Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

No finance no romance

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
there is probably some truth to what you say about hooters girls but that is not why I dont go to hooters.
As stated by some of the posters..you just have to be observant and adjust your strategy accordingly.

I just dont care for that tostesterone charged atmosphere with estrogen and the bait to get you to come off your moneys.

A couple of times a year I go with the guys at work to a dance type beer hall in the morning for a thing called "eggs and legs". Not my cup of tea but I do it in the spirit of comradery. I'll have some breakfast and leave the girl dancing about five bucks and leave. I never could get into dancing girls like that. I never was a bar fly either. To me they are just a bunch of women trying to make a living before he biology runs out and they are no longer merchandizable. I dont have a problem with this. Its just not my cup of tea.
Dont get me wrong..I thouroghly enjoy the female form and I enjoy beautiful things but just not in that kind of atmosphere. Or Hooters for that matter.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Men have a much longer shelf life than women. as long as he doesn't get to set in his ways. and doesn't need viagra. and has money. he can still get a woman. A female on the other hand has a much shorter shelf life than a man does. She spoils before 40.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by scienceguy94
Men have a much longer shelf life than women.

You really do not sound as though you are 'top shelf' yourself.

as long as he doesn't get to set in his ways. and doesn't need viagra. and has money. he can still get a woman. A female on the other hand has a much shorter shelf life than a man does. She spoils before 40.

So you are way past your prime and broke? [and possibly need viagra?]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Good Grief....I am agreeing with you again.

YOu often see me making the point in some of these rooms..what a dumb bunch of men!!!!!

Not all of them.. but I do end up saying it alot in RL.

What I have noticed is that the number one requirement for most of the men posting in these rooms is sex/looks or some combination.

I can understand this to an extent.. providing they fulfill these qualities as well. Many 'attractive' people naturally seek out equally attractive mates.. this includes inner qualities as well.

This is thier main " status " requirement from a female. Talk about a dumb bunch of men. Their attention spand doesnt seem to function well outside this arena. This is why I also often say ..when you throw the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition in front of most men ..thier brainwave pattern ..flatlines. Not very enlightening to me. Many are dumb enough to call this Love.

Oxygen is redirected from the brain I guess.

On the other hand ..with most women ..you do not usually find women marrying or dating down the status ladder. Particularly the economic ladder. Women who have moneys usually want a man who has the potential or the means to get more....status is very important to many here. They are not looking to maintain a man in this manner as a career opportunity/option.

There are gigilos and pros on both sides. Perhaps another reason some people like finding a 'status match' is so they can protect themselves from opportunists.

Though I was not a fan of hers ..the now deceased Marilyn Monroe was obvious in her marrying up the food chain so to speak. Trophy men. This happens among women of "enligntment " more than most are aware. Once again ..do women who have the means of their security marry or take up with a man for love only as a status or do they want more...the traditional status/baggage...and call this ..love???

Marilyn Monroe was more or less limited to men of power [beauty was the only power women had then].. anything lower and she would be vulnerable to being 'won' as a trophy. From what I know of her she had little to know chance of actually having a genuine relationship.. wasn't the most stable of women. Apparently she was also very intelligent- of course 'dumb' was the only acceptable way for her to act in that era.. probably in this one as well. I can't imagine scienceguy having 'high intelligence a must' on his check list.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Smart women that are pretty hide their intelligence knowing it is a handicap to getting men.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
you posted:

"Smart women that are pretty hide their intelligence knowing it is a handicap to getting men."

You need to rethink your logic and reason ..your science is failing you !!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by scienceguy94
Smart women that are pretty hide their intelligence knowing it is a handicap to getting men.

A smart women would probably want to find her mental equivilent. If men don't like beauty and intelligence .. it's probably because they are insecure about their own. Why would a woman worry about not attracting insecure men? This 'handicap' is a loser repellent.
You keep telling us about the nature of women.. yet you are unable get one. What does that tell you?

At any rate I suspect you're just trolling or are posting satire for your own amusement. If you are in fact serious.. hey thats just sad.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Relationships and especially attracting women isn't the easiest of things (well not for some), believe me!

Although i agree with others, your attitude doesn't help you. It's easy to judge women on 'value' due to superficial things such as looks, breast size etc. However longetivity is golden, if you only go for beautiful women you'll get bored of them. Because they'll only keep you interested until you find another attractive woman, and it goes on and on. However personality is very important if you want anything to last. That's what keeps your interest in them. Since when you get past the 'wow' factor of how beautiful they look, you then have to deal with their personality, traits, habits. Just try and keep that in mind


About comments on all women going for men with a little cash or status. While this is true for many women, it doesn't count for ALL. It depends on the woman herself. I know this doesn't provide a clear cut black & white answer, in my opinion it's true. If the woman herself is fairly successful and has plenty of 'cash'. Then she doesn't need to worry about whether a potential partner is loaded, or has a little status. Looks isn't the only thing that matters for women. The main thing i'd say is charm and personality. That's what wins many and that's what KEEPS them.

I know this is obscure, but i remember a comment by Jenni Trent Hughes while she judged the 'Sexiest Man in Britain' or something like that.

"It doesn't matter if a man is very good looking, what matters is if he's confident. If he's very confident then it makes him more attractive"

It was along those lines. So remember, smile, be nice and don't give short answers. Listen to what they say. If you need more confidence then practice with girls you're more comfortable with (perhaps some you're not attracted to).

I know it's basic, but often people forget the basics when it comes to such matters.

All the best.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I tend to agree with your basic premise about confidence and I have posted so here in Relationships in different boards.

However to clarify the confidence angle..the ability of a man to make money for survival is often a sign or token of confidence to many women..once again most women do not show intrest in marrying or dating down the economic ladder. It just isnt done. Most women of money or education ...even many without education are not looking to carry a man or a man and his children economically as a career opportunity....for romance...as the exchange medium. Nor for the "apperence of confidence". Nor because he is pretty and a nice compliment to her physical values ...like the latest fashionable handbag...to compliment how she dresses. A man/boy toy. They are not looking to pay for education, insurance, groceries, house/car payments, medical, dental,utilities, repairs..et al.....while the male or male and his children explore thier options..especially socially... It just isnt within the fabric of what is female or the female mind.
This confidence angle is a two way street...unfortunately the confidence expectations of most men for or twords women is so low..and it is obvious that most of the male posters in these rooms post of only confidence issues in one or two arenas concerning women...meaning....their expectation levels of most women are so low and many cannot even get that low expectation met with satisfaction.
The men need to learn to raise their confidence expectations of women to a much higher level. Especially in a time and day when women are doing so much ..and multitasking too.

Some of us have posted along this topic arena in the room on the Relationship board called " Cash Cows...women out for a mans money ".


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
However to clarify the confidence angle..the ability of a man to make money for survival is often a sign or token of confidence to many women..once again most women do not show intrest in marrying or dating down the economic ladder. It just isnt done.


Perhaps it's not so linear where a man who makes money is a 'confidence' token to women. He could be a workaholic and may not be able to provide enough time for her. Perhaps the women you talk about are more into men who seem 'ambitious'. The money is just a result of their ambition and success.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Most women of money or education ...even many without education are not looking to carry a man or a man and his children economically as a career opportunity....for romance...as the exchange medium. Nor for the "apperence of confidence". Nor because he is pretty and a nice compliment to her physical values ...like the latest fashionable handbag...to compliment how she dresses. A man/boy toy.


Well as i said it depends on the woman, you'll see plenty of instances where a woman is happy to marry a man already with 'baggage' such as kids etc. If the woman has 'everything', in the sense of materialistic things. Then it may not matter much to her. She's already reached the top and has the status, money and whatever else. Why look to a man for them, when she has it herself? Then in that case she may look for something different other than financial security, easy living or status.

It also depends who's in the social circle of these woman. Typically people like them. Since they probably know a lot of these people through or have been childhood friends. Saying that, it doesn't stop them from looking elsewhere. If they're not satisfied with what's immediately available to them.

So what i'm saying, is it depends on who the woman is, what she already has and what she NEEDS/WANTS. That last bit can be different for every woman, regardless if they occupy the same social/economic standing.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
They are not looking to pay for education, insurance, groceries, house/car payments, medical, dental,utilities, repairs..et al.....while the male or male and his children explore thier options..especially socially... It just isnt within the fabric of what is female or the female mind.


How would you define what is 'female' exactly?

If they don't want to pay for education, insurance, groceries (although you need to survive
) and all other bills. Then perhaps they're not looking for a partner at all. Maybe they want to be single and even play the field a little.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
This confidence angle is a two way street...unfortunately the confidence expectations of most men for or twords women is so low..and it is obvious that most of the male posters in these rooms post of only confidence issues in one or two arenas concerning women...meaning....their expectation levels of most women are so low and many cannot even get that low expectation met with satisfaction.


Well i agree with that. These are obviously disatisfied and disillusioned men who may have lacked the courage/will to act on their feelings. Such as when they think a woman likes them, they may not be sure what to do. Yes some have shallow views on women. Which may highlight that it's their attitude towards women that's the problem, not money or whatever else is blamed.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
The men need to learn to raise their confidence expectations of women to a much higher level. Especially in a time and day when women are doing so much ..and multitasking too.

Some of us have posted along this topic arena in the room on the Relationship board called " Cash Cows...women out for a mans money ".


Well i'd like to point that women have always multi tasked, whether it was bringing up children, doing housework, cooking, cleaning etc. So that facet of female activity is nothing new. They've just been given more opportunities to pursue careers and be more independent.

Although yes i do agree that some men need to change their attitude towards women. Perhaps to raise their expectations a little and not tar them with the same brush and make generalisations. Although that may be connected to a lack of female friends/contact and a need to expand their social circle. In order to experience meeting different people and learning to gauge body language and behavior better.

As i've already said, some guys are like me. Just lack the courage to approach women. Perhaps be less inhibited around them (although i'm ok in that department).

Good discussion btw.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Thanks for your post.

you posted:

"Perhaps it's not so linear where a man who makes money is a 'confidence' token to women. He could be a workaholic and may not be able to provide enough time for her. Perhaps the women you talk about are more into men who seem 'ambitious'. The money is just a result of their ambition and success. "

ok..lets look at it this way..look across the spectrum of women you know or see...just take a look ..beneath the surface..underneath the veneer. Peel it back. A woman who makes enough money to be secure...is just like a man ..able to have the option to marry for love only......do they?? Do they tend to marry down the economic ladder???
This is about survival..not linearity. Women are smarter at survival than for what most men even give them credit. How do I know this...women can work for their survival...just like a man... or they can cash in on the option..and get a man to take the risks for them.and children. Men do not as a whole have the option to marry a woman for more options in the moneys department..it just isnt socially done. Do you by and large..see women who are financially secure ...making room and moneys for men and thier children ..while persuing love only???
Linearity has nothing to do with it. It is survival..only a man can intrinsically be this dumb and survive...women are not this dumb. Most of them any way..when they make this mistake once most of them catch on..many men do not ..they go on living in fantasy land..over and over and over...thinking they must make up the difference as a career for both sides..male and female...even often to thier early deaths.

Workacholic is male disposablity and expendability...meaning to me that a woman in this kind of arrangement does not know or care enough to create a atmosphere to which her man will be alble to come home for Peace...where he is sheltered and protected from the outside world..where he is happy to come home...his home is not a place of Peace and order for him. He is left out of this formula. She does not have enough acumen to solve the not so seen part of this formula..it takes to much commitment. The appearence of commitment will suffice.
I can be a workaholic if the incentives are enough ..but I dont want to spend so much time at work ..its not where I find Peace.

Peace...Flyboy211....not piece...is the valuable commodity in this world..for both male and female.


You posted:

"Well as i said it depends on the woman, you'll see plenty of instances where a woman is happy to marry a man already with 'baggage' such as kids etc. If the woman has 'everything', in the sense of materialistic things. Then it may not matter much to her. She's already reached the top and has the status, money and whatever else. Why look to a man for them, when she has it herself? Then in that case she may look for something different other than financial security, easy living or status."

There are women who do this ..and it is to their credit..but it is usually the other way around..and women once again..by and large who do have money or security usually are still looking to marry up the economic ladder because it means options.
A woman who can do this is in essence just like a man..this would be equality wouldnt it???
Do most of them do this as a career??? Think it through ..it is still about options. The ignorance of many males makes their male options much less in this arena.

It does depend on the caliber of the women just as to which you are alluding ..but once again ..what is the social belief..the social expectation ...overall..not what they teach in colleges or schools..but what they are actually going to do...education does not work well among most women...the girl stuff religion mostly applies here.

This is what I am defining as female..mostly..the girl stuff religion..not always the product which is advertised.

you posted:

"If they don't want to pay for education, insurance, groceries (although you need to survive ) and all other bills. Then perhaps they're not looking for a partner at all. Maybe they want to be single and even play the field a little. "

I disagree with this statement...merely from the religious concept of options..which is a huge grey area...played with the borders ..often moving back and forth. The key operative word here and not spoken of in your postings is "OPTIONS"

What options are both partys getting and what is the social fabric in which they are brought to bear...

Go to a magazine stand and look at the brides categories of magazines ..open one and look at the list of what one gets on ones marriage day...the format in which all this drivel is presented.. Notice how explicit the male is in these magazines... He is not...hardly at all. The marriage day and the forms and ceremonies are all about her. Why..???
Because it is in fact her power day..she symbollically and actually in many instances gets access to it all... How to get it all!!! ...in one day.
He may work for years to get his education and degree..through years of busing tables or fast food while completing his education ...she gets access to it all in one day. Do you think the average male is capable of thinking it through??? Not hardly....especially the ones who think they have to continually perform and work to keep within her line of sight.
Improperly used this is a formula for male disposibility and expendability.
You dont cover this while making your declarations.
Its not about fair, equality, linearity ...et al... Its about survival/options within a undefined playing field. Any trip to a divorce/seperation court will clear this up ...immediately.

Once again ..what a dumb bunch of men out here.

As to mulititasking...its overated...a poor selling point. Women tend to multitask within a narrow female social perspective. You dont see them by and large intrested in multitasking within a male social perspective. This would take a different kind of commitment. They are by and large not intrested in this. To much commitment for many of them. Men on the other hand are expected and even made to feel guilty if they are not taking on traditionally womens roles in the "multitasking arena". Dont worry..most men are such performers..they dont catch on to it and women can by guilit run rings around males if they want to. This is what I mean when I say what a dumb bunch of males...to not know the actual value of their ability to perform.
I can cook ..clean ..change diapers..et al.....this is not what I come to a woman for..but I dont intend to do this as a career while a woman explores her options..understand?? Most women are not looking to do this for me under the heading of multitasking to relieve me of the drugery of my labors. They are not this noble or ignorant....most men are...by far more than women.

Flyboy211..you keep posting under the concept that it is a level playing field...it isnt ...and not going to be...any time soon.


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by scienceguy94

I am sick of it. These days you need to have money or else you are relegated to dating uglies and retards. face it guys you have got to have money to attract a decent woman.

...many posts later...

Men have a much longer shelf life than women. as long as he doesn't get to set in his ways. and doesn't need viagra. and has money. he can still get a woman. A female on the other hand has a much shorter shelf life than a man does. She spoils before 40.


I am glad to know you bitterly believe that women are sides of meat.

nicer sections cost more, and if you dont hurry up and "use" her, she will spoil.

Maybe you need to be a little more optimistic and not be so materalistic when it comes to women. Women are not property.

I for one would never date you unless you had a big attitude change.

---Pineapple



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   


No Finance, No Romance.


I'm just going to give a short answer:

That is probably the biggest pile of bull I've heard on the subject of relationships. I'm not exactly the most financially stable person on the planet but I can tell you now that I have gone out with some very beautiful women. Despite what you think, women aren't just after money.

I'd just like to add, women aren't objects. Treat them with respect or else your love life will be non-existent.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
ok..lets look at it this way..look across the spectrum of women you know or see...just take a look ..beneath the surface..underneath the veneer. Peel it back. A woman who makes enough money to be secure...is just like a man ..able to have the option to marry for love only......do they?? Do they tend to marry down the economic ladder???


What i'm saying is that a woman or anyone for that matter, who has all the material things they need. Do not need to look for it in other people. They have it themselves, they can provide it themselves. I would say a lot of people marry or have partners because it fulfills the companionship side of things. That a lot of people don't want to be lonely, and would like to share their time with a partner. Generally speaking i don't know many people who "marry down the economic ladder". I don't think it's something you can pin on women alone.

It depends who you grow up with, associate yourself with, meet and who's in you social circle. Btw there are male cash cows outhere. How about these foreign 'Casanovas', in countries such as Spain, Turkey among other places. Who prowl for women that might be holidaymakers. Then wish to marry them in order to gain a passport to another country? This has often happened with young men and older women.

So what i'm saying in Western countries, on the whole people tend to cohabit with people from their own econmic/social background. Simply because they're more likely to meet people from the same group.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
This is about survival..not linearity. Women are smarter at survival than for what most men even give them credit. How do I know this...women can work for their survival...just like a man... or they can cash in on the option..and get a man to take the risks for them.and children. Men do not as a whole have the option to marry a woman for more options in the moneys department..it just isnt socially done. Do you by and large..see women who are financially secure ...making room and moneys for men and thier children ..while persuing love only???


I didn't say it was "linear", hence my following statement..


Originally posted by Flyboy211
Perhaps it's not so linear where a man who makes money is a 'confidence' token to women


I was pointing out to you that it isn't as straightforward as you point out. Women don't just pick partners purely on whether they can satisfy them financially. Otherwise most relationships wouldn't work out. I'm saying there's more to people being together than simply the baser needs of security, materialism and status.

Here's something interesting i found which i believe addresses the situation more thoughtfully and perhaps accurately..


External Source
Successful women have troubles finding the right man, according to ba.no, because women want men with a higher income than themselves.
A survey from SSB (Statistics Norway) from 1998 is presented as 'evidence', showing that there were far more men with a female partner with lower income than them, than there were women with a male parther with lower income.

Very well, but are you surprised?
We know (and SSB knows) that women have lower income than men, have low-paid jobs, have part-time jobs, stay at home with children. Average income in 2003 were 246.000 NKR among men and 149.000 NKR among women.

So, it's a fact that most women have male partners with higher income than them, but is that because they want it that way, or is it because of the present labour market?


Here's the link for reference..

www.genderandcomputing.no...

In the past because of the unequal standing between men and women. Where it was the men who were highflyers and making money. Women had to "marry up the ladder" because they wanted a better life for themselves, potential children and security. This applies to men in other situations. Whether it would be a Prince marrying the King's daughter, so that he could gain more power and wealth. Or if a man from a poor background had joined the Military, and worked his way up to the top. So he'd be able to mix with the higher social 'crust'.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Linearity has nothing to do with it. It is survival..only a man can intrinsically be this dumb and survive...women are not this dumb. Most of them any way..when they make this mistake once most of them catch on..many men do not ..they go on living in fantasy land..over and over and over...thinking they must make up the difference as a career for both sides..male and female...even often to thier early deaths.


That's a crass generalisation, any person regardless of sex can be intrinsically 'dumb'. This is why i equated it to situations such as a women staying with an abusive partner. If people tell them they should leave and even feel like it themselves, then why would they stay? Do they feel they can change that person? Let's not get into the technicalities of the different kind if 'abuse' men and women suffer. The situations are fundamentally the same...if both men and women are in situations where they are being decieved, abused (mentally, physically or both) and used. Why do they put up with it? What keeps them there? Fear? Fear of not being able to get anyone else. Fear of the person in question? See this isn't a question of men only going through this sort of thing, both men and women go through it.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Workacholic is male disposablity and expendability...meaning to me that a woman in this kind of arrangement does not know or care enough to create a atmosphere to which her man will be alble to come home for Peace...where he is sheltered and protected from the outside world..where he is happy to come home...his home is not a place of Peace and order for him. He is left out of this formula. She does not have enough acumen to solve the not so seen part of this formula..it takes to much commitment. The appearence of commitment will suffice.
I can be a workaholic if the incentives are enough ..but I dont want to spend so much time at work ..its not where I find Peace.


I would disagree and say that a 'workaholic' is not a male only trait. Especially in today's labour market, where women have the careers they want. If a couple have children, then on the whole perhaps women still choose to raise the children. Although this is changing, since many men opt to stay at home and raise their children, while the women go off to work. This has led to discussions on equal pay. Where many women feel that they do not get paid as much as men do. Although this comes down to MORE women than men staying at home to raise children. Which means they have less time and oppotunity to pursue a career. There they would have to work less hours in a full time job. Or just work in a part-time job, until things can change.

As for the man not coming home to a 'peaceful' household. Well that's sometimes a breakdown in communications, where a relationship is under strain or cracking because they do not communicate effectively. I think this has more to do with BOTH men and women sitting down and sorting out their problems. Rather than a "he goes off to work to earn money, so i don't care" attitude.

Well neither i, nor many other people i'd imagine find 'peace' at work. "Too much work makes Johnny a dull boy". We all want enough leisure time to pursue our hobbies and activities we like to do in our spare time.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Peace...Flyboy211....not piece...is the valuable commodity in this world..for both male and female.


Well it's not as easy as that, people have to work on it. To find the inner peace and with their environment. We all have to find ways of coping with stress and find the time to do things we enjoy.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
There are women who do this ..and it is to their credit..but it is usually the other way around..and women once again..by and large who do have money or security usually are still looking to marry up the economic ladder because it means options.
A woman who can do this is in essence just like a man..this would be equality wouldnt it???
Do most of them do this as a career??? Think it through ..it is still about options. The ignorance of many males makes their male options much less in this arena.


Well you would think that it is more likely for a man to stay away from women whom already have children. Especially if many men typically shy away from responsilbity and commitment, although perhaps this is more prevalent in young men.

As i've said, if a woman has already got what she needs/wants. Financial security, stability, status (debatable) and maybe other material items. Then why the need to marry up the ladder? It shouldn't but such a overrding concern if she already has the the things she wants/needs. Thus negating the urge to look for it in other partners. Perhaps what you're alluding to, is women who marry higher income men, who are in from the same economic/social background. As i stated before, they're more likely to mix with their own group, unless they are disatisfied with them.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
It does depend on the caliber of the women just as to which you are alluding ..but once again ..what is the social belief..the social expectation ...overall..not what they teach in colleges or schools..but what they are actually going to do...education does not work well among most women...the girl stuff religion mostly applies here.


Well in this regard culture may come into play. For instance in countries such as India or Pakistan. Arranged marriages are a common occurence. Where couples do not get to choose their partners, instead it is chosen by their parents. This is done sadly on financial grounds, because social castes is such an important aspect of their culture, maybe more so in India. So if they can marry into a family with better prospects and more wealth, then it is seen as a 'good marriage'. Regardless of whether the couple are compatible. This is where such things as Dowries derive from.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I disagree with this statement...merely from the religious concept of options..which is a huge grey area...played with the borders ..often moving back and forth. The key operative word here and not spoken of in your postings is "OPTIONS"


Exactly OPTIONS, not needing to find a partner with more wealth, status etc if you already HAVE it. You seem to state that it's applicable to every women, REGARDLESS of her own individual circumstance. While i accept that women from lower social/economic backgrounds like to "marry up the ladder" (who wouldn't?). Don't project this as a woman only perspective, because it's not.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Go to a magazine stand and look at the brides categories of magazines ..open one and look at the list of what one gets on ones marriage day...the format in which all this drivel is presented.. Notice how explicit the male is in these magazines... He is not...hardly at all. The marriage day and the forms and ceremonies are all about her. Why..???


I agree that it is woman focused, also this may be the case in pregnancies. Where more care is taken on the woman, who's carrying unborn life rather than how a man might be affected. Although this is due to women going through pregnancy. For instance it is has been criticised that in hospitals, where a pregnant woman may go for a check up. The man is usually ignored, while the woman is focused on 100%. I don't mean to sound stupid in saying this. Because it's the woman who's carrying the baby, but often that men are not consulted on such matters. Where they are made to feel like a 'ghost' or the third person in such cases. This is something i have read about at least.

Then again the blame of 'woman focused weddings' may rest on the man too. Traditionally men were never involved much in weddings, simply because they weren't as concerned about it. That it didn't mean as much to the men as it did with women. Therefore it's bound to be more focused on women. Look at weddings, who do people usually focus on? the beautiful bride of course. You never hear people gasping "oh my look at that very handsome groom!". Just doesn't work like that.

You argue the same about female pregnancy magazines. How it may affect a man, what worries he may have during the pregnancy. How to cope with loss of sex drive. What should he do whilst the partner is in labour? How best to accomdate her when she is in labour etc. Just an idea. Btw people i do realise that it is a painful experience for women to go through. I'm just raising points that i've come across.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Because it is in fact her power day..she symbollically and actually in many instances gets access to it all... How to get it all!!! ...in one day.
He may work for years to get his education and degree..through years of busing tables or fast food while completing his education ...she gets access to it all in one day.


How about the custom of dowries in India? Is it fair that the family of the bride has to give gifts to the groom? How that inhibits women from marrying richer men. Since their social status affects the amount of gifts required. I wouldn't quite label a wedding as "her power day". It's meant to be a day both for the bride and groom. Naturally people might focus more on the bride. Although i'd say she's more 'dressed up'. So really it has always been like that.

I do understand if you mean a man has worked hard to create a business. He then marries, doesn't work out so has a divorce. Then the woman has entitlements to his business interests. It is a cruel, both sexes suffer.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Do you think the average male is capable of thinking it through??? Not hardly....especially the ones who think they have to continually perform and work to keep within her line of sight.
Improperly used this is a formula for male disposibility and expendability.
You dont cover this while making your declarations.


I would argue it's a little unfair to say the average male is 'incapable' of thinking it through. Perhaps more a case of unwilling to think it through. You talk about working to keep in "her line of sight"? In what instances are you talking about? Can you give real life examples?

What i've tried to cover in my declarations is human disposibility and expendability. That it isn't unique to only men or only women, applies to both.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Its not about fair, equality, linearity ...et al... Its about survival/options within a undefined playing field. Any trip to a divorce/seperation court will clear this up ...immediately.


Again a little generalised. People get divorced for a number of reasons, not exclusively to do with income levels either. Could be a breakdown in communication, thus affecting the relationship. Perhaps the couple married too young without gaining experience with other partners. Perhaps one partner is abusive. They could be a philanderer, and the other partner has had enough. Or maybe their relationship has just drifted apart, and they no longer love eachother/feel the same way about eachother as they once did.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Once again ..what a dumb bunch of men out here.


I hope you don't include me in that bracket? I assumed you meant men as a whole, whom you refer to in your posts.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
As to mulititasking...its overated...a poor selling point. Women tend to multitask within a narrow female social perspective. You dont see them by and large intrested in multitasking within a male social perspective. This would take a different kind of commitment. They are by and large not intrested in this. To much commitment for many of them. Men on the other hand are expected and even made to feel guilty if they are not taking on traditionally womens roles in the "multitasking arena".


Yeah i do agree, multitasking is overrated and does not define how efficient a person may be. Although it is traditionally a female trait nonetheless. How would you define women "multitasking with a male social perspective"? Are you suggesting men should concentrate on a task at a time with a "female social perspective"? I find these terms a little too vague to be able to fully elaborate on.

In reply to your statement on men being made to feel guilty on traditional mulitasking roles. First of all, society has changed a lot in the last 60 years. Women have received more rights, better priviledges, opportunities and education. This enables them to pursue whatever they wish and 'multitask' in whatever they choose.

Because of the changing labour market. Things are more competitive and obviously men will be expected to equal or even excel at areas women already manage. Although i'm not sure if you mean men are made to feel guilty for not doing housekeeping, cooking, raising families etc. Well some do, and they should only do what they desire. Not what's foistered upon them. Society impresses expectations on all of us, regardless of who we are. So it is up to us, to break that constriction.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Dont worry..most men are such performers..they dont catch on to it and women can by guilit run rings around males if they want to. This is what I mean when I say what a dumb bunch of males...to not know the actual value of their ability to perform.


Well we know that women perhaps are more adept at manipulating men, perhaps through sex. As you said, in the cases where the women are taking the men for a ride. It is up to the individual man, to see this for himself and try and correct the problem. However as i keep saying, women can also be in such unfavourable circumstances with their partners.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
I can cook ..clean ..change diapers..et al.....this is not what I come to a woman for..but I dont intend to do this as a career while a woman explores her options..understand?? Most women are not looking to do this for me under the heading of multitasking to relieve me of the drugery of my labors. They are not this noble or ignorant....most men are...by far more than women.


Then you are better off if you have such skills, these are things that women look for too, not just money. I understand that you don't want to stay at home while a woman explores her options. However this is something neither Government or Society can legislate. It is up to you PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUAL couples corcerned, to sort that out by themselves. It shouldn't be a case of either only men/women to stay home and do the housekeeping, bring the kids up etc. That is something that needs to be individually resolved. At certain points in relationships, compromises need to be reached. So that each partner can do the things they want, while also support the other.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
Flyboy211..you keep posting under the concept that it is a level playing field...it isnt ...and not going to be...any time soon.


That's because i address this as a 'human' problem, not specifically a male/female one. We're obviously not on the same page, you're not going to agree with me and vice versa. Nor should we have to agree, we have our own opinions. I'm definitely sticking to mine. Although i would urge you to at least consider what i've discussed.

Good discussion.

P.S You're probably better suited to join this Men's Activism

[edit on 27/1/06 by Flyboy211]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Thanks for your post.

First off a woman or man who has all the material things she needs but needs companionship does not have all the material things she or he needs..they are missing a material need ..companionship. It has a spiritual side to it .but it is a physical/material need.
I dont know many women who marry down the economic ladder...most who do..got thier educations/moneys/economics after they married and attained hence ...better paying jobs. Still most women by social stigma dont marry down the economic ladder and it does apply mostly to women. Men marry mostly down the ecomomic ladder. Date too. And I do think it is something you can pin mostly on women. The social stigma is that he is a "user" but somehow it doesnt seem to apply the other way around. Why is that ??? Ever notice how one sided this is socially/economically...?? Why is that Flyboy211??

Yes I agree there are male cash cows out there and men looking to gain access to this country by marriage..casanova style. The stigma used to be under the category of mail order brides...not entirely gone out of fashion today. It is still happening on line today. Women trying to get out of thier countrys and over here. IN the military this used to be called a ticket to the big PX..or Commisary. But this is ok..,for women..its not "Using". With Men ..it is "Using".
While I dont necessarily approve of this either way...it is just intresting how you post so one way on this?? Very one sided. Why is that???
Men do this and the implication is thier "users" Casanova's. Women do it and it is hardly mentioned. Why is that ??
Socially it is acceptable for women to do this ..men should be more expendable or disposable and should not have access to this type of "option"????
You need to think this one through more. Some of us can think it through.

By the way..I date mostly older women ...am I using them????
I like older women because they can hold a more indepth conversation than most of the younger ones and also they can do something more than just microwave. I can cook myself..but really like it when a woman cooks .and something more than microwave. I can wash clothes..even repair my washer and dryer. I dont come to a woman for these traits though I enjoy them when a woman does them for me. Especially a good meal in quiet peaceful surroundings.

As to women not picking men for whether they can satisfy them financially..why then the title of this thread or the one on " Cash cows ..women out for your money"??? And many of these realtionships dont in fact work out when one party or the other finally figures out they are dealing with a financial predator operating under the guise of a marriage.
And yes ..there is more to people than these baser needs...unfortunately this needs to be addressed...to get rid of these baser types of people. I dont hold much confidence in the average male figuring this out on thier own as evidenced by many of these types of postings here on the relationship boards. The younger they learn it the better off they will be.
You can tell by these postings ..though many of these males are very young..that they are lost especially in the thinking and values department. Very one dimensional..and the women know this.
You know one other thing...by the abscence of female posters along this line..of thought ..that many are not intrested in clueing the young men in ..except from a one sided viewpoint. Scorn!!! Why is that Flyboy211????
Think it through socially and in terms of Options!! Entitlements.

Once again..what a dumb bunch of men..out there.

A crass generalization ...about men being dumb..I think not..there are most certainly alot of dumb one out here. Hence the title of this thread..and the other one ..on cash cows.
I should tell you also that I am a ham radio operator...I listen often to my police scanner...both the cell phone bands and the older cordless phone bands. The phones still analog...and not digital spread spectrum can be picked up...on a police sanner. It is quite shocking and surprising to learn how some women think and men dont ..when they think they have privacy on a cell or cordless phone. More men ought to do this... as a wake up call.
They certainly wont teach this in school or on the news media formats ..you know ...those looking out for you.??
NOw mind you ..I am not saying all women are like this ..but there is a noticable number of unthinking males out here. Really dumb.

You know Flyboy211..one of the guys at work was complaining a few months back about his wife who kept bugging him about a new car she wanted. The one she had was a few years olde but she had it in her mind that she needed a new one. It was clear that the expectation was that he should get it for her. I asked if she was working..he said yes...I said let her pay for it out of her own moneys..in addition to the support financially she should already be helping with .... The key word here is " in addition to".
This is the word she didnt seem to want. She wanted the word.."optional". She kept dropping the new car concept...clues and cues to keep him performing. I told him what she really was asking was for him to make himself more expendable and disposable for her comfort and status. Better than that since she is working she should be buying him that new truck he wants...for comfort and status out of her career earnings. For his option.
He caught on very quickly to the "expendable and disposable" part..when I mentioned his concept his eyes lit up..and he came awake. Till that time he didnt get it and was considering how he would get her the car even though it didnt feel right to him. He had a few years back bought her the car she presently has.
Do you see how the treadmill works for men who cant seem to think it through??? They think only of performing and how to perform more...in a multitasking world..really dumb of them. Even to their disposability and expendability. Really stupid...no ...beyond stupid.!!!

So ..what do you think..no finance ..no romance???? What do you think happened in this case???? Im curious here. Is this a hasty generalization??

Oh..while we are at it...you do know that the deciding factor in most auto sales is the woman...not the man? Any auto salesperson will clear this issue up for you! This too is a very important clue to social values..not equality or equity or linearity..et al. This social stigma is known by salespeople...and manufacturers..they spend billions on psychologists to sell thier products.
These people too...manufacturers and their psychologists/sales people are surviving on the dogma ..no finance no romance. Do women take a class in this..or is it part of a gene pool. It must be a gene missing from most men.
You know..I do occasionally buy Cosmopolitan , Elle, and Redbook, Brides magazines et al and look carefully at the ads...take the quizzes too...to see the psychology of these magazines...it is sometimes very intresting and telling about social values. I recommend this highly to men who can pull thier heads out of their backsides and get some fresh air..not many mind you ..but some.

As to abusive partners..you dont want to get me on the "victimization " mantra..I can go on for three or four pages on this topic.
This guys wife with the car issues was about to abuse and victimize him for her personal gain...without thinking about him being more expendable and disposable. I dont buy into this victimization mantra as it is so often portrayed to the public. But only men can be "Users and abusers" everyone knows this!! Why question it. Only women can be "victims"
The reasons and motives are not fundamentally the same simply because women and men respond differently. They expect differently socially.

As to workaholics...I know something about men who have had Peace in their lives..experienced real Peace with a woman. If the woman passes away he is very eager to marry again. You dont find this so among women ...they are not as eager to marry again..especially if the man has provided well for her after he passes on. By the way ..while I am at it ..how many women do you know who provide some kind of Peace or security blanket for a man if she dies first??? You know what I mean ..a woman taking out large insurance policys so that a man can be taken care of financially if she dies first.??? And paying for it too. Know many women doing this...Flyboy211?? I dont. Im not saying they are not out there..but I just dont know of many .it must not be socially popular.
Oh..yes..on the workaholic subject ..how many women do you know who are making themselves disposable and expendable as a career so that a man can stay home with the children and have options...even work part time..unless he is going to school to be a better provider?? You might want to think this one through more.

I want to point out something about your statement here for which most men I know cannot fathom at all.. most women can..most certainly do this but are not willing to educate a man in this ..it would be overturning to many cards so to speak.
Your statement here:

"Well you would think that it is more likely for a man to stay away from women whom already have children. Especially if many men typically shy away from responsilbity and commitment, although perhaps this is more prevalent in young men. "

The implication here is about what women often call "commitment Phobes". I will caution you here ...what is a woman really giving a man of real value for which to commit. Would a young man know enough to tell the difference in real commitment or the "apperaence of commitment"???
This is the gray area I am debating both here and in the room " cash cows..women who want your money"
How many men even know how to filter this type of woman out..predators.??? The quantum assumption again ..is that only men can be "commitment phobes". Not true. There is a implicitness here which often gets a free pass to play through. If it is made explicit it gets flack. Most men are not smart enough to make it explicit.
For example the guys wife was asking for more commitment for a car...was she not?? Was he going to get more...I doubt it...what about more multitasking?? Would he be getting more of that.?? It is that simple...in fact. You dont have to be smart..just think it through.

As to a example of "keeping in her line of sight"
Back to the new car again...she give him clues and cues to perform..not thinking at all about him being more expendble and disposable to get the goodies for her...he thinks about how to perform for her to get the goodies...like he has to perform to win her ..again..and again..and again. He is so dumb he doesnt think about the disposable and expendble part ..until I clued him in. Men tend to do this in dating as well as marriage. Sometimes it is simply called "problem solving skills". They seldom think..that if it is so important to her ..why isnt she sacraficing/problem solving for it..instead of me..since equality and multitasking are taking place.. HOw to keep within her line of sight..so he doesnt lose her. How to keep from losing her by performing more..for her and eventually the kids too....unto even his early death. Got the point yet..about line of sight and the connection to expendability and disposability.
Flyboy211...dont ever connect the dots...treat all this like it is totally unconnected ..just like history is taught ..unconnected events..no relationship there. I can gaurantee you most women can connect the dots faster than most men.

What a dumb bunch of men out there.

One more thing ..Flyboy211..I am not talking about customs in India or Pakistan...this is a placebo...I am talking about customs here in the west. Women work much harder in places like India and Pakistan than here in the west. Much much harder.....many who run into western women in their countrys are appalled at our women and wonder how they or thier families survive. This was plain to see when Hillary Clinton and Chelsea came to Lahore, India preaching her brand of what was important to women. It was not received well there because it had very little application to those women.

Only the affluence of Westen economies can dumb women and men down so much they lose sight of what is important. The women in India and Pakistan are not this dumb. They cannot afford to be with thier economies. They dont have the "options."

OH..you have me chuckling where you post that women can be manipulating especially using sex.
There is a series of pictures from a video out showing some species of monkeys and thier behavior. In this video a male comes down from some high up branchs with a branch of eucaliptus leaves. This female comes over and sticks her behind in front of him.....when he is done she takes the branch of leaves and walks off and he stands there with this dumb look on his face. What a dumb schmuck he is!!! However ..it is economics.!!!

Anyway ..we are a bit off the topic of " No finance no Romance but it is intresting. If we keep going we will go all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by scienceguy94
Hooters restaurants is the worst place to pick up hooters girls. there they get asked out all the time by guys. It might be smart to find out where hooters girls hang out after work.



awwww nobody told U ? U can't turn a ho into a housewife lol hooters ? Are they really selling what U want ? in a girlfriend ?


Nobody has asked U where U DO go to meet women, so tell us ?
I mean hey hooter's girls are fine ... to look at lol no seriously I believe people generally stick to people of their own "status", U attract what U are giving out so what's on the menu ?


and space is right, a good sense of humour and charm will get U further than any amount of dead presidents U have stacked





[edit on 29-1-2006 by ImJaded]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I tell you what, I'm definately NOT the best looking guy around, and I'm so dirt poor right now it's kinda pathetic (been out of work for months now), but my wife is one of the most beautiful women I've ever met, and she's more than willing to stand beside me through the hard times we've been having.

My wife



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
scienceguy94,

[rant] OK, who was she?

The prom queen? Captain of the cheerleading squad? Did Katie Holmes never answer a single love letter out of the hundreds you sent her for all those years?

Whoever she was.....LET HER GO!!!

If that's all she was after ($), she wasn't worth it anyways.

Buy a punching bag, scream/cry into your pillow, heck use the pillow as a punching bag
whatever suits ya; Just get it all out....and GET OVER HER!

Again, If that's all she was after ($), she wasn't worth it anyways, and she's severly poisoned you to a rediculously warped view of WORTHWHILE WOMEN all around.

Then study the advice that dr_strangecraft has provided you.

Again, STUDY THE ADVICE THAT dr_strangecraft HAS PROVIDED YOU.

Burn it into your brain, and just when you think you've finally "got it"......READ IT AGAIN!!! [/rant]

Then find whatever your talents/skills are and USE THEM!!!

[edit on 1/31/06 by redmage]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
In the back of my mind I have been musing about a statement someone made about women being called whores by men ...I have to find the thread in one of these three boards on which we have been posting.
Flyboy comes to mind in the post but It may have been Riley. Problem is that I cannot remember the exactl context..but have been musing on it.

something about women being labeled whores...by men.. when they are to loose...or perhapsed what was meant was by society as whole labeling them whores when they are to loose. It struck me at the time as a odd statement but I couldnt quite put my finger on the nature of the oddness.

Continuing to muse on this but will post here in the "no finance no romance board as this will also bump this thread back up top.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I couldnt find the thread or who posted the concept. I have seen it repeated over many times in posts and in conversations..but decided to post my view here and see what comes out of it.

Ok..here goes..buckling up my seatbelt and shoulder harness here in front of the computer.

I have seen both males and females post this view of women being whores...and applying it to them across the board. While it sometimes is used to refer to males it is mostly applied to women. Particularly in its harshness.

What I have sensed over the years is that it is more often applied to women by other women .in a way to express derogation..or the lowering of value. I have sensed that women are very quick in competition to label another women "whore...slut" more so than a man. This can be very telling if one thinks it through.

It is a control mechanism among women. She is giving it away to easily ..causing me competition and the goods are now less scarce in the marketplace. In Union terms..."unfair labor practice".
She is giving it away cheaper than I am willing to give it away. In the process lowering my value in the marketplace. My leverage. This simply wont do.
I have often stated..women are much more competitive across a wider spectrum of thought than most men are even capable.
Are all women like this ..no definitely not..but most of them do understand this concept..whether they practice it or not.

I dont think most men are able to think this through ...they are much more basic..one dimensional here. You know..like... Wow!! Theres more of it in the marketplace now!!! What a relief!!! They dont really think it through as part of problem solving from the female point of view. Most just cant do this.

Once I began to understand this different point of view and understanding about the use or misuse of the word "whore....Slut" I began to look closely when I heard the view or opinion implied in conversations.
Once again peel back the veneer and look underneath where it often counts ..at motives or control methods.
Intrestingly enough a sidelight of this was the closer look at commercialism and advertising..television and programming in this arena of "Slut and whoredom." What a totally new perspective on something which was right out in front of me all along. A real wakeup call.


That is my view on the use or sometimes the misuse of the words "Whore or Slut" and what came out of it..

Bumping this thread back up again.

Thanks,
Orangetom





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join