An interesting conversation

Started by devia, Aug 01, 2005, 10:45 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

devia

Tonight my husband and I sat down with a good old friend and he brought up the subject of what was wrong with his and his present girlfriends relationship.

He comes into town about 5 months out of the year, when he's not doing the pro-golf thing or doing his out of season gig.

She's been doing it on her own for as long as she's been an adult (also a high earning professional). Both have nothing to gain financially from each other in any way (besides high earners themselves they are trust fund babies). Both are never married mid forties.

They've been dating for about a year now yet they've never actually crossed the line to say to each other they even care for each other never mind love each other. Armor is up, lines of defense are drawn and I really doubt either will ever cross them.  On the other hand, they have a great time out together and have everything in common.

So when he posed the question (why don't I love her) about his lack of passion for this terrific hard-bodied very attractive woman my first question back was.. "how does she need you".

Bingo.

Everything I have ever seen in my life has drawn me to the conclusion that babies need mommies in the most simplistic terms and mommies need daddies.


Over the years I've seen the same guy proclaim "love" for the tattooed white trash doe eyed waitress in the dive bar who wouldn't (and shouldn't), give him the time of day.  That kind of girl brings out his paternal instincts, while his peer I would guess in some way would kinda feel like screwing the equal (I could have made that much coarser).

IMHO feminists and masculists can try to make boys out of girls and vs. versa all they want.  Our friend is not feeling love for this woman not because she is not worthy of it but because she doesn't give him that feeling of need. You can only sway so far from nature's course.

CaptDMO

And yet, you believe they're still together because............?

devia

That was his question to us not mine.



The long and the short of it tonight was "why am I not feeling anything for her though I should be".

The Gonzman

This is exactly why thje guy with the gorgeous, curvaceous, DD-cup, witty wife is down the road screwing the slightly overweight, short, small-breasted, glasses wearing woman who is almost frumpy.

When he comes to his house, he is treated like furniture or nagged - when he goes there he gets treated like the sun coming up in the morning.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

realman

I don't think it's so much a matter of being needed... it's more a matter of being appreciated vs. being taken for granted, or worse. IF Devia's friends' GF doesn't appreciate him and care about him, he won't feel much for her. Now this is where it gets sticky... does she NOT appreciate or care for him... or is she just not showing it?

Gonz's example is true as well, I don't know how many times I've felt like telling a naggy-type woman that she's digging her own hole the more she does it. I also laugh every time I see a woman act this way and then whine about how "he doesn't care about me anymore". Duh.... would you care much about someone who haggled and nagged over every detail, treated you like a work animal, and acted like sex with you is just another chore on the list soemwhere between vacuuming and cleaning the toilet?

Of course, another thing that feeds into a scenario like Gonz's is that men (in most cases at least) go through life quite hungry for that which most women take for granted from the onest of puberty until menopause...approving, appreciative sexual attention. Of course if there is appreciation and respect as a person and a personality on top, that is quite appealing too.. as most here know, men don't get too much of that from women... unless of course she's getting something in exchange (money, self esteem, lifestyle, etc.)...  which of course is not genuine in the first place. Which in some cases is why the frumpy woman down the street treats him like the sun coming up in the morning... but just as women get used to all the sexual attention and hunger for constant reassurance (which is why they fall for the player's smooth-talking words of affection), men hunger for it because they don't get too much of it... so when that woman taht he probably wouldn't otherwise give the time of day to treats him like an Adonis and bothers to ask how his day was instead of launching into a tirade about how lousy hers was... even if it's not quite real, he'll likely find it hard to resist.

devia

Not sure how you got "that is exactly" out of what I wrote considering she has nothing to do with either of your labels for women.

She does appreciate his company when he's around from everything we've seen and heard. She should be the perfect women for a guy like him (who's not around all that much), because she just gets on with her life when he's not.

Russ2d

I'm going to have to agree with you here Devia,

We have swayed from nature's path to the point where government and unfair court rulings have replaced much of what men were needed for. In the 'death professions' where men are indespensible we still get no credit as men, but as individuals.


There is not enough discussion I think of male and female sexual identities. Normal men want to be needed and feel manly. I agree Devia.

Conspiracy Theory

Russ, Devia said they were 'trust fund babies'.  So regardless of the "feminist" movement or not, or the governments socialist transfer of wealth over to women, it has nothing to do with this scenario.

Fredrich Neitzsche posed this exact same question over 100 years ago and I will try to sum up his reply.

In the aristrocacy love is merely a "game" that people play.  Games are not taken serious.  You win, you lose, you play again tomorrow.  But with the lower classes, the farmers, the servant class love is a  necessity of trust, reliance and dependability for survival.  It's threat is immediate.

Yes, with feminism/marxism/communism/fascism, the family represents a tremendous amount of wealth transfer.  Did you know that the number two cash cow earner in Canada is inheritance?  That's right, the inheritances that children don't get from their parents goes to the Federal government.

This means unclaimed money is Canada's number two government cashcow.  Which goes into a general fund and has absolutely no accountability whatsoever to where it goes from there.

So whenever someone tells you that the fascist system of family control is nonsense you can now know that once again all you have to do is follow the money and find the motive and culprits.  

As I've said Feminism is the robber of wealth and destroyer of societies.  It happened in Russia and it's happening here.  The ones who win?  The fat cat Buracrates.   They control the CRTC and many other agencies in Canada and basically use us like a piggy bank.

Now I don't know if Neitzsche` is right, but that's certainly the same thing that Devia donned onto.  (No pun intended Donna).  

I feel sad for them, and discussions like this make me glad I was born into a lower class.  It disgusts me when guys talk about shacking up with a rich bitch.  I just can't understand how you can be with someone you  don't care about just for the bread.

If anything this is the only area of feminism I think I support.  Such as the oppurtunity to make their own money etc..., but I'm not convinced feminism had any thing to do with this either, so....(but if it did you get the idea).
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." ~ Mark Twain

The Gonzman

Quote from: "devia"
She does appreciate his company when he's around from everything we've seen and heard. She should be the perfect women for a guy like him (who's not around all that much), because she just gets on with her life when he's not.


Devia, the problem is that this also describes the Starbuck's girl that gets my coffee some mornings - or me towards her.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Roy

Devia --
Quote
IMHO feminists and masculists can try to make boys out of girls and vs. versa all they want. Our friend is not feeling love for this woman not because she is not worthy of it but because she doesn't give him that feeling of need. You can only sway so far from nature's course.


This is very interesting and fertile territory for gender theory...

Devia... are you suggesting that men will not be attracted to a woman unless she is perceived by the man as "needy?"

Are you arguing that unless a woman feels needy, that she cannot be attractive to a man who seeks to be powerful?

And, most frighteningly, are you suggesting that there is a "Nature" that distinguishes male from female?

Yes, you (arguably...) are!   :wink:
It's a terrible thing ... living in fear." (Roy - hunted replicant. "Blade Runner.")

typhonblue

Ah need, the bow legged, hunch-backed cousin to desire...

Maybe they just don't jibe. True connection is a pretty fickle thing and very rare.

Is that what a woman's love is? Physical need? And is that what a man's love is? Need to be physically needed?

Is it possible to love someone when they offer you nothing but themselves? Not need or material goods, just their own being?

I wonder why I, who comes from a long line of women who have remained married to a single man for decades, see this so differently from others on this forum.

I can't see love in terms of physical need but emotional sustainance. My partner gives me something I cannot live without because I would not want to live without it. And it certainly isn't something I can eat or drink or run my computer on. And even more certainly, it's not something I can give myself.

I have no idea what it is. It defies logic or rational explaination.

Although I'm sure a desire for this ineffable quality can be loosely mimicked by a need for material security.

Russ2d

Typhon,

There are many factors involved in a relationship, but several of those factors involve physical reality.

My argument is simply to show the biological connection between the sexes; that each sexes needs are to be found in the opposite sexes bodies.

We live in a physical world with physical bodies, that connection cannot be ignored or rationalized away, which is what the feminists do and are demanding all of us do as well.

There are other factors in a relationship which you have expressed but I think this one needs to be stated often since it is one of the most villainized by the feminists.

typhonblue

And now we live in an era where the sexes do not need eachother physically as much as they have in the past.

Perhaps the key to a more humane future is to understand what we need from eachother, particularly what women desire from men, that has nothing to do with physical and material things.

Women may have needed men to support them, in the past, but they did not love them for it. In fact, judging from history, the more women depended on men, and the less men depended women in return, the more women seemed to develop contempt for the men they needed. (And I can think of some individual examples of this as well.)

Conspiracy Theory

Women still need men to support them now.  What makes you think anything is different?

We built up society, we can tear it down.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." ~ Mark Twain

devia

Russ,

I think you are right on. Lot's of people have said here what they think a woman wants from a man, this conversation was about what a man wants from a woman.

When I first met my husband, he was much the same mindset as our friend, "so I'll be traveling about 3 months out of the year solo is that as problem?" Nope I said and I still believe it, he has heads up as far as doing the Texas golf thing whenever he wants.

But... I see it as giving him his space not filling my own need. I may be fully functional on my own but when he's gone I cry because he's gone (I don't mean the drama queen real tears thing, I just love being with him, as corny as this sounds my eyes light up when he comes in).

In his mind (as far as I can feel confident in speaking for him) he's gone from I'll be gone for a month twice a year wherever I may wander to saying besides golf vacations I like experiencing life with you and let's travel together.

When my husband takes off for the weekend with the friend is about both his rights as an individual and the understanding that each partner in any partnership has to have their own life away from being joined at the hip.

However couples who love each other love going through life together. While our friend is not jealous of us he's aware that our somewhat interdependence feeds both of our needs. Part of him, although he loves taking off to where ever without a cause in the world I think wishes someone (the girlfriend in question) wanted to go with him.

Conspiracy Theory,


In a somewhat ironic manner, the most loving role model of a couple Corey and I have is our friend above parents. Both of us (again excuse me for speaking for him) wish very strongly to have, and strive to have what they have.

I cannot imagine a stronger love (though we work towards it).  They may not have NEEDED each other, but I'm of the mindset that real love is not about need. +80 with the passion thay have for each other ..... please.




Gonzokid- Sorry but you're still completely missing the point. He does/enjoy her, she does/enjoys him. Neither is hitting the love spark for each other. What's he missing, what's she missing, this would be a conversation. What she is lacking is not, what he is lacking is not. Between the two of them who's going to say "I LOVE YOU" first.... Neither. They are peers.

Again I think you're just lacking in the understanding of the male-female spark. Listen to a lot of Dylan and maybe it might become clearer?

When I think of you, or AngryHarry my first though had been what does this guy want? Do they want a 50/50 work/home partnership? Yes/no equality or no.


Roy,


Unfortunately, your thoughts are quite deep and in some ways I agree with them.  I wrote a page and then erased it because of lack of time questioning my responces. I would however in the future write back to pursue what you said further.

In lei of debate if I haven't came back to this thread within the week and you still want me to,  send forth the message privately or I will be forever ...embarrassed?

As a hint I would run the risk of saying that without psychological need (as opposed to physical or menial) we would have no need for anyone.

Go Up