|
crumpets -> RE: She's not a femdom. She is just a controlling bitch (3/2/2016 10:32:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
There has been no issue raised here about a woman's capacity to fall in love.
I agree that both women, and men, have the capability of love.
I think (some) men and (some) women, in general, (may) look for different things though.
At the most base level, if I reduce it to one word, it could be as animalistic as...
resources
sex
The only thing I'd clarify on that is the nature of what happens after the subsequent breakup:
Women - He was a jerk!
Men - It didn't work out.
Of course, this is a mere generalization of about ten billion hugely different breakups; but that's an observation I've seen in, oh, < swag warning > oh, about a third or a fifth so of the breakups I know about where a friend confided to me that they had just broken up and I may have inquired "What happened?".
Notice that it's not all the breakups; just a significant number.
The women didn't get what they wanted, while,
The men got what they wanted (they just don't get it any more).
In a way, I pity women, because providing "good sex" forever seems like turning what is, in essence, meatloaf every day of the week into something like filet minon every day of the week. Not an easy task.
By way of comparison, it's a lot easier for a guy to provide resources every day of the week (but, on the negative side of the equation, his coste-per-fuck will be in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars so he's providing dearly in almost all cases).
So I pity men and woman equally - but for different reasons.
BTW, I think the reason for the breakups being skewed toward "jerk" in the case of women-to-men and skewed toward "meh" with respect to men-to-women might simply be due solely to the GOALS that the women and men had in the outcome of the relationship.
The women spent their valuable time and energy on the men, for a goal that didn't work out.
The women could have spent that time with another man, so, for them, he wasted their time and energy.
The men spent the same amount of their time on the women - for the goal that they achieved temporally.
If I assume the goal was a consumable (e.g., sex), then the man got what he wanted out of the relationship.
He just doesn't get any more. <==== moral of the story to tell a young boy about relationships with women
BTW, since we live in an egalitarian world, if the goal of the man was a future promise (marriage, kids, money, houses, vacations, cars, exposure to influential clients, whatever), then the woman would have been just as much a "jerk" for not coming through on those long term goals.
< I just realized that my tangent is so far off topic that I'd better gag myself; otherwise, my membership in the ADD/ADHD Society may be called into view! >
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
your average man becomes infatuated faster, more easily, and more often than your average woman does.
Obviously, it depends on the individual.
I think, if that is true, it may be due to the GOAL of the relationship to "your average man".
IF <===== notice, before you skewer me, this is a conditional word!
If the goal is sex, then infatuation may very well be just the right level of interaction
Of course, he must "profess" larger than that in order to get his goal (i.e., he must "profess love", but that's easy)
IF <===== there's that conditional word again...
If her goal is everlasting Prince in shining armor who turned into influential & powerful King of the domain
Then "true love" is a more appropriate level of interaction
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
However, when I reflected upon this myself, I can see where the matchstick gets struck and lights ablaze, only to flicker and die out much quicker than a smoldering hearth does. There must be a name for this, the ADD/ADHD Romance syndrome -- and if there isn't, then it's been coined. :p
There may be something to this ADHD thing.
For me, there are PLENTY of things to be interested in, so, a woman only becomes interesting to me if she makes herself known to me in some fashion, and, I guess, reflecting a bit on that, both women and jobs just fell into my lap throughout my whole life. I don't think, reflecting some more on my past, that I ever looked for a single job, for example. They just happened. People would propose that I start a new group or that I try to solve a particular problem, and that's what I'd do.
Same with women in a way. There was never a woman in my entire life that I just had to get. Not one. They always got me. There were plenty that I liked, but I only got to know them better AFTER I had sex with them, which they engineered, so to speak.
So, for me, sex came first.
Now I'm expressly not talking about LUST (since I lusted after Raquel Welch in a cave bikini and Sigourney Weaver in a sweaty tank top) as lust is something that comes naturally to me (Jimmy Carter aside, it's not in the heart, by the way ... it resides in a different organ).
I think, again only speaking in generalities which may apply to something like only one third to one fifth of relationships (if that):
If women are looking for the one and only Prince Charming - there's a good chance that the prince turns into a common run-of-the-mill frog once you get to know him better ...
If men are looking for, um, shall we say, less lofty goals - there's a good chance that the Princess Bride will begin to seem boring - where she doesn't turn into a frog so much into something already attained so it's time to move on.
Notice the "if" word in the above please ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
I nominate you as the poster [whipping] boy for the ADD/ADHD Romance syndrome. [:D]
Can I decline the nomination (at least for the whipping part)?
It may be true though.
But I think it's more that I'm usually busy with other things.
Ever since my first "real" girlfriend, at 13, I've been chosen by the women.
I don't think I ever had a single woman in my life that didn't choose me before I chose her.
Sometimes I wake up in the morning, and that cozy infatuation begins to grow ever fonder into a leash ...
Sometimes I wake up in the morning, with the burning desire to chew my leash off to sneak out before she wakes up ...
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Even animals form attachments, so a human taking an "animalistic" approach still falls short when Mother Nature's critters show more integrity than certain members of our species do.
I'm still not sure if I get your drift, but,
if you're insinuating that certain men think with the little head ... oh ... the horror ... the horror of it ... how could they?
I can't believe anyone would ever insinuate that some men think with their little heads.
No way!
It can't possibly be true.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
You are evidently seeing sexual bait as NSA encounters, as strictly having to do with attracting a sexual partner as opposed to a mate for your life partner, your primary partner.
I harken back to my initial conditional statement:
If what person XX wants out of the relationship is of value as a resource, then NSA makes no sense to them ...
However, if what person XY wants out of the relationship is not necessarily valuable in and of itself as a resource, then NSA can certainly make tons of sense in the logical world.
The main problem with NSA, as I see it, is disease. Yuck.
Plus, sometimes that NSA turns into a PITA (ask Charlie Sheen, Jared Fogle, Elliott Spitzer, Pee Wee Herman, Bill Clinton, etc.). Ug.
Nasty stuff.
Don't even ask me to get started on that topic because I think we've been there, already, in depth, on other threads.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dreamlady
Are you insulting my intelligence?
While I am quite sure I insult the intelligent rather easily, I normally only purposefully insult the lack of intelligence of people who lack intelligence.
In this case, I simply think I didn't have the intelligence myself to understand what you were trying to convey.
[image]https://meansheets.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/raquel-welch-one-million-years-bc-poster.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
