Monday, January 30, 2012

The epitome of inner Game

I recently mentioned how men can get transfixed by a beautiful woman in my post on appreciating female beauty.

Female beauty is very powerful for men.

Whilst a man's handsomeness is equally pleasant to behold, this is ultimately not that important for most women, at least not mature women. Because women are really not as visual as men. Modern living has made some women far more visual than they ought to be. This is not a good thing, because it takes them off the right path in their choice of mate. It adds to their 'immaturity'.

A display of muscles is perhaps more likely to do it for a woman. Or height. Or whatever else is the local  social 'norm'.

All the above are excellent proxies of masculinity. Essential for female attraction.
But even these have their limitations.

Women can be 'transfixed' by something else where men are concerned.

It is difficult to explain in words.

It has to be felt.


I was reminded of this phenomenon when I saw an interview with actor Mark Wahlberg recently.
.
Now, this man was previously known very much as a 'bad boy'.
In the 80's he was known as 'Marky Mark', a rapper with a tendency to violence.
He had had a rough childhood and admits to being a coke-head by age 14.
He went to prison for an unprovoked racially-motivated attack when he was 16.

Today, Mark Wahlberg is a respectable husband and father of four.

That last statement is not that important in relation to what I saw in this man during the course of the interview.

It was his 'stillness' during the interview that grabbed my attention.

He seemed somehow 'untouchable'. Almost spiritual.
Watching and hearing him speak, you got the distinct impression that you would believe anything he told you. Because he seemed like he knew what he was talking about. He seemed like he had been through something.

He kept saying he was happy. Blessed even.

I believe it. It shows.

There was something about his eyes. They had an intense quality to them, as if he was trying to penetrate the psyche of his interviewer.

And yet he was strangely detached.

He seemed perfectly at ease with himself. It was like he was in some kind of impenetrable 'zone'.

I don't know if Mr Wahlberg's story that when he was in prison, a priest took him in hand and pulled him back from the brink, is what has done it for him.
I don't know if his assertion that his family give him new meaning in his life is what makes him so outstanding .

But something happened to Mark Wahlberg.
And it shows.

I have come to realise that this is in fact what Danny was referring to when he described Game thus:

"game" is simply confidence and outcome independence.

Confidence. Outcome-independence.

Simple words. But it can take a lifetime to achieve these traits.


I am sure Mark Wahlberg wouldn't care to know that someone was struck by his interview on CNN.
The guy is just living his life.

But this 'thing' he exudes is a powerful force indeed.
It is the male equivalent of female beauty.

This 'thing' which I now come to recognise as 'inner Game'.
The right kind of Game.

The kind of Game a worthy woman would respect. Not just 'outer Game', (including the concepts of 'Peacocking', escalation, etc.) which is of course important because it is what gets a man's foot in the door) but the whole package of  both 'outer' and 'inner' Game.

Bellita summed it up well when she commented here:

" I think Game is great inasmuch as it helps men of substance learn to stand out from the crowd, but Game totally on its own is the sizzle without the steak. "

The 'steak' is inner Game.


It is totally hypnotic to a woman.
It commands instant respect. Acute disorientation, similar to how a man might react to a seductively beautiful woman.
It is a wonderful thing for a woman to encounter.


Because it reeks of raw, unbridled, unwavering masculinity.



66 comments:

OffTheCuff said...

I've said it many times... inner game makes outer game happen automatically. Outcome indepenence is the master skill of inner game.

Charming Disarray said...

I would call that character. "Game" implies that the man is still playing around.

spacetraveller said...

@ OTC,

Thanks for dropping by!
And I appreciate your comment.

The SMP is a confusing place, until suddenly you understand a few basic principles. That is the goal of my blog - to flesh out some issues which are confusing to both men and women.

@ Charming Disarray,

I agree with you. It is a question of terminology.

I would need a man to confirm this, but I think I am right when I say that your term is what a woman would use. Nothing wrong with that - in my own head, I use that term too!

But men see the world differently from us. Whilst we see 'team building' and 'group hugs', men see 'competition' and 'strategy'...

Why do you think men are so into sport?

Becase it is all about competition.

I can tell you that as a sportsmad person myself, I was still astounded by how much more competitive my SO was compared to me...

The very term 'Game' says it all. In the realm of dating/SMP, it is a 'competition' for men. In Nature, men compete for women and not the other way round. Modern life AKA feminism (I know you hate it when I say this but I believe it to be true) has flipped the script. This is why we now have women 'competing' for men and failing miserably. It was never supposed to happen this way.

The term 'Game' describes how men view the seriousness of dating/relationships/getting a woman. It reflects the need for 'strategy' and 'rules' just like any sport.

As opposed to 'play' or 'playing around'.
Of course there are 'bad boys' who only want to get laid. Those ones are not worth the time of any woman, except perhaps the bottom scrapings of the barrel.

Women seducing men do NOT see it as a series of strategies, complete with points scoring and 'high fives'. For them, it is....well, seduction.

Big difference in attitude.
Even if the end-goal is the same.

Lost said...

You don't have to play or court multiple women to have "Game"
We are all players in the Game of courting so to speak, and the better you know and understand the dynamics, the more successful you tend to be. Though success isn't necessarily measured by numbers, it's up to the individual to determine what success is to them.
If my goal is to marry the best women for me as possible, and i understand the dynamics and use it to my advantage, so be it.

I guess what i'm saying is that playing multiple women and having game are not inter-dependent
You must have some game to be a player
but you don't have to be a player to have game

spacetraveller said...

@ Lost,

Thank you for clarifying!

When I first happened on the 'Manosphere' I must say I was truly disgusted with the whole concept of 'Game'.

Because I made the classic mistake of assuming that it was all about 'getting it on'.

But more and more I see that this is not necessarily so.

First of all, it depends on the man.

So AMALT is a wrong attitude for women to have. (Same as AWALT is wrong for men).


And secondly, Game is really about a lifestyle shift or mindset. It may or may not bring a woman into a man's life, but that's not the point.

Easy when you know :-)

Grasshopper said...

OK confidence or inner game is appealing to you, but please don’t make the mistake of thinking this trait makes a guy a good man or is the makings for a good relationship.

In your example the man exuding this confidence is an ex-con, prone to violence former drug addict.

Yet some woman married and made babies with him. No doubt she was taken in by whole inner game thing. Was she thinking about his job prospects as an ex-con? Will he be able to support the kids for the 25 or so years until they are out of the house on their own?

Marriage and raising kids can be stressful at times. Almost constantly some would say. Under this stress or other life pressures might he revert to his old ways of drugs and violence?

The harsh reality for both genders is the really good men (or good women) out there aren’t like sizzling steak they are more often like veggies. Good for you but hardly the first choice on anyone’s menu.

Have steak every day and you’ll be a coronary case in your 40’s. Go vegetarian and you have much healthier prospects long term.

Grasshopper

spacetraveller said...

Grasshopper,

Point well taken!

"Under this stress or other life pressures might he revert to his old ways of drugs and violence?"

Yes, this is a risk, for sure.
I hope Mrs Wahlberg considered this risk before marrying him.

It is quite possible he married well before he developped his 'inner Game'.
In which case, then yes, some woman married a 'bad boy'...what's new?

:-)


I personally respect what he is NOW, fully understanding that people, no matter how bad, can change for the better if that impetus for change came from within, i.e. they themselves were willing to change.

I actually abhored the Mark Wahlberg of old. Even as a teenager I was less than impressed. He was definitely not my cup of tea...

And I am sure not the cup of tea of many women out there either...

To be fair, he was perhaps the wrong subject for this post, because his past detracts from the message of this post.

My fault...

But you do make a good point. Thanks.

dannyfrom504 said...

"Simple words. But it can take a lifetime to achieve these traits."
truer words have never been spoken. most of "game" is rooted in the man putting himself and his best interest first. i'm respectful to women, hell i'm even NICE (shudder) to women. but the second she acts up and either disrespects me or isn't appreciative, she's GONE, ZAPPED, NUKED, from planet Danny.

i don't care how beautiful she is.

Lost said...

Grasshopper, it's scientifically proven that women desire different traits in a man depending on her womanly cycle, they crave that Sizzling steak when they are in baby making mode, but they want that veggie when they arent in baby making mode, one is more for short term and one is longer term. that sizzling steak more often than not are the ones with "inner game" but like you said, wont last.... you tend to eat steaks faster than veggies. the veggie wont water your taste buds but you know they'll be good to you, but the veggie often (in todays immaculateness society) lack the inner game self confidence if you will, to water your tongue. The woman will naturally only crave that steak a few days a month

where was i going with this....

Anyways Thats why so many men want to learn how to be that sizzling steak, if only for those few days.

Game is covered under the shroud of getting laid because sex sells, and most men don't get it that often, which goes against nature... we all need to procreate. the side effects is self confidence, a purpose and self worth

OTC said...

It also helps to look like Wahlberg and be a reformed bad boy, let's not fool ourserlves. A fat slob with confidence and a cubicle job ain't gonna tingle you. Game works for sure to improve a man's life, but there are limits.

spacetraveller said...

OTC,

I have to disagree...

'A fat slob' if he still maintains a certain discipline in his life WILL win the battle against his obesity in time.

It is his potential to do so which will shine through. Of course there will have to be other evidence of this 'inner confidence'. Does he have his career sorted - even his lowly 'cubicle job'? Does he attempt to keep fit? Does he exude a certain tranquility and stillness about him?

He doesn't have to look like Wahlberg to 'tingle'.
But he has to have a certain basic fitness, I agree, because that shows he can master his own body.

Because a 'mature' good woman is not visual.

Luckily for men.

A mature but good man is still very much visual and is far more likely to judge a woman based largely (but not entirely) on her looks.

Max Coxwell said...

Congrats. You seem to get it.

Once inner 'game' is handled and the other stuff pretty much takes care of itself with minimal effort.

However it isn't really possible to develop inner game without some form of outer game / rebellion.

Crazy adventures, and rebelling against societal expectations is a necessary part of the process of developing a mature male psyche.

1) As a child actions are driven by approval seeking behavior mostly driven by fear / anxiety.

2) The rebellion phase gets rid of the childish fear and anxiety.

3) The last part is you pretty much do what you want, but it does not come from a place of fear or anger or anxiety.

The difference in behavior between a guy in phase 1 and 3 can be quite subtle on paper but unmistakable in person.

In our society there are plenty of otherwise successful grown men (so called 'betas') who never rebelled against their own approval seeking behavior.

Those guys tend to be developmentally stunted when it comes to social interactions.

spacetraveller said...

@ Max Coxwell,

Thank you very much for coming to The Sanctuary. A warm welcome to you!

"Crazy adventures, and rebelling against societal expectations is a necessary part of the process of developing a mature male psyche...

The difference in behavior between a guy in phase 1 and 3 can be quite subtle on paper but unmistakable in person."



Well, to summarise my recollection of this subject, society DOES confuse phases 2 and 3 as being one and the same...because the behaviour is the same, i.e. you 'do what you want' as opposed to 'what society wants you to do' (phase 1)...the only difference being that one is due to a childish attitude (phase 2) and the other is determined by adult thinking (phase 3).
And by society, I guess I mean women...and blue pill men...
Am I correct so far?

I don't think I have EVER heard what you just stated. At least not so succinctly.

But it sure does explain a lot, for sure!

So, men in phase 3 are often mistaken for the 'developmentally stunted'.
Because their behaviour is being confused with phase 2 behaviour!

By the way, is pase 3 behaviour as a result of what I called 'Initiation' in a previous post (the one on MGTOW)? Several men commented that I was confusing two separate issues :-)

Just to check I am reading you right, would you say phase 3 behaviour is the 'inner Game' thing, and phase 2is just a perpetual 'bad boy'?

And if I am not mistaken, the perpetual betas (phase 1 guys) who you see as 'developmentally stunted' (could they also be described as 'the uninitiated?) are actually the ones society sees as the 'grown ups'?

And then of course the same society which relies on these men's 'grown upness' punishes them for their trouble?!

Wow...

I feel like I just crossed a major threshold in my understanding...

No wonder we are in this mire!

I don't know what to say...
except 'Oh my God'...

Grasshopper said...

Lost – that is also a reason why so many men are MGTOW these days. They don’t want to be steak some days and veggies the others. They just want to be themselves every day.

I understand what you are saying about the female cycle and how that might affect their wants on a given day. Gee I wish you ladies would wear red on the days you want steak and blue on the days you want veggies. That would make things so much easier for us guys.

Kidding aside, I have also read scientific research on how exercise and diet can reduce the impact the cycle can have on a woman. So I do not buy the notion a female is at the complete mercy of her cycle.

Grasshopper

spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"Gee I wish you ladies would wear red on the days you want steak and blue on the days you want veggies. That would make things so much easier for us guys."


Hahaha, very drĂ´le :-)



"Kidding aside, I have also read scientific research on how exercise and diet can reduce the impact the cycle can have on a woman. So I do not buy the notion a female is at the complete mercy of her cycle."

I haven't heard this one before...

But I do know that the fatter a woman, the higher her oestrogen levels.

Slightly off-topic, paradoxically, the closer she is to menopause and the taller she is, the higher her oestrogen levels also!

(This may explain why taller, older women have the highest rates of twin (fraternal) pregnancies...
The body goes into reproductive overdrive by releasing 2 eggs instead of the usual one, each month, before the proverbial fat lady starts singing...
Height is important here, because the body needs to be certain that the woman is physically capable of carrying two babies instead of one, and height is a good indicator of size and (relative) physical stength).

Not so with identical twin pregnancies. Apparently, that is somewhat random...

Errr, where were we again?

:-)

Grasshopper said...

Spacetraveller ( in response to your reply to me on January 31)

I did get the main point of your OP, your example may not have been the best one but it did get your point across. Let’s take his bad boy background off the table for the moment and consider the following.

Men are both confident and not confident depending on the subject or situation.

He is in show business and has no doubt been interviewed hundreds of times by reporters. So not only would he have some acting skills but also is in a situation he is comfortable in. Easy for him to project confidence in the situation you saw him in.

Many other men in that same situation would not project such confidence. I know I would not. But put them in a situation they have experience and their skills shine and you will witness one confident man.

A man could be in any one of Max’s 3 phases and still exude confidence. (BTW – great insight Max).

There is nothing wrong being attracted to confidence. But I think in general people read too much into it.

Grasshopper

Grasshopper said...

Spacetraveller ( in response to your reply to me February 1)

The research I was referring on the impact of exercise on the female cycle I think I must of saw in some running or fitness magazine. I was an avid runner for years and read just about everything I could find on the subject at the time.

Being a man I did not pay that close attention to it – and never dreamed that I would be debating this subject in particular ever. My GF at the time thought there was something to it however.
Grasshopper

Lost said...

Grasshopper,
i never said its the end all be all, its just an aspect, having a grasp of the multiple aspects that exists gives you a better chance

MGTOW i find is a sorry excuse, its an "i give up" excuse... and its absolutely retarded. The meaning of life for all species is procreation.... you stop trying to achieve that goal, you've ultimately given up on your species.

my 2 cents

Grasshopper said...

Lost - I am all for procreation – why must that involve this shape shifting aspect for men – steak one day veggie the next?

I would not ask that kind of thing of any person so it’s really difficult to understand. If I did not feel good a few days each month I would never expect those around me to adjust who they are just to accommodate me on those days.

Ultimately every couple has to work out this issue (if it becomes an issue) in the greater context of their relationship. It should be a give and take thing. One person may give on this if the other person gave on something else. Both parties have to feel they are getting something of value to continue.

I think a lot of the MGTOW guys feel they were not getting equal value for what they were giving relationship wise. In my view GTOW is a really sound tactical response to this.

I know we will never agree on this – like you said – just my 2 cents.

Grasshopper

Lost said...

if you have the right mix, Alpha/Beta, leaning more heavily on the Alpha, you dont have to change at all, its when you've swayed to far one way or the other that'll start having effects. And thats where game comes in, and blogs like Athol's Married Man Sex Life.
you need the right balance as in everything else in life.

Now you are looking at this too much like a man, too logical, keep in mind women are emotional creatures and there decision making rely heavily on their emotions... hence their strong reliance on their "gut" instincts. They see the world and situations in a very different light than us.
Its never going to be a simple give and take, if you are in the right relationship, you will give one way and receive in another way where you'll never expect it, leading you to believe you never got anything is return regardless. a remedy to this is never expect anything in return, but dont lose the vision to notice when you are blatantly being taken advantage of in a parasitic relationship.

hope this clarifies

and no we will never see eye to eye on going your own way

Funny said...

"Female beauty is very powerful for men."

Does this make them "immature" too?

"Whilst a man's handsomeness is equally pleasant to behold, this is ultimately not that important for most women, at least not mature women."

My "mature" you mean aged, or what exactly? And if you don't mean age but something like "wise" then why are you of the opinion that handsomeness will be important ONLY to immature (unwise) women?

"Because women are really not as visual as men. Modern living has made some women far more visual than they ought to be."

"ought to be"? Says who?

"This is not a good thing, because it takes them off the right path in their choice of mate. It adds to their 'immaturity'."

Proof? Same for men, or not, and if not, why not?


"A display of muscles is perhaps more likely to do it for a woman. Or height. Or whatever else is the local social 'norm'."

Are these "social norms" somehow "more mature"?

Funny said...

"Crazy adventures, and rebelling against societal expectations is a necessary part of the process of developing a mature male psyche."

Entirely a cultural construct. There are plent of cultures where this is not true at all.

Funny said...

"Because a 'mature' good woman is not visual."

Complete B.S. Your ideas and the way you write them come across as if you are no older than 25 and have no experience in life.

There are plenty of good and mature human beings out here who are very visual.

Funny said...

"'A fat slob' if he still maintains a certain discipline in his life WILL win the battle against his obesity in time.

It is his potential to do so which will shine through."

OK, now I KNOW you are really young and clueless. Never fall in love with a man's potential.

And you have shown how little you understand the struggles of obese people as well.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, swear not by the moon, th´ inconstant moon.
That monthly changes in her circled orb
Lest that thy love prove likewise variable."

ROMEO Vs JULIET, Act 2, Scene 2

Navy Corpsman

spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"If I did not feel good a few days each month I would never expect those around me to adjust who they are just to accommodate me on those days."

I am sure you would feel very differently about this statement of yours if you were a woman.

Those monthly cycles are what make women, well... women.

No matter how logical/rational a (premenopausal) woman can get, forget all that at the wrong time of month!

It just is, OK?
Sure, it varies from woman to woman...

But seriously, would you want it any other way though?

spacetraveller said...

@ Navy Corpsman,

:-)

spacetraveller said...

@ Funny,

Welcome to The Sanctuary!

I appreciate your comments - thanks for popping in.

Might I make a wild guess that you are female and at or over my age?

Excuse me if I am totally off the mark!

I would like to tackle as many of your points as possible...

Your first point at 7.22PM:

My observations, albeit limited and perhaps skewed, as well as intense research on the subject matter of differences between men and women, as well as taking on board advice from those I consider wise and knowledgeable on the subject, has led me to form the opinions that I have. They are not cast in stone, but they are the rules by which I choose to live my life.

Although I instinctively knew about these principles of life, I was only vaguely aware of them and had not yet engaged my conscious mind. And now that I have, I find that in fact, these principles are the truth, as I see them. No-one else needs to see them the way I do. I am not really in a popularity contest here.

Neither do I seek to be controversial.

I am just saying what I have found to be true.
However, to get back to the question in hand, I think part of the problem of the modern world is that we have forgotten how big an impact Nature plays in our lives. We are too 'sophisticated' for our own good.
But Nature has a way of bringing us to our knees.

Sure, there are variations in any theme, exceptions to the rule...but I speak of general principles.

Nature designed that men are visual and that women are more 'intuitive' i.e. seeking a good character when it comes to mate-finding because of the different biological imperatives of the sexes.

When people deviate from these general principles, on the whole, things go awry.

Your personal experiences may be different: if so, congratulations, you just won the jackpot :-)

But many other people are not so lucky, because for them, for things to work out right, they need to follow the rule, and not the exception.

"Never fall in love with a man's potential."

I have heard this before...especially from the generation just above mine.

But it is really confusing...

Although I know that your 'young and clueless' comment was not a compliment, I shall admit to it in relation to this particular issue :-)

The truth is, my Grandma's generation married young. Women then had nothing but a man's potential to go on...

If all women today were to wait for a man to be 100% the finished product, they would be marrying really old men...

Could you elaborate further on this point? I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.


About your point on obesity, you make an assumption that may or may not be true.

How do you know I am not an ex-obese person who lost a whole lot of weight?

Just because I state that a person can do something does not mean I do not understand the struggles they would pass through before achieving their goal.

In many ways, I think I am acknowledging their struggles by talking more about their 'potential' rather than their 'goal', i.e. the 'journey' rather than the 'destination'...

I know there are many reasons for obesity - including medical ones which cannot be overcome, except perhaps by drastic invasive surgery.

But all this was not really part of the point I was trying to make in response to someone's comment.

It was just an example to illustrate a point. I was really not trying to have a discussion about obesity, OK?
I hope this appeases you somewhat. Not my intention to offend. Honest :-)

Grasshopper said...

Spacetraveller and Lost,

Thanks for the insights… It sounds like you’re both saying Women can just be themselves (i.e. emotional creatures) and Men should simply adjust to it. That’s just the way it is.

Understand please - Men basically want the same thing – just to be themselves (i.e. logical creatures) and want Women to simply adjust to it.

Neither gender wants to be doing all the adjusting all the time.

We are so similar and yet so different.

Grasshopper

spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

This is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment:

How about a compromise?
Women adjust to men on all other days other than the 'wrong days' of the month...
Men adjust on the few 'wrong days' of the month and can be themselves the rest of the time...

Best offer on the table :-)
Take it and run...

And I shall have to go on the run too...from all the women who want to shoot me now.

:-)


Seriously, I was not suggesting that men should do all the adjusting. I was just acknowledging that on certain days of the month, it is really hard for some women to stay rational...

Other than pregnancy (I would imagine), this is one of the times a woman really needs understanding from those around her...

Of course if a woman is like this ALL of the time, then well, it can't be fun to be around her :-(

Similarly, if a man is hard work ALL of the time, his entourage would need to reconsider his value to them :-(

Lost said...

Grasshopper,
You don't have to do the adjusting ALL the time (parasitic relationship). You can become a player and have total disregard for women's emotions.
That being said, biologically men are better suited for polygamy while women for monogamy, therefore you can understand when you are in a monogamous relationship you are by all means playing on her turf.

Space said it, you have to understand as well that the cycle effects women's grasps and control on their emotions.
Also like i said you don't have to change your behavior if you learn to have the right mix of traits to suit mostly all circumstances.

or become a player, have your cake and eat it too while setting fire to all the bridges you cross.

Lost said...

Funny

i've seen plenty of ugly, fat, fugly, uglyfat guys with really cute girls.
those women were obviously after them for their looks... guaranteed! or maybe they felt pity.... doubtful.
Those guys had their shit together and didn't let their "shortcomings" get in their way.
saying "i'm fat no one will ever love me" is exactly the self depricating, defeating loser attitude that will get you nowhere and will propagate your losing life.

Life is what you make of it, with the cards you have been dealt!

Bellita said...

I had known who Mark Wahlberg was since he was Marky Mark, but what really got me impressed was something he said in an interview only several years ago. (It was in print, so no body language or voice cues came through.) He arrived a bit late and explained that it was because he had been to Sunday Mass! Then he spoke a little about returning to his Catholic faith and convincing his girlfriend to be baptized in the Church as well.

At the end of the article, the interviewer mentioned that he and his entire staff, who had all thought they would be too busy to meet their Sunday obligation that day, were embarrassed enough by Wahlberg's example to catch a late evening service.

Now that was Inner Game. :)

Bellita

spacetraveller said...

Co-sign this, Bellita,

:-)

I knew he was Catholic, but I had never heard this particular story before...

Remember a previous conversation you and I had about 'Catholic Game'?

It's all coming back to me now...
:-D

Excellent find, thank you!

Funny said...

"@ Funny,
Welcome to The Sanctuary!"

---- THANKS!


"Might I make a wild guess that you are female and at or over my age?"

---- CORRECT!


"I think part of the problem of the modern world is that we have forgotten how big an impact Nature plays in our lives. We are too 'sophisticated' for our own good.
But Nature has a way of bringing us to our knees."

---- Disagree. Nature and nurture need to work in tandem. If we are left with just our natural animal instincts then our mating choices will not be beneficial to our offspring and future generations.
We are not animals but human beings with the capacity for reason and logic.


"Nature designed that men are visual and that women are more 'intuitive' i.e. seeking a good character when it comes to mate-finding because of the different biological imperatives of the sexes."

---- Any scientific evidence for this? ----

"When people deviate from these general principles, on the whole, things go awry."

---- Things go awry when humans fail to employ logic and reasoning and solely operate on base animal instincts.----


"Never fall in love with a man's potential."
I have heard this before...especially from the generation just above mine.
But it is really confusing...
The truth is, my Grandma's generation married young. Women then had nothing but a man's potential to go on"

---- Those men may have been young but they were working and supporting themselves. ----

"If all women today were to wait for a man to be 100% the finished product, they would be marrying really old men"

---- It has nothing to do with "finished product" but rather, can he fully and independently support and maintain himself. ----



"I know there are many reasons for obesity - including medical ones which cannot be overcome, except perhaps by drastic invasive surgery."

---- I'm not part of the Fat Acceptance Movement. I do understand that there is a minority of obese people out there who have not caused their own obesity. A minority. ----

@ Lost,

"i've seen plenty of ugly, fat, fugly, uglyfat guys with really cute girls."

---- Sure there are some cute, thin people with obese partners. Most fat people are with other fat partners. Most people date/marry within 1-2 points of their own 1-10 scale point looks range. You'll rarely see a 3 with a 10 of either sex, but you will see a 3 with a 5 or a 7 with a 9. ----

@ Grasshopper,

"Men basically want the same thing – just to be themselves (i.e. logical creatures) and want Women to simply adjust to it."

---- I have no problem adjusting to logic. In fact, its my default mode. I've rarely met men with my logical and analytical skills, and when I have, most of them wanted me not to be so logical. Go figure. ----

Grasshopper said...

Spacetraveller,
Your deal sounds good to me girl!

Remember wear blue on the days you want one and red on the others.… and plaid on the days you want to totally freak me out! Oh that would be funny! My jaw would literally drop and I’d be like OMG what does she want !!! (I’m actually LOL as I write this)…

OK seriously, you expressed an openness to compromise, clear boundaries and were specific as to what your needs were. Women shouldn’t want to shoot you – in fact I hope they were taking notes…

Likewise Men too need to be open to compromise, clear as to what they need and know how to set boundaries. The deal goes both ways.

Grasshopper

Lost said...

Funny

" Sure there are some cute, thin people with obese partners. Most fat people are with other fat partners. Most people date/marry within 1-2 points of their own 1-10 scale point looks range. You'll rarely see a 3 with a 10 of either sex, but you will see a 3 with a 5 or a 7 with a 9."

--totally - sometimes, lots of skinny guys with fat girls aswell, but you you can't say the "challenges of obese people" when its a self imposed challenge anyone can get a mate.... anyone provided they put time and effort, nothing is free, but you look at the norm, of the average couple, and you'll find the woman is usually more beautiful than the man, not the other way around.

"Disagree. Nature and nurture need to work in tandem. If we are left with just our natural animal instincts then our mating choices will not be beneficial to our offspring and future generations.
We are not animals but human beings with the capacity for reason and logic."

-- disagree, women's nature is to nurture.... we are animals, just because you are self aware doesn't put you on a higher plane of existence

Any scientific evidence for this?

---google is your friend
http://cms.epjournal.net/filestore/ep01116126.pdf

"Things go awry when humans fail to employ logic and reasoning and solely operate on base animal instincts"

-- things go awry when humans think they are better than instincts and hundreds of thousands years of evolution. like i said, just because we are self aware creatures doesn't make us better, nor immune to our evolutionary biochemistry.

" It has nothing to do with "finished product" but rather, can he fully and independently support and maintain himself. "

--i think that's what ST was saying.

" I have no problem adjusting to logic. In fact, its my default mode. I've rarely met men with my logical and analytical skills, and when I have, most of them wanted me not to be so logical. Go figure."

-- we need a balance in relationships, no one wants to be with someone that brings the exact same qualities and downfalls as they do, they want someone that will bring a different perspective, the other side of the coin and a balance.
core similarities are needed to form a bond, but all the same all the time will make a relationship boring and stale over time. that difference is what creates that bit of drama that keep things interested, its what makes my house look less like bachelor pad and more artistic. i have no intentions to decorate myself, but i appreciate and like the decorations in my home.. if we were 2 non artistic logical creatures, who would decorate my house?
alls i'm saying is that women and men should be different, if we werent, for me it would be like dating a man with tits and a vagina

Funny said...

"totally - sometimes, lots of skinny guys with fat girls aswell, but you you can't say the "challenges of obese people" when its a self imposed challenge anyone can get a mate"

--- That's my point. Many fat people are fat because they allowed themselves to get that way, hence they should not expect fit people to desire them, and indeed, most of them don't, but rather live a lonely love life until they can find another person who does not value fitness and health to mate with.

Fit and health conscious people will rarely if ever mate with obese people who don't give a damn. They simply do not share the same values. From the perspective of reproduction alone its a bad choice because your offspring will have nature and nurture both working against them. ---

"disagree, women's nature is to nurture"

--- Nobody discussed anything about man or woman's "nature to nurture". Try to stay on topic. ---

"we are animals, just because you are self aware doesn't put you on a higher plane of existence"

--- Wrong. We are humans. Yes, humans are in fact on a higher plane of existence than animals, and I'm saying this as a vegan who cares very much about animal welfare. ---

"things go awry when humans think they are better than instincts and hundreds of thousands years of evolution. like i said, just because we are self aware creatures doesn't make us better, nor immune to our evolutionary biochemistry."

--- You make no sense. That "thousands of years of evolution" is exactly what makes us "better" than animals. ---

"if we were 2 non artistic logical creatures, who would decorate my house?
alls i'm saying is that women and men should be different, if we werent, for me it would be like dating a man with tits and a vagina"

--- Again, you make no sense. Non-artistic people are naturally logical? Logical people are naturally non-artistic and don't know how to decorate? Being good at art makes someone a woman and being good at logic makes someone a man?

If you believe that then you had better be a woman, because much of what you say does not follow logic and in fact contradicts itself. ---

Grasshopper said...

Funny,

I’m really curious how logic became your default mode. That is not the norm for women. Was it the influence of your father perhaps?

Grasshopper

Funny said...

"I’m really curious how logic became your default mode. That is not the norm for women. Was it the influence of your father perhaps?"

No. Neither of my parents are as logical as me. I read alot of non-fiction in my youth instead of watching television. That could be it. I find many people to be lacking in basic common sense.

Funny said...

"I’m really curious how logic became your default mode. That is not the norm for women."


I would have liked to know where I could find all of these supposedly "logical men" when I was in the dating scene.

Most women I know are logical and highly analytical. Moreso than their male counterparts who are "flowy".

Luckily I found a mate who was both logical and a decent interior decorator ;)

spacetraveller said...

@ Funny @ feb2, 2.09PM,

I am pleased I guessed right :-)
I usually get it wrong :-(

"Any scientific evidence for this?"

Lost pretty much answered this question fully already (Thanks Lost!) but just so that I don't lose credibility with you, I feel I have to provide my own evidence too...

The following is one of several pieces of evidence in my 'library'...

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=155&page=434&journalID=13


The funny thing is, the older I get, the less logical I get whereas I have noticed that men don't change in this respect (no pun intended with your 'handle' LOL).

But I think in about ten years, I shall get really logical again, as my ratio of oestrogen to testosterone falls...(I can provide evidence as to why I think this as well, if you want :-)

You nailed it on the head when you said it yourself: men did not expect or particularly prefer you at your most logical: Grasshopper also makes this point in his question to you: logic is NOT a woman's default position.

I am not fighting it, anymore.
I am 'going with the flow', as they say.
A while back, a commenter asked me if I could kill a wild tiger with my bare hands, or something to that effect. I jokingly said something like, 'Erm, it's not quite what I am aiming for in my life right now, the ability to kill wild animals with my bare hands...'

I will say it again: Seeking to be or do something that is not necessary to achieve my feminine goals is counterproductive for me. So I drop it. Becuase it wll be a source of cognitive dissonance for me if I persist in it.

I agree that Nature and nurture work together. I never suggested we all move into the zoo.

I merely point out that we neglect the Nature side to our own detriment.

Mark Wahlberg, in the example I give in the original post is not being totally 'Nature' in fact...I was struck by him NOT because he was tarzan-like swinging from the trees and beating his chest. I was truck by him because of his display of 'higher functions' in fact.
Nobody said Nature and nurture need be mutually exclusive!

I am really pleased you commented. You are forcing me to justify myself...which is good for me.
Even if I hate you for it.

Just kidding!


And, it must be said, there is something really nice about conversing with a woman on here...precious few comment, so you are a rare treat for me :-)

Hope you stay.


@ Grasshopper @ feb 2, 5.15PM,

:-)

Funny said...

"You nailed it on the head when you said it yourself: men did not expect or particularly prefer you at your most logical: Grasshopper also makes this point in his question to you: logic is NOT a woman's default position."

Grasshopper actually said,

"Men basically want the same thing – just to be themselves (i.e. logical creatures) and want Women to simply adjust to it."

What I asked for evidence for was this statement;

"Nature designed that men are visual and that women are more 'intuitive' i.e. seeking a good character when it comes to mate-finding because of the different biological imperatives of the sexes."

Pre-historic man and woman mated from instinct, like animals do. They sized up a mate with their senses, the sense of sight, smell, taste and touch. Is instinct what you are referring to as "intuition" here? If that's the case then BOTH pre-historic man and pre-historic woman were using this "intuition". Otherwise there is no scientific evidence that pre-historic woman used what is commonly understood to be "intuition" today to chose a mate.

As later evolved humans, while we are initially attracted to someone based on our senses and instinct, if that is all we were to go on then this planet would have no advanced civilizations, and it would be ridden with STDs and starving homeless offspring from multiple partners. And we see this is the case in those areas where both men and women mate indiscriminantly with each other based on external markers and instinct only.


Thankfully, when I see a hot hunk who is younger, healthier and most likely possessed of a higher sperm count than my husband, I am able to recognize it for what it is - instinctual lust, and prevent myself from jumping his bones because LOGICALLY I am able to piece together cause and effect and the effects of such would not be beneficial to me, my husband, our family or human society in general.

But if you want to go ahead and jump him because you deem such a natural reaction "necessary to achieve youf feminine goals" then feel free and help yourself! Afterall, you have nature and pre-historic mating patterns all on your side.

spacetraveller said...

@ Funny,

"But if you want to go ahead and jump him because you deem such a natural reaction "necessary to achieve youf feminine goals" then feel free and help yourself! Afterall, you have nature and pre-historic mating patterns all on your side."

:-)


Yes ma'am. I will.


Except you know I shan't.

Because that would be inconsistent with the spirit of this blog and my general mindset.

I am not a fan of inner conflict. I am not big on cognitive dissonance.

Seeing that last paragraph of yours that I quote, I have simply got to ask you a question.
I HAVE to. I am REALLY curious.

:-)

Ready?

Do you like Norse mythology?

I happen to be a big fan of Norwegian folklore.

:-)

Funny said...

I'm not familiar with Norse mythology. Today I met a young woman who fell in love with a young man's "potential", married him and had a baby with him. She's completely broke and living like a single mom because all the talk he gave her about his "future plans" have not panned out but were just a means to get her on lockdown.

Women should only have babies with men who have already proven their provider ability.

spacetraveller said...

Funny,

The more you comment, the more you show me how wrong the world is getting.

Whilst I am sorry to hear of the hardship of your friend, here are a few points to consider. I would actually appreciate it if you could ask her the following questions and come back to report to the rest of us:

1. Would she have been any richer on her own?
2. WHY did she marry that man, for love or money?
3. What is she doing to help at this tough time?
4. Did he actually have a job or at the very least a decent education at the time they met/married?

These are all important questions, in my opinion.

By the way, just because I say 'potential' does not imply that I mean 'marry a bum'.
I wouldn't have thought I needed to clarify this point.

Marriage should not just be about 'happy ever after' surely!

There are hardships and good times in life. Your friend is obviously going through a hard time right now, but hey, so is everyone else! Besides, who's to say it will not change in 3 months, or 3 years?


Her first duty should be about supporting her husband, and not complaining about how things are so bad for HER.
(She may in fact not be doing this at all. It could be YOU complaining on her behalf...)

I'm afraid you are making me see why so many men are GTOW. You are showing me exactly why I SHOULD agree with every single one of them.

Kim K is another who is making me see this in no uncertain terms.

Even with no financial hardships to worry about, she could only take 72 days of marriage?
72 days of what should be a lifetime affair?

Who told her marriage was all roses and champagne?

Ah...well...

Look, I get it that sometimes men should pull their weight.

But comments like your last one really rub me up the wrong way because I would hope this is NOT the default position of a lot of women, but you are making it seem like it is.

I do not know of a single marriage where it was all plain sailing from Day 1.
But people adjust and adapt.

When men talk of a 'social contract' I see what they mean. You are helping their argument. Please stop helping them!

:-)

My Grandpa was a very rich man at the time of his death. But ten years into his marriage with Grandma it was a different story. They were on occasion very poor. BUT she did not sit and whine. She rolled up her sleeves and pitched in.
Why do you think I keep quoting her?
Because I admire her and women like her.

If you think this can only happen in the 'good old days', here's another example.

One of the women I profile in my post about SAHM was a doctor, not much older than me. She 'married down' as they say.

Now with 4 children of her own, she is childminding for other families and is making tons of money, more than when she was a doctor!
She 'pitched in' when things got tough...

I am not saying it is easy. I am just saying it is doable with the right attitude.

I love playing the victim as much as anyone else...
But sometimes you just have to pick yourself up, dust yourself down and get to work...all the while complaining bitterly :-)
And why not? If ever there was a good example of 'multi-tasking'...



The Norse mythology question was really a rhetorical question.

Here's another clue as to why I asked you the question.

I am really into Cockney rhyme, being British. (If you don't know what that is, look it up). It's interesting, I promise you.

Here are a few gems:

"Fancy a Ruby Parry?" (translation, would you like a curry?)

"Cor blimey, she's got a strawberry tart and a half!" (translation, wow, she really has a strong heart!)

Here's one for you to decipher:

"Norway is full of breadrolls but I didn't know they escaped into cyberworld from time to time."

Grasshopper said...

Funny,
Consider this – every good and successful man at one time in his life all he had going for him was his potential.

Once he has as you put it ‘proven his provider ability’ whom do you think he would be more inclined to make babies with – a woman who first presents herself at that time in his life or a woman who has been with him through his lean times, had faith in him and through shared sacrifice had formed a strong bond with him.

I know who I would pick.

Grasshopper

Funny said...

1. Would she have been any richer on her own?

YES.

2. WHY did she marry that man, for love or money?

NATURE. YOUNG LUST. PRE-HISTORIC MATING PATTERNS. LACK OF LOGIC, REASONING AND FUTURE TIME ORIENTATION.

3. What is she doing to help at this tough time?

SHE'S WORKING 2 JOBS ALL BY HERSELF TO PROVIDE A LIFE FOR HER CHILD.

4. Did he actually have a job or at the very least a decent education at the time they met/married?

NOPE. BUT HE CONVINCED HER HAD "POTENTIAL".


"Her first duty should be about supporting her husband"

WRONG! HER FIRST DUTY IS SUPPORTING HER VULNERABLE CHILD. HER HUSBAND IS A GROWN ADULT WHO SHOULD BE SUPPORTING HIMSELF, AND HIS CHILD, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST HIS OWN SELF.

"I'm afraid you are making me see why so many men are GTOW."

THESE TYPE OF "MEN" SHOULD GO THEIR OWN WAY AND NEVER REPRODUCE CHILDREN WHO SUFFER.

Funny said...

"Once he has as you put it ‘proven his provider ability’ whom do you think he would be more inclined to make babies with – a woman who first presents herself at that time in his life or a woman who has been with him through his lean times, had faith in him and through shared sacrifice had formed a strong bond with him."

You can ask the doctors who's wives worked to put them through med school and who were later abandoned for younger, hotter, tighter.

spacetraveller said...

Funny,

Thanks for providing the answers.

I am curious as to the first answer. What's your evidence that she would have been richer on her own? What she is doing now is what she is 'doing on her own' as you describe it. To me, it doesn't sound like she could have done much better without him in the picture, if that makes any sense.

If he had no job nor an education which would enable him to get one, then it is quite possible that she did indeed choose wrongly.
Note that I am not advocating 'lust' as a form of mate selection. I say it again, nowhere on this blog is that indicated.

Your comment to Grasshopper is interesting.
I agree with you that such men are abhorent.

But according to recent data, this type of scenario is actually in the minority these days...
Nowadays it is the women who are leaving the men.

But fair point, I can imagine the hurt a good woman would feel if she gave all her love to a man who threw it all in her face in the twilight years. THAT would be difficult to screen for when you are both young and clueless though...

When I said your friend's first duty is to 'support' her husband, I did not mean financially per se. Wifely support is an art. To a woman who actually gives a damn about her husband, it comes naturally.

Bellita said...

The problem with anecdotal data is that someone always has a story to contradict your own. I have a couple, but it would be pointless to share them.

Let me instead put forward the logical argument that perhaps the essential difference between those women who successfully married men with potential and those women who unsuccessfully did the same thing is that the former had better judgment of character than the latter.

By the way, Funny, are you "A Woman Giving Advice" who said the same thing regarding a man's potential on Danny's blog?

Grasshopper said...

Funny – I said a “…GOOD and successful man…”

The example in your reply certainly does not qualify in my mind as a good man.

Maybe what is broken in your friend and those doctor’s ex-wives is their good man finding radar?

Once a man has proven his provider ability he needs to develop a radar of his own – call it gold digger radar. I think those doctors you cited have broken radars as well.

If a man has only potential going for him he can more easily believe a woman’s interest in him is genuine. Once he’s arrived so to speak he will be …well more of a challenge.

Grasshopper

Funny said...

"I am curious as to the first answer. What's your evidence that she would have been richer on her own?"

When he rolled back through town and she foolishly allowed him in the house because he was her husband and she wanted to offer him "wifely support", he blew $5,000 dollars of her hard earned money on a car stereo and other electronic crap. When he left, she was flat broke and had to go to her mom to borrow money for food.

"But according to recent data, this type of scenario is actually in the minority these days...
Nowadays it is the women who are leaving the men."

Shrugs. What goes around comes around.

spacetraveller said...

Funny,

Wifely support, as far as I know, does not include giving a man $5,000!

Is there any doubt in your mind, reading your own comment that this woman is not very....err...how shall I put this politely...not exactly endowed with...err...too many grey cells?

THIS woman is your anecdotal example to refute my theories?

And you are more logical than me?

I rest my case...

Funny said...

There are so many young women in her shoes. And they fall for the same "nature over nurture, be feminine and emotional not logical and masculine and look for a man's 'potential' not his current financial state" crap that you and Lost and Grasshopper are promoting right here in your own comments section.

Her situation is the "natural" result of that way of thinking, and yes, it is quite common.

just visiting said...

Funny, investing in a man's potential is a risk. Nobody is saying otherwise. As in business, so in life. The only reason you take calculated risks is to get a better return. Some people are happy with low risk 3% interest, others are not. Some took a chance and bought Microsoft in it's start up stage. Others waited to see things mature up, and when they wanted to buy stock, found they couldn't. Same thing with men. And lest anyone get the idea that a mans potential is all about money, let me get very specific. It's about his purpose in life. It's about the traits that indicate what kind of husband and father he will make. What kind of man he'll be. Can he keep the commitments he already has? If he cannot, he probably won't keep the commitments he makes with you.

No one has suggested that potential is the end all be all of choosing. It isn't. It requires brains and logic. Here's the thing though. It requires MORE than just brains and logic. That's what you're missing in this discussion.

I feel for your friend, but it sounds like she wasn't assessing his potential so much as she was assessing his confidence. There are indicators of character and competence one has to look for. Confidence backed by competence equals husband potential. Irrational confidence backed by nothing equals player potential.
And there's a whole lot more that has to get factored into the equation.

True story about my cousin which, irony of ironies, mirrors your friends in too many ways to pass up.

At 19, she had a boyfriend who had spent a few years in the military learning about computers. He was out of the service, unemployed, and living in her parents basement suite. Oh yeah, living on welfare. Confident dude, with plans to open his own business. My cousin ended up pregnant.

Now this is where the similarities jumped out at me. My cousin lent her boyfriend 5000.00 which he spent on electronic equipment and, wait for it, a car alarm. He'd missed key meeting with potential investors because his car kept getting broken into. Her friends and certain family members went ballistic.

Her parents and my cousin were unshakable in their support of this young man. The next three years had my aunt and uncle supporting them financially in their basement suite.

Long story short. His company is worth a couple hundred million. He and my cousin married, and have raised a beautiful daughter who is now 17. They were not able to have more children as my cousin needed a hysterectomy, so good thing she had her daughter when she could. Sometimes life is funny like that.

So, what did this dead beat have going for him that my cousin and aunt and uncle invested in. Well, he was alpha as all get go, but that wasn't enough to convince them. (Hey, some women will hamster that all to hell and convince themselves that the man has potential.) He spent every waking hour on his plan and his purpose. He didn't bail on his fiance when she became pregnant,and was loving and committed toward her, if somewhat broke. He sacrificed and went with out in order to get his business going. Most of all, he was competent, more than competent at what he was good at. He was confident in his competence, and he could influence others into investing and working toward his goals. His leadership ability was evident, and was a good indicator of someone who could manage his business.

The bonds created between this couple are intense. She was there for him when he had nothing. He'll never have to wonder if she's a gold digger.

spacetraveller said...

Welcome to The Sanctuary, just visiting!

Thank you for that beautiful story.

I find it telling that your cousin's husband already had skills, aka an education in something he could earn a living from...so he had real potential despite the lack of ready cash...

In the example Funny gave, the man had zilch to fall back on. Nada, rien, nothing.

I would be interested to know how Funny advises her friend, seeing as she seems to have her friend's best interests at heart and all...

The question is, would Funny say something like this to the young woman:

"Honey, you are a bright gal, you are getting on with supporting yourself and your child. That's great! I am proud of you for taking life by the scruff of the neck and getting on with things.

But much as I love you, I need to tell you this: you made a grave mistake in your choice of man. Some people are mature before they jump into marriage. You and so-and-so clearly haven't reached that point yet. But that's OK, life is not a race. You can still mature during your marriage.
Your best bet is to stay away from him awhile. Look into yourself. What can you see now that you couldn't before?
Focus on being the best woman you can be. For yourself first. And then we'll see.
Give yourself and him time to mature. But don't cut him off from your life. He is still your husband, father of your child. If he shows evidence of violence or (insert your own deal-breaker) then you will have no choice.

One day, when you feel ready, you and him could try to build your lives together. again. If he is still immature and you cannot see a future with him as your mature self, then so be it.
But you MUST be sure you would be able to look into your child's face one day and say, 'I did my very best'."

Or would Funny say this? This, the chorus of the so-called well-meaning herd?

"Sweetie, he is a loser! Cut him loose! You deserve so much better! There is another man out there who can't wait to take you and baby on!"

And 'Sweetie' will be exculpated from her own contribution to this mess, and baby will be indoctrinated as to the uselessness of not just Daddy but all men, and in 20 years, rinse and repeat if baby is a girl, or 'badass' just like Daddy or grovelling beta who has been raised by a single mom if baby is a boy.

And Sweetie will wonder why men are not queueing up to date her, because, you know, all men are just like Seal and stuff...

Which one will it be, Funny?

Funny said...

"Sweetie, he is a loser! Cut him loose! You deserve so much better! There is another man out there who can't wait to take you and baby on!"

And 'Sweetie' will be exculpated from her own contribution to this mess, and baby will be indoctrinated as to the uselessness of not just Daddy but all men, and in 20 years, rinse and repeat if baby is a girl, or 'badass' just like Daddy or grovelling beta who has been raised by a single mom if baby is a boy.

And Sweetie will wonder why men are not queueing up to date her, because, you know, all men are just like Seal and stuff...

Which one will it be, Funny?"

NEITHER.

I don't have to say anything. She's already moved on to someone else - a WOMAN, who is living with her and her child, fully employed and doing her part in the home as a partner to Sweetie and a sort of step-mom to Sweetie's baby, being the number 2 in the responsible 2 parent household that Baby's good 4 nuthin Daddy failed to be.

The answer isn't always another man.

;)

spacetraveller said...

Funny,

I have to admit, I did NOT see that coming!

Gosh, your little story has got more twists and turns than Formula One!
It sure has got teeth!

But, it must be said, my last comment still applies.

Just replace 'man' with 'woman' in that case!

'Sweetie' may be with a woman now. But it is interesting that you felt the need to mention this new woman had a job. Sweetie found herself another 'provider'!

Hey, I'm not knocking her choices here...
But I can't help but wonder: Is lesbianism really the answer?

That has to be a minority option, right?
I am guessing not too many women who have been married before will fancy that particular option...

And let's not forget, a marriage has been broken here...
Even if the new partner is a woman, same difference where Sweetie's marriage is concerned...

You know, I am starting to think, how in God's name did we go from 'I respect this man who seems to have it together' to... a couple of gay women with a baby?

:-)

Funny, with you, life in blogland is never boring, for sure...Scandinavian folklore characters notwithstanding!

:-)

Funny said...

Sweetie's domestic partner is not "the provider". They both work together to support each other and the child, which is all Sweetie expected from her husband.

Perhaps when she divorces him and he has to pay child support he'll finally get off his lazy ass and work.

spacetraveller said...

@ just visiting,

I received this comment of yours, but for some reason it never got displayed on the blog.

So I am posting it here on your behalf.

(Not sure what happened - I haven't yet figured out a way to deal with all the technical hitches I am getting!)






Thanks for the welcome ST.

In the example Funny gave, the man had zilch to fall back on. Nada, rien, nothing.

It was the point I was trying to make. Though there were similarities between the two men and the situations they were in, one displayed potential the other did not. The ability to discern potential is the responsibility of the person making the investment.

I think that as women, we are attracted to confidence. Confidence equals competence. Except when it doesn't. So, I think it's important to discern if someone is irrationally confident or rationally confident. Is there anything backing it up? And to keep in mind that confidence doesn't equal character.

@ Funny

You're friend sounds like she was evenly matched with her ex.

spacetraveller said...

@ just visiting,

"You're friend sounds like she was evenly matched with her ex."

This is a gem.
Thank you for this.

What Funny is refusing to accept is that it cuts both ways...a quality woman will attract a quality man and vice versa.

Funny was implying that her immature friend deserved a Mark Wahlberg...

The problem with this mindset is that people are left stuck in their immature ways...
With people like Funny in her corner, Sweetie will never self-analyse. She will go from relationship to relationship whether it is with men or women, without ever learning anything from the last one.

But what I find interesting here is that deep down Funny KNOWS her friend is immature. She herself uses the word FOOLISH to describe her.

But will Funny ever bring this to the attention of this foolish woman?
No.
Funny prefers to rant about the 'good for nuthin' equally foolish man on a blog instead.
She keeps shtumm to Sweetie.
An opportunity missed...

What a crying shame.

Funny, I'm afraid you are not being a good friend to this woman.

A good friend is able to look at their friend and say,
"Yer doing it wrong, buddy. Yer doing it wrong".

Funny said...

"Funny was implying that her immature friend deserved a Mark Wahlberg"

--- Didn't you say he has a violent criminal record? She's neither violent nor a criminal, so no she doesn't deserve him. ----


"With people like Funny in her corner, Sweetie will never self-analyse. She will go from relationship to relationship whether it is with men or women, without ever learning anything from the last one."

---- She already HAS learned her lesson. That is why she used her logic and reason this time around to get with a responsible partner who can contribute to the family unit.

However, if she had YOU, Lost and Grasshopper as her "friends" she'd be told to "be a woman, follow nature and not use logic". ----



"But what I find interesting here is that deep down Funny KNOWS her friend is immature. She herself uses the word FOOLISH to describe her."

---- Yep, just like you are foolish for promoting this "follow nature, be a woman, don't use logic" bullshit. The difference being this girl has wised up, whereas you haven't. ----

"But will Funny ever bring this to the attention of this foolish woman?"

---- I don't need to anymore, she's not you, she's learned her lesson and is now using reason and logic over natural feminine instinct. ----

"Funny, I'm afraid you are not being a good friend to this woman.

A good friend is able to look at their friend and say,
"Yer doing it wrong, buddy. Yer doing it wrong"."

---- OK, Spacetraveller, yer doing it wrong, buddy, yer doing it wrong and the advice you are dishing out here on your blog is bullshit.

Nurture over nature. Reason over genes. ----

spacetraveller said...

Funny,

I am thrilled for Sweetie if she has indeed learned her lesson.

I really do hope you are right about that.

When I mentioned Mark Wahlberg in my last comment, by the way, I was referring to the refined, self-accomplished Mark Wahlberg. But I am sure you knew that. You just chose to be inflammatory with your remark about his past.
(But that's OK, it highlights the need for a better example of post subject next time. I have taken note).

I am pleasantly surprised by your declaration of friendship to me, despite our verbal sparring over this issue.

I accept, and return the favour.

No no, not with 'Yer doing it wrong'! but with 'We will have to agree to disagree on this one, but I do hope we can find common ground on future topics'.

Funny said...

"When I mentioned Mark Wahlberg in my last comment, by the way, I was referring to the refined, self-accomplished Mark Wahlberg. But I am sure you knew that. You just chose to be inflammatory with your remark about his past."

That's precisely what's wrong with you flighty b*tches. You want a "reformed bad boy" or worse yet, you want to be the one to "reform" him, instead of a logical, reasonable, responsible and good man who doesn't need any tweaking.

spacetraveller said...

Funny,

He had already become a 'good guy' well before I respected him.

When I knew him before as Marky Mark, even as a mere girl myself, I did not like him at all. I think I mentioned that before.

I agree with you that no (mature) woman should be looking to reform a 'bad boy' because it doesn't work.

Sweetie certainly learned that lesson!

See? We are beginning to agree already.

:-)

Wonderful!
I am getting all warm and fuzzy over our new-found agreement.

Are you?

:-)