In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > In article ,
> >  "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> >
> > > Confused Guy wrote:
> >(edit)
> >
> > The difference between a "sexist" and a "strong, independant
> > woman" is that women who desire sexists at least get
> > something in exchange for putting up with him.  He
> > does pay the rent.
>
> Well, I suppose that some women do marry sexists for money, power or
> citizenship,

Just as "some" women marry non-sexists for money, power,
or citizenship... :-)

> but I don't have as much experience with that as you do,
> Mark.  AND, 'confused Guy' is free to buy a bride in Russia if he
> likes, but that's really not the issue.

For something that's not an issue you sure do obsess
over it quite a bit.  :-)

> > > Any man whose in a position to not fear a "strong,
> > independant" woman probably doesn't need to put up
> > with her anyway.
>
> A strong man is not intimidated by a strong woman

Absolutely.  But why does anyone want someone whose
intimidating to the opposite sex?  I know strong
men and they certainly don't consider it a compliment
that they intimidate people.  On the contrary, it's
usually the insecure people who seek to mask their
vulnerabilities through unnecessary attacks on others.

>, but no one needs to
> "put up" with anyone else if they don't want to be with that person.

Absolutely.  Confused Guy should ask himself why he would
want someone whose gone to such a great deal of effort
to make themselves unattractive.

> So, that works on both sides, no?

Actually, yes.

As I said, "sexist" men are providing something for
the opposite sex and not just intimidate them.

>   What does she have to offer him he can't get with younger, more
> attractive women?
>
> I suppose the same thing an older man would have to offer a younger
> woman, an easier or less restrictive lifestyle,

Except strong men don't need such help.  Next.

> perhaps a relationship
> without children,

True.  I'll concede this point.  But there are plenty of less
troublesome women out there who don't want children
(more traditional women who are sterile or have
grown kids, for instance.)

> and a better developed sense of who they are and what
> they want, etc.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Generally, it doesn't take a lot for women to figure out
what they like: jewelry, boots, furs, lobster... :-)

I found it pretty hilarious when I was dating about
how career women who had blown their money on world
travel actually considered this an asset with the
type of men they were seeking.  The Don Juans
wanted a woman who was impressed by HIS exploits,
not someone who would need to compete with hers.

> >And> > that's ok, because, as long as you're not a sexist bitter boy,
> someone> somewhere will be.  You just haven't found her yet.
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > As I said, the trolling has produced results!  (At
> > least for the troller).
>
> Asked and answered, Mark, no matter who was trolling.  :-)
> >
> > On the other hand, if a man really believes this line
> > he has a long wait ahead of him.
>
> Or, he could go to Russia and find a submissive woman to help with her
> citizenship.  That works too.  :-)

I guess this an issue after all since it comes up so often. :-)

What we can draw from this is that he has a lot of choices
he's able to go through with while the "strong" woman
spends a lot of time waiting for her handsome prince to
come riding up.

He can go to Russia and find a submissive woman.  He can
find such submissive women working at his local shopping
mall too.  He can go out to the farming communities right
here in the states.  He can date younger women and just
have a good time.  The choices are simply endless.

Gee, looking at it that way, it's AMAZING I was EVER
jealous of middle class college women at all!  Life
is friggin' good!

> > >   She  is far too attractive to never have had the opportunity for
> > > marriage....
> > >
> > > She may indeed prefer the single life.
> >
> > I hate to say it, but I agree with Parg here.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >
> > There's a feedback loop in place: As someone becomes
> > more independant, they become less motivated to
> > work for the benefits of a relationship both in
> > terms of their immediate rewards as well as the costs
> > of previous relationships.
>
> But, that works the same with men.

"But" note that I made a gender neutral statement.

> A 39 year old man is likely to be
> just as tied to their ways as is a 39 year old woman, eh?

Agreed.  However, the 39 year old man is NOT tied to
expectations and higher standards he could expect when
he was younger (unless he used to play high school
football :-)

Generally, men improve with age at least when it comes
to sexual market value.  Men also gain social skills that
help them in finding and closing a deal with a mate.

I know many decent, kind-hearted but older women who
while they possess INCREDIBLE social skills and
are "set in their ways" in not a bad fashion, they
nonetheless retain their achilles' heel in not
being able to ask a man out.

Once again, when I was younger I was jealous of young
women having this ability but it's kind of like an
elevator: When it's broken down, you need to know how
to use the stairs.

>   For women there's> also the age factor.
>
> Not really.

Denial ain't a river in Egypt. :-)

> Women's sexual performance doesn't really depend upon
> performing in quite the same way.

HAHAHAHA!

The question isn't whether she can "perform" but whether
men she finds attractive will perform with her! :-)

>  Plus, as women age they are less in
> need of having a man who has needs.

Or maybe I typed too soon.

So now you say they don't have as strong a sex drive.
Yeah, that really turns on men. :-)  FYI: I've seen
my sex drive go down a bit too.  Not in a bad way though.
I enjoy sex but I don't feel this strong overpowering
painful urge as I used to though.

Additionally, as I said, "sexist" men largely
give and provide for relationships.  Men meet
"needs" all the time.  It's incredible how
"sexist" men think they are entitled to something
in return.

> > Just as men shouldn't be told to wait around for
> > Ms. Liberated BUT agreeable to show up, these
> > women should be warned where the yellow brick
> > road leads.  Fortunately, Dr. Hewlett, the Style
> > section of major newspapers and Bridget
> > Jones are helping with that task.
>
> Bridget Jones is a model to women because she has it all, the career,
> the man, and a life SHE chooses.

Yeah, and beer commericals are the same way. :-) If a man
with a gut slugs down a Bud Lite, the Swedish Bikini
Team suddenly runs up to him because he's sexy.

>  Men can make their own choices as
> well, but let's face it, without an individual woman in their lives
> they won't get the regular sex they seek nor will they get to
> procreate.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!  :-)

Yes, we all know how men's abilities to have children
decreases drastically as they age past 30.  Oh, wait... :-)

Plus, men don't have this powerful urge to have children
without a woman anyway.  You're projecting that because
women so want a child that they'll go it alone that a
man must feel the same way.  Nope.  Don't happen.

About sex.  As a man ages, his SMV goes up, not down.
He may find that having a string of aging girlfriends
gets him plenty of "regular" sex.

>  She  required lots of personal space while I was involved with her,
> but
> > for some  reason I was attached to her.
> > >
> > > It's pretty easy to "get attached" to a competent,
attractive
> person;
> > > if she wasn't your person, perhaps someone else will be.
> >
> > Once again, I agree with Parg.
>
> Gee, thanks Mark.  :-)
> >
> > Many career women do appear attractive "on paper":
> > They are intelligent, often very accomplished, etc.
> > Unfortunately, this doesn't help men any since
> > this energy goes totally into them.  Apparently,
> > men are much better at "sharing" than women.
>
> Since more women than men still do the majority of unpaid work in the
> world, as related to family, I think women are much more
"sharing" than
> men.

"Mommy?  When can I be a client?" -- AT&T commercial

Indeed, career women often feel guilty about putting
money ahead of their daughters' happiness.  Is that
what you're saying?  :-)

Or are you saying that women themselves don't appreciate
this work when a man offers to "share" it with her
while she pays the bills? :-)

> The problem Mark has is that he thinks women have some moral
> obligation to both contribute financially to the marriage while wearing
> stilletos and remaining the submissive partner.  :-)

?!?!?!

Where did I EVER say or imply that?

On the contrary: You're arguing that men should always
be in the financial breadwinner role even as the women
bitch and gripe about making the bed if they stay
at home from work that day.

>  :-)  :-)  He
> vainly imagines that buying a bride will accomplish that.  He has
> deluded himself.

So howz your partner? :-)

> >> > >A more secure man would simply
> > >recognize that not everyone is going to be into you, and move on.
> >
> > I'll agree with that.  However, only insecure men
> > would put up with the crap from such a woman to begin
> > with.
>
> Well, no one should put up with "crap" when it comes to being a second
> class citizen, eh Mark?   Or is that the woman's job?  :-)

Tell how I'm giving women crap in my life.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/26/05 5:33:46 PM ---