Do These Women Exist?
A reader (thanks Roger) sent me a link to this article about a new book entitled, Why Men Marry Bitches : A Woman's Guide to Winning Her Man's Heart.
Although I do not care for the title of this book, the kooky part of this author's theme seems to be that there are few confident women (why does this make one a bitch?) but scores of martyrish women floating around just dying to cater to a man's every whim and desire:
Apparently, the author of this tall tale seems to think that women who cater to a man's every need and do everything a man tells them to do are the norm. Does anyone out there even know of such a woman who really truly puts everyone else's needs before her own, brings a guy beer in lingerie and does not think she is worthy of touching the hemline of her man's pants? Honestly, I don't and have never met a woman like that. Maybe I just travel in odd circles. Seriously, does anyone have a story or experience of a woman (a real one) who is still involved in this type of behavior? Because, if so, I have a number of men who are just dying to meet these women. I think that if they actually existed, they have been extinct now since the 1950's. I suspect that women being "too nice" is hardly the reason more men are not dying to get married.
Update: Eden at Just One Bite has some thoughts on this post that make sense.
Although I do not care for the title of this book, the kooky part of this author's theme seems to be that there are few confident women (why does this make one a bitch?) but scores of martyrish women floating around just dying to cater to a man's every whim and desire:As scary as it sounds, this is precisely the approach women are taught on how to catch a husband. It’s the plight of every "nice girl" who puts everyone else first, puts her own needs last, and doesn't think she is worthy of touching the hemline of her man’s pants....
When I polled men, they all said confident women are in very short supply. And that a confident woman is what they find sexiest. Is it any wonder that confident women are hard to come by? Look around. The average fashion magazine tells women to act like a servant, as if dating were a labor-intensive, blue-collar-job application: “Can you serve a cold beer in trashy lingerie? Do you leave razor-sharp creases in his shirts like employee-of-the-month at the Jolly Roger motel? Do you wear cellophane for him? Are you gardening in stilettos? Are you giving it up doggie-style? If so, he'll drop to one knee and propose ...”
Apparently, the author of this tall tale seems to think that women who cater to a man's every need and do everything a man tells them to do are the norm. Does anyone out there even know of such a woman who really truly puts everyone else's needs before her own, brings a guy beer in lingerie and does not think she is worthy of touching the hemline of her man's pants? Honestly, I don't and have never met a woman like that. Maybe I just travel in odd circles. Seriously, does anyone have a story or experience of a woman (a real one) who is still involved in this type of behavior? Because, if so, I have a number of men who are just dying to meet these women. I think that if they actually existed, they have been extinct now since the 1950's. I suspect that women being "too nice" is hardly the reason more men are not dying to get married.
Update: Eden at Just One Bite has some thoughts on this post that make sense.
posted by Helen at 4:10 PM
67 Comments:
Do you really know men who are just dying to meet women like this? I've always kind of assumed men wanted a healthy normal relationship, just like I do.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What sort of fashion magazines are these? And do they feature the latest burqas? Geez…
I’ve been banging this drum for as long as I can remember: there is an enormous difference between “confident” and “bitchy”. A lot of women seem confused about this, but few men are. It’s like suggesting that because women want a man who has strength and confidence, a woman wants an arrogant bastard who beats her. This is absurd, though occasionally both sorts of confusion happen. (I defer to our hostess’ professional experience for actual numbers.) As the song says, some of them like to be abused.
But don’t count on it.
'Seems to me that the problem is the definition of "confident". Some people seem to think that "confident" means "selfish", but then that shouldn't be surprising in our me, me, me culture. Nevertheless, it is plenty possible, be you man or woman, to be confident and take the back seat when it is appropriate.
I must ask the obvious question: If she's so confident and wants to get married, why doesn't she pop the question to him?
Bunny, I think most men want a normal, healthy relationship-- with a woman who knows what she wants and isn't afraid to ask for it. Of course, if she likes serving beer in her lingerie, so much the better.
(Oh, man...now I've got a certain Frank Zappa song in my head...)
Jenny,
You make a good point--a confident person can do the asking. I always asked men out myself--don't know if I was confident or just stupid. I think most men and women just want a decent relationship with someone who likes them for themselves, which these days is difficult because apparently, being yourself is not always enough. I think either fake confidence or martyrdom as techniques for "catching" anyone sounds silly, and manipulative. What ever happened to just being yourself and hoping someone else likes you?
Well, I wouldn't object (to the beer thing)! Of course, my healthy, confident woman (who has no trouble making her views and needs known) is the sort who'd do just that, merely for the fun - and unexpectedness - of it. She doesn't lack dignity, she lacks uptightness and fragility of ego. She's herself and happy in that, and I love her for it. I wholeheartedly agree that the manipulative baloney represented by this book and similar, such as The Rules, are recipes for disaster in the long haul.
(One thing that tripped me up slightly when reading Sherry's excerpt was this: what the heck has she got against doggy style? That was a bit out of the blue. Do a quick poll and see how many women you know prefer it. Go ahead.)
Dr. Helen;
That passage to me read as tounge-n-cheek. Do you think it isn't and are interpeting her message fairly?
SteveR
I guess the way to have girls grow up to be confident young women... don't let them read magazines.
I met a couple that was "sort of" the image described - at least in this way...
She did everything. All the cooking, cleaning, yard work, you name it and even bringing home the paycheck. He ostensibly had a back injury and couldn't work. Thus he sat home all day and did nothing but watch television.
When she was home - he wanted everything "just so", dinner at a certain time, the house cleaned a certain way. Then he would call her to go get him a beer from the kitchen, no matter what she was doing or where she was in the house.
He was perfectly capable of taking care of himself - as far as I could tell, he walked and talked and performed his daily living activities just fine. Why she stayed? I have no idea. I would have walked out the door. Her choice and I still don't understand it.
To all the young ladies who are reading this blog, if you want a man to respect you, pursue you and ultimately marry you, don't give it out - doggie style or otherwise - on the first, second, or even third date. You should wait until you're married or at the very least, until you have a commitment in the form of a wedding ring and a date scheduled.
Men don't commit to women nowadays because they don't have to. They can get everything they want from a woman - sex, companionship, free housework - without any of the responsibilities of marriage or the risks of divorce. Why on earth would they throw that all away just to get a marriage license?
Ever hear of the saying "Who buys a cow when he can get the milk for free?"
Dr. Helen,
A former friend of mine was obsessed with this book, and made it her Bible in a personal transformation that eventually ruined our friendship. She was a nice person when I first met her, but because of this book became convinced that being nice was a terrible way to date, and probably to act in general. She came from a traditional asian family and her grandmother (who ran the family) lectured her from an early age that she should be docile and catering to men. Nevertheless, I never perceived her as docile and catering, but this imprinting from her family manifested a desire in her to become a "bitch" in order to avoid that traditionalist asian role. Needless to say, her family experienced divorce and her brother was a rampant philanderer (her mother was docile and her brother dated docile women).
To top it off, she is a lawyer and was very aggressive in her professional work, and thought that to become a "bitch" it was necessary to adopt that aggressive role in her personal life. Every "date" became a transaction then, and every "compromise" from a man was a "win" for her side. Eventually, this mentality infected our friendship and it ceased to exist.
Personally, I think this book is nonsense. Today women seem to be self-obsessed and over confident, believing that they can get any man. They transform themselves into divas and inflate their egos, and wonder why all the men they push all the nice men away, and end up involved with slobs in one-night stand hook-ups.
Dr Helen: "What ever happened to just being yourself and hoping someone else likes you?"
One thing I should add about my former friend. She disbelieved in this advice completely. She believed that to get a man, or woman, you needed to play "the game." I completely rejected that, and tried to tell her that someone liking you for who you are was a sincere and more lasting, and meaninful, type of love. She didn't understand that at all, and I would get upset as she told me how she counseled her younger counsins how to "hook up" with the opposite sex. In fact, I'd say our friendship ended on this point alone: I believed that a relationship should be about a person liking you for who you are, she believed in "games."
Like that mythical ideal of "unconditional love", frequently, when contemporary people refer to being confident, they mean it as some ideal form of behavior disconnected from any justification. Confidence is supposed to be based on something ... how competent you view yourself, how well you adhere to your values, how successful you are at achieving your goals, whatever.
"Confidence" disconnected from any reason for that confidence is a fragile self-absorption that can't stand to any challenge (and being bitchy goes a long way toward preventing those challenges.) You don't fall back on this "confidence" if you have real confidence. Such a person has little to offer in a healthy relationship, although she might manage a long-term relationship if she "puts everyone else first, puts her own needs last, and doesn't think she is worthy of touching the hemline of her man’s pants...".
I think bitchiness arises more from lack of confidence (fear of not getting what one wants) more than it does from confidence or even over confidence.
Dr. Helen, your quotation and challenging question are a delight an appropriate denouement from which might be found in the archaic Texas Democratic Party aphorism, 'Those who tell, don't know; and those who know; don't tell,' not to say that I am in the group which knows.
It's odd--she gets a few of the principles right, but the examples are all wrong. Yes, men like strong, confident women. But when strong and confident becomes bitchy and self-absorbed, which it does in the examples the article lists, it's a complete turn-off. Taking home all the doggie bags from a Chinese restaurant (did she ask?) is a sign not of strength, but of rudeness and inconsideration. Reheating Chinese on a first date isn't a sign of confidence, but a sign of laziness.
Relationship Principle 1 should be amended. Dr. Ruth once said that the most erotic thing a woman can do for her man is to love him, and vice versa. Dignity and pride are important and all, but if it comes across as not caring about the other person, you'll see exactly how attractive "dignity and pride" can be.
OTOH, Relationship Principle 3 (Men want an interesting woman, not a perfect woman) is exactly right. Hint for women: Interesting does not mean "hangs out at bars every weekend".
Why does everyone in the relationship advice industry seem to think that women have to be either tranquil and subservient or bitchy and demanding?
Sydney Carton,
Too bad your friend feels this way. I think that if you play games with people and relationships, you should not be surprised that you end up with a game player. But people are surprised and they end up divorced saying, "I had no idea." I think you put into a relationship what you want back. If you want love and companionship, you put that out there and see what happens. If someone rejects that, move on. How can a real relationship be based on a game? Your friend will hopefully learn this one day or not.
Captain Holly said...
To all the young ladies who are reading this blog, if you want a man to respect you, pursue you and ultimately marry you, don't give it out - doggie style or otherwise - on the first, second, or even third date. You should wait until you're married or at the very least, until you have a commitment in the form of a wedding ring and a date scheduled.
Men don't commit to women nowadays because they don't have to. They can get everything they want from a woman - sex, companionship, free housework - without any of the responsibilities of marriage or the risks of divorce. Why on earth would they throw that all away just to get a marriage license?
Ever hear of the saying "Who buys a cow when he can get the milk for free?"
Yuck. I would rather be alone than with someone who committed to me just to get sex and housework. What a dumb schmuck that person would be. Paying for a maid and prostitute would be cheaper over the long run, especially factoring divorce costs.
Maybe it is good that men can get the milk for free. The women who have men committed to them will know their mates are there because they love them as people....not as maids and fucks.
Steve R
"Paying for a maid and prostitute would be cheaper over the long run"
Don't think so.
Once while engulfed in the black throes of the deepest despair caused by a recent break-up I went into full cynical mode and made an estimation of how much it would have cost me to substitute my ex-girlfriend by using "professional services"... well, I turns out I was getting around $40,000 a year worth of "services" from my ex. No way I could have spent that amount on prostitutes and that does not even take into account the maid you talked about (she did not provide any maid services).
So I actually got something of value out of that relationship... not so bad after all.
my fiancee loves me to bits dont know why. but she loves serving me meals as she was brought up around laotian and vietnamese people, she didnt like it then, but she loves it now, i deal with people, she does that, its an exchange of skills, i can cook and will, so can she she is slightly better than me, so i do one task she does another and we both are happy.
she wasnt confident in her beauty and self worth when i first met her, but i have shown her she can only be herself, and she has become stronger in herself.
this book is just another way of demonising men, as the feminist readers will say, this is what ALL men want, and i wont be like that.. or in worse cases they will pretend to be weak until they get the man then become uber bitch. i have seen a few of these.. they are nice until they get what they want, then complete change. meakness as a weapon does exist
Yuck. I would rather be alone than with someone who committed to me just to get sex and housework. What a dumb schmuck that person would be. Paying for a maid and prostitute would be cheaper over the long run, especially factoring divorce costs.
You missed the point, but that's not surprising; alot of people do nowadays. If women want men to "buy" their product (that is, marry them), they have to stop giving away free samples. They have to make it clear to the man that the benefits of a relationship have costs; namely that the man will be required make a solid commitment to the woman (and any children they might have together) in exchange for access to her body.
Sounds mercenary? That's just the way nature works. Up until 100 years ago, childbearing for women was serious, often deadly, business. They couldn't afford to waste their time and energy on a man who wasn't going to be around for the long haul. Sexual customs that some people deride as outdated (ie, marriage and monogamy) are actually evolutionary responses to the harsh reality of life before central plumbing and air conditioning came along.
They're still pretty good ideas. For some reason however, modern women seem to think they can overcome several hundred million years of biology just by being more assertive.
Maybe it is good that men can get the milk for free. The women who have men committed to them will know their mates are there because they love them as people....not as maids and fucks.
A wise philosopher once said "It's better to be respected than loved." IMHO, men who get easy sex don't really respect the women they get it from. And since they don't respect them, they're less likely to love them.
Hmmm, let's define bitchy. Needlessly argumentative in an annoying manner? How about impossible to please with a tendency toward blaming others. Nasty nagging?
I do not think of bitchy as having any gender tag now. What is the definition of bitchy?
Trey
specialopsdude,
The woman you are seeing doesn't sound bad to me--you may not be attracted to her, but I bet that if you were, her lack of cooking and "attractive clothing" would not be a big concern. Seriously, I hope this lady finds someone who appreciates her for herself--one of the key ingredients to a happy relationship. Just because a woman dresses nicely, cooks well and acts in a feminine manner (whatever that means) does not mean you are in for a stress free life--in fact, it may just be the opposite. I agree with your lack of desire to get married, given the current state of the legal system in the US, but the traits you mention as "low quality" do not sound that way at all to me.
Does anyone out there even know of such a woman who really truly puts everyone else's needs before her own, brings a guy beer in lingerie and does not think she is worthy of touching the hemline of her man's pants?
No. I know of no such women. However, I do find it interesting that in this day and age, women will provide sex rather easily, but find it an affront to sexual equality to wait on a man in any way.
In other words, it's easier for a guy to get a BJ than a beer from a woman. And that's just sad.
I got a laugh out of the fact that the article includes a quote from Kim Basinger with approving commentary:
Kim Basinger said something interesting: “I don't have time to be classified as difficult, and I don't have time to care.” Men tend to feel at ease with a woman who doesn’t care so much because then he doesn’t have to be fully responsible for someone else’s happiness. When a man sees you are happy with him but you can be just as happy having nothing to do with him, that's when he won't want to leave your side. When you are happy, you are sexy.
Of course, I am sure that all of the blame for Kim's nasty divorce is with Alec Baldwin.
Anyway, I do think at times she makes some good points about creating intrigue and being confidant. But I hate the dismissal of women who are nice.
Thinking back to the whole controversy about the "surrendered wife" from a few years ago, it seems to me there were two parts. One was about letting the husband make the decisions, which I don't agree with and I doubt most men do. But the other was about simply being nice to your husband which unfortunately got scant attention.
Jeff
Jeff. The Surrendered Wife was a terrible title for a reasonable idea.
The author had nearly pathological control issues. She wasn't just an average wife.
There are reasons this is bad for a relationship, which should be obvious. One, not so obvious, is that a controlling personality cannot allow the partner to do anything without orders. If the partner takes initiative and it works out, that's not good. It means the controlling personality suddenly DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL. The actual, objective result is the least important issue.
Thus, the controlling person has to figure out a way to discredit even a successful action on the part of the other. This isn't easy. How do you discredit, say, saving money, fixing the chair, finding a good deal on a new house? It's not easy and it rapidly gets both irrational and personal.
There is a significant cost for the other party, even if he/she is getting the right results, in acting without orders.
This results in an atrophied sense of initiative and in reduced competence. Both of which can then be sneered at by the controlling personality.
This is 'way more than having hubby make some decisions.
Some of the reactions were along the lines of, who does she think telling me not to nag and diminish my husband!
Scary.
ok wraithlike, **Males: should be constrained in their sexual drives by channelling it through marriage and procreation only (as much as possible).** first not all people should have kids, or even want kids, we have made a concious decision to say that kids are not for us, whether its due to medical reasons, or emotional, or some other esotertic ideas. 2ndly, who will police the male drives. and what would the punishment be. Does that mean you can only have sex if you want a kid, and any other time not at all.
**Females: Should be moderate and conservative and don't give in to anyone easily, either for money, fame or so-called sexual liberty** who will police this. like the burqa's in afghanistan.
**Government: should revert back to time-tested proven laws of marriage and family (religious texts and ancient civilizations). They were in practice few decades back, so don't tell me they are useless!**
the thing about these old fashioned governments, like the greek ones, they accepted homosexuality, so did the romans, and most of the ancient civilisations didnt have this hang up about it that modern christianity does.
Sadly, Captain Holly, I think you may be on to something. I certainly found it to be true. I dated my now-husband for two years without us ever having sex--as no precaution is fool-proof and I would not risk a pregnancy unless I was sure he loved me and would want to marry me in the event of an accident. We got formally engaged soon after. It's interesting that he had a number of sexual relationships before, and even lived with a couple of girls, but whom did he marry but the one who held out on him??? He'd never admit that in a million years so I never bring it up, but I decided I had calculated correctly when I heard him tell his sister a couple of years later "If you really want to marry that asshole (her then-boyfriend) you'd better not let him move in with you." She did, and no luck.
I had two other marriage proposals from nice guys, too, and two more that I could easily have gotten with encouragement. Never slept with any of them either. I wasn't really trying to bully anyone into marriage, just protecting myself. But it seems they all liked it.
To answer the initial question, posed by Dr. Helen, no, I don't know any women who go to the lengths described in the article and haven't met any at this point, well into my second decade of dating as an adult. Especially for the first few dates, I think everyone tries to put their best foot forward (be perfect) and going out of one's way (cooking an elaborate dinner, catering to someone's taste) is common to both men and women who are enthused about someone they are seeing. As others have mentioned, self-confidence is very attractive, at least to this man, but very hard to find. Everyone has doubts, but requiring constant reassurance or using low self esteem to try to extract commitment are very annoying.
As to relationship principle four "When a woman is trying too hard, a man will usually test to see how hard she's willing to work for it. He'll start throwing relationship Frisbees, just to see how hard she'll run and how high she'll jump." I find that kind of behavior to exercised by either sex. I don't know that it is trying to hard, but it isn't uncommon, in my experience, to find oneself being tested. Responsed vary based upon enthusiasm for the relationship.
As to Captain Holly's assertion regarding milk and the cow, I have a hard time expressing how ridiculous I find that idea. Sure, if most people want sex and if they lower their standards enough, they'll find someone who will accomodate them. If someone's just looking for sex, they probably won't marry those "just sex" partners and if they did it probably wouldn't work. Also, it is true that sleeping with someone is absolutely no guarantee that they will stay with you. However, it is an absolute fallacy that marriage (or some other committed relationship) will be prevented by having a sexual relationship. Look at it rationally, man! If I, or any other guy, meets a woman who we find interesting, and fun, and whom we enjoy being with, and with whom the sex is great, we are going to do whatever we can to ensure her continued presence in our lives. How could sex possibly be a deterrent? Oh, gee, let's see- "I find her attractive, conversational, we have a great time together, my friends and family think she's great, but...hell, we're sleeping together so I don't see any need to try to make this a permanent thing." Or "...hell, I can find someone else to sleep with, so I don't see any need to make this a permanent thing." Neither are likely though processes, at least by any man who is going to make a decent spouse, anyway.
I think that the misunderstanding regarding mens' perceptions of a woman's confidence may stem from women's expectations of what men regard as confident behavior. That is, women often seem assume that behaving in a stereotypically masculine manner portrays confidence to men. But it doesn't, it simply makes the woman seem masculine.
What I tend to perceive as confidence in women is emotional maturity and psychological stability.
Helen,
I think you hit it on the head. My father used to tell me, "If you want a thing, be as though you already have it, and it will come to you." If you want money, for example, behave as though you have money (by properly managing and investing your finances), and you will have it. I think the same advice goes for relationships. If you want to draw certain kinds of people to yourself, behave in that manner. If you want someone kind, be kind yourself. If you want a traditional marriage, act in a traditional manner towards the opposite sex.
Jack,
You bring up a really good point-- typically "masculine" behavior doesn't necessarily mean that a person is confident, be they male or female! I think that's the criticism that some women have of "ladette" behavior; they think that women and girls act in a "masculine" way because they associate things like drinking, swearing, and fighting with masculinity and therefore confidence and power.
Personally, I think it's sexist to assume that all men are foul-mouthed, violent alcoholics, but that's me.
rizzo:
The reason it's more demeaning to get a guy a beer than to give him a blowjob is, duh, because some of us actually enjoy giving blowjobs!?! And often that activity will lead to other mutually enjoyable activities. But getting the beer, that's just lame. Sure, I'll do it if I'm up and near the frig, but otherwise- no dice.
I usually get really pissed off about the comments here when this general subject comes up, but not so bad this time. Except captain holly--you're just sad. As if respect and love can't come hand in hand. As if I would want to marry someone who respected but didn't love me. As mdmnm said, sure there are those out there who think like that. Those people are not to be married under ANY circumstances--not set up for the kill by withholding sex.
To captain holly:
You seem to be saying that the fundamental paradigm of human sexual intercourse is prostitution and all that's left is to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment. Is that what you're saying?
I happen to agree with that and so do a significant number of anthropologists and almost all evolutionary psychologists. Believe me, however, most women absolutely do not want to hear this stated outright.
I haven't read all of the comments, so I hope I'm not being redundant.
I am a bitch. I always, and sometimes aggressively, state my needs in a relationship. I argue and even yell when things do not seem "right" to me. I'm also agressively happy when all is well and I like a bit of give and take in bed. And I have never, ever been dumped, I've been proposed to 4 times, and I am now 5 years married. I have far more gorgeous, modelesque and brilliant friends who get dumped all the time and have yet to be proposed to. Why? They aren't bitches. They don't wear stilletos while gardening, and they might not be thrilled about housework, but they care far more about how their "man" is doing, feeling, feeling about them, etc. than there own feelings. I think this is the kind of contemporary female wuss the author may be referring to.
Bobh,
I don't think that prostitution or servitude is the fundamental paradigm of human sexual relations. I've entered into relationships (yes, sexual relationships) for no other reason than to have a good time in bed with someone that I liked. Both sexes are hard-wired to enjoy sexual intercourse. And yes, some women do like to have hot, uncomplicated sex just for the hot, uncomplicated fun of it.
That said, I do think prostitution/servitude situations arise in human courtship situations-- that is, when marriages and family planning come into play.
You see this particularly in "traditional" marriages or even in marriages between castes. When one party is financially independent and the other is not, a marriage between those two parties appears to be more like a management-labor contract: I'll support you financially, you do the cooking and cleaning. You raise the kids, I'll work full time. Unless you're filthy rich, division of resources (like capital and labor) are necessary to keep the household running smoothly.
That's why I don't get the "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" argument. Sex is a terrible reason to get married. Trust and commitment (which DO exist in "traditional" style marriages, at least in the successful ones) are the reasons. Sex is just a perk.
Bobh said:
You seem to be saying that the fundamental paradigm of human sexual intercourse is prostitution and all that's left is to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment. Is that what you're saying?
No, not exactly. But let's face it, in marriage there are expectations of both parties and those expectations are based in part on the primitive sexual differences between men and women: Men get sex, women get security.
I certainly don't subscribe to the Dworkin/McKinney paradigm that "all sex is rape" and the only question is how the woman is compensated.
That's why I don't get the "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" argument. Sex is a terrible reason to get married. Trust and commitment (which DO exist in "traditional" style marriages, at least in the successful ones) are the reasons. Sex is just a perk.
Yes, marrying for sex only is stupid. But what's even more stupid is to start a sexual relationship with someone you've just met.
Sex in marriage is more than a perk: It's a central pillar to the marriage itself. There may be great marriages that are completely sexless, and there may be great sex in a marriage that is otherwise dead, but in general the quality of the couple's sex life is directly related to the quality of the marriage, and vice versa.
This is one thing that many modern women fail to understand: Men need sex for their emotional fulfillment, just as much as women need talking and cuddling for their emotional fulfillment.
Men are not women. Don't expect them to act like women.
Except captain holly--you're just sad. As if respect and love can't come hand in hand. As if I would want to marry someone who respected but didn't love me.
Actually, it's far more likely that a man will truly love you if he respects you first. Love doesn't happen overnight; it takes a while to develop and in a good marriage will continue to develop over the years.
If a man doesn't respect you enough to honor you, he's certainly not going to love you enough to stick with you when times go bad.
I'm sure Bill Clinton has deep affection for Hillary. But respect? Please.
Dr. Helen and Specialops Dude,
You are so funny.
"Does anyone out there even know of such a woman who really truly puts everyone else's needs before her own, brings a guy beer in lingerie and does not think she is worthy of touching the hemline of her man's pants? Honestly, I don't and have never met a woman like that. Maybe I just travel in odd circles."
There or millions of these women. They make GREAT faithful loving wives.
They just don't live in America, they live here: http://anastasiaweb.com/startsearch.php?afid=4184&age_min=20&age_max=30&height_min=none&height_max=none&weight_min=&weight_max=&children=0&Sort=4&submit=Show+Matches
Particularly the ones who are late twenties and older and have been around the block once or twice.
Taken from a country where most males are alcoholic, habitually abusive and dead by age 53,
... American Males who are reasonably employed, polite to women, know how to give love and not wander and bathe 3-5 times a week... these women will love you forever, give you great even enthusiastic sex even when tired, care for your home and children and not complain (much) and be grateful to live middleclass and will be interesting to talk to and go on vacation with when you are 75, they read alot.
About the part about bringing you beer in lingerie, I wouldn't know, but my brother who is married to one says it's more like a bottle of Chardonay and she's naked all the time, (but they live in a hot climate).
American women -- need more spankings and more farmwork in their "formative years" less "overeducation" in useful 18 year plans like "Communications, International Relations and Psychology" and smaller wardrobes. Want to run a business or fight it out in court after you get that J.D. ? ... Lance Romance and his brothers aren't interested in you. Look at all the Lonely divorces on the dating sites.
These women aren't perfect, not by a long shot ... they're human, have "baggage" like all other humans and subject to the female hormone trauma cycling every 28 days ... some worse some better than others.
One thing they are is greatful for a good man who treats them decently. The "Gratitude Attitude" ... something American Women have to pay big bucks to be trained in in "Finishing School" and the School of hard knocks.
Dr. Helen, having looked Death square in the face recently, you seem to have more of a "Gratitude Attitude" and less hellbent on career and solving other peoples problems.
You have a good man, who loves his woman, and she seems to know it ... and in America that is traveling in "odd circles" these days.
My mother said our grandmothers were always just greatful when grandfather came home at the end of the day ... alive.
We live in different times.
A freinds son minored in Russian at one of the Public Ivy league Universities and spent a year studying over there near the Ukraine --- He's 21 and engaged to a Russian Woman who is 25 and a Doctor, they're getting married here this summer right after he gets his job settled.
We met her, I just wish she had a sister just like her for my son.
Man, I'm glad I'm not dating today with all this bitterness. Misandry sucks, but an entitlement attitude is no more attractive in a man than in a woman. Geez.
I'm happily "living in sin" with no intention of getting married. It's been ten years; I still bring him beers, and he still brings me flowers.
CaptainHolly,
I think you and I are on the same page, at least sort of. Yes, sex is a good indicator for how a marriage is doing. But basing a relationship off of sex is a bad idea. Okay, agreed there.
And yes, in a world of AIDS and other scary diseases, just crawling into bed with strangers is a bad idea.
However, you seem to be working off of the idea that security is the only reason for a woman to ever sleep with a man. For reasons I don't understand, women who sleep with men they don't plan on marrying, or women who have sex just for pleasure are somehow not worthy of respect.
I'm just really confused. If you don't respect a person, why are you sleeping with him or her? Isn't that just asking for trouble?
anonymous:
The reason it's more demeaning to get a guy a beer than to give him a blowjob is, duh, because some of us actually enjoy giving blowjobs!?!
I realize that. My comment was somewhat in jest, but my point was that this works out quite well for men. We can get our own damn beer, but most of us can't, well...you know.
jenny:
If you don't respect a person, why are you sleeping with him or her?
For some reason, I find that funny. And proof that men and women are quite different since I would never expect a guy to ask a question like that.
I'm not married, my friend's are a mix of marrieds and singles, and my sister has only recently married, we're all in the prime age group for first marriages - so I have some perspective on dating among people in their late twenties through mid thirties. The truth of the matter is that there are a lot of broken, self-absorbed, immature, and generally pathetic people among both men and women. These people seem to comprise an increasing proportion of the 'dating pool' as you get past your mid twenties. By your mid thirties, I'm 36, they may be the majority. Now I'm not saying that these folks are bad people, but they're probably not suited to marriage. The problem is that they don't know this and insist on dating and pursuing eligible people. For all I know, I'm one of them ;)
----------
As to bitchiness, in my experience such behavior is attractive to certain men, who are often rather passive and specifically go for bitchy women. Advising a 30 year old woman, who isn't naturally bitchy to become so is a bit unethical IMO. This strikes me as the type of advice that women give to other women based on what women want to believe about men - i.e. no one's bothered to listen to the men. Most advice given to women seems to be of this variety.
specialopsdude said:
"American men have worth in a foreign womans eyes to an extent that I can not even begin to explain."
oh, come on, DO tell. I'm curious.
captain holly:
Men want sex; women want security? I think someone already commented on this, but... um, I make my own security. I do want the sex tho, please. And the fact that I have the same desires somehow renders me not worthy of respect? As I said before, only to losers whom I wouldn't consider marrying in the first place.
They guy I'm seeing is six years younger and has the most beautiful body I've ever had the pleasure to see. He's been generally unemployed for most of the time we've been together. I am the one who pays for everything. So it has occurred to me that maybe I'm paying for the sex. Sometimes I start to feel kinda bad about that.
Then, I think--aw, to hell with it. It's goood, I likey. What's the harm?
Rizzo,
That's odd, because I can easily think of seven men whom I have heard say that-- either to me or to other people. And no, not all of them were people I'd dated (one of them is my father).
Jack,
Thanks for bringing up a good point: some people just aren't suited for marriage. Browbeating them into it-- or advising them to be "bitchy" so that they can trap a man-- is a bad idea.
Jenny,
Ok, fine, but my point was just that men don't need to respect women to be willing to sleep with them. Hell, we'll sleep with women that we would never be willing to date. The most promiscuous men I know are that way precisely because they don't respect women at all (although they'll make women think they do). To avoid problems, at least from your own point of view, it's more important that the person you're sleeping with respects you, not the other way around. It might sound selfish, but sometimes selfishness is called for.
Dr Helen: "What ever happened to just being yourself and hoping someone else likes you?"
Unfortunately, it went the way of the dodo and while not killed by sailors looking for an easy meal, it was definately killed by those needing the artifical feelgood of Self Esteem.
I never have problems with assertive people, but "bitchy" is beyond the pale, justa as being a bastard for the sake of being one is beyond the pale.
GM,
I guess I am glad that I am not in the dating world--I would probably sink! I just act like myself, expect others to do the same, and figure those who don't like me will leave and those who do will stay. I think expecting to change others into what we want them to be is a terrible mistake and has nothing to do with love and eventually leads to misunderstandings and distance between a couple. Apparently, many people see others as commodities to be used to satisfy their sense of entitlement rather than to add to their life, joy and ability to love. Too bad, what a miserable way to live.
I take your opening discussion to be about 'what is the really successful courtship ritual, specifically from the point of view of the woman's behavior?' Regardless of what might be most succesful in a general sense, as specialopsdude's remarks show, the woman's first job, who knew?, is to have an assessment of who she is dealing with and who she is. He charges as the Persians did at Marathon and finds yielding to be a sign of weakness. So it might be best not to yield if you wish to maintain a relationship but then again you might yield, a better deal for him than what the Persians got. The first attachment is of course critical because then relationship may continue until some negative ambivalence overcomes attraction or obligation.
A lot of the commentary here seems to hold to the odd idea that men care more about sex than women. I've been in several relationships where my girlfriend would be cross or even angry if she was expecting sex and I had other ideas. Sometimes I was too tired and they were too passive for anything to happen, others I was tired of the routine or their lack of thoughtfulness.
Most of the women that I've known, intimately or as friends, wouldn't wear lingerie if you put a gun to their heads, let alone serve beer. Most of them don't cook and a fair number can't clean their own homes very well. If one of my girlfriends were to surprise me with lingerie or a home-cooked meal, I would be suspicious. Either they wanted something, or felt guilty about something, or were unhappy in general and would be letting me know once the meal was half done or the lingerie half off.
Having said that, I wouldn't enter into a long-term relationship with a woman again unless we had a healthy sex life. This "Milk/Cow" dynamic would be fine if we were still living in a virgin-centered culture, but we're not. The closest I've come to marriage was in a relationship with a woman who was severely conflicted about sex. I stuck with it, was supportive, even moved in with her despite the complete death of intimacy between us. If we had been married rather than merely cohabitating the sense of betrayal and loss would have been complete.
Not having sex before marriage? Why not just marry a total stranger? Because that's what you'll find next to you in bed on the honeymoon- a stranger, and perhaps someone you wouldn't even want to meet let alone be intimate with.
I personally do not practice abstinence in intimate relationships, but it's evident that a large number of people do, and that they hope to find someone who shares this commitment. So it seems that there really is no general rule applicable to such decisions. If 'abstainers' are willing to take the risk of entering into a relationship without testing the waters, so to speak, then perhaps they value the commitment moreso than the product of the sexual relationship that may result.
Frankly I find this view to be more ethically and morally coherent than the quasi-legalistic therapeutic paradigm that's often promoted as the alternative.
But there is a middle ground IMO, which is to view sexual intimacy as as an expressive act [ed: a buck-naked fire walk!]. The trick here is that both parties need to share a common understanding of what their sexual relationship means.
There is definitely a large difference between self-confidence and bitchiness. I'd have to say that those women who exhibit those qualities we label 'bitchy' the strongest are probably lacking in self-confidence, and are overcompensating for it with an attitude that says 'don't mess with me!'.
And no, I don't find bitchy women attractive.
Maybe I'm getting too old, but I don't buy into these overly-masculinized heroines you see in movies and TV today. Other than the fact that they are usually drop-dead gorgeous and dressed in slinky skin-tight outfits, characters like 7 of 9 from Star Trek, or Aeon Flux, or Laura Croft do not get my romantic juices flowing. I would really never want to marry a girl that could beat the crap out of me, and wouldn't think twice about doing so if I left the toilet seat up.
Apparently there is a new generation of male Sci-fi fans who think differently. I don't get it!
but the men of the newest generation, have been brainwashed into beleiving that all women should beat up men, to get what they want, strong has become linked to violent in the modern feminist. bitchy women are "strong" women according to some of the groups out there, and if you tell women they can do anything and give them an unrealistic view of the world, they will act out towards the only groups that can be abused with impunity (MEN)
Dr. Helen: "Apparently, many people see others as commodities to be used to satisfy their sense of entitlement rather than to add to their life, joy and ability to love."
I have been married twice, widower'ed once. Both women in my life (all three if you include my daughter) added joy, fulfillment and a definate spark to my life that I cannot imagine being without. I'm with you Dr. Helen. Being yourself is the only way to go; all else is delusion!
I want a strong, confident woman who will cater to my every need and whim.
What's the problem?
specialopsdude:
no, no. you were supposed to explain why foreign women like american men so much, not why you like them so much. other than alleging that foreign men are not nice and respectful, you say nothing.
the grass is always greener, but the majority of eastern women seem not to have been infected with the entitlement mind of most western women. this could be that they are more subtle about it.
when a man is burned, he looks for someone else, but if you are burned dozens of times, you may think east is best.. because they arent like western women.
but i love my western woman, and i wouldnt change her at all. but i can see how eastern women can be seen as being better
If I had more time, I'd link directly to several Fred Reed columns about this. But look for the ones about travelling in Southeast Asia or living in Mexico.
Well special..., I'm just very sorry for the girl you are using. Did you ever talk to her about clothes and so and what you like?
Also, doesn't it seem funny to you that men will find women in places nice women do not go and then complain about the quality of these women? Duh.
Helen,
I think I would have fallen in love with you if I had met you while you were still in the dating pool. But I suspect that a lot of it is that my mother was exceptional, and the women I have been seriously involved with have been exceptional too. Most often, they were not in the "in your face" type, but knew who they were and were proud of it. Never bitchy though.
Part of the don't sleep with them too soon part of this is that I, at least, am not going to think that a woman is special unless she thinks she is too, and giving her body away to the latest bidder doesn't show that to me.
Part of the problem though is that for a lot of women, there is at least some emotional attachment that goes along with sex. Maybe that is something that women can get over if they have a lot of casual sexual partners, but I doubt that. I have women friends who get careless here, sleep with a guy too quickly, and then have problems dealing with it when the relationship doesn't pan out. (One I am thinking of here has a 3 month rule, and has regretted the few times she has violated it). Indeed, I spent 7 years in a relationship with one woman who violated such a rule with me on the 1st date (only time in her life), and we both ultimately regretted it.
Part of the problem there is that if you start having sex too soon in a relationship, it is most often much harder to get out of it, because of emotional attachments, when the two of you are not that compatible. At least for me, it is a lot easier to get out of a relationship before you have had sex together. If you have sex too early, it seems like, at least with many of the women I have dated, that it is assummed that you should seriously consider marriage - even if you aren't all that compatible.
I have never had a big problem with waiting for a woman to get to the point of having sex with me, since I want to feel special too, and most of the women who have played hard to get with me, have done exactly the same thing with all the other guys they have dated. So, when we get there, she feels special because I was willing to pursue her to this extent, and I feel special because I am getting something that she wasn't giving anyone else.
i met my fiancee online, so no sex, (and not the film no sex please we're british).. it was september i met her in april, and i knew she was the one, we connected at a deeper level, and as soon as i saw her (we had each other on webcams) i knew, and so did she. and on xmas eve i asked her to marry me, after seeing if my mum liked her..and she does.. whatever happened to dating, just seeing a person casually, there seems to be a pressure to have sex first date and its usually the woman that initiate that first one. sex in the city, desperate housewives, ally mcbeal all have strong female characters who instantly start to use men as sex objects rather than connecting deeper.
specialops dude:
where'd you go? well, i'll tell you why foreign women, particularly the beloved asian women, love american men. because many foreign women, particularly in southeast asia and the middle east, are abused--sexually, physically and mentally. so, in comparison, american men look great! so that is why so many american men love the asian women--they have low expectations. many american men think that american women should just be goddamned grateful if our men don't rape and beat us.
sorry, no can do. as mercurior mentions, i can treat men like sex objects as they themselves have done for so long. (i've even had one complain to me recently about it. "you just want me for my body"). i don't need anybody to pay the bills. i try to be really good to my men, because i do care for them (only so long as they at least seem to care for me.) but, hell yeah, i've got some expectations. and they require alot more than not beating or raping me. if they makes me a bitchy american woman, well that's really no skin off my back.
Sorry, no can do. as mercurior mentions, i can treat men like sex objects as they themselves have done for so long. (i've even had one complain to me recently about it. "you just want me for my body").
Your logic, reasoning and conclusion are fatally flawed.
What you assume is that all the men who treated women as sex objects are representative of all other men. This is simply untrue and has always been so.
Like many Feminist Western Women, you have looked at the behavior of a tiny minority of men, believed what Propagandists told you (that all men are like that), and then you adopted the worst behavior of the worst men as a group, en masse'. You have mistakenly adopted the attitude of the worst men, and made it a badge of empowerment.
So have millions of other women.
It is sad, really.
but, hell yeah, i've got some expectations. and they require alot more than not beating or raping me.
Your assumption that all or most other women are being beaten and raped, and that Western Men don't, is the only reason Western Men are attractive to the other 3.35 billion women on the planet is incorrect.
We earn more, are better husbands, and are the top quintile of marriageable men on this planet.
We are simply going where we are wanted, appreciated and respected.
Western Women, and especially Anglo Women from the UK, USA, Canada and NZ are acknowledged worldwide as making great casual lays but horrific wives.
The Joke goes:
Heaven is:
An American Salary, an English Country home, a French Chef in the kitchen, a German Car in the garage and a Thai or Chinese wife in the bedroom.
Hell is:
A Chinese salary, a German home, a French car, an English chef and
an American Wife.
there are exceptions of course, but the "bad" women and "bad" men ruin it for the rest, there are some really good people out there, but men and women are scared because of the prior people in their lives behaved like this, i know some women who have so much love to give, but they are single due to bad experiences from these people i also know men who are becoming users just like some women. its wrong.
btw anonymous 3.27, i am british, and i have an american fiance, and i would never change her for anything in this or the next world. she is perfect for me.(i know its a joke but there are always exceptions to everything i am glad i found my exception)
Yes, I still know 2 women my age (mid-40s) who defer to their husbands for everything! If the guy wants to buy something they can't afford, she complains to her friends but not to him and goes along with whatever the purchase is.
They don't prepare certain foods that they like because the husband doesn't like that food.
They cook, clean, raise the kids AND both work full-time, but they will not stand up and speak their minds about anything important in their lives.
It's as if they are afraid they will be rejected if they come out and state what they want.
Such lovely posts. I do hate the male vs. female arguements. I always wonder who these generalized statements are aimed at.
I would never imagine anyone waiting on me hand and foot. A little consideration and allot of treating someone the way you would be treated.
I am a man, I love my kids and I do not love my wife any more. When I read these posts I wander if she, my wife, describes herself accurately. I do the cooking, the shopping, most of the active childcare as well as taking out the garbage, paying bills, handy work, gardenning etc. Please don't laugh. This takes up most of my time. I work a 50 - 60 hour week and I sleep about 4-6 hours a night, the rest of my time is spent on family and house maintenance.
I have added up the contribution my wife makes to our household. We have a housekeeper, so all we have to do is the laundry and cooking. We have sex once every month or two, the quality of which is dismal. The recompensation for professionals to replace exactly what she does is around $5,000 a year (and that is being generous), I spend more that on her mothersday, bithday, christmas and valentines presents. So I would actually be ahead- I went over it with my accountant.
These things matter because I no longer love her, she has become ungrateful and abbusive over the years. I have been far too nice to her but I do not regret that part, I just need to find someone who is worthy of the attentio.
聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費聊天室13060免費聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99聊天室ilover99
Post a Comment
<< Home