Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bill St. Clair]

But when my blood goes south, I just want to make babies. With damn near anybody in a skirt. Wish I knew how to turn it off.

I would stay away from Irish/Celtic festivals, if I were you.

Ok,  I'll bite -- why is that?

Uh. Men in skirts, er... kilts. I've been tempted for a long time to buy a Utilikilt. But men don't turn me on, kilts or not.

[Brenda]

He did seem to place quite a bit of emphasis on having kids and projecting himself into the future by way of them,  and seeing the wonman's role in producing those kids and helping to raise them as being of high significance.  Which suggests that he's also looking hard at his own mortality.  (Me,  I'm planning to live forever,  so I ain't that worried about it,  though that doesn't mean I'm not hedging my bets either.  :-)

One of Ross's assumptions is that marriage is such a financial and legal trap for the man that he would *only* do it if he wanted kids; otherwise there is no reason for him to put up with the committment. Which is one of the more depressing aspects of his approach. He starts off by explaining how hopelessly over-emotionally sensitive women are (in his world at least) but somehow seems to have missed the idea that marriage itself could have an emotional significance beyond breeding.

Anyway, now that I've calmed down, my biggest problem with his approach is the cookie-cutter assumption. Damnit, get to know someone BEFORE you pull stuff like this:

When she said "yes," I hope you added "I'm assuming you're not one of those flaky women who thinks 8:30 means 'sometime before noon.' I intend to be at the range by 9:00."

 

[Rarick]

He did seem to place quite a bit of emphasis on having kids and projecting himself into the future by way of them,  and seeing the wonman's role in producing those kids and helping to raise them as being of high significance.  Which suggests that he's also looking hard at his own mortality.  (Me,  I'm planning to live forever,  so I ain't that worried about it,  though that doesn't mean I'm not hedging my bets either.  :-)

One of Ross's assumptions is that marriage is such a financial and legal trap for the man that he would *only* do it if he wanted kids; otherwise there is no reason for him to put up with the committment. Which is one of the more depressing aspects of his approach. He starts off by explaining how hopelessly over-emotionally sensitive women are (in his world at least) but somehow seems to have missed the idea that marriage itself could have an emotional significance beyond breeding.

Anyway, now that I've calmed down, my biggest problem with his approach is the cookie-cutter assumption. Damnit, get to know someone BEFORE you pull stuff like this:

When she said "yes," I hope you added "I'm assuming you're not one of those flaky women who thinks 8:30 means 'sometime before noon.' I intend to be at the range by 9:00."

That gave me a good giggle too, you just dont treat people that way, without some sort of previous track record warranting it.  As far as the Legal Trap, I see it that way too.  Why do you think all the movie stars and wealthy do that "Pre-Nuptial agreement" thing?  Then you have the very public dilema of Burt Reynolds, then the situation with Pamela Anderson.  Divorce is mesyy financially, but it can be a nuclear bomb emotionally and socially too. 

[Kirsten]

*

[pooseycat]

I didn't read them all, but all he ever seems to talk about is gamesmanship.  He strikes me as a guy who's been seriously burned, and is determined to never have it happen again to the extent of finding some reason to reject every woman he meets.  Maybe he should just relax and stop trying to meet them in the first place.

You said it, JDW.

Here's a brain burner: I've seen women put on total fake acts to attract men. You know, like smart women pretending to be dumb and helpless, batting eyelashes and all that stuff. Again and again the guy falls for it, paying no attention to the honest and genuine woman who happens to be standing nearby. The honest woman gets disappointed again and again when the phonies swoop in and lure guys away. Then the man gets burned by the woman he fell for and bitches that all women are phony. But he sent every signal that he preferred the fake woman!!! He's the one who said "bring it on!"

I agree with Kirsten that this shouldn't be a men are this way, women are that way thing, although it does look to me as if men and women each attract their own kind of nemesis, then get angry and self righteous when the person fulfills their negative stereotypes. Like a man repeatedly falls for a woman who just wants his money and status and a woman repeatedly falls for an abuser. So all women just want money and all men are abusers.

[Roy J. Tellason]

But when my blood goes south, I just want to make babies. With damn near anybody in a skirt. Wish I knew how to turn it off.

I would stay away from Irish/Celtic festivals, if I were you.

Ok,  I'll bite -- why is that?

Uh. Men in skirts, er... kilts. I've been tempted for a long time to buy a Utilikilt. But men don't turn me on, kilts or not.

Gotcha.  And on that score I think we're in complete agreement!

[Roy J. Tellason]

He did seem to place quite a bit of emphasis on having kids and projecting himself into the future by way of them,  and seeing the wonman's role in producing those kids and helping to raise them as being of high significance.  Which suggests that he's also looking hard at his own mortality.  (Me,  I'm planning to live forever,  so I ain't that worried about it,  though that doesn't mean I'm not hedging my bets either.  :-)

One of Ross's assumptions is that marriage is such a financial and legal trap for the man that he would *only* do it if he wanted kids; otherwise there is no reason for him to put up with the committment. Which is one of the more depressing aspects of his approach. He starts off by explaining how hopelessly over-emotionally sensitive women are (in his world at least) but somehow seems to have missed the idea that marriage itself could have an emotional significance beyond breeding.

Yeah,  but along with that comes vulnerability,  and to someone who's been badly burned,  as he apparently has at some point in the not-too-distant past (and for all I know he's still paying for it),  some guys might not ever be inclined after such to open up to that sort of emotional vulnerability ever again.  I didn't have a problem with it,  myself.

Anyway, now that I've calmed down, my biggest problem with his approach is the cookie-cutter assumption. Damnit, get to know someone BEFORE you pull stuff like this:

When she said "yes," I hope you added "I'm assuming you're not one of those flaky women who thinks 8:30 means 'sometime before noon.' I intend to be at the range by 9:00."

 

Yeah,  I hear ya.

Typical stereotype,  where a guy shows up when he says he's gonna and has to wait...

There are lots better ways to handle that than to start out by insulting someone and saying that you expect that sort of flakiness from them right off,  before you even get a chance to find out.

[Roy J. Tellason]

One thing that I found interesting is that he automatically equates marriage with a government institution.  I was married, but my then husband and I chose not to make the government a party to our agreement which happened to save us rather a lot of money in taxes since we both earned about the same amount and would have been heavily penalized.  We also chose not to have children (though later he changed his mind, or perhaps was just finally honest about his wishes).  The purpose of marriage for us at the time we got married was neither financial nor for producing kids.

That's interesting,  as in my earlier situation with my ex,  we did the civil thing first and then (at her insistence since she was catholic) the church thing as well,  and in my current relatinship we did neither,  and have no intentions of doing so,  though from time to time my thoughts idly drift toward some sort of a ceremony _because we want to_ and for no other reason.  And maybe one of these days I'll find some online examples of that sort of thing that suit me,  and then find out what suits her,  since we're coming up on three decades together...

But I decided that I don't need permission to cohabit,  not from the government and not from any particular church,  either.

[Roy J. Tellason]

I didn't read them all, but all he ever seems to talk about is gamesmanship.  He strikes me as a guy who's been seriously burned, and is determined to never have it happen again to the extent of finding some reason to reject every woman he meets.  Maybe he should just relax and stop trying to meet them in the first place.

You said it, JDW.

Here's a brain burner: I've seen women put on total fake acts to attract men. You know, like smart women pretending to be dumb and helpless, batting eyelashes and all that stuff. Again and again the guy falls for it, paying no attention to the honest and genuine woman who happens to be standing nearby. The honest woman gets disappointed again and again when the phonies swoop in and lure guys away. Then the man gets burned by the woman he fell for and bitches that all women are phony. But he sent every signal that he preferred the fake woman!!! He's the one who said "bring it on!"

Yeah,  but he's not the one who's sending the signals there,  only responding to the ones he perceives as being sent,  as in "I'm interested!",  which goes a long ways.

I agree with Kirsten that this shouldn't be a men are this way, women are that way thing, although it does look to me as if men and women each attract their own kind of nemesis, then get angry and self righteous when the person fulfills their negative stereotypes. Like a man repeatedly falls for a woman who just wants his money and status and a woman repeatedly falls for an abuser. So all women just want money and all men are abusers.

People do seem to often have the knack for picking the wrong ones,  over and over picking the same types that they didn't have any luck with before.  I don't have an answer to that one,  offhand.

[Rarick]

  That is always something that burned me up. I see a girl in class that is interesting, and I get more interested when she shows brains in class.  I start chating with her at lunch, and she pulls the airhead routine.  I let it go and check back in a week or so, and she still pulls it.  It drove me nuts during my high school days, it struck me as dishonesty, and I usually never talked to that "Plastic person" again unless spoken to first.  The other that drove me nuts was the demanding the "old courtesy" stuff and then turning around and being "Liberated".  I lost 2 girlfriends over that game, one could not make up her mind (i walked), the other got peeved when I tried to do somrething special and pamper her(she walked).  Go figure.

  I grew up with parents that had no problem speaking their mind to each other, and I do not mean calling each other names.  There were several time I can remember mom and dad saying "I think we ned to" and having the other disagree.  They would then see the why of that disagreement, often deciding they needed more information to make the decision.  They usually found a good answer after that, but it was never a case of "that is what I want, and I am right, and it is going to be that way"  Most of the broken relationships I have observed over the years have that issue, one or both sides aren't solving problems, but imposing their will.  A lot of the game playing, manipulation, and other Men's and Woman's advice columns are all about the imposing your will on the relationship.  That is not what it is about, it is about walking together and boosting each other when needed.  I know that men and women think differently, there is scientific proof of differing brain structures and physiology. Each sex solves problems differently too.  That difference is VALUABLE, and should be respected.  That said, Individuals are different, and there are women that think alot more like men and the other way around, so beware generalities. 

  On the government and marriage stuff, it is up to those involved whether they want it official or not, and how they want to make it official.  Those vary from "getting married", to making the proper wills, to simply informing proper friends and family in writing how you want things handled if either of you tripp of the mortal coil, and all the details of that. 

  I have never been married but have been in 2 relationships that may as well have been the same thing, no real records of "family life" in my life but I have raised kids and all that other stuff.  Right now I am single and worrying about myself, and have plans for others if they choose to (re)join me.  I don't have any major regrets, and am looking foward to seeing how the rest of things go.  The kids are adults now and involved in their stuff, I am starting over on another aspect of life without them being central, and building the security and retirement stuff.  I increasingly get the feeling that will be Chateau Rarick, home of the Rarick clan.......

[Kirsten]

*

[Rarick]

No one knows what any one is thinking. everyone thinks thru their own experiences as well, so that adds in to many variables.  There are studies that show that typical people of both sexes share certain methods of thinking.  The males navigate "typically" useing far off landmarks, females tend to use nearby landmarks.  Males focus and concentrate harder and more totally than females "target lock". The difference was a problem in the military until they figured out what was happening.  It is also noted that a lot of stuff is trained in by societal expectations as well.  I do not know how or what YOU are thinking.  I recognise that we think differently and therefore note different details, camparing notes may give a better picture than just your or just my view or solution.

[Erin]

*

[Rarick]

How often in my posts am I reminding about exceptions?  There are some things, but they are always modified by training and life experience.  I have always allowed for exeptions because exceptions are the rule.  That is all I am going to say on that and all the defensive behavior I am going to offer in compensation for anothers defensive behavior.

[Kirsten]

*