Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
since both those places have passed draconian anti prostitution laws without, presumably, a big contribution from the christianist right.
That's a hard one. I'm afraid to psychoanalyze him because I let my MD in armchair psych lapse.
That she's telling you that you scare the guys is a good sign. My brother scared guys away. The good thing is that it weeds out the idiots for you. I only brought s serious few around, and I only told them "I'm going to marry this one" once. He wasn't intimidated. He was a keeper.
WHen she figures out that a man worth his keep will NOT be afraid of her mother, no matter how intimidating, she'll be grown.
If it makes you feel better, it took me until my late 20s to truly get past this kind of stuff. My mother was always hard on me because she felt that I could do more, that I had potential. That could be somewhat alienating. SHe worried about me, and expressed her fears. Her fears made me feel hemmed in. I needed to explore. I also needed some distance to forge a path for me, not necessarily a path that my family wanted for me.
Give the daughter time and space.
I think your daughter will make you proud.
As for the rest of the thread.
I don't read Maxim. My husband says real men don't read that crap (or do their nails, or follow advice about women from a magazine like Maxim).
What the the hell is a "Maxim worthy woman" anyway? All of those pictures on the cover are airbrushed and photoshopped. AWasn't Maxim the idiots who airbrushed Beyonce to make her legs and butt smaller? And other men complained? Any woman who looks like a woman in Maxim in real life needs a "truth in packaging" label. All these guys demanding "Maxim quality women" are telling us why they get used. If a woman is that high maintence, she's looking for a sugar daddy. Real women who work and live don't have time or energy to look "Maxim worthy".
Since I asked a question at the end of my last post, I thought it better to let you know. But tomorrow is another day...
But I will ask here for some pity for the men--it's not simply that they don't like the perceived 'absence of rules' about how to get the women of their dreams, but it's also that it's true there are good guys out there who don't have the necessary 'dating skills' to approach the women they're attracted to.
This is what I keep hearing, but it doesn't hold up. A lot of these "good guys" turn out to be bad bets, if only because they think manipulation and passive-aggressive behavior are nice. They think agreeing to do things they really don't want to do just because they think she wants to do them is nice. They think friendship on a tit-for-tat basis is nice.
One of the first things women learn is that the louder a man trumpets his niceness, the more difficult he's going to be to deal with.
There is some sense in which what is necessary is devising some system of rules that allow people who are attracted to each other to interact on the basis of this attraction without looking either aggressive or stupid--much like common courtesy rules allow strangers to interact normally without looking afraid, insecure, angry, aggressive, or ridiculous either.
These rules do exist, though. How else do you think people keep pairing up? If you pay attention, you can see them in action every day. Not everyone gets them right all the time, and women fail, too, but the flirting rules are there, and they adjusted to cope with feminism, just as common courtesy did.
But something else, something more than just 'be yourself', does seem to be necessary. Some guys are actually good, but unskilled (call them 'brute diamonds' if you will), and would appreciate some guidance. (I know, I was one of them...).
A friend of mine and I were talking about this one day, and the conclusion we came to is that "be yourself" works, but only if you first have a self.
From what I can tell, a lot of men who have problems with women don't. For whatever reason, they've never developed any genuine core. Some are remarkably unproductive: showing up at work only long enough to collect their paycheck, then spending it on transitory entertainment, preferably a situation in which someone performs for them or serves them. Others do nothing that doesn't convey status, and ruthlessly suppress any aspect of themselves that might take away from that status. Many are low on empathy, and attempt to replace it with routines or systems. However this manifests, "being yourself" isn't going to work, because there's nothing to work with.
They also don't tend to see women as having selves, either, and treat them accordingly.
Prior to my diagnosis, I dated some genuinely good guys. My friends are married, also to genuinely good guys. These are not nice guys, but they're not douchebags, either. They have selves. They have personal goals, integrity, genuine attachments to family and friends, and a large capacity for enjoying unmanly things, whether it's making snow angels or wearing Mickey Mouse ears. All of these men had some trial and error in dating, wished for guidance and coped without. They tweaked one thing here and another there, learning from failure until they refined it into success.
However, they are not Alpha Males and their wives are not hot, which immediately pushes them into the background and exposes the Nice Guys for what they are: closet douchebags. Nice Guys don't want average women with good personalities. They want Hot Chicks.
The Game isn't a set of rules for normal flirting. It's douchebaggery instructions. Even Mystery himself admits that he has a taste for glittery club chicks, and that the Mystery Method was developed to cater to their tastes. They like douchebags. That's why Mystery is such a douchebag.
I think the problem is that this kind of 'Game' rules make it all look like a war game (with the "girl's virtue" as the target).
I think it's presented as a war because the men who read this stuff want it to be a war. They want a reason to inflict pain. So their lying, cheating bitch of an ex broke up with them? Boy, the next chick is really gonna get it!
Negs are cruel. They are deliberately cruel. The rest of the advice is no better. The idea seems to be to find the most emotionally masochistic, obsessive girl possible and treat her as poorly as possible for as long as possible.
Here, too, the Nice Guys show their true colors, because who they say they are is in direct opposition to what they actually do. A Nice Guy who uses negs is cruel. A Nice Guy who flirts with other women in front of his girlfriend is cruel. A Nice Guy who uses push-pull is cruel. I don't care what excuse he gives. He's not nice.
This is not a good person who just needs a little coaching. When it comes to interpersonal skills, there are a lot of options out there that can help. The form of coaching that a man chooses tells me everything about him that I need to know.
Men who get what they want out of relationships aren't "good at dating", they're good at interpersonal skills in general, and have actual personalities. The Game and other dating manuals tell men how to fake this just long enough to get laid. Some even talk about "inner game", which is a pass at developing a self, but for the most part it's just a pass. It's still all about attracting hot women. They don't get that busting your rear to attract hot women is what makes a douche a douche.
That's why I say that some men probably just need to embrace their inner douchebag. People will stop calling them nice, but they might have an outside chance with the hotties.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
