by sameu » Sat 11 Feb 2006, 03:09:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')We're talking about rules, yes- structure. Otherwise, I'd love to try out Free Love except the concept died 25 years ago, if it ever existed at all. Most people are dreadfully unhappy; I think that is because Love is War. I just got done reading The Red Queen by Matthew Ridley on reproduction and evolution. His research shows that our biological urges toward mating frequently come at the expense of our own individual happiness, and that is the rule for all other species in the animal kingdom as well. Why should we be any different?
On another level, I also think very few of us will get the relationships "we deserve", because we don't know how to stand up for what we want. That phrase is just a cute bumper sticker with about as much truth value as an Ari Fleisher press conference.
My generation (X) in America, (can't speak for other cultures) got a bunch of garbage that masqueraded as wisdom from our elders on the subject of mating, whether society, or our own parents.
Again I would love to kick back in egalitarian bliss if everyone could be honest and open with one another, but thats not the way things are working. Evolution is working, and it cares not for our personal feelings. Exceptions to the rule? Few. I think people are capable of having open, honest, loving relationships but the fact is few of them have this relationship with themselves let alone another partner.
In the end the only thing you can control is yourself. Thats why having rules- for yourself- is a way of withstanding the onslaught of social pressures from society and people in your sphere of influence who tend to take more than give.
Love emotions give rise to antagonism, jealousy, hatred and the rest of pandora's box. Society and the media wear down our self-respect and tell us to throw away last year's model and get a new one in the relentless pursuit of self-indulgence. Our family and peer groups reinforce this dynamic.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hreadbear's Rules as I have interpreted them:
1. Never give a woman anything. Make her earn it. Otherwise she will not respect you.
2. Tell her how its going to be, don't act like your emotions are negotiable.
Neither of these "rules" are necessarily sex-specific, and are completely compatible with open, honest relationships between people will a modicum of intelligence and self-respect. The reason I used the male pronoun was simply because Longfellow is a man. Unfortunately, the male is who courts the female in our biological paradigm, and so it is generally on the man to make the rules- for himself.
In my experience, egalitarianism fails most of the time, regardless of how well it started in the beginning. Women are after the material comforts of male attention so as to take care of her offspring, as a primary rule, as it has been for 10,000 years... the personal happiness of the male mate is not her number 1 priority, regardless of what she thinks or feels at any given point in time. Eventually biological urges take over and perform a system override. Prime directives trump youthful idealism as it were.
The problem for males in this day and age is that they were spoon-fed pure bullsh*t about egalitarianism as a mating strategy. Time and time again they fall for the bait with the erroneous assumuption that the woman will be responsible in some way for his happiness. The erroneous reasoning goes, "If I perform "X" service (money, attention, shelter), I will recieve "Y" benefit (sex, affection, respect) in a relationship." What men are really exchanging is their power and self-respect for the mental illness that is the societal construction "love".
Love is pure biologcial warfare. My advice to all men is: be a caveman. Do not expect anything from women. Be prepared to walk out as soon as she fails or refuses to live up to your standards. There are other, better fish in the sea.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ounds to me like your wife is using shopping to compensate for something else that is missing. You need to figure out what.
He already KNOWS what. He said it himself- she desires children. Who knows her better than anyone else? His problem is that he is not quite connecting the dots, but he sees the picture anyway.
Fact is, most women want to pop out carbon copies of themselves, regardless of what a man wants, or what the environment is telling them. This is deep-seated biological drive that cannot be thwarted- it is older than
homo sapiens sapiens. Similarly, most men want sex- also a powerful drive- and if you choose to stupidly deny this drive you'll end up in a monastery knee-deep in choir boys. So to deny
prima facie these two integral aspects of humanity or believe that some woman you're interested in is the exception to the rule is to err on the side of disaster. Any man who is fooled into thinking a woman will not eventually want children is just like a woman who thinks her man doesn't want to be comlpetely sexually satisfied.
Its true that when sexual mate selection turns into a contest of wills, tit-for-tat one-upmanship, bargaining, and power-brokering, something is obviously very wrong. I also believe that the best chance you have is being realistic and fixing yourself, since you cannot fix society, the media, or other people that want something from you because they have a huge void in themselves. They may not be responsible for their void- but you definitely can't fix them by not being honest about what it is you want.
I think because of this erroneous social "training" in egalitarian mating strategies, "enlightened" men today are less composed. Taught to be open, empathetic, understanding, and compassionate, we fail to set rules for ourselves and subsequently we pair with women who, like sharks, eventually smell blood in the water, and treat us like doormats- it is a way of determining if she can control us, and if so, prove to herself that she can do better. Inevitably the reaction from these men is "gee, I didn't see it coming- she was so sweet and lovely in the beginning," etc.
In such a scenario, the post-mortem reveals all the mechanisms of disaster. All the erroneous assumptions about men and women and relationships are laid bare, and the facts, although disturbing, will set you free.
Its truly a sick situation. I am in frequent contact with women in their 20s and it is absolutely universal in my experience that these women see men as a slightly distasteful aspect of life and are constantly upbraiding men to act more like women. Women grow up, contrary to popular belief, surrounded by messages that affirm their intrinsic value to society, family, and home. Men grow up in an environment where they are surrounded by messages that they are expendable, victimizers, and antisocial. The undercurrent of crisis in male underachievement and pathology has been overwhelmed by the rush to affirm female empowerment.
Women in their twenties I have talked to by and large see men as an appendage, an accessory to lifestyle. And they definitely see male assertiveness and reasoning as a problem to be rectified. They are in love with the idea that if women ran the country, and large corporations, there would be no war, famine, environmental destruction, etc., and they do not see the man is important in any way in terms of child rearing. They ask "where are all the good men?" exposing a bias against them generally.
In fact, scratch the surface of the average woman and you will find an enormous well of pain and confusion toward men. Why? Is it because so many had absent fathers? Broken homes? 2 in 5 molested as children or raped? Told (trained) that men "control" everything- that this is a "patriarchal" society? (Even though over half of U.S. wealth is controlled by women, over half of executive positions held by women, or over half of all incoming college students are women.)
I have lot of sympathy for women, they're just as f**ked up as men are, if not more so, but this fact does not make them more likely to see their own shortcomings or establish egalitarianism in relationships. It serves no one to pretend otherwise, especially men, who, on the whole, are damaged, confused, scared, and ill-served by clinging to an unworkable system of capitulation, supplication, and exclusivity in order to get their basic human needs of sex and companionship met.
Thats why we (men) need a few good rules that work in a real sense- not platitudes about sex roles or fantasies about abstract concepts like gender equality.
Pair-bonding is not a corporation- its a partnership between two people. These "rules" are about figuring out how to save the pair-bond, an achievable goal in our lifetimes- unlike figuring out how to save the culture at large, which, as far as I can tell, is terminal. Frankly, its our personal responsibility to the next generation not to leave them just as f**cked up, or more so, than we are. We need to give them tools so they don't have to go through what we're going through. Marraige may have to go by the wayside in favor of different approaches.
If Longfellow has already had the good sense not to breed with this person, he's already one step ahead of the game. Get out while the getting is good. Tell her you're holding her up to standards, and if she doesn't meet those standards, kick her to the curb.
Here's another one for you, I'm not 'trained' to be empathic, sweet, open, understanding
It's just who I am, towards everybody, men or woman. But as a result my relations with woman mostly end up the way you described.
I hear stuff from woman like "you're too sweet", I already figured out that 'too' sweet is as bad or even worse as "you're an asshole"
I guess woman want a challenge, the controlling thing, Freud called it penis envy. They don't need a penis, they just want to be in control of it. And when that's too easy, the challenge is gone, they are not interested anymore and they move on.
But what am I supossed to do about this? I agree with you about the setting rules for yourself, you don't live up to my standard, goodbye. It's something I got more aware of recently. But on the other hand, when in love, you do everything to make the other person happy, you try to be understandble etc.., no?