I had cause to think about 'cause and effect' the other day (no pun intended :-).
As ever, I was forced to confront this issue as relates to the SMP in a rather precipitous manner.
It's almost as if each time I settle down and rest on my laurels, life pulls me off said laurels and hands me another new lesson on a plate.
I was discussing something of a personal (read 'relationship') nature with a female acquaintance during her visit to my home.
I was upset about something.
I didn't want to talk about it to her , but she has a way of persuading just about anyone to 'squeal'. So I did.
And in doing so, I unmasked my 'vulnerability' to her, it seems.
Amongst other behaviours that 'freaked her out' about me, I grabbed one of my 'cuddle bunnies' and gave it a big, juicy hug.
She was horrified.
Below is a summary of her case against me:
1. The very fact that I have a 'cuddle bunny' at all. According to her, past a woman's teens, 'comfort zone associates' such as 'cuddle bunnies' are illegal. Not permitted in polite society, it would appear :-)
2. The fact that I actually did hug my 'cuddle bunny' at a time of emotional stress suggested to her that I was still an adolescent.
Why does this have a familiar ring to it?
Is this a female accuser's version of 'woman up' in the manner of 'man up'?
3. And this was her advice: and hence the point of this post: When dealing with a man, never show him your vulnerable side.
This is effectively what many women are being advised to do.
By other women.
Now, points 1 and 2 are a question of taste/maturity, etc. Guilty as charged. I have a 'teddy bear equivalent', and I am in my 30s. Shameful, I know.
But, and this question is addressed primarily to the ladies...
Is this necessarily sad or twisted?
What is the alternative, if any?
Assuming I had a husband and children of say, age 6 and above: would it be reasonable to burden them with my emotional problems ala Princess Diana and Prince William?
Actually, I think not personally. My female friends and my 'cuddle bunnies' exist for that function :-)
But I welcome alternate views on this.
What disturbs me the most is point No. 3.
Am I courting controversy by addressing this?
I actually have mixed feelings about 'showing vulnerability'. I really do.
I like 'privacy' and emotional strength, aka 'stoicism'.
But I also know that 'privacy' precludes 'intimacy' as addressed in this post.
'Intimacy' can take many forms - I do not restrict myself to the more obvious forms - sexual/emotional.
Spiritual intimacy is just as important. As a Catholic, for example, you need this if you are to make a good Confession. You need spiritual intimacy with a priest to achieve this. (I really am not being 'sleazy here. This is nothing to do with my (separate) and slightly pathological problem of 'priestophilia' :-)
I do believe that even the most alpha of men has to show vulnerability at some point in his relationship with a woman.
But what about women?
Can a woman negotiate a relationship without showing some vulnerability?
I think not...
But why is it so hard to show vulnerability?
Fear of being belittled, betrayed, abandoned, exposed...
Understandable, yes.
But ...
Is there another reason behind this advice?
As ever, the 'why' is very important to me.
Why cannot I hug a teddy bear in front of a potential suitor?
Has a woman ever been dumped for this heinous crime?
Cause and effect...
Difficult topic.
Because of what is commonly known in the statistical world as confounding variables.
Peripheral issues that cloud the main issue.
If a 'nice girl' is dumped in favour of a 'rymes with rut' kind of girl, what's the most common reaction by said 'nice girl'?
Yes...
No more 'nice girl'!
Similarly for men...
No more Mr. Nice Guy!
But isn't that somehow wrong?
Isn't that 'treating the symptom' as opposed to 'treating the root cause' as someone pointed out to me recently (you know who you are: thank you for your insight into this).
Whatever happened to 'Outcome independence'?
But what is the 'root cause'?
Could there not be a 'confounding variable' that might have been confused with 'nice girl's' niceness?
For example, what if 'nice girl' is also unhygienic?
If she is dumped, is it ever helpful to blame her 'niceness'? Would it not be more appropriate to confront the real problem head-on, i.e. her body odour?
This is of course an extreme example, but I wonder if the reasons we give for 'staying in the mire' are actually problems that can easily be eradicated...
Reacting negatively to a negative situation does not a positive outcome produce.
That much is clear to me now.
In my Blue Pill days, I might have swallowed the above woman's advice piecemeal. But now, with a Red Pill attitude to life, I see that it is simply unforgivable to do this.
Unforgivable because I would be punishing my own self.
In slightly unrelated but nonetheless relevant news, a South African student recently invented a water-free bath product, similar to but not identical to sanitizers.
I admire his inventiveness and creativity (his work was inspired by a friend of his who was 'too lazy' to take a shower...um, I wonder if he was ever dumped for being a 'nice boy'?)
:-)
But water is water. Water is so much more than a cleansing agent. It is a holistic element. There is a healing quality to water that is simply missing from 'DryBath'.
My point is, if someone is too lazy to take a shower, DryBath may not in fact be the right solution for them.
If there is no water available, DryBath is nothing but a temporary solution.
Merely treating the symptom is not the answer. The root cause still exists.
Find a way to get water. Living beings need water. Not just for taking a bath.
'Don't show 'em your vulnerable side!' is an attempt to treat a symptom.
But it doesn't work, I think.
If the person giving me this advice was ever castigated for being 'vulnerable', could it just be possible that there was another hidden reason for her chastisement and not the vulnerability?
Am I being too naïve here?
For sure, her advice is wrong...at least for me.
A woman who is unable to show vulnerability (at an appropriate time of course!) is sometimes hard.
I believe it is advice like this that inspires comments like this from men:
This fom Bob Wallace:
"They end up hostile, bitter spinsters, usually on psychiatric drugs, ending alone in apartments with a cat (cats), and blaming all their problems on men. They're hostile because of their envy of men and put men down - and they don't even know it. I've seen this several times, and it's got to the point when I run across these kind of women I tell them what their problem is."
It is a direct result of 'feminism programming'.
It is insiduous, but women absorb this 'Blue Pill advice' via a process of osmosis until this mentality is properly assimilated into their psyches. Then when the deeply ingrained dogma starts to play out, chaos ensues, or as Bob describes above, the manhate starts.
Men can help women they know and like/love who are being 'misinformed' by simply being aware that she is being 'misinformed'.
Attitudes can be changed.
For the better.
But it requires a (sometimes tedious) deprogramming of previous programming.
Remember, it is not always her fault...
"It just happened..."
I also used to believe this phrase, because I was previously not savvy enough to realise that 'nothing just happens' in this life. Good or evil, every action has a root cause.
I hope Kristin Stewart learns this one day... like I have.
111 comments:
Assuming I had a husband and children of say, age 6 and above: would it be reasonable to burden them with my emotional problems ala Princess Diana and Prince William?
Actually, I think not personally. My female friends and my 'cuddle bunnies' exist for that function :-)
But I welcome alternate views on this.
Woman, a husband would be your best companion. Resting your head on his chest while he wraps his strong arms about you would be much more emotionally satisfying than a "cuddle bunny".
I shall make "Hug the Bunny" my new "Kiss the Giraffe"! :P
But I may be biased . . . I sleep with a stuffed horse I call Custard. Hahahaha!
I would be more worried if a woman wouldn't show any vulnerability..
My advice: ignore her advice.
Showing any kind of emotion is a sign of weakness apparently in this "Brave New World"..
ST & Bellita
Now your husbands will have to compete not only with God, but with cute and cuddly stuffed animals also..??? ;-) ;-)
You just can't win... ;-)
Welcome to The Sanctuary, Carnivore!
"Woman, a husband would be your best companion. Resting your head on his chest while he wraps his strong arms about you would be much more emotionally satisfying than a "cuddle bunny"."
Hahahahaha!
I just HAVE to say, I have a certain automatic mental image of any man who addresses a woman as 'Woman'.
:-)
Ladies, chime in...what do y'all think?
I think an AMOG just walked in the door :P
Especially as Carnivore has a caveman as his avatar...
Did someone overdose on the Red Pill??
;)
Just teasing, Carnivore...
Now your comment reminds me that I should compose a post entitled 'what's a husband for'. This reminds me of a conversation I had with my best friend when we were both in our early twenties.
For some reason our conversation veered towards what we would like to do with our future husbands one day, in other words, exactly that - what a husband is for.
My friend was getting carried away talking about how she would love to go on holidays with her husband, go to rock concerts with him, go shopping with him, talk with him about her emotional issues. I looked at her wide-eyed. I said to her, 'a husband is a man you have kids with and go to Mass with. That's it'.
It was a joke. But actually, I think my 21 year old self had a point.
Now I would love to hear from a married woman on this issue.
Would you ever tell your husband about your emotional woes that are nothing to do with him?
Somehow I wouldn't. Perhaps I am surrounded by men who just wouldn't participate in my 'womanly meltdowns'. And, like you, Carnivore, they are exactly the kind of men who would address me as 'woman'. Hahahaha! So, you see - I have been programmed not to take your advice! By men!
I secretly would love what you advice though...but I don't seem to attract that kind of man, and besides, I am not quite sure I would even like that too much...as they say, be careful what you wish for. I am very weary nowadays of women saying they want something and finding out later that in fact they want the opposite - the Manosphere has taught me things I should watch out for lol...
Despite all of the above, I am not in fact saying that I can't be vulnerable with a man. I reserve the right to hug my bunny in front of my future husband...
Hahahaha!
Bell,
"I sleep with a stuffed horse I call Custard."
Hahahahaha!
This takes the biscuit, Bell! I now hereby crown you the official Queen of weirdness of The Sanctuary!
@ Metak,
"Now your husbands will have to compete not only with God, but with cute and cuddly stuffed animals also..??? "
Um, yes, it seems like quite the entitlement on our parts, doesn't it?
:-)
If you think God is bad enough, I can tell you that the stuffed animals are much more possessive (at least in my case). I don't know about Custard, but mine have no scruples and will compete to the bitter end with any guy to keep my affections...
Um, is this why I am still unmarried? (gulp).
Hahahahaha!
@ST
I win??? :D Really?!?! And I haven't even told you the weirdest things about my "relationship" with my "cuddle Custard"! ;)
Bell,
Please no...just no...
Alright, if you must...
Do you promise to keep it legal?
Hahahaha!
Just kidding.
Dis-moi. What's the weirdest thing with you and Custard?
(I can't believe we've arrived at this point...how on Earth did we get here?)
*whistles*
:-)
@ST
For some reason our conversation veered towards what we would like to do with our future husbands one day, in other words, exactly that - what a husband is for.
I'm sure that "What We Would Like To Do With Our Future Husbands" and "What Husbands Are For" are two very different sets, although of course there will be overlap.
A few weeks ago, a friend and I decided to do some browsing in a bookstore, and I came across a book called The Games Bible. (No, not that Game! Hahahaha! And well, not that Bible either! :P) It had the rules and mechanics of hundreds of different games you can play with your friends or at parties or with whomever, at whenever. It was also rather pricey . . .
I was surprised by how much I wanted the book. My friend had to spend five minutes talking me out of making an impulse buy. She had many reasons, but the one which hit home the most was: "If you buy it, will you have anyone to play all these games with?" It suddenly dawned on me that I didn't want the book as much as I wanted someone in my life who would also appreciate the book.
And if it weren't for the fact that I have run out of non-negotiables to put on my two-point "laundry list," I'd slip "Likes to play games" in there. :P
But as Escoffier reminded me over at HUS, just the other day, we shouldn't confuse what we want in a friend with what we want in a spouse. If I may paraphrase him, "I already have a best friend. I don't want some version of him with breasts." It made me think, "I also already have a best friend . . . And I would never date some male version of her!" (Hahahaha!)
So while I tend to dream like your friend, ST, and to hope for someone unusually compatible in terms of shared interests, I concede that your simple approach is the better one. "Likes to play games" goes in the first set and not in the second.
@ST
What's the weirdest thing with you and Custard?
Well, if you insist . . . ;)
Several years ago, I got to watch the (really bad) remake of Planet of the Apes starring Mark Wahlberg. And I kept staring at him whenever he was on screen, wondering, "Who does he look like? Why do I feel I see him all the time???"
The movie ended before I could come up with the answer, which was really frustrating. And I felt stumped until I got back to my room, crawled into my bed, and saw Custard again.
And then I knew.
Mark Wahlberg had reminded me of my stuffed horse!
I know you're a Wahlberg fan, ST, so I will send you a picture of Custard, if you like. ;)
I'm pretty good with vulnerability once the relationship is established. Still have to be conscious of it in order to show it. (Because my inclination is not to.) But my biggest phobia is being considered clingy by a someone in the developing stages.
Bellita,
I'd love to see Custard!
One question: Does he have Inner Game?
Hahahahha!
One thing I admire about you is your clear-thinking ability, Bell.
I hope I have already mentioned this to you.
When I was 21, and even now, I would never have thought to separate 'What I would like to do with my future husband' and 'What a husband is for'. I thought they were one and the same!
Which is precisely why I gave the answer I did to my friend, (who thought I was bonkers by the way).
Perhaps I was oversimplifying things. I would like to have children and I would like to keep my faith (things I'd like to do) so to my mind, that's what a husband (for me) should be for. Which means that my two non-negotiables should be 'would like to have kids' and 'likes to go to Mass without coercion from me'.
I suppose another way of looking at 'what a husband is for' is 'what can I not do by myself, or currently cannot get from my (female) friends'?
That would simplify things even further...because that would only leave...having children!
The problem is, I can't imagine having a list which only has on it 'able and willing to have children'.
Hahahaha!
(I would need access to medical records for that, and that, I think is a step too far in dating, no?)
Now reviewing Carnivore's advice, I think it does apply to a certain stage of marriage...the really old stage when the couple are in their 70s and beyond...
But I think it takes a lot of angst beforehand to get to that stage. That kind of emotional intimacy immediately precedes retirement (or death), no?
Doesn't it take years to build?
Have I got this wrong?
Any married people able to shed some light on this?
And gentlemen, do any of you have a 'Custard'?
Your secret will be safe with me :-)
JV,
"But my biggest phobia is being considered clingy by a someone in the developing stages."
Oh yes. This is a legitimate fear, of course. Timing is everything.
However, one of the biggest accusations against women is that they change. If a woman is non-clingy early on, and then becomes clingy later, this can confuse a man (who generally remains the same throughout a relationship), no? Then he thinks he has been 'tricked' or something...
Difficult balance to maintain, as relationships are dynamic...
@ST
However, one of the biggest accusations against women is that they change.
I'm reminded of the saying: "A man marries a woman thinking she will never change. A woman marries a man thinking he will change."
Oh, dear . . . ;)
Bell,
That is precisely the saying I had in mind...
@ Spacetraveller
[blah blah blah...anti-stuffed animal advice...hide feelings] Is this a female accuser's version of 'woman up' in the manner of 'man up'?
The resemblance is uncanny. She's projecting what she sees as attractive in men and applies it to women.
Um, is this why I am still unmarried? (gulp).
I can't believe you didn't know about this earlier. How many have you led into the jaws of those vicious things? See? THAT's what I've been saying. God had a perfect hubby for you, but you fed him to a stuffed animal. No sympathy.
In college every girlfriend I had kept a stuffed animal she had as a little girl.
Arf Arf's button eyes had fallen off and his stuffing had come out, but one girlfriend still had him.
I decided a long time ago I was just big stuffed animal to some women.
Bell,
"I sleep with a stuffed horse I call Custard."
and
"And I haven't even told you the weirdest things about my "relationship" with my "cuddle Custard"!"
By the way, Bell, terminology is everything...
Around ten years ago, I inadvertently took one of my cuddle bunnies to work (I did a night shift and I forgot I was not at home lol). The next day, my boss at the time (who was a really sweet motherly type woman) saw it and laughed. She asked me if I slept with it.
I was baffled by her question, and answered in a defensive manner, 'no, our relationship is purely platonic!'
:-)
It was much later that I realised how idiotic I had been...afterall she couldn't have meant...
Hahahahahaha!
Hence my apprehension when you mentioned terms like 'sleeping with' and 'relationship' with respect to Custard. Evidently I still have odd thoughts about what these might mean.
:-)
I know...twilight zone stuff...
Must be a full moon tonight...
@ Ceer,
"How many have you led into the jaws of those vicious things?"
Vicious?
My cuddle bunnies could hardly be desribed as vicious!
They are the sweetest-looking creatures you could ever imagine..
:-)
(This is true - they were actually hand-picked precisely for their cuteness factor).
Hahahaha!
I see your point about the 'woman up' thing.
I imagine in fact that she would react the same way to the video-game-playing man...
I am not by any means insinuating that it is desirable or even healthy for men to be playing video games all their lives. But...to denounce them without so much as a thought as to why they would do this might be the first mistake...
@ Bob,
"In college every girlfriend I had kept a stuffed animal she had as a little girl."
Hahahaha!
I am glad Bell and I are not the only ones...although it's fair to say we are not college age anymore ;)
Arf Arf? That's a cuddle bunny's name?
:-)
The worrying part for me is, I imagine I would stil have my cuddle bunnies after I have kids...
Can the mothers among us please tell me this would be normal...
Bob, I do see some men as big teddy bears :P
The ultimate lovable rogue...
:-)
It's not a bad position to be in, you know...
I would say it's actually quite a privileged position if you ask me...
Arf Arf was, and probably still is, a six-inch stuffed dog with no eyes and no stuffing.
Zippy was a stuffed monkey. I forgot the rest of the names.
Look, you have to understand the difference between male and female emotional needs in this regard. A husband acts as an emotional sink. When he pulls his wife close and holds her tight, he can drain the anxiety out of her. He's a steady rock she can look to for mooring during an emotional storm.
But he can't fill that need constantly. If, day in, day out, when he gets home he's greeted by an emotional basket case, he's going to think he's married a loony. He can only absorb so much anxiety; it has to be dispersed or else it builds up in him as well. Women used to be taught (by their mothers) how to read a man and use judgement on what should be brought to his attention and when. It seems to be a lost art.
A husband, however, does not look to his wife to be an emotional sink in the way he is to her. He's looking for order: the meal on the table, the children raised properly, the household run smoothly. It's a place he can let down his guard. All this talk about the "shit test" is BS. It's as if he has to raise his guard a couple of notches when he gets home. It's as if his supposedly best companion is more likely to attack than a stranger in the outside world. How sad is that? It doesn't mean he becomes a vulnerable cry baby when he gets home. The stability he sees and the letting down of his guard turns off the stress pressure cooker - that's the emotional sink a man looks for when he gets home. That so few wives understand it these days is very sad.
So, it's not, as described in some 1950's "housewife guides", that a wife should never bring her vulnerabilities and anxieties to her husband. A wife has to exercise good judgement and understand relative importance and timing of raising her issues. But when that time comes, a man thoroughly enjoys being a rock for his woman. It makes us feel manly and needed. It highlights our complementarity, your femininity and makes you very desirable.
Capiche?
"All this talk about the "shit test" is BS."
The women I've met who acted like that ended up alone or divorced.
A lot of "advice" in the Manosphere is B.S. The real name for an Alpha is a cad, and the ones I've known have ended up alone with ruined lives. In fiction (which imitates life) think Cal in "Titanic" (dead) John Malcovich's character in "Dangerous Liasons" (dead) or Michael Caine's character in "Alfie" (alone and consumed with regret).
When people lose their way through life they'll grab at straws.
@ Carnivore,
Capisco.
Wow, I had a 'Mark Wahlberg' moment reading your latest comment :-)
If you don't know what that means please see, my post 'The epitome of Inner Game'.
(Now I can't wait to get my 'fix' of MW - by seeing a picture of Bellita's Custard! - Hurry up Bell, the suspense is killing me).
:-)
To put it another way, I had flashbacks of being summoned to the Headmaster's office at school...
:P
What a beautiful description of a marriage you present! I just hope it's achievable :-)
"Women used to be taught (by their mothers) how to read a man and use judgement on what should be brought to his attention and when. It seems to be a lost art."
Oh I so agree with you - it IS a lost art. However, nonetheless I know some women who have perfected this art over the years and practise it very well. They are rare though, as far as I can see. And it would seem that if marital life is decaying so much as the divorce statistics bear witness to, then they probably ARE indeed rare. That is not to say that there is a link necessarily between lost feminine arts and divorce. I am sure divorce is very much 'mutifactorial'.
Life nowadays is so different from life of old that that 'order' at home is now a luxury rather than an expected finding. If a woman is out working all day same as a man, well, then perhaps it is unfair for her to be expected to have food on the table when he gets home. If she is working part-time, or simply in a more flexible manner than he, then this is achievable, yes. I guess people should make choices that see this 'order' attainable. Often, that means that 'something has to give', i.e. financial hardship, but to be perfectly honest, I would rather suffer a little financial hardship and see my children properly raised (by me) one day than be rich and have them raised by strangers...
I think you have converted me! I do like your picture of the man who is able to 'absorb' (even if it is occasional) his wife's emotional drama. And you are right, a woman mustn't 'overdo' it. But my mantra was 'not to do it at all' which, I can probably relent, is not normal and is certainly not desirable in a healthy relationship. Maybe I was coming from a place of fear given my own peculiar collection of male relatives/entourage.
The 'fitness test' thing is perhaps more acceptable pre-marriage? I agree that within a marriage is not the time to be fitness testing. The whole point of 'fitness testing' is to see if a man is suitable for marriage. Once the deal is sealed, there is no more need for all that :-) And if a man has 'put a ring on it', he should be made to enjoy his decision to do so (as opposed to regretting it), so having that 'order' at home that you describe would be nice, yes. And frankly, it would be nice for the woman too...I think single mothers are stressed because they lack this 'order' that can be achieved in a successful marriage...
@ Bob,
No eyes and no stuffing, but Arf Arf lives on!
I am sure there is a lesson in there somewhere ;)
If the women you mention were 'fitness testing' during their marriages, then perhaps it makes sense that they lost their mariages...
I am a little confused... Cal in Titanic was the alpha? I thought it was Jack who was the alpha. Cal was the stable, dependable choice for Rose. Jack was the exciting, 'no-fixed plans' guy who got the tingles from Rose. I thought it was Cal who would be more likely to be labelled 'beta' by The Manosphere's definition...
I agree that the Greek letter system can get horribly confusing.I think we actually discussed that here once. I certainly remember Grasshopper and JV raising important points about this...
Maybe we should try harder to define exactly what we mean when we describe specific male archetypes without using Greek letters...but for those of us fluent in Manosphere-speak, I guess that would be like asking an Italian to speak without gesticulating with their hands!
@ Carnivore and Bob Wallace
I've seen the shit test irl. It exists. Over time, most women will dial down their shit tests as they get a feel for you. If she keeps doing this, it's either a sign of insecurity, or she's trying to feed an internal need at the expense of your relationship...in other words...something's deeply wrong.
A lot of "advice" in the Manosphere is B.S.
Macho posturing. Of the 3 examples, I've only seen Titanic, so I'll reference that. Cal is more omega than alpha. Contrast this with DiCaprio's character Jack who is a combination of alpha and beta. Jack is the right mix of the strengths of both, whereas Cal carries the worst traits of his archetypes.
A wife has to exercise good judgement and understand relative importance and timing of raising her issues. But when that time comes, a man thoroughly enjoys being a rock for his woman.
Good stuff. +1 for emphasis.
Ceer,
"Over time, most women will dial down their shit tests as they get a feel for you."
As a woman, I can confirm that this is true.
:-)
I notice you are much harsher about Cal than I was. I called him 'beta' but you label him 'omega'!
Also your comment reminds me of why we should really stop using the Greek letter system when describing men. I agree that Jack (who I call 'alpha') actually had a nice mix of both 'alpha' and 'beta' traits, and this is what made him appealing to Rose. My unfortunate habit was to call a man with both alpha and beta traits 'alpha' to denote the perfect man for me. Thus confusing everyone. And women like PVW will similarly describe a man with both alpha and beta traits as her 'beta', again confusing everyone.
:-)
Terminology, terminology, terminology.
Like 'location location location', it is very important!
... sometimes it's good to cry ...
@ Marellus,
Welcome to The Sanctuary!
Oh I can turn on the waterworks like an Olympic Champion, Marellus! (Or like Andy Murray recently and Roger Federer all the time lol).
The question is, in front of whom?
Hint: my cuddle bunnies are wet creatures...
Just kidding...
I have been known to cry (albeit occasionally heh!) at very inconvenient and unexpected occasions...
Once that first tear falls, there is no going back. The downpour will not be denied :-)
Embarrassing, but strangely relieving.
And, somehow the reaction I would normally expect from people in this kind of situation (shock, maybe even embarrassment, disgust?) doesn't occur. People are surprisingly understanding in these circumstances...
Maybe I should remember that more...
*sigh*
Sometimes the only thing a man can do when he sees his woman crying, is to make her sit between his legs, facing away from him, hold her tight, and whistle a silly little ditty in her ears ... a very silly little ditty in her ears ...
Marellus,
Hahahahaha!
You know what I instantly thought reading this comment of yours?
That you are trying to wrestle the 'weirdness' crown away from Bellita!
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we finally found the male equivalent of 'Weird Bell'.
Now since I like all things pecular (lol), and at the risk of taking everyone into a new 'twilight zone', please elaborate...
By 'ditty in her ears' do you mean 'sweet nothings'?!
Doesn't that depend on why she is crying?
I can't imagine that 'sweet nothings' might work if she just lost her grandfather, but I suppose they just might if she had a fight with her sister...
I dunno.
Are you men comfortable enough to really take on 'Crying woman Inc'?
You know it's dangerous territory, right?
:P
Don't say ST didn't warn you...
@ Space Traveler
The woman's advice to you was horrible and you are right to ignore it. From what I've learned of the history of dating and the SMP, this is the EXACT kind of advice still lingering from The Rules that popularized in women in the 1990's, especially in NYC
If you don't know The Rules, its basically super combat dating 101. It's a ton of women projecting that the same masculine traits they find attractive in men are something they should use to attract men. And a lot of it is also just women being catty, entitled bitches.
As for being vulnerable.... I think it depends on what kind of vulnerability you're showing if its to a guy you're attracted to. In my blue pill days I'd have rushed to comfort the woman. These days I'd search for a quick way to relate to what she's saying and then lighten the mood with some humor or something. Basically avoid being an emotional tampon.
If you're doing this to guys you're attracted to, and they respond by knee jerk comforting, it could be a possible reason why you're single for two reasons. Either you start seeing them as a close friend that you don't want to escalate to a sexual relationship or they start to feel like you're taking advantage of their friendship/draining their energy. Both of these reactions are natural from my experience being a beta and I've had both happen; where I got super friend zoned and was ok with it (not any more) or I just called it off as something I didn't need.
Now, what I would say is GOOD vulnerability is when you open up with someone you're already solidly sexually attracted too, especially if in a relationship already. It triggers that knee jerk protective reaction in most men, which is usually a good thing. We LIKE protecting and providing for women we care about, its a part of our nature.
Also, if you're dating a quality Alpha guy that cares about you, he'll find ways to comfort you while making you laugh, calling you out on your BS if you're upset for a silly reason, or relating and giving you advice. Hell, sometimes we're able to pull off all three at once.
You just have to be able to recognize when we're too stressed out, in our own world and trying to get grounded. We can easily come back to the house without a firm footing in the world we've created with our woman. At that point, we need your help in first grounding us in a safe environment we're comfortable with. When we're feeling more solid, then we're able to assist you with any of your difficulties as well.
Wow. That got a LOT longer than I intended. Hope it helps
- Leap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7GeZ3YmONw
"Are you men comfortable enough to really take on 'Crying woman Inc'?
You know it's dangerous territory, right?"
I am.
For any males, single or otherwise in the audience, maybe this will help. The times where I'm faced with a really, really upset woman that feels like someone has wrong them, this is how I usually respond.
With righteous anger. (use it sparingly)
I'm normally a very chill, relaxed guy. But there have been three times I've been dealing with women that feel wronged in life that this has not only made them feel amazing, but has led to some really, really good... intimate, times.
I rip into whoever/whatever messed with the woman like crazy. Completely discredit them, insult them, everything. While doing so I also compliment the woman, show her my respect, and question how someone could do that to them. Anger and passion in my voice, with body language that gets more intimate as I switch from passionate anger to passion.
Hard to describe, and each time it's happened naturally rather than something I thought about.
But now that I know game I understand why it works. It triggers the alpha, bad, strong boy that's willing to go up against someone she holds in esteem (or it wouldn't have mattered to her what they thought), while also being the solid, protective beta in all the healthy ways.
Three times I've been literally jumped by the woman when I was done, without even meaning to (though I was escalating physically without even thinking about it).
And I know it's worked to make many others feel a whole lot better, even if I didn't get any physical reward as such, I felt good for putting a better person in the world.
Plus, righteous anger is a wonderfully powerful and intoxicating emotion to have. I don't know if women can experience it... but guys, if you can, certainly don't suppress it. I've never felt more like a man than after such episodes.
- Leap
Oh, and if righteous anger is unattainable for you. Humor. Always, always humor.
@ Leap,
"The woman's advice to you was horrible and you are right to ignore it."
Oh yes, that realisation was already forming in my brain as she was speaking to me. I have learned to take what this particular woman has to say with a pinch of salt...
I hate to think how much I would have been 'taken in' by her in my Blue Pill days. I shudder to think...
"...this is the EXACT kind of advice still lingering from The Rules..."
Oh Leap, don't get me started on The Rules!
(Too late, you opened the Pandora's box already...).
I have a copy of The Rules sitting on my bookshelf right now as I write. I'll tell you all about my own personal encounter with this book.
I was very attracted to The Rules and its message when I was younger, yes. Predictably, what atrracted me primarily was its 'Don't sleep with men on the first date' message, because, well,
1. I am a Catholic woman and
2. Even removing religion from the picture, this sort of thing appeals to me.
Now, I could never understand why I had such a distinct feeling of 'cognitive dissonance' with this book. As I have alluded to before, I (and I suspect a lot of women) just don't do very well with cognitive dissonance. I will do anything nowadays to find its source and eliminate it if I get this feeling!
The problem with The Rules, is that its other advice is very much waht I come to recognise now as 'American Woman' fem-centric entitlement which is very closely allied with Feminism Inc. I think it was VERY unfortunate that its good message of chastity for women was mixed in with all the other anti-feminine stuff. If you don't know what I mean might I point out that I never had this feeling with Helen Andelin's 'Fascinating Womanhood' even though the latter is at times almost risible because of its oldfashioned ideas in places...
Once I got over the notion that chastity does not alone a great relationship make, I had to ditch The Rules as my dating guide. But before I completely ditched it, I did try some of its (what I now see as) manipulative strategies, like not accepting dates for Saturday if the offer came after Wednesday evening.
Guess what - it didn't work out for me :-)
Not only was it impractical, I was also sceptical about it working in the first place...so perhaps I jinxed myself...I dunno.
But the point is, The Rules may have applied only to a specific cultural set-up (American upper middle class women, maybe?) and not to me...
But I was baited by just one of its messages, and found I couldn't stomach the rest.
So I had to be ultra specific in applying its advice.
But all said and done, The Rules is perhaps still a better choice than a lot of other relationship/dating books out there, bizarre as this may sound!
I must say, your analysis of good and bad vulnerability is one of the best I have heard. Very clearly presented too.
And, I have experienced them both!
So I know you are correct, at least where I am concerned.
I just wish I had the powers of deduction then as I do now. Life would have been much simpler for me lol.
Merci for your insights...
@ Leap,
Re righteous anger...
I have never been the recipient of this 'technique' but I have seen it in action!
One of my male relatives is a ruthless natural-born alpha (read: cad lol) and he is a master of this sort of thing...
The only reason he is a 'lovable rogue' to me is that we are related and I have no choice :-)
Is this part of 'Dark Game' that Susan Walsh often refers to in her posts? (or perhaps it is only Dark Game if it is used against a woman rather than for her as in your case?
Well, somehow I am glad I have never been the recipient of this, because if it makes a woman want to 'jump' a man...
Hahahahaha!
But I see how it makes a woman feel 'special', yes (when done with good intent in mind). As auditory creatures, some of us would fall heavily for this kind of thing :-)
I have however been subject to the 'humour' thing.
It works very well for me :-)
Nothing dries my tears faster than humour...
Maybe the 'righteous anger' thing might come to me one day in the future?
It would be nice to gauge my reaction to it...
Erm...just for 'research purposes', you understand...
*wide grin*
@ Marellus,
Um, explain it to me like I am a 6 year old...
What is the video supposed to convey to me?
Sorry, I missed the punchline...
:-)
Hi, ST, PVW here. I read your friend's statement as going a bit overboard regarding the question of vulnerability.
As for cuddly stuffed animals, no judgment. I have stuffed animals and dolls, but they are merely ornamental, ie., I have some dolls that demonstrate my needlework skills; they sit on the mantle in the living room, to be showed off when guests visit (tee hee).
Others are significant for other reasons--an Episcopal teddy bear similar to the ones I have gotten for children when they were baptized. Others wear scraps from clothes I once sewed, as a reminder of things I have enjoyed doing. Others are souvenirs from travels or gifts.
As for vulnerability, it is not surprising that in this world of combat dating, both men as well as women do not want to show any vulnerability, and the perception is that showing vulnerability can contribute to a partner being disgusted.
So rather than recognize vulnerability, some remain overly superficial and might reject as a matter of course because they don't want to deal with the prospect of vulnerability, they become overly hardened.
Moving onto vulnerability and spouses, it is impossible, in my mind, to have a true in-depth relationship with a spouse if one can't be vulnerable.
It comes with intimacy. Your spouse is the first person who is part of your life to hear about the good things and the bad, to hear about ideas, plans, hopes, dreams and fears.
If I were talking to your 21 year old self, I would say that thinking about a spouse as only the person you have children with and go to Mass with misses the full spectrum of intimacy and companionship, something akin to arranged marriages under the elite model many Europeans had generations ago.
They are married only for the mechanics of raising a family, ie., having children and going to church--fulfilling those public obligations, but without any emotional bonding.
However, vulnerability can only be cultivated over time and not instantaneoulsy, as trust and intimacy develops. It is a gamble, but when it works well, it is foundational for a good marriage.
ST, PVW here, further thoughts regarding vulnerability as a means of bonding and building intimacy.
The husband and I were visiting the in-laws yesterday, a fun afternoon doing target practice with lunch afterwards.
While we were having lunch, one of the brothers in law spoke about how they always wind up tossing ripened bananas because they don't know how to make banana bread, and that they were going to look for a recipe.
The wife spoke about a painful topic, that she never learned how to bake because when she was a teenager, her dad was a crazy control freak.
The one time she tried, he hovered over her and criticized her every move, berating her for little things like spilling some flour on the counter. So she never tried again.
I never had that experience; my dad treated the domestic sphere as my mom's domain. He had his, in that he was the one to show me how to do things which were more in the masculine realm, identifying types of screwdrivers, knowing how to use a hammer, etc.
My means of commiserating and defusing what was a vulnerable moment was to ask the sister in law for her baking equipment and ingredients, to show them how to make the banana bread they wished they knew how to make, contributing to a long history I have had with them in building a good in-law relationship: intimacy, friendship, vulnerability.
@ST
I've e-mailed you a picture of Custard. :)
I'll be back later, when I have more time to rejoin the discussion properly.
ST
Um, explain it to me like I am a 6 year old...
What is the video supposed to convey to me?
Sorry, I missed the punchline...
:-)
Now Now ST, that wouldn't be a good idea ... because there's all these big furry monsters in that story, my darling ... and they're wearing pink pantaloons, my darling ... and their hair looks like that of Prince Charles after Camilla washed it for him, my darling ... and they listen to Bach Symphonies on ghetto-blasters from the 1980's, my darling ...
... and once you hear this story, they're gonna come for you, my darling ... and they're gonna paint your nails a very nasty orange colour, my darling... and they're gonna dye your pink, my darling ... and then these big furry monsters are gonna make you stare at a photograph, of George W Bush, for a very very very long time, my darling ...
... and then those monsters are gonna take you to Buckingham Palace, my darling ... while you have to listen to Bach, my darling ... and there you will meet Prince Charles and the Queen, my darling ... and then those monsters are gonna tell you to stare at Prince Charles' hair, my darling ...
... and then you'll have no choice but to sing "God Save The Queen" to the Queen, my darling ... and the Queen will then make you drink some of her Earl Grey Tea, my darling ...
... so my darling, you hold on to fluffy puffy and tough Mr Snuggles ... and I promise you that those big furry monsters will go away ...
... and if those big furry monsters still want to come to you, I'll chase them away, my darling ... now go sleepy sleeps, my darling ...
@ Space Traveler
"Well, somehow I am glad I have never been the recipient of this, because if it makes a woman want to 'jump' a man..."
Only a few times was I actually jumped. Maybe half? It's not something I've done often, and I don't know if the thing can be faked or not. Plus its very specific in where/when it is applicable. Like, tears/near tears stages of a break down.
But I certainly wasn't sad about the results ;)
But yeah, otherwise humor has worked well for me. It doesn't really get a guy anywhere other than avoiding a friend zone pit trap. But that's better than nothing.
- Leap
@ Space Traveler
And no, its not 'dark game' as HUS calls it, the righteous anger that is. Dark game, as she calls it, is always selfish in it's use.
But, seeing that as far as I can tell, Susan's definitions of selfish vary drastically from my own definitions, its hard for me to really describe what 'dark game' is, nor do I really wish to try.
All I care about is being successful in my life pursuits and attracting women to enjoy it with as I go through life.
"Cal in Titanic was the alpha? I thought it was Jack who was the alpha"
I read that article. It proves my point. People don't even know what an Alpha or a Beta is. Jack? Cal?
Is an Alpha someone who is popular and gets a lot of women? What about Ted Nugent? He's always babbling about how he is an Alpha. Some of my friends know him. They don't like him and he has no male friends. He has nothing but money.
My experience has been a lot of so-called Alphas are cads. I've seen them ruin their lives. I know one who's slept with 100 women. Now he's consumed with regret, having ended up with almost nothing.
Alphas cads show all of the Seven Deadly Sins. A good Alpha would show the Seven Heavenly Virtues.
These problems were discussed and figured out a few thousands years ao. Most people just don't know it
@ Leap,
"All I care about is being successful in my life pursuits and attracting women to enjoy it with as I go through life."
That's a beautiful personal motto...
Amen to that.
And if you replace 'women' with 'one man' it could be my personal motto as well.
Bellita,
Hahahahahaha!
Marellus,
Hahahahahaha!
Bellita has definitely lost the 'weird' crown I see.
You would be tough to beat, mate!
:-)
@ PVW,
Actually, you and Carnivore and Leap are saying the same thing, I think...
And I am horrified to learn that whilst I am criticising someone else (the woman who gave me the advice) for not wanting me to show vulnerability by hugging my cuddly toy in front of a man, I realise that I actually have personal issues about showing certain other types of vulnerability, as a function of my intrinsic personality.
But you guys are right . Timing really is everything! Good vulnerability as Leap calls it cannot be 'forced'. You either feel it or you don't, and it arrives at appropriate times.
I enjoyed reading how you dealt with yur sister-in-law. That's sweet how you were able to make her comfortable talking about her father's treatment of her...
I guess whilst my 21 year old self was more 'logical' than I am today, I actually prefer the more 'feminine' me. I see what you mean about my 21 year old self not really understanding what marriage is all about...thankfully I do now! Imagine if I had had the misfortune of getting married at 21...I'd be divorced by now, I think... I just did not have the maturity required for marriage back then...it's the Truth.
"I never had that experience; my dad treated the domestic sphere as my mom's domain."
Sensible man, your Dad!
"As for vulnerability, it is not surprising that in this world of combat dating, both men as well as women do not want to show any vulnerability, and the perception is that showing vulnerability can contribute to a partner being disgusted."
Yes I agree this is the case for many of us who have lost our way a bit...
"So rather than recognize vulnerability, some remain overly superficial and might reject as a matter of course because they don't want to deal with the prospect of vulnerability, they become overly hardened."
I know you are not adressing me specifically here...
But I just wanted to say, this is not quite my specific issue...
"However, vulnerability can only be cultivated over time and not instantaneoulsy, as trust and intimacy develops. It is a gamble..."
I am actually not afraid of taking a gamble, honestly! So there is hope for me yet :-)
"I have stuffed animals and dolls..."
Yes but do you sleep with any...and if so, does Mr. PVW object?
ST
Hahahahahaha!
Bellita has definitely lost the 'weird' crown I see.
You would be tough to beat, mate!
:-)
You do realize that Bellita is feeling very upset about this, don't you ?
I happen to admire this woman greatly ...
... so don't worry Bellita, I'll take care of Spacetraveller for you ...
I was about to demand . . . er, to suggest . . . that the winner of the Weird Crown be picked by an impartial group of judges.
Then I visited Marellus' blog and realized that ST was right. There is no contest here.
All hail the Marellus I, King of Weird! :P
ST:
I know you are not adressing me specifically here...
But I just wanted to say, this is not quite my specific issue...
PVW: I'm glad to hear!
PVW: "However, vulnerability can only be cultivated over time and not instantaneoulsy, as trust and intimacy develops. It is a gamble..."
ST: I am actually not afraid of taking a gamble, honestly! So there is hope for me yet :-)
PVW: I didn't think you were, I wasn't imagining you had an issue with that.
PVW: "I have stuffed animals and dolls..."
ST: Yes but do you sleep with any...and if so, does Mr. PVW object?
PVW: I don't think I ever did, even as a girl, I think I kept all the dolls and such in a specific place, to be taken out when I wanted to play. Nowadays, as I mentioned, the stuffed animals and dolls are purely ornamental, and I don't sleep with any of them. They do look down at me and Mr. PVW from their shelf while we are sleeping, though!
Bellita,
!!!
King Marellus makes us seem normal. That can only be a good thing, no?
Hahahaha!
@ PVW,
You on the other hand make me and Bell seem like freaks :-)
You never slept with a stuffed animal? Really? Never?
That's amazing!
Kudos...
Even now, on a stormy night I would be lost without my furry friends...
Um, is that TMI?
I had to give up on ornamental stuffed animals. When my older two were small, they'd toss them around and the like. Then I bought a pug. (a breed known for adoring stuffed animals.) And now, with a 2 year old.....
ST, When you have a family, you might need to put them up high for a few years, lol.
JV,
I remember once, a friend's child tore off the nose of one of my cuddle bunnies...I was enraged!
And I wonder now if I might have that same reaction if one of my own future kids did that to my beloved cuddle bunny...
You might not believe how much I love my cudle bunny... he and I have been through so much drama together...
:-)
I would hope I would prioritise my kids over a stuffed animal, but erm, I am not trusting myself to be quite so normal, ya know?
I'll see how I do when I get there...
:P
@ Bob Wallace
Stop projecting. Just because you can't figure out an alpha from a beta doesn't mean other people cannot.
In case you've never come across the traits list:
Alpha traits include:
-- leadership
-- independent
-- stubborn
-- savvy
-- aloof
-- charismatic
Beta traits include:
-- caring
-- intelligent
-- cooperative
-- hard working
-- loyal
Omega traits include:
-- lazy
-- stupid
-- poor physical shape
-- socially awkward
-- dependent
The list is not exhaustive. Those are just some major points that come to mind right now.
Keep in mind, people are...well, people. They'll surprise in a lot of ways. When dealing with predicting people, not even science can be very exact. It should come as no surprise to you that real people will often take an incomplete set of traits or even *gasp* take traits from multiple archetypes. This doesn't mean the analysis is invalid, it just means people are doing what they do best.
My experience has been a lot of so-called Alphas are cads. I've seen them ruin their lives. I know one who's slept with 100 women. Now he's consumed with regret, having ended up with almost nothing.
I'm not surprised. In our society it's pretty much taboo to teach men to act in a typically manly way. I fully agree that cads will tend to experience problems in the form of disease, child support theft, and loosing their ability to really pair bond with a woman. But the sad fact is that women are taught to follow the tingle. Couple this with young women's ignorance of how to discern, and you have a situation where cads are valued higher than successful...nice but boring guys.
BTW, don't use your excessive literalism to read into my previous paragraph that I believe alpha > beta or that all women hate beta. I've seen first hand women who fall for high beta guys. My point was a comment about the general trend of relative value.
Oh boy, I know a few guys who call themselves omegas who would disagree with the lazy and stupid tags, lol. (Techies)
Would it be too controversial to explore patriarchal alpha? King A (Mathew King) is a commenter on a few blogs who brings this arch type to mind. But he seems to be revered or reviled for his opinions. I haven't read enough of his comments to make a firm opinion yet. But some of his comments have made an impression on me. Bill's comment made me think of him.
whoops.
Correction. BOB'S not Bill's comment made me think of this.
"Stop projecting. Just because you can't figure out an alpha from a beta doesn't mean other people cannot."
There is no objective definition of an Alpha or a Beta. It's personal opinion, nothing else.
I'm about 80% a Sigma. That's a C- in my book.
My opinion, and my experience, is that a lot of Alphas are cads.
One of the reasons that these definitions don't work very well is that most guys are going to insist they are Alphas or Sigmas, even when they clearly are not.
ST:
@ PVW,
You on the other hand make me and Bell seem like freaks :-)
You never slept with a stuffed animal? Really? Never?
That's amazing!
Kudos...
Even now, on a stormy night I would be lost without my furry friends...
Um, is that TMI?
PVW:
Not as far as I can recall, and my memories of my childhood go back to around age 5 or so. When I was worried or afraid at night, I would sleep with a nighlight on and the covers over my head.
Yet, it was not unusual in that I knew older girls, including relatives, who had their stuffed animals on their beds when they were teenagers and young adults. Heck, my firmly middle-aged cousin still has stuffed animals on her bed that she bought when she was a teenager!
As for me, even though I keep them around, it just seemed more practical not to keep them on the bed; I'd just have to take them off the bed and put them somewhere else when I went to sleep.
I forgot to mention that since Alpha means "first" and Beta "second" Beta is always going to be an insult whether used by men or women. Any man who uses "Beta" to describe himself is putting himself down, for whatever reason.
These issues were discussed hundreds of years ago. The Manly Virtues, being a good father, patriarchy...people in the past were as smart as we are, if not sometimes smarter. And they didn't have to use terms such as Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Omega...words that don't describe the "soft science" of the Manosphere. This is't mathematics of physics that we're dealing with here.
sorry i'm late to the party....
ST-
you know what i do for a living. there is NOTHING wrong with a woman having a "cuddle bunny" to relieve emotional stress. if a guiy had one....i'd kind think it's off, but whatev's.
being vunerable makes you human. so if a woman is hiding that from me, it just shows me she's not all that into me...or "us". guess what, i'm not perfect, hell i've writen about some VERY personal business on my site.
the girl i'm talking to now, told me something VERY personal. and she thought i've think badly of her for what she was hiding- but guess what....
it didn't scare me off. and i was glad she shared with me her "secrets". being vunerable brings you closer, not further.
I look forward to reading more of your articles and posts in the future, so I've bookmarked your blog. When I see good quality content, I like to share it with others. So I've created a backlink to your site. Thank you!…
Danny,
"...if a guiy had one....i'd kind think it's off, but whatev's."
The second cuddle bunny I have was given to me by a visitor to my workplace. He handed out several of those cuddle bunnies to several of us at work, and it was usually the women who were interested in them, either for themselves or their kids. My boss took one for his 14 year old son...and promptly got funny looks from the rest of us. Hahahaha!
Now if it had been for a 5 year old son, or a 25 year old daughter, we wouldn't have batted an eyelid. The very fact that it was for a 14 year old boy freaked us out. How's that for a double standard!
I understand what you mean about sharing something personal with a loved one. The key is being sure you are at that 'place' where you can share something of yourself with the other person, i.e. show to them in all its gory details, your 'undeclarables'. I think most people deep down actually want to be able to do this...it is just being sure they are at the right time and place and with the right person to do it which is the problem.
"it didn't scare me off. and i was glad she shared with me her "secrets". "
Reading your comment, my first impulse was to respond, 'well I can point you in the direction of so many other people who would disagree and say that when they shared their intimate secrets with someone, they were immediately (or sometimes in a delayed fashion) rejected!'
But, thinking about this more deeply, were these people prudent in with whom or what they shared? Were they emotionally clingy people who told someone on the first date that they were closet cross-dressers?
Mind you, there are, among them also people who were still rejected after sharing something important with someone with whom they were close. It's tough out there...
Another related topic here is that nowadays, sexual intimacy precedes emotional intimacy. Now I think it makes no difference to men (do correct me if I am wrong about this!). But as a woman I can tell you that it would be much better to be sexually intimate with someone with whom one is already emotionally intimate. I think that is a major difference between men and women...
@ PVW,
You're way too normal lol.
I'll still have my cuddle bunnies in the retirement home, I think :-)
@ Anonymous at 11:57PM,
Thank you for your kind words...!
@ Bob,
"I forgot to mention that since Alpha means "first" and Beta "second" Beta is always going to be an insult whether used by men or women. Any man who uses "Beta" to describe himself is putting himself down, for whatever reason."
I realise that this conversation between you and Ceer is a bit 'male locker room' so in the main, I shall steer clear :-)
But if I may give a female perspective on this specific comment of yours...
Many women like PVW like to call their men 'beta' purely because (I think!) they associate 'alpha' with 'cad'. So in this sense, 'beta' is NOT an insult! Quite the opposite. I personally use 'alpha' to mean 'Top/First/King/Supreme' etc. because I choose not to see the negative connortations of 'alpha' i.e. cad in specific men or a specific man. Occasionally though, I might relent and call a spade a spade. I recently described a male relative as a 'cad' in this very thread (that was my brother, by the way!) because his behaviour really IS that bad sometimes...and as his sister, even I cannot call him an angel. That's not to say I love him any less, of course, but if I had the opportunity to warn women off him, I would (and attract his wrath, of course...).
Another good example of how men are not putting themselves down when they call themselves 'beta' is right under our noses!
When 'Leap of Beta' first commented here, I remarked (jokingly) that he should call himself 'Leap of Alpha'. He basically declined and explained to me why 'beta' was just fine. I am pretty sure he doesn't think of himself as a lesser man for calling himself 'beta'...
But anyhow, I am just making your point, aren't I, which is, that this Greek letter system is based on nothing more than personal opinions!
See? I ain't logical - I start off trying to refute one of your arguments and end up agreeing with you on another :-)
... which means you never read the Whitlaw Lectures on my blog, Bellita.
when i was younger i would have said it doesn't matter. now that i'm older i know more important. all i need to know in the begining of something new is IF we're sexually compatible. i.e- can her libido keep up with mine. if she's a "once or twice a week" girl, that could be problematic.
i wrote about a girl i used to work with who's libido was on par with mine, but she WASN'T a slut. no bf, no sex.
now oce i learn we're sexually compatible, i move on to the more important issue- learning who and what she is as a person.
if the sex is good, it's 10% of the relationship, if the sex is bad- it's 90% of the relationship.
Danny,
"...if she's a "once or twice a week" girl, that could be problematic."
*gulp*
Bell might remember a certain Woody Allen film anecdote...
:-)
"...all i need to know in the begining of something new is IF we're sexually compatible."
I was going to say, 'women want to know first if a man is 'emotinally compatible' but then I realise this doesn't make sense...I think a woman also wants to know she is sexually compatible with a man first, but will not necessarily want to 'test it out' in practice first. At least 'good sense' will dictate to her that it wouldn't be a good idea early on...
Danny, question: can you 'guess' a woman's compatibility without first 'testing her out'?
I ask this because it is usually clear if a woman is sexually into you even if she does not actually 'follow through', no?
Is this 'fanciful thinking' on my part?
King Marellus makes us seem normal. That can only be a good thing, no?
Hahahaha!
ST, if you and I were still at school, I'd smuggle a pink perfumed letter into your suitcase, and that letter would contain the sweetest loveliest poetry that my fevered mind could dream up.
And that letter would conclude thus :
... now please take good care of the bullfrog that's sleeping sweetly underneath that big thick textbook of yours.
@ST…
Sounds like you got the “b-tch shield” from your friend.
You felt encouraged to share and but were dissuaded from doing so again without being out rightly rejected. You even got, umm, helpful advice in the process.
I know how you feel. I’ve got the b-tch shield from women for different reasons. I’ve always hated it and always thought they could have got their point across in kinder ways.
Given this perspective, how would you have preferred your friend respond other than the way she did?
Grasshopper
King Marellus,
"And that letter would conclude thus :
... now please take good care of the bullfrog that's sleeping sweetly underneath that big thick textbook of yours."
And then on reading that letter in the middle of geography class, I would jump up and scream and said bullfrog would leap up from under my thick textbook and the other kids in the class would be falling about laughing their heads off, and Miss. Smith our teacher would send us both out of the class and later put us in detention where we would have to write this line 1000 times:
"I shall pay attention in class and not disrupt lessons because I want to get an education and be a worthy member of society one day."
And then when I get home, I shall hug my cuddle bunny and tell him all about that horrible boy in class who put a frog in my textbook...(but who I might have a secret crush on...).
Hahahahaha!
Your Majesty King Marellus, please don't drag me into your Kingdom of Weird. I am in enough trouble as it is!
:-)
Ok, so I’m jumping into this thing waaaayyyy too late, but I just found it, that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it. I did not read all the comments yet when writing this, as my intent is to address the original post, so I may repeat some things that were covered.
First, thank you, ST, for popping over to my site and leading back to a place where I found fun and intelligent conversation, but then forgot where I’d been when I read it. Thank you also for adding me to the blogroll.
I’ve learned through the years that women are the ones that I must be very careful about showing my vulnerable side. I still occasionally fall into doing so and get a refresher of why I shouldn’t. Females have always, always hurt me the most in life. The very few times that I was hurt by a male they were young, late teens or about twenty, before they figured it out. But beyond that age, a man shoots straight. No game playing. Or it used to be much more than they have been forced to do in today’s culture; even then they know how to compartmentalize easily and use it only when they need to. I always thought I was an open book with D during all our years together, but recently realized that I had some major walls up between us. I believe this is what kept our relationship from being as deep as it could be. I have some thoughts about this that I’d like to post on and flesh out some more but as I made myself more vulnerable to D and submitted myself to him (Egads, that awful ‘s’ word) our relationship has gone much deeper. My thoughts are that, as women, we learn by from other women that we cannot trust. We then project that lack of trust onto men but it multiplies because men are wired different and we don’t understand how they think so we feel we need to distrust them more than females who we do understand but we didn’t trust to begin with. Got that? A woman who really looks at herself, honestly examines her own thought process will see that we sometimes think like a mouse going through a maze. It’s not necessarily a bad thing but it is something that needs a little assistance staying on track. Now I’m going to change animal analogies to make my point stronger. A horse untamed is beautiful, yes, but left in the wild a horse will accomplish what? Not much other than eating, relieving and moving from place to place. I know many women who would cringe at being compared to a horse, but I see a horse as one of the most graceful, beautiful, majestic creatures on this earth. Take that horse, that strong creature and tame it, brush its coat and mane, train it. With proper care the beauty of a horse is brought to fullness as well as its strength. During the course of training a horse gives in, submits to its trainer, trusting the trainer to care for it and making itself vulnerable. I know that someone could and very well may take my analogy and rip it apart, but I stand by it.
To be continued….
As a woman, I have put my trust in D, made myself vulnerable and in his care my best comes through. I look at pictures of women from decades ago and their beauty shines from within their depths. Compare to pictures of women today, even the most beautiful women, and that same beauty is absent; there is nothing from inside only what’s painted or dressed on the outside. They are still as the ponies in the wild, beautiful to look at but don’t get near them, they will kick you. The will run from you and stay elusive. They don’t give themselves and they never move beyond the pasture. Their beauty, strength and potential will never come into fullness because they will not become vulnerable. We’ve been hurt by members of the herd and yet we listen when members of that same herd tell us we cannot trust men. Stay away from them because they will hurt you and oppress you is what we are told. Even when we do get near them we fight and will not allow ourselves to be tamed. We were indoctrinated all our lives to believe that this is a bad thing. I fought it also. I only gave in to my relationship a certain amount, only what I was comfortable with, what I was told was an acceptable amount of giving. I kicked at D. I could have left and went back to the pasture hoping that someone else was out there who would be stronger and bring out my inner beauty. Instead I opened my eyes and honestly evaluated D. I made myself vulnerable to him. Yes, we’ve been together a lot of years but he is pretty much the same now that he was in the beginning, same traits and qualities; just what attracted me to marry him in the first place. Being vulnerable to him gave me peace. Being vulnerable to him has brought me contentment in my relationship with D.
I didn’t realize how lengthy this had gotten until I tried to post, but I felt it all important. If I offend some with my analogies then you are completely missing the point and it will not be worth a debate. ST wrote about being vulnerable to a man; my advice is that without it, you will never have the foundation to build something of worth and it will always be on the verge of crumbling. I will close with a quote I have on my laptop that I see every time I open it up. I don’t know who to attribute credit to for it or remember where I got it from, but here it is:
Love is giving him the power to destroy you, and trusting him not to.
No, I can gauge whether we're sexually compatible by getting to know her.
Most women worth dating will talk about sex openly without doing it. The way I see it, if you can't discuss sex you shouldn't be having it.
I want to know her moral views, physical needs....etc. but I understand your (as a woman) need to build an emotional connection first. Which is why I don't push the sexual side early on. I focus more on whether or not I LIKE being with her.
"See? I ain't logical - I start off trying to refute one of your arguments and end up agreeing with you on another :-)"
There is an old saying: "the map is not the terrain." Words are not reality. The ideas in our heads are just concepts we use to describe reality. That is why I have a problem with concepts like Alpha, Beta,etc.
They're not hard science like math or physics. They're soft science, like sociology, which means each person's definition is pretty much personal opinion and is not objective.
I much prefer to describe people as selfish, lustful, envious, greedy, etc. The Seven Deadly Sins pretty much describes all the bad characteristics of people ("sin" actually means "to miss the mark") and is better than saying, "He's an Alpha..but he's a Alpha cad" and and then go into a long explanation.
;See? I ain't logical - I start off trying to refute one of your arguments and end up agreeing with you on another :-)
ST
...and Miss. Smith our teacher would send us both out of the class and later put us in detention where ...
You and me in a detention room ? ST, my looooovellllly little lilac blossom from the Plains of Patagonia ... that would never have happened, and do you know why ?
It all started when I was only eight years old ... with one end of a string tied to a tooth of mine ... and the other end tied to a door handle ... and there was this beyeeewtiful woman that was telling me how it's not gonna hurt ... on our third attempt ...
And that day I learned something that has stood me in good stead for the rest of my life ... and what is it, that I learned, you may ask ?
Why ST, that it's never a good idea, to be alone in a room with a woman ... she might just slam the door shut ...
@Jacquie
Love is giving him the power to destroy you, and trusting him not to.
Damn, I wish I had written this.
@Marellus
... which means you never read the Whitlaw Lectures on my blog, Bellita.
I don't think I'm ready for those yet. I'm still getting over the lasagna. Hahahaha!
@Jacqui
Hi! I love your horse analogy. :)
Interestingly, I read something just like it in a novel . . . Two men, one of whom was about to propose marriage to his girlfriend, were talking and the other one likened marriage to being a domesticated racehorse rather than a wild horse free to run the plains. The man about to propose replied, "Did it ever occur to you that a horse might enjoy being ridden?"
It's not the most flattering metaphor when applied to either men or women, but I think it works very well in either case.
Now it occurs to me was that the very first time I read the "taming" analogy applied to love, it was in a classic children's story. Brownie points to the first person who knows what I mean! ;)
@ Grasshopper,
Knowing her, she would never advise a woman to be 'feminine' in dealing with men, because she herself doesn't really know how. In this, she is very much a product of the current environment. In many ways I don't blame her.
What I would have expected from her (and wanted) was for her to simply acknowledge my emotions and my reaction to it, cuddle bunny-hugging and all.
In fact in a similar scenario with another female friend (actually, the same one who talked about doing all those activities with her future husband), her response was, 'you big baby, you' and hit me on the head with her slipper!
A world of difference between the two...I felt much better with the latter response than with the first.
@ Jacquie,
A very special welcome to you to The Sanctuary!
How pleased I am that you commented! Excellent to have comments from married women. If I say something outrageous, you can set me straight :-)
"I still occasionally fall into doing so and get a refresher of why I shouldn’t."
Lol. You put your hand in fire...again?
:-)
"My thoughts are that, as women, we learn by from other women that we cannot trust. We then project that lack of trust onto men but it multiplies because men are wired different and we don’t understand how they think so we feel we need to distrust them more than females who we do understand but we didn’t trust to begin with. Got that?"
For sure, got that. My Red Pill moment came when I finally understood this. I thought I had suddenly gone crazy when the evidence about this was made clear to me in no uncertain terms. I suddenly understood female nature for what it was, and knew that I would have to be very careful not to fall into this same trap one day. This is not to criticise myself or other women. I just observed what could go wrong with womanhood...
I can't tell you how liberating it was to finally 'get' this.
I am so glad you made this point. Makes me glad to learn I am not the only one who came to this realisation...
"But beyond that age, a man shoots straight."
I know what you mean here. In trying to explain this, I usually say 'men are simple' in my own confusing parlance. But what I really mean is, 'men are straightforward'.
But your term 'shoots straight' is an even better way of putting it.
"...but I see a horse as one of the most graceful, beautiful, majestic creatures on this earth."
So does Bellita! She calls them 'Custard'.
Hahahahaha!
"Love is giving him the power to destroy you, and trusting him not to."
Scary and beautiful at the same time...
(But more beautiful than scary...)
@ Danny,
"The way I see it, if you can't discuss sex you shouldn't be having it."
Yes. Actually this is a very good policy. Agreed!
@ Bob,
"the map is not the terrain."
True. However good and accurate it may be...
Bell,
"Hi! I love your horse analogy. :)"
I knew you would like Jacquie's horse analogy!
:-)
"Now it occurs to me was that the very first time I read the "taming" analogy applied to love, it was in a classic children's story. Brownie points to the first person who knows what I mean!"
Can I take a guess?
I have 2 possibilities: 'The taming of the shrew' (but it is not a children's story) and 'Black Beauty'.
King Marellus Weirdus,
No no no! Miss. Smith stayed in the room to ensure that we didn't get up to no good...
My own tooth fell out the day before..I offered it to you to replace the one that had been so painfully extracted by your torturer...but you wouldn't have it...so I gave it to my tooth fairy instead...
I think I know which children's story Bell it speaking of. It is one which I have never read but do know the premise of the story (and it is on my reading list because of this). So I would have to guess is it The Little Prince?
@ ST
"When 'Leap of Beta' first commented here, I remarked (jokingly) that he should call himself 'Leap of Alpha'. He basically declined and explained to me why 'beta' was just fine. I am pretty sure he doesn't think of himself as a lesser man for calling himself 'beta'..."
No, I don't. But I'm a person that doesn't get insulted when you call a spade a spade.
If I don't acknowledge my beta upbringing, behaviors, and traits - how can I ever hope to change them? They don't feel right, or natural too me. They simply feel safe and comfortable in their inevitable and slow course to long term misery.
I also think the value judgments are silly. People should pursue happiness on their own terms, intelligently evaluating what the consequences of their choices will be. Before I got banned from HUS, I got into arguments with Susan about what she considered "Moral issues" that I considered her simply framing those issues to suite her needs by what she declared to be moral while not listening to what men have to think about it.
Complicated, no?
As for this:
Alpha traits include:
-- leadership
-- independent
-- stubborn
-- savvy
-- aloof
-- charismatic
Beta traits include:
-- caring
-- intelligent
-- cooperative
-- hard working
-- loyal"
I Disagree. An Alpha is anyone who is able to be successful with women. All of these traits can all be used in different ways to achieve that. The main thing is that Alpha's will NEVER submit their goals to others, but will use the tools available to achieve their desires. Anything else is semantics. We on the internet study the outward signs so that we can emulate, then internalize, and then become The Best Man We Can Be, but we cherry pick those things that appeal to us on an individual level. Because that's smart.
@ST and @Jacqui
The story is indeed The Little Prince! :D It was not a horse that the Little Prince tamed, however, but a fox!
Here is a quote, from the fox . . .
"To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world . . ."
Good call on The Taming of the Shrew, though, ST. Hahahaha! If you want to do a Shakespearean read-along, I'll be ready. ;)
By the way, have you seen the BBC's modern-day "adaptation" of The Taming of the Shew with Shirley Henderson as Kate and Rufus Sewell as Petruchio? It's actually completely rewritten, keeping the characters and the plot but replacing Shakespeare's language with a whole other screenplay. (Boo!) I'm not crazy about that major change, but I was fascinated by what I would now call the Gaming and Fascination on both sides.
@Bell @ST
I love the storyline of The Taming of the Shrew all the more now after what has happened in my relaionship with D over the past two years. I haven’t read it for ages and most of the content escapes my memory, but time is the biggest factor to going back to read it any time soon. I’m not fond of the Taylor/Burton version as far as performances in film, but I have seen snippets of the BBC production starring John Cleese as Petruchio. What I saw of it he does a very good portrayal and I would like to see it in its entirety.
The story of The Little Prince first came to my attention not too long ago when I read a book about the story of a woman and the first interactions she has with the man who she feels has tamed her. She refers a few times to the children’s story and how she relates to the fox. Since reading that book I put The Little Prince on my reading list. Bringing it up again I feel I need to get to it soon, but so many things to read and so little time.
@Jacqui
I have not seen the earlier BBC production with John Cleese, but I will look for clips on YouTube! :) The Taming of the Shrew is one of my favorite comedies.
@ Bell,
Ah! Le petit prince!
:-)
"If you want to do a Shakespearean read-along, I'll be ready."
*gulp*
I am not at all a Shakespearean buff like you Bell!
I think there is a spin-off of 'The taming of the shrew' called 'My fair lady' starring Rex Harrison - have you seen it?
And a spin-off of 'My fair lady' called 'Educating Rita' starring Michael Caine and Julie Walters...
Both are hilarious.
A summary of 'Educating Rita:
"Frank Bryant is a professor of literature. And Rita is his newest student. A hairdresser who thinks Macbeth runs the local pub. And Hamlet is a plate of eggs with cheese. He's a failed writer who has given up on his life. She's determined to change hers by getting an education. And the more she loves to learn. The more he learns how to love."
The interesting thing about 'Educating Rita' is that the two tame each other, in different ways. It is a very poignant film in many ways...
... the more and more you madams talked about horses, the more and more I came to understand why, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, went off to war ...
... riding a mule ...
As for The Taming of the Shrew, I've never like Shakespeare.
But then there is this fellow :
"...down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. He is the hero; he is everything.
He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man.
He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it.
He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world.
He will take no man’s money dishonestly and no man’s insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge.
He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him.
The story is this man’s adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would be no adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure.
If there were enough like him, the world would be a very safe place to live in, without becoming too dull to be worth living in.”
And who is he ?
Raymond Chandler.
@ST
If I remember correctly, My Fair Lady is supposed to be based on a different play, Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.
It makes sense, though, that you think of them together. In both plays, a man tries to turn an imperfect woman into someone better. But that aside, they are vastly different!
I have not yet read Pygmalion (although I know the basic story and understand that the ending is different from My Fair Lady, which I have seen), so I'm no authority. But now you make me want to do a point-by-point comparison!
If only I had the leisure time . . . :(
@Bellita
I don't think I'm ready for those yet. I'm still getting over the lasagna. Hahahaha!
Keep this up my deary dear, and you're going to be subjected to an unmentionable experience ... and I suggest that you don't ask me what this unmentionable experience is ...
... for I WILL tell you ...
Bell,
"If I remember correctly, My Fair Lady is supposed to be based on a different play, Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw."
Yes, you are right! I haven't read Pygmalion either :-(
But I see why I confuse the two...the themes are indeed somewhat similar.
Marellus,
Does it involve a Micky Mouse suit? ;p
@Stingray.
... one of these days I'm gonna sprinkle some Pixie Dust on your lawn ... so that the heavens may thunder ... and the hallowed earth be torn asunder ... for the appearance of His Excellency The Most Bomb Bad Niggardly Dastardly Dweller Of The Decrepid Deeps ...
... named Augie ...
... and he will drag you down to those murky depths ... and make you drink his beloved mum's Earl Grey Tea ...
@ST
King Marellus Weirdus,
No no no! Miss. Smith stayed in the room to ensure that we didn't get up to no good...
My own tooth fell out the day before..I offered it to you to replace the one that had been so painfully extracted by your torturer...but you wouldn't have it...so I gave it to my tooth fairy instead...
Noted my darling, now come and kiss me ... and I don't want just any run-of-the-mill-kiss, I want a Censor Kiss !!!
And what is a Censor Kiss ? Well, in the good old days of movies, the hero and the heroine couldn't just peck each other, and then waltz off to the nearest bedroom and then start hyperventilating.
No sirree, there was them censors that said NO NO NO to this ... so all that passion had to be conveyed in a kiss ... a Censor Kiss ...
I am talking about Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca.
I am talking about Gable and Leigh in Gone With The Wind.
I am talking about President George Bush and his dog, Millie, in front of the The White House Press Corps ... I've always wondered why he said that Millie knew more about Foreign Policy than Dukakis et al.
That kind of kiss ... a Censor Kiss.
... can't do it can you ? ... Oh Well ... back to the Zany Sands for me then ...
@Marellus
Oh, dear! It seems I can't! :P
Welcome to The Sanctuary, Stingray!
Um, not sure whether to be happy for you or to inwardly cry for you that your first comment here was to...our resident King of Weird!
Hahahahahaha!
Good luck to you, Pet.
You are going to need it...
In hefty industrial doses...
:-)
As indeed will I...
King Marellus,
Just wondering: What happens to women who decline the Censor Kiss?
Is there an alternative which is not so...intense?
(Oh God, how on Earth did we get here?)
Hahahahaha!
wow. did this place turn into a circus. fellow goes to sleep, heads off to work a few hours later and comes here to this.
interesting, all the flirty banter. i can actually picture the girls giggling.
shame on you ladies. lol.
Danny,
No idea what you are referring to.
Lol.
right.
for some reason i picture you ladies in PJ's and giggling uncontrolably.
it's truned into a slumber party in here. lol.
Pj's, cuddle bunnies and ....PILLOW FIGHT!!!
The Sanctuary. The only place in the sphere where you'll get deep theological discussion, evo psych, red pill smp/mmp, and the occasional pillow fight. Lol.
DAMN this popcorn is tasty....
it's amazing how the discussions here spiral out of control when 4-5hamsters get in one room.
Danny,
"it's amazing how the discussions here spiral out of control when 4-5hamsters get in one room."
Hahahaha!
In our defence, Danny, it's Marellus' fault :-D
He's the one who is spinning our hamsters! That's my story and I'm sticking to it...
(OK, I admit, it doesn't take much to get my hamster going lol).
JV,
:-)
It's great that we can swing from male locker-room to female locker-room in the space of a few comments lol.
And the swing from 'serious' to 'fun' to 'the ridiculous'.
I find it's cool...
ST-
hey anything to see a good pillow fight. now i just need to wait for a bewbie to pop out. lol.
ST
Just wondering: What happens to women who decline the Censor Kiss?
Is there an alternative which is not so...intense?
(Oh God, how on Earth did we get here?)
Hahahahaha!
Now Now ST ... before we discuss the alternatives, you're first gonna take off those stilettos ... and those fishnet stockings ...
Why ? ... because I wanna donate those fishnets to some out-of-luck-fisherman in Kaburuki-Land.
... Yes my darling, it's for a good cause ... now about those underpants ... ST, my darling, I don't see a bulge there ... Why is that ? ... I have seen people with no-bulges-down-there you know ...
And these people tend to carry handbags ... wear make-up ... rape credit cards ... and watch Soap Operas ... are you one of these people ST ?
Really ST ... that means you're a dangerous person to know ... so sorry my darling ... those underpants are staying on ...
Now why are there bulges on your chest ? ... Oh ? ... No, keep it covered ... It's because they're bigger than mine ... if I see them I'm gonna develop a poor self-image ... and then I'll have to start going to the gym to beat you ...
... but I don't like going to the gym ST ... really ST ...
Now ST, put on these pants ... and this sweater ... and now for these fluffy pink slippers of yours ... oh ? ... but I like these fluffy pink slippers of yours ... oh ? ... you don't want to wear these fluffy pink slippers ?
Let's see where they were made ... MADE IN !!!!! .... oh ? ... so you're gonna wear them then ? ... thank you my darling ...
... Now ST, would you like to go out for some coffee ? ...
Now wait ST ... please ST ... I mean it ST ... now look what you've done ST ...
Do you realize that we are going to have to all of this again ?
And you've just about ruined my health.
I mean, just look at all these swellings you've given me ST ... really ST.
We're gonna do this again ST ... and this time ... there had better be no funny stuff ... you hear me ST.
... or else, I'm gonna mention your blog to the Muslim Brotherhood ... so that you may get fan-mail from Bomber Ali ...
Danny,
See what I mean?
lol.
@ST
Since it's Marellus' fault, does that mean the pillows get aimed in his direction, or do you think that will just encourage him more? lol
I operate on the assumption all women have cuddle bunnies. It's something I ignore. I once had a girlfriend who had 100 Beanie Babies in a box under her bed. When I told a friend that, he told me his boss had 300 under her bed.
I now have six Beanie Babies.
"...now i just need to wait for a bewbie to pop out."
Someone needs to go to Confession for thinking salacious thoughts.
Lol.
Jacquie,
If you can't beat 'em, join them...
Earth to Planet Marellus!
Earth to Planet Marellus!
Anyone there?
Got room for one more?
Spacetraveller seeks new planet...
Hahahaha!
(Note to self: be careful what you wish for. Marellus might just accept you onto his planet Weird).
@ Bob,
"I once had a girlfriend who had 100 Beanie Babies in a box under her bed."
Did you have to tell everyone about us...
Lol.
... keep this up ST ... and I will bend you over a table ...
... and then administer a long thick ruler to your backside ...
... until such a time ...
... when you start swearing at me ...
... in Hebrew ...
In Hebrew? Around these parts, it might have to be Ancient Latin.
@JV
Oh, we're not so demanding. Ecclesiastical Latin will do. ;)
My wife is of a mature age (and looking over my shoulder at this moment) and still has 30 or more stuffed animals. Vulnerable? Make her angry and you'll see how vulnerable she is. When she hugs her doll from her childhood, she looks so adorably girlish that all those macho protective tendencies flare up in me in an instant.
Spacetraveler, if your pal wants to be masculine in such a manner, that's her/his choice to make, but I'd advise you to just be yourself. There are some people who would make a competition out of a urine test.
The Navy Corpsman
@ JV and Bell,
Lol.
@ NC,
It's so nice that you don't find your wife's cuddly friends at all annoying. There are some men who do, and I find that sad...
Yes it seems a bit childish to hug a stuffed animal...but who cares?
And in any case what's the alternative?
When I was around 20 my brother criticised my for still sleeping with my cuddle bunny. I said to him...'well if it's not him it will have to be you'.
I have never seen someone flee quite so fast from me as he did after I said that. Since that day he never bothered me about my cuddle bunny anymore...
Hahahahaha!
You adore my salacious thoughts. Don't deny it Love.
"You adore my salacious thoughts. Don't deny it Love."
Who, me?
:-)
:-)
Catholic Girls are soooo down. Lol. 2 smiley faces???!!! Lol.
Innocent of all charges.
:-D
Yeah, keep telling yourself that Pet. Lol.
Post a Comment