doesn't
want to say or do anything to diminish his image in your eyes. In a
casual relationship there is no 'putting yourself on the line' and an
occasional faux pas is easily forgotten. All of that changes the moment
you care about what the other person thinks of you.
[...]
>finding a man
>who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
>being intimidated by you, can be tough.
This is especially true if you make it all a contest where the slightest
false step will relegate him to the 'also rans'. And yet everyone has
their own unique talent as well as areas that need improvement.
I don't believe that there is any formula that works for everyone, but once
you've started the process you can help ensure success if you can find ways
to make it easy to be near you.
--
jmw
"...for if I ever saw you, I didn't catch your name
but it never really mattered, I will always feel the same."
jmw
In article <4nvt7v$i...@gw.home.vix.com> shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) writes:
>Timothy Ferguson <Timothy....@jcu.edu.au> write:
[...]
>>Most of the men I know would prefer a strong, successful partner.
[...]
>be the same sort of men as you, which may well be hardly a representative
>sample? Whom to you propose as your control group?
Without actually leaping to Mr. Ferguson's rescue, mostly because I have
no idea who he is or whether I would agree with him on any topic (how's
-that- for disclaimer!), you can count me as one who definately prefers
strong, assertive women. This, however, does -not- mean strength and
assertiveness for it's own sake.
[...]
>>I, personally, used to think the reason women didn't date me was because
>>they were shallow and didn't see my good inner qualities despite my ugly
>>exterior.
>
>Anyone else with me in thinking that maybe it's because he's a presumptive
>idiot?
Yeah, that seems like a fairly accurate assessment.
--
jmw
Steve Chaney
In article <4nv8a8$t...@cwis.isu.edu>, Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
>In article <mdporter-210...@pool050.max18.san-francisco.
>>ca.dynip.alter.net>,
>
>> I have never met a strong, intelligent, successful woman who would let a
>>man get close to her. Some are too busy with their careers (what man would
>>want a woman who is never around?) and others think no man is good enough
>>for them.
>
>
> Sometimes these are the very same women who were ignored in
> high school for being "nerds" and "not fun enough" for
> the boys to associate with so they have plenty of time
> the men show up AFTER all those years in which the
> unspoken message of "you're not attractive to men"
> has been sent en masse and these women are left wondering:
>
The same goes for nerdy men who wind up rich and then who become
super-picky.
Nature likes balance... doesn't always achieve it but it likes it.
-- Steve
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
ma...@flashpoint.com (Mark Sobolewski) wrote:
>
> shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
> > Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
> > by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also
> attractive,
> > then it just compounds things.
> >
> > been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
> > self esteem] you probably are!) - it may have more to do with the
> > attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
> > perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
> > who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
> > being intimidated by you, can be tough.
>
> men who "can't hold their own" and _be as successfull_ as a "strong"
> woman or men who are simply intimidated regardless of the man's
> own personal success?
>
> I've dated career women and I can see where you are coming from.
> It gets rather tiring always having to compete with her. (Of course,
> I get a big laugh when the same woman complains that men are,
> on average, more successfull than she is. She can't accept us
> otherwise and complains about it...)
>
> Mark
Robert H Ruskin
Brian,
I have met a lot of sasi women, and the men they live with or marry are
some of the most ignorant dodos you could ever hope to meet, yet the sasi
woman is usually college educated and has a good job.
Usually it is a sex and power thing: He is usually an uneducated [maybe
a 10th grade education, but the one guy I'm thinking of had a 6th grade
education] stud with no hopes of independence; because she with her college
degree and job are sasi they then dominate the relationship [that she
sometimes oversteps the line and gets slapped around a few times by this
lug means nothing -- she is still the "controller" of the relationship], a
sasi man is a direct threat to her, and will have nothing to do with them.
--
Anne P. Mitchell Esq.
In a recent message rus...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Robert H Ruskin) tells us:
*
*I have met a lot of sasi women, and the men they live with or marry are
*some of the most ignorant dodos you could ever hope to meet, yet the sasi
*woman is usually college educated and has a good job.
Oooh..I feel.....sasi!
Annie
Apologies to SNL
--
I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
*--> Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
To join the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange: free...@vix.com
Actually, I'm a lawyer -and- I play one on tv.
Dennis J.
Robert H Ruskin wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I have met a lot of sasi women, and the men they live with or marry are
>
> a 10th grade education, but the one guy I'm thinking of had a 6th grade
> education] stud with no hopes of independence; because she with her college
> degree and job are sasi they then dominate the relationship [that she
> sometimes oversteps the line and gets slapped around a few times by this
> lug means nothing -- she is still the "controller" of the relationship], a
> sasi man is a direct threat to her, and will have nothing to do with them.
> --
It seems to me that most of us are very manipulated by images and
symbols. Money symbols, such as expensive cars and homes, power
symbols, such as club memberships, physical symbols, such as great
looks.
All this manipulation seems to be aimed to get us to buy or do something
- for a price.
All of this manipulation is rooted in the duality of scarcity versus
abundance that we're constantly being sold to. Like, there are only a
few good looking women or men!
By creating an internal sense of scarcity or shortage, we can easily be
led to a desired action. Unfortunately, the resultant product just
leaves us more empty and more easily manipulated for the next pitch. We
seem to become "fill me up" addicts, paying more and more until we break
the cycle.
For example, right now I have the best investment account balance of my
life, live modestly, and drive a cheap, reliable, paid-for car. A few
years ago, I had huge debts, outrageous mortgage, car, and interest
payments and no real savings. I junked the symbols and went for the
substance.
My social life was glitzy, and is now, well, simple. Most people, men
and women, seem to have, and currently evaluate me based on the symbols
that I carry around, such as the car and house, etc. I'd say that
atleast around here, were pretty much locked into the symbol evaluation
process.
Nestor J. Presas
,
>etc. woman friend of mine (who just so happens to be dateless also),
><i did not go to school and graduate from college and get a good job
and
>come this far to provide for a man...).
Isn't this sexist!!!???
Just asking......
Hugh Bonney
Prof. Vincent Brannigan (vb...@umail.umd.edu) wrote:
: ma...@flashpoint.com (Mark Sobolewski) wrote:
: > shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
: > > Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very*
: > > intimidated by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman
: > > is also attractive, then it just compounds things.
: > >
: > > It may have a lot less to do with your looks (you after all say you have
: > > been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
: > > self esteem] you probably are!) - it may have more to do with the
: > > attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
: > > perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
: > > who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather
: > > than being intimidated by you, can be tough.
: >
: > I'm not sure what you are talking about Anne. Are you talking about
: > men who "can't hold their own" and _be as successfull_ as a "strong"
: > woman or men who are simply intimidated regardless of the man's
: > own personal success?
: >
: > I've dated career women and I can see where you are coming from.
: > It gets rather tiring always having to compete with her.
From whose point of view are you always obliged to compete? And in
what respect? When we go home every day, it's time to turn off the
competition, kick back, and enjoy life a bit with someone who is
hopefully your friend too. Maybe it would help to be in a different
field entirely for many people. If someone is that one-dimensional
they are probably shallow and boring anyway.
: > (Of course,
: > I get a big laugh when the same woman complains that men are,
: > on average, more successfull than she is. She can't accept us
: > otherwise and complains about it...)
True, some people are brought up that way. An extreme I recall
hearing about was a couple (from Taiwan), both programmers. She
was better at it and got a raise that made her salary slightly
higher than his. So he started a campaign for a raise and the
motivation became clear fairly quickly. The management couldn't
give someone a raise for a reason like that and he left in
frustration. Older people in Chicago had told me about marriages
that quickly broke up because of that and that in previous times
women wouldn't get raises for that very reason. That is the way
traditional societies operate. So you're right - we all need to
decide where we are and what we want to begin with...
Hugh ---
Virginia Krenn
On 23 May 1996, Stefan J. patejak wrote:
> Decent MM with own apartment, computer, and IRA seeks FM for
> companionship in DC area.
Stephanie, are you listening?
Allan Bonadio
> > Robert, what do you do for a living? How old are you? I'm asking because
> > I may be able to set up a date between you & "Barb".
> If those are the first two questions "Barb" asks a man, no wonder she's
> still single...
>
> Mark
but you know when I'm flustered, those are the only two questions I can answer.
--
"More and more these days, I find myself getting all choked up over a
beautifully photographed and edited vignette about the meaning of life
and love, and it turns out to be a pitch for Doritos." - Gary Kamiya
Allan Bonadio bon...@well.com
Robert Becker
In article <mark-21059...@206.135.32.82>,
Mark Sobolewski <ma...@flashpoint.com> wrote:
>shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
>> Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
>> by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also
>attractive,
>> then it just compounds things.
>>
>> It may have a lot less to do with your looks (you after all say you have
>> been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
>> self esteem] you probably are!) - it may have more to do with the
>> attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
>> perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
>> who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather than
>> being intimidated by you, can be tough.
>
>I'm not sure what you are talking about Anne. Are you talking about
>men who "can't hold their own" and _be as successfull_ as a "strong"
>woman or men who are simply intimidated regardless of the man's
>own personal success?
I believe she's talking about a man who isn't intimidated by an
attractive+own home+expensive car+financially solvent woman, so he
can ``hold his own.''
>I've dated career women and I can see where you are coming from.
>It gets rather tiring always having to compete with her. (Of course,
>I get a big laugh when the same woman complains that men are,
>on average, more successfull than she is. She can't accept us
>otherwise and complains about it...)
The last statistics I heard (yes, I know, statistics always lie)
showed that women in comparable jobs with men earn 72 percent as
much as the men earn. Perhaps she was speaking about that topic.
Robert
--
--------------------------
Robert Becker rob...@world.std.com
Erstwhile bicyclist, avid father, longtime breather
Stephanie Smilay
Virginia Krenn (asd...@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu) wrote:
: Stephanie, are you listening?
Reading, actually. But I already know Stefan. I need fresh meat.
(Stefan, if you won't consider hot tub parties, do consider stretching
those bucks into a plane fare for Houston. It will be a BLAST!!!!)
--
Stephanie
http://www.ecsd.com/~stephani
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Communications Decency Act, these are the words you may
no longer use in your Internet correspondence: Shit, piss, fuck, cunt,
cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
Cry "CHEEBLE" and let slip the hamsters of war!
Lana Mountford
Hmmmm ... In what way is this statement sexist? She didn't say she'd be
willing to provide for a woman, but not for a man, did she? Nor did she
say she expected a man to provide for her but not vice versa.
I just don't see it as sexist -- what leads you to ask (imply?) that it is?
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
> : > shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
> : > > Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very*
> : > > intimidated by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman
> : > > is also attractive, then it just compounds things.
> : > >
> : > > It may have a lot less to do with your looks (you after all say you have
> : > > been told you are attractive - and if you believe you are [and have good
> : > > self esteem] you probably are!) - it may have more to do with the
> : > > attractive+own home+expensive car+financial solvency - if you are also
> : > > perceived as professionally successful, and intelligent, finding a man
> : > > who is able to hold his own with you, and who *knows* he can, rather
> : > > than being intimidated by you, can be tough.
> : >
> : > I'm not sure what you are talking about Anne. Are you talking about
> : > men who "can't hold their own" and _be as successfull_ as a "strong"
> : > woman or men who are simply intimidated regardless of the man's
> : > own personal success?
> : >
> : > It gets rather tiring always having to compete with her.
>
> what respect? When we go home every day, it's time to turn off the
> competition, kick back, and enjoy life a bit with someone who is
> hopefully your friend too. Maybe it would help to be in a different
> field entirely for many people. If someone is that one-dimensional
> they are probably shallow and boring anyway.
>
> : > I get a big laugh when the same woman complains that men are,
> : > on average, more successfull than she is. She can't accept us
> : > otherwise and complains about it...)
>
> hearing about was a couple (from Taiwan), both programmers. She
> was better at it and got a raise that made her salary slightly
> higher than his. So he started a campaign for a raise and the
> motivation became clear fairly quickly. The management couldn't
> give someone a raise for a reason like that and he left in
> frustration. Older people in Chicago had told me about marriages
> that quickly broke up because of that and that in previous times
> women wouldn't get raises for that very reason. That is the way
> traditional societies operate. So you're right - we all need to
> decide where we are and what we want to begin with...
>
> Hugh ---
for the record, none of these are my words some kind of technical glitch
Philip J. Koenig
lsmn...@ix.netcom.com (Lana Mountford) wrote:
Because the woman was assuming strict roles for men and women: i.e. a
man is always supposed to be the "breadwinner". (She says she doesn't
want to 'provide for' a man, yet she's looking for a man in her life...
i.e. she's looking for a man in her life that either A) provides for
her or B) is completely self-sufficient.) On the surface, it seems
_extremely_ sexist if you assume scenario A, or subtly sexist if you
assume scenario B and read-between-the-lines that she believes women
(at least educated, successful ones - go figure) should never be
expected to provide financial support to men on even a minor level...
unless the woman cares to further clarify what her actual POV is.
Phil
--
Philip J. Koenig Computers & Communications p...@aimnet.com
[Notice: the contents of any unsolicited email sent to this email address
is hereby declared public property and may be used for any purpose I deem
necessary. You have been warned.]
Lusty Wench
In article <4oiba0$4...@news.aimnet.com>,
Philip J. Koenig <p...@aimnet.com> wrote:
>lsmn...@ix.netcom.com (Lana Mountford) wrote:
>
>>nes...@ix.netcom.com(Nestor J. Presas ) wrote:
>
>>>,
>>>>etc. woman friend of mine (who just so happens to be dateless also),
>>>><i did not go to school and graduate from college and get a good job
>>>and
>>>>come this far to provide for a man...).
>
>>> Isn't this sexist!!!???
>>> Just asking......
>
>>Hmmmm ... In what way is this statement sexist? She didn't say she'd be
>>willing to provide for a woman, but not for a man, did she? Nor did she
>>say she expected a man to provide for her but not vice versa.
>
>>I just don't see it as sexist -- what leads you to ask (imply?) that it is?
>
>
>Because the woman was assuming strict roles for men and women: i.e. a
>man is always supposed to be the "breadwinner". (She says she doesn't
>want to 'provide for' a man, yet she's looking for a man in her life...
>i.e. she's looking for a man in her life that either A) provides for
>her or B) is completely self-sufficient.) On the surface, it seems
>_extremely_ sexist if you assume scenario A, or subtly sexist if you
>assume scenario B and read-between-the-lines that she believes women
>(at least educated, successful ones - go figure) should never be
>expected to provide financial support to men on even a minor level...
>unless the woman cares to further clarify what her actual POV is.
I'm just now jumping into this thread, so I didn't see the above
statement in context, however I don't see it as sexist. Having been
in the position of "providing for a man", I can completely understand
the point of view. I never called it "providing for a man" when I was
making more than twice what he was making, and I didn't have a problem
with it at all. It became a problem for me when he lost his job, did
not actively look for a new one, and simultaneously did not help out
any more around the house than he had when he was working. After two
years of that, I decided I did not intend to "provide for" this man,
and I ended the relationship. My only mistake was letting it go on
for so long.
I don't see this as sexist. I see it as expecting both parties to
contribute to the relationship and the partnership.
Lusty
Dennis J.
Lusty:
Maybe the more accurate phrase might be providing for MY partner.
Remembering that the word "my" indicates an open, willing free choice in
choosing that partner.
So my question is when did the time boundary arise, i.e. the 2 year time
limit? Was it the time, or maybe more of the change in the state of the
relationship?
I'm thinking about how we tend to stay in patterns of behaviour until
events or forces (our own included) change the direction. (Yes, thank
you Sir Issac Newton).
Is a relationship just another parking space that can be measured by the
parking meter, time slowly expiring?
DJ
Susan Benjamin
shed...@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) said this about that:>*I have met a lot of sasi women, and the men they live with or marry are
>*some of the most ignorant dodos you could ever hope to meet, yet the sasi
>*woman is usually college educated and has a good job.
>
>
>Oooh..I feel.....sasi!
Now I'm confused...doesn't it have something to do
with envelopes?
You catch more flies with honey than
Susan Benjamin with vinegar, but you catch the *most*
sben...@netcom.com with a dead squirrel.
Tin_...@news.kincyb.com
Don F. Ridgway (drid...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4o2ngp$c...@fugue.clari.net> br...@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
: writes:
: >
: >In article <4ntj6e$5...@leasion.demon.co.uk>,
: >Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >>Anne P. Mitchell Esq. (shed...@vix.com) wrote:
: >>:
: >>: Actually, I think a related phenomena is that many men are *very* intimidated
: >>: by strong, intelligent, successful women, and if that woman is also attractive,
: >>: then it just compounds things.
: >>
: >>suspect that there is a catch somewhere.
: >
: >I suspect so. I think lots of guys are attracted to strong, intelligent,
: >good looking, successful women. (Yum!) But guys, like all humans, are not
: >totally self confident.
: I think the day-to-day situation can best be thought of in the context of the
: Zero-Sum Game. Experience has taught us all that if someone is extremely attractive,
: there must be a lacking in some other quality. The dumb blonde is one stereotype;
: the rich nerd is another.
I think the last explenation is silly (at least, I never think that way).
There are other dynamics here, although some are subtle and others are just
impolite to mention.
i) success isn't related to looks, and many women who are successful
aren't that great looking. Women don't get the same bump from
success when it comes to being thought of as being attractive. It won't
hurt, and it will enhance what works in other areas, but they still are
different games (call it the Janet Reno effect).
ii) while many women deny it, successful women are still just as likely
to want the same things most women want when it comes to courtship, and
this means she'll be attracted to men who are at least as strong as she
is and men who are attracted to her will reasonably wonder if they can
fulfill that role. Men chase and women choose is largely still true,
and if women don't appreciate the extent to which courtship is still
about women testing men then they aren't being honest with themselves
(or at least when it comes to most women...btw, my experience is that
professional women are like this even more because it allows them to
balance their masculine and feminine sides, to use words which are
inadequate but you get what I mean).
Which doesn't mean successful women can't find men they like. Look
around, they do it all the time. Finally an anecdote because it's
kind of funny. How does a woman who's on a first date take the
"edge" off the fact that she's more successful in terms of money
(which I think she has to do if she wants a more traditional
courtship...this is just play, but people like to play). One
woman I dated did something very funny. After I parked my car
we were walking to a club, and she asked if she could pay for
my parking (as in, what the heck, it's something innocuous).
She then took out a twenty and stuffed it into my shirt pocket.
"Here, just in case, you never know what's going to happen, money
isn't that important anyway".
Not sure I'm telling it right, but it was very funny because it
was so gratuitous. There was no rhyme or reason to it, but that
set the tone for the whole date. The edge was off. I had extra
money if I ever wanted to spend it. Of course I never did.
Tin_...@news.kincyb.com
Nestor J. Presas (nes...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Why is it that men put so much emhasis on a
: >
: >woman's body?
: >
: > -- Val
: >
: We can maybe apply the same lame excuse used by some women to
: justify their exploitation of men: "Because the way a woman takes care
: of her body is an indication of her future ability to take care of my
: children."
Heck, if you're going to insult, might as well go all the way. "Because
a man wants to know that when the woman he's with starts to lose her
looks he won't end up being completely unattracted to her by the time
she reaches her 40s".
BAVOOM! Is that the neutron bomb or what?
But come on, there's some truth to this.