Why Men Love Bitches!! (Page 2)

you know it sister!

*smacks QS's ass when she isn't looking*

🙂

*smacks QS's ass when she isn't looking*

LS, you are totally insane!!! Just an FYI.

Of course he did. He stated yet another ignorant univenstigate opinion. He does it all the time. He jumps to uneducated conclusions. It is boring.

Anti

would you rather have a girl who clings to you all weepy and constantly needs to *tawk* about the relationship or would you rather have a fun girl who is happy?

It isn't about playing games it is about honouring your life. If you make plans with Jane on Tuesday night you don't cancell them at the last minute because some guy called you at the last minute to go out.

You go out with Jane because he would go out with Pete.

Point missers.

Women are conditioned to overgive. If you aren't this way, then fine but if you took away *play games* which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what she says to do then ... I really don't know what to tell you other than I think you missed the point.

Women generally have problems setting boundaries, overgive, and become needy. That is what this book addresses.

I have seen the advice given within transform relationships. I am NOT kidding.

She just says men don't want to be nagged and they don't want big emotional talks, weep scenes, etc.

There is really very little to disagree with.

***I've read the book and although its interesting and does have good points. I would want a man to fall in love with me, the real girl inside..who is sweet, caring, exciting, romantic, corny, excitable and independant✨**

DD, this is exactly what the book is telling you to be!!! You clearly missed the whole point... No pretence. The pretence is acting like the "good girl" (which is the name described for the passive, dependant woman, who thinks and does what the man want not what she wants) hence, not being her true self.

Not many are more confident, secure, independent and knows how sexy and how worthy she is than I, so that alone gives this book points if I am interested in it... Hmmm, how about a re-read with that perspective.

Antibling. QS, has been in most her past relationships/involvements with Libras, including 6 year marriage to one. What male do you know more Aloof than them... Still thinking—

Okay now, there isn't anything wrong with a person who is independent. It can be nerve wrecking to women when men are this way as LS described previously, women are more of the givers and men are more of the receivers in most situations (However, like myself I could be a little more on the receiving side) Soooo. It is just pointing out that women have to learn to balance it. Break the mode. Trust most of the "good girl" traits in this book are not my traits at all, but a very few are and made me think. Not play games but even understand a mans point of view better. Not just from the book, but because I have had similar discusions about this with my male friends. With similar responses.

Well, being a bit more bitchy (but not in a real mean way) might work. I'll have to try it out. Very interesting, indeed.

LS, they just don't get it... Hmmm, guess the book are just for the mature and open minded...

Nic's at work and he can't respond himself, so this is his response:

"The problem of female power, dearest Nic, is that generally it is stripped from women from the getgo."

I am sorry that you chose somewhere along the lines of your life to believe this bullshit. If the summary of the book is what you say, the author is actually speaking of two sociological points. The first being a pity party of how all women are born into this world at a disadvantage. The second being that one's self-worth comes from within oneself. The second point is definitely true and everyone that wants to become a mature adult needs to understand this. This is the argument that the author is trying to make. All arguments need to be quantified. She is trying to quantify this argument with the new, what I like to call, "neo-feminism". Feminism simply describes that men and women deserve equality. Neo-feminism, which this author is alluding to, likes to argue the point that all women are inherently disadvantaged, and this way of thought isn't exclusive to people like her, but any demographic of person who is subconsciously afraid of the equality they seek. If you spent the rest of your life talking to as many people as you could, you would find that, in their mind, the situation that they were born into, whether they appreciate it or not, was not ideal. That goes for men and women alike.

...continued...

...continued...

To become an adult and then base your actions off of an unreasonable desire to fix something that is in the past only highlights a pitiful irony in the pholisophy that drives you. True power comes from those who accept the situations that they have endured, good and bad, and simply focus on the things that they want to achieve out of life. The difference between the people I respect and the people I don't in these circumstance is the way they go about achieving these things. To do so, consciously modifying your personal behaviour to always hold an advantage over someone else, who has nothing to do with the past experiences that you can't let go of, is only effective in making the statement that you are too weak to allow only yourself, and not past circumstances, to define who you are. For anyone who truly believes in what you said above about women be subjected to such harsh and damaging inequality, and if you are sure you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you get up and educate the world of the truly hurtful circumstances. However if you are just looking to share you life with someone who will appreciate you for who you are and treat you as their equal, I should hope you have the maturity to treat each new prospect with only the genuine desire that you have and not as an opportunity to correct a part of the world's problem by subjecting them to such a loaded adgenda, in which there is a very slim chance that they were either consciously or unconsciously a part of.

...continued...

...continued...

I am having a hard time articulating my feelings on this topic because I am dictating it over the phone. I have a feeling that I am going to have a lot of contenders but anyone who wants to argue me on this please understand off the bat that I am not going to hold value to any arguments based off of some ideal that at its best is unattainable and at its worst not only fails in correcting the real issue but creates a whole other problem entirely. As Libra as I am, I however stand firm in my beliefs on this topic, so please only get into this with me if you are prepared for the possiblity that I might not so diplomatically break it down to you.

nicodemus
(via dictation)

Point one: Bitch is a euphemism

Point two: ** My point: Be yourself! I guess you are fallowing my advice though~** THIS is what she is saying! Keep your friends, keep your hobbies, keep the rhythm of your life. If you are tired and have a big presentation the next day, don't jump through hoops and go see the guy who calls at 9 p.m. Be true to you and your life.
women.

* Keep your friends, keep your hobbies, keep the rhythm of your life.

And women WILLINGLY give these things up for men. Even men who they have gone on three dates with. She is saying keep your hair colour, dress the way you like, don't change everything on his suggestion. Don't get pissy about it, don't weep about it, just be flirty about it.

Nic your post is bullshit and I am calling you on it.

Obviously you haven't read anything I have posted.

BTW, I was putting the social context on the authors work trying to help people understand why women have boundary issues in the first place. My whole argument is social conditioning can be overcome. And If you don't believe women are treated very differently by society then men, from infancy, then I question your power of observation. From the getgo, means just that. In everyway women and men are treated different. They actually did an experiment dressing the same baby as a girl and then as a boy, and they way people held the infant. It is as damaging to men as it is to women.

Social conditioning can be overcome which was my argument. Avgro gives tools and gives permission for women to get out of their social condition, keep their lives for themselves, and thus becoming better partners for men.

* To do so, consciously modifying your personal behavior to always hold an advantage over someone else, who has nothing to do with the past experiences that you can't let go of, is only effective in making the statement that you are too weak to allow only yourself, and not past circumstances, to define who you are.

This isn't about past experienced. It is about social conditioning which EVERYONE is subject too.

This is NOT a manipulation tool. This is about women keeping their friends, their hobbies, the rhythm of their lives. Instead of doing everything to have, keep a guy, just be yourself and know that you will be okay. Don't put your heart, live, soul, happiness in the hands of every guy who takes you to dinner. Get to know him. Keep your balance. Take responsibility for your own happiness.

You cannot properly comment because you have never read the book.

I think it is very odd whenever anyone does not want the best for a group of people. Women (and men) are happiest when women see a relationship as part of their life not their whole life. No one can be someone's everything. You are responsible for yourself. A man is not. That is the argument she is making.

And if you want to bring it, go for it. As I am just as adamant in my position, as you are in whatever argument you are making. Relationships cannot be healthy with half people. When women fail to live fufilling lives for themselves, and dump their fulfillment on men, they become a half.

This isn't about manipulating someone for affection it is actually the opposite. It is about taking responsibility for your life instead of dumping it at the feet of a man and making him fix it for you. By dumping your life on someone else, you are actually manipulating them.

But if you think that is wrong, by all means, argue with me.

Independent, self-fufilled women make better partners for men. If you don't believe that you might want to look into D/s which oddly is very equal because the emotional wellbeing of s comes first.

* If you don't believe that you might want to look into D/s which oddly is very equal because the emotional wellbeing of s comes first.

And don't ask me about this as I am really tired of explaining things to people who are reactionary, not thinking, and jumping to conclusions.

BTW, threats and intimidation really piss me off.

My two cents? I'd rather be with a cookiemonster than a bitch. . .

They take because they give up their lives and expect men to fill the wholes left behind. When you give up yoga (for example) to spend more time with the guy, you expect the guy to fill that whole. See how it works?

Yes kind of. But men generally don't do that as much or often. Very few men are going to give up Friday Night Poker with the guys because they have gone on two dates with a girl. A girl will drop all her friends, hobbies, yadda yadda and sit patiently by the phone. (Men who do this, by the way, have the same problems as women do.)

When you give up yoga or poker night, you have a sudden hole in your life. The joy you got from that activity and the people you were in contact with, is now missing. PLUS you have an expectation that your partner will appreciate the sacrifice and meet all the fulfillment that came from the activity.

I think when men give up these activities, it is usually at the demands of a woman. (I could be wrong. I have had it go the opposite way but not in a long time. And trust me it is a lot of pressure when someone wants all your time.) What Argrov is saying is let him watch his football game and go out with your friends on Sundays and have tea, but you go to your Tuesday yoga night and see him on Wednesday instead.

It is really common sense stuff but A LOT of women have a hard time with it.

* Chpt. 1, its ok to spend Sunday on the couch watching football and drinking beer.

Why isn't it?

bitch is a euphanism for something else.

Sassy is flirting. She says don't be aggressive, demanding, bitchy, just be fun and flirty. Don't take it personal, just be cute, sweet, flirty when you need to stand up for yourself. She actually advicates the use of humour and wit to deal with these problems.

It is a Euphanism.

It stands for something else. It stands for a Babe In Total Control of Herself. In other words, no big emotional scenes, keep your life, have fun, don't expect men to change, don't put up with obvious bad behviour and disrespec. (Don't get pissy about it, just move on.)

Whatever. You knew what I meant.

***Antibling is perplexed and would like to see the light....... ***

Well pick up the book and you will see the light. You have clearly been in the dark a long time. LOL!!!

And since you want the exact word I was trying to use, the term would be dysphemism. I was actually thinking euphemism but I should have used dysphemism. The term BITCH in this context is an Acronym but I meant dysphemism.

In this context, it has several meanings. It means I have a miserable cold, am high on cold medication, am in a pissy moody, and can't be bothered.

and yes ... whatever usually means fuck you ... I can't be bothered.

🙂

No i didn't google but I did look it up because I knew I spelt euphemism wrong. It was then that I realized I should have used dysphemism. Euphemism's darker brother.

Permutating through what options?

It is both an acronym and dysphemism choosen for controversy.

I have written pages of well thought out social commentary and he wants to hairsplit because I used the wrong word for a figure of speech? give me a break.

The moment you give me one argument, one smart argument, against women being happy and fufilled, and why they make better partners I will address it.

Keep making childish remarks though. I am sure you are very cool anti.

Miss the whole big picture of everything I have said and pick one thing that even I think is silly and cling to that because you really can't defend the bigger picture.

LS,

I have chosen not to respond, after my first posts, as you (and others) correctly stated that I had not read the book and didn't have a good basis for critiquing it. That being said, while I have read through the posts there have been a number of your own opinions that I do find disturbing.

One, while a number of people that are arguing against this book may not have read it, they have read the posts made by a few people who:
1) have read the book
2) are condoning the book
3) profess to leave / act by the philosophy therein

You may discount their arguments as being uneducated / baseless merely because they have not personally read the book. But, as much as they are arguing what it actually says, they are also arguing what it teaches, which I am sure anyone can agree can be logically based off the responses of people who are touting what they have learned from it.

...continued...

...continued...

Two, I find your "poor little me" concept of the current situation of gender roles to be insulting to the female gender and complete crap. This happens to be a HUGE pet peeve of mine (one that unfortunately poor nic had to hear me vent on for atleast an hour last night). While in the past (way past) women may have been subjected to old-fashioned concepts of gender roles and being the submissive giver in the hierarchy of the relationship, that fact was due to them not having any other options at the time, a fact that is no longer true and has not been for a long time.

"Women are trained into submission and overgiving"
"I think we live in a society where women are ingrained with a sense of worthlessness"
"Women are taught to kling."

I do not discount that women may be treated differently and / or perhaps the environment they grew up in showed them that stand point, BUT people are who they choose to be. They have a CHOICE. They can look around the world and see that there are other options, and if they continue to be that way, it is their choice and not a lack of it as you have iterated time and again. You tout this book as being self-empowering for women and yet base your entire argument for why it is needed by proclaiming we are the helpless, worthless, choiceless people that it is supposed to teach us that we are not. Am I the only person that sees the contradiction in that?!? If that book really goes by that premise, any self-empowerment and self-possession it supposedly gives to the female gender is made mute by the fact that it is based on the castration of them. And, if this is merely your belief, then perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass and practice a little of that self-empowerment that you supposedly needed the book to teach you. We all have a choice in life (man and woman) and anyone who chooses to believe otherwise is merely choosing to give up that choice and what control they do have over their lives.

...continued...

...continued...

Three, you have repeated time and again that the philosophy this book teached is better because men don't want clingy women, men don't want needy women, men don't want...men don't want...men don't want...men do want... You talk about self-empowerment and self-possession, and yet from the contexts of you posts you show that the value it has is because of what men do and don't want. WTF?!? If you want to change yourself, or your way of thinking, then do it for you, not for some man. Isn't that, again, contradictory to the supposed premise of the entire book and what you supposedly learned from it? I would rather be needy, helpless, clingy, etc (if I was) and have one million men turn me do to try and find the one that truly wants me for me, exactly as I am and who I am, than change myself in the hopes of what? Finding someone who would have never truly loved the real me? That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside... And on that topic, isn't this in some aspect what the whole book is teaching the women that read it? You are not good enough, so change your self so someone will love you. How the hell is THAT self-empowerment of the female gender?!?

As DD said:
"Get on the band wagon girls, be yourself..someone out there somewhere is looking for a girl just like you and how is he suppost to meet/find you when you prentending to me something your not?"

On a side note:

"Ok, long term, if you aren't each other's "whole" filler, you probably won't make it. If you don't each depend one on the other, then the relationship is somewhat expendable."

** applause **

Relationships are two people completing a "whole". It is finding your compliment that will fill in the gaps where you are short and you for them. Nobody is perfect, and there are always gaps (whether they be for one person gender specific ones or for another person other ones).

JR

You raise an interesting point. I believe, over time, relationships need to become interdependent not dependent. Dependent suggests unconditional love and I am not sure that works.

It actually comes down to a philosophical question can unconditional love exist in a romantic relationship? If so can the romantic relationship survive the uncondition?

Although the romantic in all of us wants to yell, "Yes! Hell that is the way it should be!" I personally don't believe it is possible. I believe the very nature of humanity dictates that uncondition cannot go unpunished. I believe we take for granted what is given too easily. I believe our very nature will demand that we push the bounds of that uncondition and ensure the destruction of the relationship. We would stop trying to please our lover, because we have our lovers automatic acceptance and love. Why continue to do the very behaviour they fell in love with.

One might see this as very cynical but I disagree. I actually see this as very hopeful. I believe our expectations of each other keep us human. Knowing the other person wants you, not needs you is not only sexy but complimentary.

Plus, one must wonder, without the moral watch dog of expectation, would we cease to be human?

I am not sure how much I believe what I just posted as it is a rather unexplored thought.

Relationships are not two people becoming a hole. It is a set up for disaster. It is a very romantic notion that someone can fills us and make us happy but no one can. You need two hole people to make up a healthy relationship otherwise you end up in dysfunction, co-dependence, and heartbreak.

I believe there really should be three lives in a relationship. Your life. His life. And a life together.

Any other recipe puts too much pressure on the participants and leads to disaster.

Plus, at somepoint, every relationship ends. If you do not have your own life, you are in trouble when that person dies, breaks-up with you, whatever.

"Plus, at somepoint, every relationship ends."

Hmmm... Perhaps that would explain a lot... 😢

lol!

All relationship do end. Name a relationship that does. "Death comes to all men." 🙂

Alcheme do you really think you and nic are going to die at the same time provided your relationship lives that long?

The happiest relationships are ones where both people have happy, fufilling lives.

If nothing else, it gives em something to talk about. lol!

* they are also arguing what it teaches

how can you argue what it teaches, if you don't know what it teaches ... because YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK.

*bangs head on desk.*

People who do not have compassion for the human condition are a pet peeve of mine.

* proclaiming we are the helpless, worthless, choiceless people that it is supposed to teach us that we are not.

Actually, I am saying women often feel they are worthless and are not taught boundaries. I believe women are conditioned to feel this way.

* You talk about self-empowerment and self-possession, and yet from the contexts of you posts you show that the value it has is because of what men do and don't want.

lofl! Are you for real?

The whole thing I am arguing is women should keep THEIR friends, THEIR hobbies, the rhythm of THEIR life. It has nothing to do with a man. I am trying to explain all this in the context of this book. That relationships go better when women are self-fulfilled.

* You are not good enough, so change your self so someone will love you. How the hell is THAT self-empowerment of the female gender?!?

That is NOT what it is teaching. But thank you for missing the point ... YET again!

It is teaching women that they are okay. It is okay not to drop your friends, interests, hobbies. It is okay to take responsibility for yourself. It is okay to stand up for yourself and your life.

which part of that you can argue with ... I don't know.

excellent point!

One of my former lovers once told me ... no matter who you are with, really you are all alone, within yourself. When you turn out the lights at night, when you walk out the door, when you are in the shower you really only have yourself, everything else is an illusion because nothing can penetrate into self.

It is a rather dismal philosophy but an interesting one.

It kind of goes hand in hand with another philosophy that argues that time is an illusion and only now exists. Where is the who you were five minutes ago? You know you were here but you can't point to it. You can't see it. It no longer exists.

Again, I am not sure what I believe these are just interesting tossed thought salads.

🙂