Blue Spiral's Adventures in Solitude

[Blue Spiral]

...I am so, so glad that I don't have to deal with any of this breadwinner stuff. I spent a good portion of my day watching '80s videos on Youtube; I suspect that my hypothetical wife would not have been pleased about that.

 

For the record, I also believe in egalitarian gender roles. Deedee said that she did, as well, but she left me to be with a more macho, domineering guy. I have no idea about the kind of guy that Cee married, but I suspect that they're probably egalitarian.

[Mr_LFA]

Glad to hear that things are going well Blue

[IAmFCA]

Sometimes the outward appearance of beefy macho demeanor is attractive because it heightens her sense of being opposite, gender-wise. Uber masculine accentuates her sense of feminine. As you say, they may equally balanced in terms of rights and responsibilities.

 

To Batyas point, egalitarian is all about how two people operate as a team not hierarchy. The difference can be subtle.

 

I AM responsible for the whole shebang. Glad I'm not responsible for another adult, but if I were, i bet my apartment would cleaner. Work/ home/projects/ who has time???

[Jabron1]

...I am so, so glad that I don't have to deal with any of this breadwinner stuff. I spent a good portion of my day watching '80s videos on Youtube; I suspect that my hypothetical wife would not have been pleased about that.

 

You and me both, mate

 

I have no intention of providing for anyone other than myself.

 

One of the good things about the demise of a Christian society, and the rise of a Feminist one, is that men can get away with doing far less.

 

Alpha guys can have (relatively) easy sex and companionship without commitment. Women can have sex with alphas knowing that there will be beta males waiting when it's time to 'settle down'.

 

As 'feminist activist' Sheryl Sandberg advised women:

 

"When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands"

 

"When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

 

The ones losing the game are the 'equality husbands'.

[itsallgrand]

I wrote out a whole thing but decided against it. IThinkICan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really like how you are able to consider and be respectful of so many perspectives.

 

Batya, I disagree with you. However, I don't want to risk insulting anybody. And I have a feeling I'll be too clumsy in trying to clarify myself, and so ill just say I hope that works out for your family.

 

I'm glad you are enjoying yourself Blue.

[IAmFCA]

You and me both, mate

 

I have no intention of providing for anyone other than myself.

 

One of the good things about the demise of a Christian society, and the rise of a Feminist one, is that men can get away with doing far less.

 

Alpha guys can have (relatively) easy sex and companionship without commitment. Women can have sex with alphas knowing that there will be beta males waiting when it's time to 'settle down'.

 

As 'feminist activist' Sheryl Sandberg advised women:

 

"When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands"

 

"When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

 

The ones losing the game are the 'equality husbands'.

 

With much of your post, I agree, except for its underlying ethic and the conclusion.

 

(In the u.s.) Men and women are adults and free to be as sexual, polygamous (not maritally), experimental -or none of those - as we want to be. For this I am grateful.

 

The same ethics of self respect and character apply.

 

When I am evaluating a man for a long term partnership, it is important to me what sort of reputation he has, whether he tells white lies to cover his tracks, whether he can withhold himself from having sex with me until he's ready to be intimate as well as sexual.

 

I have an enduring interest in one man in particular who has sex readily with whomever he chooses, then discards her after a time. I don't know if that's still his way, but I do know it undermined my ability to take him seriously when he expressed an interest in me. It still does. He passes out the cookie without too much difficulty, so he has cheapened that gift. Should he choose to give it to me, i need more than the usual evidence that he is giving me something i can value highly. I don't want it otherwise, regardless of his ability to satisfy.

 

It still matters whether one treats oneself like a commodity, or a singular entity.

 

I am glad there is room for a.variety of values.

[IAmFCA]

I wrote out a whole thing but decided against it. IThinkICan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really like how you are able to consider and be respectful of so many perspectives.

 

Batya, I disagree with you. However, I don't want to risk insulting anybody. And I have a feeling I'll be too clumsy in trying to clarify myself, and so ill just say I hope that works out for your family.

 

I'm glad you are enjoying yourself Blue.

 

Thank you IAG.

 

There are nuances that can be difficult to articulate, and also there are people who are most comfortable with dynamics I could never accept. Diversity gives us the richness of life.

[Blue Spiral]

Glad to hear that things are going well Blue

 

Thank you!

 

Sometimes the outward appearance of beefy macho demeanor is attractive because it heightens her sense of being opposite, gender-wise. Uber masculine accentuates her sense of feminine. As you say, they may equally balanced in terms of rights and responsibilities.

 

You know, if a woman is into that, that's fine by me. I'd know that I didn't have a chance with her, and move on to the next one. I just wish people would be honest about what they want. Deedee said that she wanted a guy like me, only to marry the exact opposite. It's like me saying that I want a woman who's artistic and intelligent, only to get into a relationship with a supermodel who has the IQ of lawn furniture. We want to say one thing to look good to others, but we do something else entirely.

 

You and me both, mate

 

I have no intention of providing for anyone other than myself.

 

One of the good things about the demise of a Christian society, and the rise of a Feminist one, is that men can get away with doing far less.

 

Alpha guys can have (relatively) easy sex and companionship without commitment. Women can have sex with alphas knowing that there will be beta males waiting when it's time to 'settle down'.

 

As 'feminist activist' Sheryl Sandberg advised women:

 

"When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands"

 

"When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

 

The ones losing the game are the 'equality husbands'.

 

Yeah, that book was a real eye-opener for me. And I'm well-acquainted with the whole "I'm going to ignore you during my hottest years, and then, when I'm older and less attractive and I have a few kids from other guys, I'll show up and ask you to pay my bills for me!" phenomenon. That said, though, feminism remains the best thing to happen to my sex life since birth control...

[IAmFCA]

We show up in each others lives in a particular moment. We're not the same before or after that moment passes.

[faraday]

Thank you!

 

 

 

You know, if a woman is into that, that's fine by me. I'd know that I didn't have a chance with her, and move on to the next one. I just wish people would be honest about what they want. Deedee said that she wanted a guy like me, only to marry the exact opposite. It's like me saying that I want a woman who's artistic and intelligent, only to get into a relationship with a supermodel who has the IQ of lawn furniture. We want to say one thing to look good to others, but we do something else entirely.

 

 

 

Yeah, that book was a real eye-opener for me. And I'm well-acquainted with the whole "I'm going to ignore you during my hottest years, and then, when I'm older and less attractive and I have a few kids from other guys, I'll show up and ask you to pay my bills for me!" phenomenon. That said, though, feminism remains the best thing to happen to my sex life since birth control...

 

It's not a conscious decision. My husband and I have talked about this phenomenon at great length. He couldn't get dates until he was in his mid twenties, he was too nerdy (for lack of a better word).

 

I liked aszholes when I was younger because I didn't know any better. I wish I had. I wish I could have spent the last ten years with my husband. But I don't know that I would have appreciated him and treated him well...and I'm guessing if he knew me back then...he would have looked at me as being immature and vapid. It took years for me to mature and become empathetic and kind.

 

At the same time, if I had been smarter when I was younger and been interested in him (or some other nerd as I hadn't met him yet), would he have reached outside himself to develop interests and hobbies to become the kind of man that makes a great husband (like he is now)? Probably not. He became the person he is now because he had free time and space to develop himself. He needed to become more of a leader- if we had met at 20, I would have walked all over him and he would have let me...at this point in our lives we both have strong boundaries that keep the other in check.

 

We both had to grow and mature. Just like...hopefully the stereotypical alpha male does at some point.

 

Generously people don't stagnate.

 

But yeah, we have talked about...how I wish I could have met him younger. Had my daughter with him. Known him when I was 30 pounds lighter and my body was taut and I didn't look tired all the time. I'm sure he wishes it too (though he'd never say that) but he does love me for the person I am, and he does love my body even though I'm not at my peak (after all, that 30 pounds came from me developing cooking skills in the last 8 years- and i know he'd rather me be able to bake amazing cookies and throw together restaurant worthy meals every night...than for me to be super calorie conscious and not make fabulous food...it's all a trade off).

[Blue Spiral]

With all due respect, faraday, I made the right decisions when I was younger, and I'd never settle for someone that made the wrong decisions. "Yeah, sorry about back then, but I'm better now! Okay, I gave my most attractive years to a bunch of jerks, but..."

 

If even an inexperienced, socially-clueless guy like me could figure out which women to avoid and which women to go after (Deedee and Cee definitely fell in the "nice girl" range), well, I don't think that other people have any excuse.

[maker]

This is a great point! There's no need to take this 'B-but I'm smarter now, I know what I want' line for anything more than the excuse it is.

 

With all due respect, faraday, I made the right decisions when I was younger, and I'd never settle for someone that made the wrong decisions. "Yeah, sorry about back then, but I'm better now! Okay, I gave my most attractive years to a bunch of jerks, but..."

[faraday]

With all due respect, faraday, I made the right decisions when I was younger, and I'd never settle for someone that made the wrong decisions. "Yeah, sorry about back then, but I'm better now! Okay, I gave my most attractive years to a bunch of jerks, but..."

 

If even an inexperienced, socially-clueless guy like me could figure out which women to avoid and which women to go after (Deedee and Cee definitely fell in the "nice girl" range), well, I don't think that other people have any excuse.

 

 

 

I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that at 20 people should be as mature and smart as a 30...40...50...60...70 year old?

 

Are you saying that you haven't changed at all since you were 20? Because that doesn't make sense to me...either you're immature now in the way that a 20 year old is, or you're Yoda...I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying though.

 

At 20, nice/nerdy guys weren't on my radar (or the radar of many 20 year old women) because they aren't bold- they don't pursue, they tend to be shy around women (particularly when they're younger- my husband admits he had no game at 20...it took him years to develop it). And there are plenty of jerks that are loud and fun and pursue girls they're interested in...so yeah, the guys that do the pursuing (well) get the girls.

 

The adage is that wisdom comes with age. And nice/nerdy guys shouldn't be taking it as settling that a woman becomes interested in him as she matures with age...it's not a personal slight that women didn't notice them when they were younger.

 

And I'm not talking about a particular woman walking up to you at 20, rejecting you, and then coming back interested at age 30. I'm speaking about in general. I didn't meet my husband until I was 30...and we've both talked about how before that point in time, we probably wouldn't have been interested in each other if we'd met. We've both matured and changed a ton in our 20s...if we hadn't, if only one of us had changed while the other stayed stagnant, or if neither had changed...we wouldn't be together. Up until now...he wouldn't have pursued me (because of shyness), and I wouldn't have noticed him.

[itsallgrand]

What Jabron described is opportunistic approach to dating/ partnering, not an egalitarian one.

 

If X is a value to a person, I like to see that reflected over a long course of time - not just when its convenient or to that persons benefit.

 

I understand the wanting to see someone reflect an appreciation for core values I have - not just now, but bc it's who they are. I probably could have had an easier dating life if I didn't, and I'm not saying it's for everybody or that everyone MUST follow that line. But I did make choices that meant I gave up certain priveledges and goodies to stick to my values, so yeah, it's been important to me to find someone who understands and appreciates that.

 

So I don't think an 'equality man' is losing out at all. Not if he truly values that, not if he chooses the right woman for him.

[Blue Spiral]

I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that at 20 people should be as mature and smart as a 30...40...50...60...70 year old?

 

I'm saying that if even a sheltered, clueless person like 20-year-old me could figure it out, similarly-aged women should be able to do the same thing. There's no excuse.

 

Are you saying that you haven't changed at all since you were 20? Because that doesn't make sense to me...either you're immature now in the way that a 20 year old is, or you're Yoda...I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying though.

 

20? ****, I haven't changed at all since I was a teenager, except I have more sexual experience and am less depressed now. I definitely might be Yoda, though. "Your argument, buying it I am not."

 

At 20, nice/nerdy guys weren't on my radar (or the radar of many 20 year old women) because they aren't bold- they don't pursue, they tend to be shy around women (particularly when they're younger- my husband admits he had no game at 20...it took him years to develop it). And there are plenty of jerks that are loud and fun and pursue girls they're interested in...so yeah, the guys that do the pursuing (well) get the girls.

 

I wouldn't want to be with a woman that cared about/was impressed by something like that. If you care more about my "game" than me, well...! I didn't pursue then, and I don't pursue now. I'm simply a shy, timid person. Men aren't supposed to be that way, I know, despite all the talk about gender roles being outdated...

 

The adage is that wisdom comes with age. And nice/nerdy guys shouldn't be taking it as settling that a woman becomes interested in him as she matures with age...it's not a personal slight that women didn't notice them when they were younger.

 

Bull****. What you're saying ultimately amounts to, "Yeah, I ignored guys like you and slept with all those other guys that I now claim to hate, but it's okay, and you have to accept that!" It is not okay, and I do not have to accept it. I maintain that, in many cases, "older" women have actually realized that they can't compete with younger women, and they suddenly have an "epiphany" and decide that us second-rate guys are now "good enough" for this less-attractive version of you.

 

For the men who are reading this: I beg of you, google "epiphany phase".

[Fudgie]

I think there is a problem in society how people look at love and relationships. I never was into "bad boys" at all, even in my teens. the guys I dated had mutual interests with me and were on the nerdy side and a couple were virgins, all not that sexually experienced. I dated them, even if short term only, because it made for a better time for both of us and I really liked their company.

 

I've seen a few of my female friends go after bad boys, or, at the very least, have these very romantic notions thar hinder them in dating and I can't help but think that there is an issue with how people are raised to look at relationships. Heaven knows I have my issues but my parents taught me from a young age that you have to look below the surface, below the mannerisms, and really look at what they have to offer and how they benefit you and how you benefit them. It has to be a symbiotic relationship in totality. If you think with your parts, it won't end well for you. I think there is a lot of logic to be had and I wish we could get people thinking about this at a younger age, like, okay, be realistic, what do you want in a partner, what do you have to offer them, and what sort of faults can you deal with? And what ones can you not?

 

I don't know, that's just how I think of it. My taste in men hasn't changed much over the years, other than I began to be open to dating men my own age. The only thing that has changed has been my boundaries. I feel I was lucky to figure out what I wanted early on, not thanks to me, thanks to my upbringing.

 

How would things be if more people had a similar experience?

[faraday]

I think there is a problem in society how people look at love and relationships. I never was into "bad boys" at all, even in my teens. the guys I dated had mutual interests with me and were on the nerdy side and a couple were virgins, all not that sexually experienced. I dated them, even if short term only, because it made for a better time for both of us and I really liked their company.

 

I've seen a few of my female friends go after bad boys, or, at the very least, have these very romantic notions thar hinder them in dating and I can't help but think that there is an issue with how people are raised to look at relationships. Heaven knows I have my issues but my parents taught me from a young age that you have to look below the surface, below the mannerisms, and really look at what they have to offer and how they benefit you and how you benefit them. It has to be a symbiotic relationship in totality. If you think with your parts, it won't end well for you. I think there is a lot of logic to be had and I wish we could get people thinking about this at a younger age, like, okay, be realistic, what do you want in a partner, what do you have to offer them, and what sort of faults can you deal with? And what ones can you not?

 

I don't know, that's just how I think of it. My taste in men hasn't changed much over the years, other than I began to be open to dating men my own age. The only thing that has changed has been my boundaries. I feel I was lucky to figure out what I wanted early on, not thanks to me, thanks to my upbringing.

 

How would things be if more people had a similar experience?

 

Fudg....I think your taste in men has changed considerably over even the last 5 years. You're no longer in a role where you need to be a caretaker for your partner. You're not in an abusive relationship anymore. Those are big changes.

 

Do you think when you were 16 you could have dated alphas your own age? Typically the jocks...?

[Batya33]

I wrote out a whole thing but decided against it. IThinkICan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really like how you are able to consider and be respectful of so many perspectives.

 

Batya, I disagree with you. However, I don't want to risk insulting anybody. And I have a feeling I'll be too clumsy in trying to clarify myself, and so ill just say I hope that works out for your family.

 

I'm glad you are enjoying yourself Blue.

 

I'm not sure what you disagree with? That a couple can decide that one person will be at home with a child who needs taking care of and contribute in that way while the other person will work for a salary/income? We don't do that exactly since I contribute my nest egg to the family's expenses but that's because I built up a nest egg for the almost 20 years I worked before becoming a parent. In many cases if both parents try to work full time they end up with huge day care/nanny/sitter expenses that can cancel out most of if not all of one salary or if both work part time they hamper their career development, often with additional financial issues. And of course it depends on the child's needs, developmentally, age-related, emotionally. Definitely not a one-size fits all . I would not have been ok being entirely financially dependent on my partner. I have my own financial security, pre-marriage, so that if something happened to my husband or with our marriage I'd be fine. And that's a good feeling.

 

I also am not a fan of one person being home if there are no children and being entirely financially dependent on the other person. At least that kind of lifestyle -no work with a child or otherwise- would not be for me (perhaps volunteer work but only if it was really substantial and akin to a paying job, and only if we really didn't need the money). I think that creates a marital dynamic that is too risky for both people, especially for the dependent person.

[Batya33]

Fudg....I think your taste in men has changed considerably over even the last 5 years. You're no longer in a role where you need to be a caretaker for your partner. You're not in an abusive relationship anymore. Those are big changes.

 

Do you think when you were 16 you could have dated alphas your own age? Typically the jocks...?

 

Some people settle because they are older and get desperate. Others, as they change/grow/mature value different attributes in people than they did as teenagers/in their 20s. I don't have my John Stamos or Shaun Cassidy posters up on my bedroom wall, anymore.

[Fudgie]

Fudg....I think your taste in men has changed considerably over even the last 5 years. You're no longer in a role where you need to be a caretaker for your partner. You're not in an abusive relationship anymore. Those are big changes.

 

Do you think when you were 16 you could have dated alphas your own age? Typically the jocks...?

 

Sure, but that has to do with my own boundaries and what I accept in terms of treatment. The TYPE of guys I've dated have always been the same kind, regardless if they were good for me or not: steady employment, nerdy, mutual interests, and little to no sexual experience. That was the same even for the older ones I was with. My ex who was emotionally abusive, he too was nerdy, very smart, long term minded, high earner, etc. I should have left sooner but he still "fit" the type of guys I've always dated. K fits in the same group.

 

I was not interested in jocks when I was 16 and I am not interested now. I don't find them appealing or interesting. People who have slept around, PUAs, partied a lot, addiction history, and those who hold certain beliefs that I don't like are also a no-go and always have been.

 

So for me, no, type of guy I'm attracted to hasn't changed. What I put up with has.

[itsallgrand]

Batya, I disagree with an idea of egalitarianism that would include adults individuals opting out of supporting themselves financially when it suits them. Work within ones own home , raising ones own children, these things I do not exclude a person from contributing economically to their family and larger community.

 

I don't think being married, or having children, changes the fundamental concept of providing for ones own self and ones children.

 

Changes of circumstance and need may mean people contributing in different levels. People get sick, a child may need more care at certain times, a parent may need care, lots of different circumstances in life.

 

But the idea that healthy adults opt out altogether and choose to be dependents- whether with kids or without, no difference really as children are a choice people make to add to their responsibilities in life - no, I wouldn't consider that egalitarian.

 

The costs of raising children and that it will impede progress of a career - of course that is true. Children are expensive and time consuming. But so what? So are many other roles in life with no pay economically, but it is done without an expectation of being financially provided for to do it. Caring for relatives is an example. My caring for my own home, cooking and sharing it with the community, not any different.

 

I take offense at the idea that raising children makes it acceptable to become an adult dependent. That's my issue here. Hell, there are still plenty of women who think it's ok to be a dependent for life and be provided for simply because they are women.

 

Defending that 'right' to dependency just makes zero sense to me if we are indeed all equal.

[faraday]

Batya, I disagree with an idea of egalitarianism that would include adults individuals opting out of supporting themselves financially when it suits them. Work within ones own home , raising ones own children, these things I do not exclude a person from contributing economically to their family and larger community.

 

I don't think being married, or having children, changes the fundamental concept of providing for ones own self and ones children.

 

Changes of circumstance and need may mean people contributing in different levels. People get sick, a child may need more care at certain times, a parent may need care, lots of different circumstances in life.

 

But the idea that healthy adults opt out altogether and choose to be dependents- whether with kids or without, no difference really as children are a choice people make to add to their responsibilities in life - no, I wouldn't consider that egalitarian.

 

The costs of raising children and that it will impede progress of a career - of course that is true. Children are expensive and time consuming. But so what? So are many other roles in life with no pay economically, but it is done without an expectation of being financially provided for to do it. Caring for relatives is an example. My caring for my own home, cooking and sharing it with the community, not any different.

 

I take offense at the idea that raising children makes it acceptable to become an adult dependent. That's my issue here. Hell, there are still plenty of women who think it's ok to be a dependent for life and be provided for simply because they are women.

 

Defending that 'right' to dependency just makes zero sense to me if we are indeed all equal.

 

Do you have kids?

[Blue Spiral]

I was just reading Dougie's thread, and being amazed at how stressful it is to pursue women. I'm so glad that I never put much effort into that. In addition to never asking a woman out, I don't think that I've ever hit on a woman in public, either. For all my complaining on here, I just must not care enough.

 

On a related note, I actually have been talking with a woman in-person, but I'm too lazy to type it all out. The short version is, she's one of the "fascinated" ones that can't figure out why I'm always single, why I don't date, why I don't talk to women, etc.

[Fudgie]

What is she like? Is she cool?

[Blue Spiral]

Yeah, I'd say that she's cool...she's also out of my league, which is admittedly irrelevant, since we're looking for different things. She's Asian-American and in her mid-twenties. Long story short, I have an appointment a few times a month, and afterwards, I stop by a coffee shop. I'm not a coffee person at all, but I heard that they had good pastries. (It was my first time being in a coffee shop.) My appointment is usually in the middle of the afternoon, and it's pretty dead in there around then. But she's been there every time. She lives upstairs, and has a job that involves weird hours, so she has afternoons off. I don't like eating in the car, so I just sit at a table and play on my phone for a bit.

 

Anyway, she actually started a conversation with me, assuming that I was "new around here" because she hasn't "seen me around". I told her that I just don't get out much. There were the usual "Why are you single?" and later "Why do I never see you with anyone?" questions. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of being honest with her: I told her that I haven't been in a relationship for a long time, am not interested in being in one, and that I've just kept things casual. Since I don't fit the usual pattern, she's been trying to figure me out. Obviously, I don't look like a player, nor do I act like one, and yet here I am saying that I have no interest in serious relationships. I'm guessing that she's used to guys hitting on her, while I just kept to myself for the first few weeks. (She didn't say anything to me until the fourth or fifth time I was in there.) I don't mistake it for serious interest--Deedee is still trying to figure me out after all these years--but it's been nice to talk about some of this stuff out loud.

 

My fear, of course, is that she'll eventually try to set me up with some less-attractive friend, and then I'll have to find a new place to get pastries...