Relationship Rant Thread #5

Remove all ads!

I do mate yeah, I had a nice girl once and fecked it up. Oh well, no regrets. I need to find another now. My now-ex has got the mesage, but she's now spending mot of her time in town getting drunk, probably chatting up lads. Oh well, I was the one who finished it so can't argue.

 

Time does that. Mind: There are mothers who also have beautiful daughters.

Chev, don't speak your verdict so lightly. There are at times things, even in a great relationship with Mr. Right, that remain unspoken because they are difficult to address and that turn out to become a problem later. And in some cases even a Mr. Right is not the right person to address those things. Another thing is a desire of 'taken woman' to reaffirm themselves in a routine of a relationship. It is a good thing when they reassure themselves that they are still attractive to others. It beats Prozac or depression. If it prevents them from becoming dull little housewives chained to the cooker and helps them stay self-confident (and hot) - great. It doesn't do the matter justice to simply say they ought to talk about it frankly. That's a hard thing to do, form men and woman alike, and easier demanded than said.

So 'taken woman' flirting doesn't mean they're 'loose' chicks or whatnot. I think it is patently normal, the point is whether they act on those desires. Now of course, if one is in a relationship and cheats, that is a breach of trust.

On the other hand, men, single men especially, have a tendency to be optimistic in their interpretations of the intentions of 'taken woman'. That doesn't make their attention any less flattering or charming.

Where I agree with you is that indeed some people are just trouble, and in those cases 'distance from disorder' is the best formula. The ambiguity is fully intentional.

 

In case of DotW's taken girls, that's not flirting, that's moves. What you describe isn't as healthy as it seems to you, either. Not gonna argue about a simple exchange of compliments or something, but a sexy mindgame is behind the line.

You can't really misinterpret something which is literal. Well, some courts apparently can, but let's not get there.

There's a reason I wasn't attempting to describe everything precisely, either, but the boundaries are still there. I may be biased against or in favour of this or that form of behaviour, so I might argue it's okay or it's bad depending partly on my personal preferences, but the point is that you're either taken or not and at some point looking for or giving attention elsewhere breaches the trust between the parties.

 

It's alright when guys flirt then?

It takes two y'know. I'm not going to take the more feminist route of saying "men flirt and cheat because they're sex driven pigs and women flirt and cheat because their man mistreats them" I know more than well enough it works both ways.

To make the blanket statement that all women want to marry and have children is as untrue as stating all men will only drink beer and are obsessed with football. If you attempt to assign a blanket template over a single gender you won't be happy with people you date, you'll more than likely find women want an equal: Someone with a compatible personality to their own and responds to them as if they are unique.

Of course, romantic gestures are always appreciated (on both sides I might add) but it's painfully obvious when it's a 'stock response'.

If you have a poetic bent: Bookmark a website that has a list of flower symbolism, or gem symbolism or whatever. You can usually bet on a fact a woman will have a friend who knows most 'obvious' symbolism, and they're usually the ones that will talk about it most.

I've only recieved flowers from relatives, though Azzy did get me a coconut once

 

Nope.

Never said otherwise.

Not all but most and the statement is true. The comparison is not. By the way, most men actually want that too, except women may be a bit more social, but that's it.

 

There is such a thing as being too secure in the absolutes and ideals you've generated, chevalier.

 

Utyuun, you're just saying that because you're bitter and don't have a husband yet. Gawd.

 

I have too much respect for you to go into a word for word with you, so I will pass if you will excuse me.

 

Hoy, most might want that, sure, but if you're not the perfect husband material they're looking for...well, then you're just screwed aren't you? I'm not the one to complain about this.

 

As long as they are "taken" or married you don't have to worry about them spending the night. They have to get home to their hubbies & kids.(Bad! Bad! Martaug!! Dang i'm going to burn for that, i just know it)

Most guys are hoping that even if they aren't Mr Right - at least they are Mr Right-Now

 

Chev, this is nothing that calls for a word for word. It's that I, apparently much like Uytuun, feel you're a little short on the empathy and experience side, while relying overly on doctrine. To talk about an issue frankly and openly in a relationship is perhaps one of the hardest things in a relationship of them all. Hands down. In face of that your line ...

... does not at all do the matter justice. You dismiss a problem in a relationship that is very difficult to deal with with a two-liner? That's it? And then, equally galling, what does that say about people failing to meet your high standards? If I wouldn't know you better I'd be pissed off. That's a theoretician's approach to a problem known from the book but not from practical experience. That is not to diss you, but to say that I find your verdict has a cavalier touch to it. Live your ideals, but don't judge so readily. You might just want to see a little more of the world. I myself, as neo-cons would put it, have been mugged by reality. Trust me that it is far more complicated and nuanced than the picture that you paint.

 

What exactly is a "word for word"? An argument, it seems. But what kind?

I fail to see how you not embarking on an argument with me has anything to do with respect. My feminist sisters might even be suspicious of the possible not so respectful implications of that assertion.

My remark wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was rooted in my innate aversion of dogma(tic blindness). And yes, my aversion extends way into the realm of hedonistic dogma as well.

This. Except I'm not pissed off.

 

Rags, ask any 70 year old what women want. Look around. See how most of them live. A husband and a children. Have many of them at some point believed they didn't want that? Most probably. Have many of them at some point really wanted something else? Possibly. But in the end that is how things go. And I do not dismiss a relationship problem lightly. My experience is too... inconducive to that. However, I apologise if I hurt someone by my admittedly curt manner.

The kind where it gets to a brutal ponendo ponens and semantic tooth-picking. Be it then, but I will try to avoid that.

That, Uytuun, does not make them in any way more right. Nor does it make what I said wrong. Feminists are sometimes offended by facts of life. They are not always rational and I would say that much of the time they are not. For this reason the fact that they are offended by something is not always a good indicator and certainly not something by which to shape one's views.

Facts are not blindness. I believe blindness is when aversion or other emotional stances seem to be more important than the facts. Most women end up married and having children. Most who are now living their wild years will eventually settle down. Most of those who are in abusive relationships with Messrs Wrong would actually like to have a Mr Right by their side, even though they might perhaps not realise that. There are few women who wish forever to live an uncommitted live and few who believe in serial or interchangeable or non-exclusive commitments. Most do want a husband and children. Ask any 70 year old. That the feminists do not like this is another thing, but they don't get to change the facts.

 

The issue only arises when you are set on being right, now doesn't it?

Like now. You're a good a good lecturer, but dialogue is an interesting mode of conversation as well. Feminists criticism, though not always unbiassed, remains interesting, some insight can be gained from it. Dismissing them as readily as some of them do your views does neither of you justice IMO.

Facts and rational behaviour, yes? These concepts can easily be hollowed out and manipulated into becoming blindness and they leave out a blind spot where the imaginary, the vague and the emotional dwell to begin with.

Although, your facts are problematic in their own right.

1 ask any 70 year old
2 most women end up married and having children
3 most want mister right

These aren't facts, they are assumptions, ideals and commonplace retorts you keep repeating over and over again. Allow me to indicate just a couple of things that I consider to be problematic about each of them.

1 What about the 70 year olds that divorce their husbands, go on a cruise with their friends and when asked for advice tell women and men alike not to bother with marriage+child? Would those be the irrational feminist type?
In fact, have you asked multiple 70 year olds what it is that women want?

But mostly: you assume some sort of unchangeable female nature and presume that older women have insight into it, thereby discarding that little thingy that makes us human: culture. 70 year old women have never faced the same challenges "emancipated" women struggle with today. Their perspective is not absolute, in fact it is most likely biassed - like perspectives tend to be, mine included - and might be struck by the mark of (destructive) nostalgia.

2 To begin with, you assume that what is is what is wanted. Secondly you dismiss whole armies of divorcees, polyamorous people, gay people etc. who do not end up married and with child. And coming back to cultures - what about polygamy in certain cultures, cultures where (unmarried) women without children are most highly regarded and what women aspire to? Kindly apply your "what is is what is wanted" idea to those. Not to mention, kindly consider the fact that what is wanted might be influenced by a number of variables.

3 What is your conception of Mr. Right? Your Mr. Wrong might be the love of some girl's life and consequently her Mr. Right. For some women, wanting Mr. Perfectly Right is such a priority in their life that they end up looking for him rather than getting married and pregnant. Or looking for him while getting married and pregnant. Or giving up on him while being married and pregnant...

You do not get to simplify until the facts fit your views either.

 

Holy [censored] go MIA for two days and look at the hell that breaks loose!

Absolutely. Not everyone has the desire -- or ability to properly raise -- descendance. I am just part of those people.

Before making my point on that, let me phrase a good friend of mine:

Charl does have a good point here. Then, let's dissect your own POV - if their boyfriends were more of a "Mr Right", I wouldn't have this problem?

First, define "Mr Right". I assume it refers to someone who wants to spawn descendance, get a wife, a mortgage and work 9-5, correct? You may think I'm generalizing, but I'm not.

You want to know why Taken Chick Magnets like me exist -- and thrive? The explaination is fairly simple. The relationship they have with "Mr Right" lacks that little spice that guys like me provide.

This is a cause/effect situation. If long-term with all the included garbage really was THIS satisfying, then there would be no guys like me. It's like evolution -- everything serves a purpose, obscure as it can be,

 

Tsk Tsk DotW, that is because you are a man. All WOMEN want to get married and have children, as Chev so bluntly puts it, remember?

/end sarcasm

Chev, I am in complete agreement with Utyuun... as you are not a woman, I don't think you know how they feel, particularly since you are also only one person. You only know how ONE MAN feels, not how all women feel. I suggest keeping wildly sexist sweeping statements to yourself.

 

I don't date 70 year old woman. Do you?

I consider it unwise to take for granted the end result of 40 years of reflection (given that's what it is) when picking my girl, and tell her based on that perspective what she wants. I presume right here right now that would, if put into action, create difficulties of its own. Probably they would laugh me away.

Indeed, many woman want children, and in some one can hear the biological clock ticking implacably. In my observation that's around 30, 35 years. At times it appears to me that it is simply biologically primed and has nothing to do with desires or free will.

Now, have you ever considered that the lifestyle and desires of 70 year old woman are a product not so much of reflection but simply of the time they grew up in? The post-WW-II period? Ladies then married and got pregnant with 20 or so. They got knocked up so early they probably never heard the clock ticking. The ladies I meet have usually higher education. That means they won't have kids before they're at least 28 or 30, or older. If they chose to, they'd ruin their education and chances in the job market. Your 70 year olds couldn't choose. Ask a 70 year old them if they had any dreams except for having children and they will almost inevitably tell you something. Woman today do have options, and they exercise them, much unlike 70 year olds when they were their age back then.

 

I don't know, I'm not my own head doctor.

Feminists are likely to be offended by the fact that marriage even exists. Some feminists are offended by the fact that women are still attracted to men after centuries of oppression. That feminists will be offended on an emotional level by an argument of mine is not an argument against my argument.

Yes. Most people past a certain age are married and have children. Some have remarried, but that is still a marriage, at least a civil one. Some are divorced and not remarried, but they surely weren't looking forward to divorce when they were marrying.

So basically it is a hollow concept, not a fact of life that most people are married and have children. Am I getting this right?

Or even just look around. Or is this point invalid until some statistics are put to paper? I do not need to cite a science book to say the sun is yellow and grass is green. Neither do I need to reference statistics to talk about the basic fact of life that most people are married and have children and that most eventually arrive at this point, even if it happens late in their lives.

Oh yes. This fact is male-chauvinistic and so ideologically backwards and so offensive. However, this fact is right and turning one's head around is proof enough.

Yes. Or are you telling me that most women are on the lookout for a guy who will bathe less often than beat the wife?

How is a factual statement, even if wrong, an ideal?

I'm listening.

Not necessarily feminist, but definitely irrational. The behaviour you describe is 1) extremely rare, 2) a result of mental disturbance.

Have you? You make it look like I claim having conducted some scientific research. Far from that. On the contrary, I say, go ask 70 year olds if most women really don't want marriage, as you might want to claim.

Please. Culture is overrated and is not what makes us human. Yes, older people typically have more experience and typically make a better use of their mental faculties than those living out their wild years. Many of those 20+ or early 30 year olds who claim they don't want marriage or children will end married and having children. Most women in their twenties who are clueless now will not be so clueless when they are 30 or 35.

Those are emotional factors and while they give some insight, they are not a reason why I should refrain from calling things their names and pointing out some basic facts. Facts are offensive, pity. I too get offended when someone says something truthful but hurtful to me. Doesn't make it wrong.

Yes.

Pleeeeease. Show me the whole armies. Gay people make at most several percent of the population and this includes those who are at least partly bisexual. Polyamorous people are a very narrow margin - it fact, that's a marginal subculture. Your "armies" are at best several percent of people, barring divorcees. Now two facts need to be said about divorcees:

1. They mostly remarry
2. They wanted a marriage when entering into it - barring a very small margin of coerced people (literally or figuratively). It later didn't work out. Doesn't mean they didn't want a marriage. It only means their marriage didn't work out. Few divorcees divorce just because they no longer want to be married, irrespective of their spouse's faults.

I'm sorry, but you base your arguments on flawed and contrfactual assumptions. The level of exaggeration shows an emotional attitude but emotions aren't arguments.

Ermm... Those cultures die out? How many children are born in a monastery? How many generations will it last?

Rest assured I don't confuse the two. On the contrary, you and Rags confuse minute whims of people living out their wild years with what a human being wants from the perspective of his whole life.

Those variables are far less important than the end effect.

Besides, claiming an unspecified number of unspecified variables is just a way to say that something is unknowable and discussion is moot. Not my breed of philosophy.

A guy who will treat the woman mostly the way she (rationally) wants to be treated, i.e. with respect and love, who will not abuse her and might in fact cherish her. Will be a decent provider and father when the time comes. Generally a respectful and respectable individual with whom interaction is not a pain and relationship is not toxic.

An abuser who puts in the woman in the infamous "battered woman" condition will never be a Mr Right, neither will be a notorious cheater or liar who has little respect for her. If some women like that, it means they need to go to the doctor, not that they hold a rational view which must be respected. Masochism is not a viable philosophy. Contrary, it is a disorder. Disorders are to be cured, not affirmed.

Never said Mr Right was perfect. Right is right, not perfect. It's a normal decent guy, not Donald Sutherland come true.

Excuse me? Are you now talking about an imaginary pregnant woman looking out for a side-affair? How real is that?

So suddenly a pregnant woman sits down and decides that for some reason she needs to give up on her man, whom she considers right for her. Great. How many women do that? And where do they go? A monastery or...?

I might perhaps be simplifying a bit, but your extrapolations and bizarre hypothetical situations are flabbergasting.

Rags, that was obviously not about dating a 70 year old and you well know this. Soon you are going to tell me that sexual orientation or even gender is a cultural thing with no base in hard-coded biology.

Saber, the same to you. Soon it's going to be a sexist statement when I say that most people are married, right? Therefore I say once again that most people are married. I am a sexist now. Satisfied? Where I take issue is your calling it a sweeping statement. You may call it a sweeping statement that most people in the US voted for Obama this year or that around half the population is male. Good luck on that. Your emotional attitude does not validate or invalidate a fact, let alone make it a "sweeping statement".

 

Read carefully: My point is that we both are speaking about woman that are young today and not about woman who today are 70 years old, and I boldly assert the woman that are young today are in many respects different, and if not that, at least in a very different position (better educated, free to move, having more options, wider horizon). You scoff that culture and history are overrated. I think you err, greatly. It has as much to do with culture and history as with technological development ('the pill').

Now I may err here, and in that case I apologise: Biologically, a woman is determined to breed for the continued existence of the species. That is genetically hard coded. That's what I called the implacably ticking biological clock. To derive from that a claim about what they wish, feel and how they 'are' is a little bold a leap. I know quite a lot of woman who would protest that claim violently. It leaves out the aspects that are ruled by the free will. You ignore the power of the mind. And you ignore the extent to which woman today are able to determine their own lives. Face it. Woman today can choose to have or have not children. They do that.

EDIT: You're aware that you're essentially saying: Woman! When you're saying you don't want children, you're acting in contradiction to your subconscious desires and genetic predisposition. That is your destiny, you just don't know that yet. Don't bicker. You want to breed. Now, put that way it does sound a little hilarious, doesn't it? /EDIT

And as for dating woman, for that you have to accept them and deal with them as they are right now, and not as you wish them to be, or how you think they might think when they're 70 years old. That's my point.

 

Rags, culture is overrated as a factor in shaping people, at least in this matter that we are discussing. I do not scoff history. Contrary, show me a generation in history in which people did away with marriage - or most of them did. Or show me a society in which at some point most of the people decided they didn't want to have children - apart from the fact such a society would be dead by now. This is the lesson of history and of life: people will have their wild years, but ultimately they will settle down and marry and have children.

As for the pill, it changes women's personalities. However, what the change brings about is not the woman's own choice - it is a pharmacological effect, much like the caffeine buzz or relaxation coming from alcohol or the effect of a sleeping agent. Get a woman off the pill and she will want children more than while she's taking it, I suppose. The same for a man who's on antilibidiants for some reason.

So far correct.

There is also taking care of the offspring, which contrary to in some animals, won't be ready to care for itself after a year or two, and looking for a protector and provider.

How does quite a lot rate against "the most"? "The most" is more than a half. More than a half women will eventually choose marriage and motherhood. No amount of exceptions will change this unless those exceptions add to more than a half. Are you willing to say that more than a half women do not want marriage and children?

Free will is important. Of free will people may choose to do what they want or not and it may to some extent shape what they want. How does this make more than a half women of even this liberated day and age not want to marry and have children?

You ignore the fact that historically most women of any given society have married and had children (obviously societies where all men got slaughtered in a big battle and the population died out do not change this since they have nothing to do with wanting or choosing).

So what will they choose? Will you tell me what now? That more than a half of women do not want either marriage or children at any point in their lives or will not arrive at the point in their lives where they are married and have children?

Face it, Rags. You're talking about "some" women and theoretical possibilities and you dance around the fact that in the end most women will be married and have children. And if you believe that historically women have always been forced into marriage, then you are wrong.

Rags, "put that way," is key there. Anything sounds hilarious if it is put that way. A young militant soi-dissant feminist who today believes she will always be clubbing and one-night-standing, but who will statistically in a couple of years have settled with a guy and possibly born a child or two or more, could seem hilarious to some (does not to me).

And my point is not so much about breeding, as you biologically put it, but that most women, whether they realise this on a conscious level already or not yet, generally prefer a stable relationship in which they are treated well, respected, loved and cherished, rather than a relationship in which they are abused, objectified, mistreated. Let's face it, Rags, no one goes to Gitmo as a volunteer and no one wants to be beaten, berated, made into an object.

Especially if you take a look at the university scene, you will notice that while regular orgies will be held in university dorms, closer to graduation people will generally tend to be in stable relationships and just before or shortly after graduation, some will marry. This will increase further with years and you will find few singles older than 35. They will certainly not be the majority of people. The majority of people will be married. And they will not be forced by parents or by the other party. They will not do it against their deep internal inclination either. They will do it because they want it.

Rags. What they now think they want may not necessarily be what they will turn out to have wanted in the end. Or, even if they on some level actually want an unstable relationship or non-committed adventuring, they will at some point change their views and arrive at the conclusion that their inclination is actually to settle down with the one special person and marry. They will have been married for a longer time than they will have been choosing toxic relationships (this is re: women supposedly not wanting a Mr Right who will treat them well) or lack of commitment (this is re: people supposedly wanting forever to live a one night stand lifestyle).

I do not in any way negate that there are many women who will never have wanted to marry. But they are fewer than those who will have wanted to marry (with success or not). I do not in any way negate that some people are not interested in any form of sex, there are also some religious and secular celibataries. Then you have people who simply just want career and some sex every now and then and they are comfortable with that (if they would like a normal family but they prefer non-commitment and career instead, this doesn't invalidate my statements because they want it but do not act on it, valuing something else more in the end). However, you must take into account that while my statement is definitely not true about all, it is definitely not false about most. It may appear sexist, biased, prejudiced, idealistic, whatever else to whom shall please, but it remains a fact. Facts can be inconvenient to some ideologies sometimes.

And note that I'm not saying that most people are somehow subconsciously in agreement with me on what marriage should be like. Far from that. However, fact stands, most people attempt marriage at some point in their lives. Most of those who live in a different lifestyle do it before finally marrying, not after.

I am also saying firmly and reaffirming it ad nausaeam that most women do not want to be treated with disrespect, lack of love or lack of seriousness. Most women want a man who will treat them well. Most of those who stick with bad guys are suffering from a form of psychological oppression which is akin to Stockholm Syndrome and you aren't telling me that captives and captors are genuine friends. This is obviously mostly just about toxic relationships, but when you regard those undefines, insecure relationships, women generally want more than that and they want security and decision on the part of a man. They want to be loved, respected, cherished, cared for, provided for. Not thrashed, ignored, disrespected. And they also want a man who will be dedicated to them and take them seriously.

Once again, fact is almost everyone will go for marriage and children. Sooner or later. This has not been shown to be wrong here. Everyone can point to exceptions. I can name many too. But those exceptions do not invalidate the basic fact: that almost everyone will go for marriage and children sooner or later. And surprisingly while family values have suffered lately, marriage still stands, most people marry, most have children. In fact, even gay people want to marry other gay people! And even some of the gay people want to adopt children and raise them. So are you telling me that marriage and, perhaps in a bit fewer cases but still the majority, parenthood, is not what most people want?

Will you risk that statement - will anyone? Will anyone here claim that more than 50% people who are now alive will not finally marry and have children?

Will anyone tell me that women generally want to be mistreated?

I doubt that. I will only hear that I'm sexist and that my sweeping statements are sexist and that I'm intolerant, bigoted and whatever else, plus many theoretical exceptions but no realistic challenge of facts as they are.

You know fully well, DotW, that "not everyone" does not invalidate "most". The definition of "most" contains "not everyone". Most is, "more than a half but not everyone." If you point out that some people do not want marriage and/or children, I will agree. That is obvious. However, the fact than 10% or 20% or 30% hold a certain view does not somehow reduce the remaining 90% or 80% or 70% to lose the character of "most".

I very well understand that to certain free spirits it may sound offensive that most people will choose that dreaded "patriarchal" institution. But as offensive as this is to them, it is a fact.

Yes, if the boyfriends of your unavailable suitors were not douchebags that treat women badly, you would have far less following among taken ladies. You would surely have some, since some people are just not able to be monogamous, or are generally monogamous but not able or willing to stick to it 100%, but it would be far less than it is. Most of those girls look to you because their boyfriends aren't what they would like them to be.

No. I was not equating the two. By Mr Right I employed a partly relative concept, that is someone with whom those girls would be able to have a relationship that they enjoyed and felt good in to the point they would be able to say sincerely that they are happy. As I know from you, they have not been happy in their relationships and the boyfriends have been little good for them.

We are both generalising to some extent, but I think I'm not wrong in saying that most of those girls or all of them looked to you because of not being happy with the relationship they had. Obviously, one or two could have been a nymphomaniac and happy with her boyfriend but unable to stick with him, but we aren't really talking about people with moderate or severe disorders.

Let me be clear: That is a factor. The lacking spice is definitely a factor. However, in most cases that will also mean that the relationship they have is unfulfilling. Poor communication. Not so great compatibility. Some tiredness with each other. In short, not really Mr Right. Not a guy they would spend the rest of their lives with if they had a choice.

You raise a good point, but what needs to be added is that most people don't cheat. Most people go for long-term and generally stay faithful. Most of those who don't manage to stay faithful do their best to try again. There are some people who will look for side-affairs even when they are with the right person for them and happy with the relationship, but that's not quite sane and not as frequent as to make most people fall into that category.

I do believe that most of those girls, if they had nice guys who would treat them with love and respect and show them that they value them, then they wouldn't come to you for distraction. Perhaps some would require therapy - not for what I regard as bad behaviour but for what a psychologist or psychiatrist would regard as a personality or social disorder (effects of abuse) - before being able to have a normal relationship, but with that therapy - or with not needing it - and with the right man, yes, most of them would choose a normal family over the toxic relationship plus a comforter/spice provider scenario.

You could argue that what they want at the moment is more real than what they would want if they didn't have a bad situation or suffer from effects of abuse, but I believe that a choice made by a free mind is more true than how the same person acts under the influence of a personality disorder. What is more, if you questioned them even in that state they are in, they would probably say that they wanted one guy and one relationship - but a good guy and a good relationship, one guy that suffices and one relationship that suffices, not a collection of many. And if they were jaded enough to think that couldn't be true - i.e. that having a normal relationship wouldn't be possible for them, then if you asked them what if it hypothetically were possible, then most of them would say in that case they would indeed want that normal family.

With the general populace, the ratio would be even higher.