# women's "biological imperatives"



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

So as not to hijack, any further, an already hijacked thread, I'm starting this to one so we can argue about women's use/misuse of the "girls will be girls" idea--even if it is rarely said.

Crying--I personally think that is 'way overused by women to manipulate men. In fact, I suspect that most of what men *think* is just "natural" for women is behavior women have learned works to manipulate men. The downside is that these behaviors continue to validate--in the minds of men, in particular--that women "are" a certain way; what is socialized behavior is assumed to be biological. So ultimately, this strategy--while serving individual women--gives the impression that women, in general, are simply "more" emotional--and, in a strange twist of logic, therefore less competent than men (we have to remember that for some reason, anger doesn't count as an emotion--it's just tears that count).

I read the most useful definition of "culture" recently, by the way: the sum of tools and actions humans employ to make the social seem natural. 

I think women use PMS too often as an excuse for inappropriate behavior, too. Just because you feel physically different, and maybe even a bit uncomfortable, it is no reason to go off on others. 

OK, these are just some random observations--my main point is, I think women use "it's just our nature" as much as men, but in different ways. Comments?


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

A lot of women do use PMS to become beotches during that time of the month. 

I used to be one of them. But I learned to "control" my emotions when I felt them getting out of whack during that time and it does work. So much so that most of the time I don't even know when my time is coming.

Crying - I cry - but it's because I'm an emotional person - not because I'm trying to manipulate some man or anyone else. I have deep feelings and they can be easily hurt with the right subject and I just can't help myself. But I have also tried to control this by leaving the room, calming myself down, etc.

But you're right - a LOT of women use PMS and crying to get what they want.

They use sex a lot too.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

You nailed it with socialized behavior is assumed to be biological. I find this to be 100% true.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm torn. I see what you are saying, but I think that men find it just as disgusting when a woman does it as we do.

For instance, when a woman marries solely for money. She may like the guy she married, but she was mainly attracted to him because he can keep her financially secure. This woman is demonized as a gold digger even though it is in a woman's nature to seek security from a man.

As much as women want to be loved for who they are, wrinkles and stretch marks and all, I believe men want to feel like their woman wouldn't leave them if times got rough and he couldn't provide for her as well as he once could.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

themrs said:


> This woman is demonized as a gold digger even though it is in a woman's nature to seek security from a man.


Where is it proven that it is a woman's NATURE to seek security from a man? I think you just proved her point. Cultural stereotypes assumed to be biological or "natural".


----------



## frustr8dhubby (Dec 23, 2010)

I think in a lot of cases that is true. However, I have to say that I have seen examples of "biological" behavior. My wife's one sister is a very religious family. Growing up their kids were not allowed to have toy guns, see violent shows etc. Guess what, hand their son a stick and BAM it is a gun in their imagination. Obviously that isn't always true but I was reminded of it yesterday when I saw my neighbors son with a hockey stick treating it like it was a rifle.

So maybe it's not so much a gender thing as an individual one? For example my wife has never been hostile during her time of the month.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

Mom6547 said:


> Where is it proven that it is a woman's NATURE to seek security from a man? I think you just proved her point. Cultural stereotypes assumed to be biological or "natural".


:scratchhead: You do not think it is in a woman's biological nature to seek a man whom she thinks can provide her security? 

I don't know. I think it's natural, not just nurture. I think men naturally want to give women things, and women naturally want to receive them. 

It seems that women are more attracted to a man with power, status, and money than they are a pretty face and a cute butt.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

themrs said:


> :scratchhead: You do not think it is in a woman's biological nature to seek a man whom she thinks can provide her security?


You are asserting it. Do you have any demonstration of this biology at all?

No, for the record, I do not.


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

Mom6547 said:


> You are asserting it. Do you have any demonstration of this biology at all?
> 
> No, for the record, I do not.


How do you go about proving either way, though?

I mean, imagine that there are no men left on earth, only women. We learn to provide for ourselves, live for ourselves, and men are forgotten. 

Now imagine a single man is found somewhere. He is a strong leader and self-sufficient. Will the women be drawn to him for biological reasons of security or will he be ignored because the women no longer have a need for security?

Oh, the 'ol nature v. nurture dilemma.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

Mom6547 said:


> You are asserting it. Do you have any demonstration of this biology at all?
> 
> No, for the record, I do not.


Well I don't feel like finding links to support my assertation, but the empirical evidence seems to support it from my POV.

Men don't seem to care about nice houses, vacations, or private schools. Women do. So men make money so they can attract women who want the security they find in these things. In my experience, men aquire things so they can get women. All men want is women.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

MGirl said:


> How do you go about proving either way, though?
> 
> I mean, imagine that there are no men left on earth, only women. We learn to provide for ourselves, live for ourselves, and men are forgotten.
> 
> ...


They'd be drawn to him because they want to reproduce. If he's the only man, it wouldn't matter because the only concern would be to continue mankind. 

But if there were two men - one a good provider and the other a bum - I'd bet all the women would be drawn to the one who could put a steak on the table.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Themrs, there isn't anything "natural" about it. Humans have always been social animals and women did not depend on a single male to provide for them. This is a common assumption-but totally wrong. Our modern configuration of the nuclear family is just a more recent social adaptation to industrialization (primarily). Extended families and group support were the norm in the past and continue to be the norm in many parts of the world today.

In fact there is some evidence to show that the men women find sexually attractive and the ones they prefer to live with are different men!


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

MGirl said:


> How do you go about proving either way, though?


That is a very good question, one that scientists have been working on for a long time and have not come up with anything conclusive. 

That is why making a such a definitive statement, as if it is an unarguable first premise, that women *naturally* want a provider makes no sense to me.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Themrs is right. Two men, let's say both the same height, weight, looks, build, personality, humor. One is rich and the other poor. I'd bet my next paycheck I know the answer to who would be picked.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

sisters359 said:


> Themrs, there isn't anything "natural" about it. Humans have always been social animals and women did not depend on a single male to provide for them. This is a common assumption-but totally wrong. Our modern configuration of the nuclear family is just a more recent social adaptation to industrialization (primarily). Extended families and group support were the norm in the past and continue to be the norm in many parts of the world today.
> 
> In fact there is some evidence to show that the men women find sexually attractive and the ones they prefer to live with are different men!


I just don't agree. I don't think (and I never said) women NEED a man to provide for them. I know I don't. If my husband were to pick up and leave me today I would not miss a beat taking care of and providing for my children.

But the fact remains that I am more attracted to a man who is a good provider vs one that doesn't keep a job and rarely brings home money. This is because I want to be the one who takes care of my children (breastfeed them, bath them, potty train them) and in today's society it is virtually impossible for a woman to do all of these things AND be a good provider. It's not impossible, but it's made much easier when you have a man to provide. 

If this is true, then the only reason a woman would NEED a man is to have a baby. I like to think we women instinctively want a man for more than that, even if we don't actually NEED him for anything else.


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

themrs said:


> They'd be drawn to him because they want to reproduce. If he's the only man, it wouldn't matter because the only concern would be to continue mankind.
> 
> But if there were two men - one a good provider and the other a bum - I'd bet all the women would be drawn to the one who could put a steak on the table.


Errr....yeah, bad example. Never mind.

Your example is much better


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Brennan, you could lose that pay check  I would bet mine that a lot of women would *want* to have sex with the hot guy but might choose to play nice with the wealthy loser because they have been socialized by western society to look for male support.

In real life, we'd all be f*cking 'em both because the more genetic diversity in repopulating the world, the better. Poor guys--the last two men on earth! hahahahaha.


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

themrs said:


> I just don't agree. I don't think (and I never said) women NEED a man to provide for them. I know I don't. If my husband were to pick up and leave me today I would not miss a beat taking care of and providing for my children.
> 
> But the fact remains that I am more attracted to a man who is a good provider vs one that doesn't keep a job and rarely brings home money. This is because I want to be the one who takes care of my children (breastfeed them, bath them, potty train them) and in today's society it is virtually impossible for a woman to do all of these things AND be a good provider. It's not impossible, but it's made much easier when you have a man to provide.
> 
> If this is true, then the only reason a woman would NEED a man is to have a baby. I like to think we women instinctively want a man for more than that, even if we don't actually NEED him for anything else.


Okay, this is what I was trying to say in my earlier post. Nicely said.

Women may not NEED men who are good providers, but we sure as hell WANT them.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

themrs said:


> :scratchhead: You do not think it is in a woman's biological nature to seek a man whom she thinks can provide her security?
> 
> I don't know. I think it's natural, not just nurture. I think men naturally want to give women things, and women naturally want to receive them.
> 
> It seems that women are more attracted to a man with power, status, and money than they are a pretty face and a cute butt.


I don't think that financial security is necessarily a driving force in bringing people together. I've always known that I'll out-earn my husband, and in fact, I AM making more than he did at the same age I am now. So I've never needed him to feel secure. In fact he's never paid any of my bills, so that's a bit of a moot point for us.

I would posit however that _people_ like to give things and _people_ like to get things. Perhaps it's my point of view. My primary love language is definitely gifts. I love to find this thing or that thing that reminds me of a person, or that they said they liked one time and pick it up for them, either as a surprise or for a special occasion. And it means the world to me when someone does that for me (or I suppose it would...dare to dream! ) But I wouldn't say that the enjoyment of giving or getting presents is gender-biased by any means.

And women choosing hotness versus power? Two words: Liz Taylor. Remember that construction worker she married? People marry all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons....


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Hmmm I disagree on the crying part. I cry when happy, angry, sad, excited...you name it. I feel this welling up from my chest and then in my head and then try my hardest to not look like an idiot. No kidding.

Today I cried on the way home after finding out I got a job I love. I couldn't help it. Crazy thing is that no one was there with me to barter attention from.

I also cried at the supermarket when the counter lady was being mean to me. I didn't want to, I just did because I was frustrated and angry and upset but unable to vocalize it in a coherent way. How embarrassing. 

I cry if my kids get a good report card too. Just cried a week or so ago when they brought them home. I'm so proud of them and then I get that feeling in my chest...bammmmm. I go to the bathroom to try and not look like an idiot.

I cry at Hallmark commercials, that Etoys commercial got me every time, television shows...happy or sad...I'm there crying.

I don't know. Maybe I have WAY TOO MUCH ESTROGEN.

All I do know is...I've never, ever, ever cried to get what I wanted. It's my bodies way of handling emotional overload...which apparently happens often for me!


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

sisters359 said:


> Brennan, you could lose that pay check  I would bet mine that a lot of women would *want* to have sex with the hot guy but might choose to play nice with the wealthy loser because they have been socialized by western society to look for male support.
> 
> In real life, we'd all be f*cking 'em both because the more genetic diversity in repopulating the world, the better. Poor guys--the last two men on earth! hahahahaha.


LOL! She said if they were BOTH equally hot! 

But you do make a good point. I think I'd boink the guy who was funnier, even if he weren't the best provider. Oh wait, that's what I did in real life.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Brennan, I think that the attraction you mention is "normal" in "today's society" for a lot of women--but not all. 2nd, just b/c something is currently considered "normal" behavior (not even desirable, necessarily, but socially acceptable), does not make it "natural" in the biological sense. I suspect that when our foremothers scoped out male hominids in the group, indicators of good genetics--longevity, in particular, indicated by physical maturity was probably *much* more important than, say, the size of his stick (and get your minds out of the gutter, people!). But I'll bet no one was as picky then as people claim they are now--the human species would've died out! And we've all seen the video of those female lions sneeking off to have sex with the male outlyers, haven't we? The more, the merrier, I guess!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

sisters359 said:


> Brennan, you could lose that pay check  I would bet mine that a lot of women would *want* to have sex with the hot guy but might choose to play nice with the wealthy loser because they have been socialized by western society to look for male support.
> 
> In real life, we'd all be f*cking 'em both because the more genetic diversity in repopulating the world, the better. Poor guys--the last two men on earth! hahahahaha.


I wrote that the two men were identical in everyway except money. Wanna go double or nothing?


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

Trenton said:


> Hmmm I disagree on the crying part. I cry when happy, angry, sad, excited...you name it. I feel this welling up from my chest and then in my head and then try my hardest to not look like an idiot. No kidding.
> 
> Today I cried on the way home after finding out I got a job I love. I couldn't help it. Crazy thing is that no one was there with me to barter attention from.
> 
> ...


I'm with you. I cry ALL THE TIME. At anything for any reason. 

I don't do it to get what I want, but it may appear that way because I cry when I'm frustrated.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> Hmmm I disagree on the crying part. I cry when happy, angry, sad, excited...you name it. I feel this welling up from my chest and then in my head and then try my hardest to not look like an idiot. No kidding.
> 
> Today I cried on the way home after finding out I got a job I love. I couldn't help it. Crazy thing is that no one was there with me to barter attention from.
> 
> ...


Damn, are you the Speaker of the House? :rofl:


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

That's impossible though Brennan. How can they be exactly the same except one has money and one doesn't?

I bet the guy with the money wouldn't have time to do that. Too busy with the money. Can I interview these guys? I'm thinking it's impossible for them to be exactly the same except one has money and one doesn't...money changes everything.

Money & providing isn't my first choice. Nope.

Seriously, did you pick your husband because of his net income? I doubt you did!


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

Never used crying for manipulation myself, either. Just when I get extremely overwhelmed and feel like I'm going to blow a gasket. Excellent stress reliever, that crying.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Damn, are you the Speaker of the House? :rofl:


Oh my gods....:lol:


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

Okay, I have another one which I assume is natural to women. I've always thought we naturally want to be pursued. For a woman to pursue a man is to actively get him to pursue her. That is why women don't initate sex as often as men, or should I say we are more subtle in our approach.

Is it biological that women are less aggressive than men, or is it just a cultural norm that says the man is the one who should actively go after the woman?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> That's impossible though Brennan. How can they be exactly the same except one has money and one doesn't?
> 
> I bet the guy with the money wouldn't have time to do that. Too busy with the money. Can I interview these guys? I'm thinking it's impossible for them to be exactly the same except one has money and one doesn't...money changes everything.
> 
> ...


No, didn't pick him because of a paycheck. Having said that and struggling financially for years, I'd take somebody with stability any day over paycheck to paycheck. Security IS sexy when you finally have it.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

Brennan said:


> No, didn't pick him because of a paycheck. Having said that and struggling financially for years, I'd take somebody with stability any day over paycheck to paycheck. *Security IS sexy when you finally have it*.


You can say that again!


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Brennan said:


> No, didn't pick him because of a paycheck. Having said that and struggling financially for years, I'd take somebody with stability any day over paycheck to paycheck. Security IS sexy when you finally have it.


Better if you have security with someone you genuinely love and who loves you. The journey is the joy and if on that journey all you have is butt loads of money...well, that's not for me. I doubt it's what you actually want either because if it was you'd be happier now than when the two of you met. Right?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

themrs said:


> Well I don't feel like finding links to support my assertation, but the empirical evidence seems to support it from my POV.
> 
> Men don't seem to care about nice houses, vacations, or private schools.


This could be, and in my opinion is, impacted by loads of factors from geography to upbringing. 

Around here, you see plenty of men valuing these things and vice versa. If there is a place as socially liberal as much of New England in which the values you claim are natural don't even amount to a significant majority, then I would say it is not a matter of nature at all.

It is of minor irritation to me that people make logical leaps that don't hold or stand, like my observation in my narrow little world can be expanded to make universal judgements because people tend to base their decisions on these things. 

That women and black people were unintelligent was a "fact" that people could CLEARLY observe based in difference in ability. Hello, how about women and black people had no access to education?







> Women do.


I don't. Nor do the majority of people I speak with.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> Better if you have security with someone you genuinely love and who loves you. The journey is the joy and if on that journey all you have is butt loads of money...well, that's not for me. I doubt it's what you actually want either because if it was you'd be happier now than when the two of you met. Right?


Err, I think my point is getting skewed. What Themrs was saying is that many women want security and a few kind of jumped on that and said it was not true. What I was saying is that for me, it is. We have problems, lots of them. Luckily money isn't one of them. The two times we nearly divorced, money was most definately an issue. 
As for being happier? Not having the added financial stress and feeling like you are going to vomit certainly makes me happier.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

Mom6547 said:


> I don't. Nor do the majority of people I speak with.


I was exaggerating to make a point. I don't care about those things either, but I'd rather not live in a cardboard box if you catch my drift. 

Everyone has the standard of living at which they are comfortable living, but in my experience it seems the standard of women is higher (or maybe just different) than the standard of men.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

themrs said:


> I was exaggerating to make a point. I don't care about those things either, but I'd rather not live in a cardboard box if you catch my drift.


That makes no sense. You don't. I don't. But "women" do?



> Everyone has the standard of living at which they are comfortable living, but in my experience it seems the standard of women is higher (or maybe just different) than the standard of men.


But your experience is not vast enough to make such universal categorizations of "women".


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Yes, sense is lacking. My experience does not correlate either.

*scratches head*


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

themrs said:


> Okay, I have another one which I assume is natural to women. I've always thought we naturally want to be pursued. For a woman to pursue a man is to actively get him to pursue her. That is why women don't initate sex as often as men, or should I say we are more subtle in our approach.
> 
> Is it biological that women are less aggressive than men, or is it just a cultural norm that says the man is the one who should actively go after the woman?


It's cultural. If it were natural, every society in every part of the world would have the tradition of men pursuing/selecting/initiating in relationships with women. That's simply not the case. There are cultures on nearly every continent where women traditionally pursue and select their husbands and are the 'leaders' in their homes. I'm sure they'd laugh at the idea of trying to get a man to pursue you, the idea would seem so foreign. 

Have you read the book "Committed"? It's the sequel to "Eat, Pray, Love" and describes the author's journey to come to terms with marrying her now-husband in order for them to stay in the same country. During the course of the book she interviews women all over the world about love and marriage...she gets some interesting viewpoints. You might want to check it out sometime...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

*Speaking about PMS here *... One of my all time favorite hormone books talks about all of this Amazon.com: The Alchemy of Love and Lust (9780671004446): Theresa L. Crenshaw: Books She got a research grant to study PMS (book written by a woman), she wanted to DEBUNK Pms , feeling it was a psychological affliction. 

She wanted to learn if Non-human primates also experienced behavior changes priot to ESTRUS (their verson of menstruation). Zoo keepers had MUCH to say about premenstraul monkey business. ...One handlers story"


> I know when she is coming into estrus without even checking the charts or her daily weights" -"she is usually tame, cooperative and affectionate- easy to handle. however just before estrus she starts chattering at her mate, scolding her young, causing a genral ruckus. Her infant cringes in terror, her mate keeps his distance, and so do I . Once she got loose from me, tore up the lab & did this" -he held up his right hand, the middle finger had been bitten off . "the Rest of the month she's a pu**ycat" he added.


The conclusion was obvious: Either female rhesus monkeys have penis envy & castration anxiety (note the severed digit; somebody might try to make a case for that) or their hormones change their behavior dramatically. If such behavior was apparent in our closest primate relatives, it seemed reasonable to surmise that our menstrual moods were influenced by the whims of our chemicals as well. 

I agree with the Auther of this book, there are reasons women ACT this way, just as there are very valid reasons why men ACT more aggressive and are more Sexual, they have 10 times more Testosterone than us, it is no wonder. 

I think if we want to be smart about this. For each of the sexes , we need to give each other a little slack considering these things. No, we should not make excuses, that is too easy - BUt neither should we bury our hands in the sand and not recognize these very different hormonal differences. 

It says this in this book --


> It is now known that the mix of hormones circulating in your body at any given time will determine , at least in part, how you respond to a new attraction or an old love, how sexy you feel, how you react emotionally, if you are inclined to make an emotional commitment , and much much more. In turn, when you fall in love, touch, or even think about your object of desire , certian hormones surge while others decrease, and this new concoction alters how you feel, what you think and what you do.





> While environment & culture go a long way in explaining our behavior, our hormones behave the same way whether we are American, chinese, Jew, Episcopalian. They don't know what your mom told you to do, they just follow their own chemical imperatives.
> 
> It is unsettling to think that most private personal problems have underlying chemical causes that we didn't even realize existed, and that molecules can manipulate our minds, even our mates ! But it is also liberating --the idea that a long standing road block may very well be your hormones acting up means that you can take stock & consider how to manipulate them in return. In doing so you will stop being the unwitting slave of your hormones & become instead their master.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Err, I think my point is getting skewed. What Themrs was saying is that many women want security and a few kind of jumped on that and said it was not true. What I was saying is that for me, it is. We have problems, lots of them. Luckily money isn't one of them. The two times we nearly divorced, money was most definately an issue.
> As for being happier? Not having the added financial stress and feeling like you are going to vomit certainly makes me happier.


My experience is different. There is nothing worse (for me) than internal struggle and one can have all the money in the world and still face that every day.


----------



## themrs (Oct 16, 2009)

Mom6547 said:


> That makes no sense. You don't. I don't. But "women" do?
> 
> 
> 
> But your experience is not vast enough to make such universal categorizations of "women".


Oh nevermind. I am at work and doing to many things at once to have effectively communicate my thought.

Regardless, I used to believe that culture shaped gender roles more than biology. I even wrote my thesis on the subject in college. However, after becoming a mother of sons and a daughter I can not help but notice the differences in them even from birth. My children never went to day care, but before my son was even in kindergarten he bagan to act in ways that were culturally defined as "masculine". The same is true for my daughter and being feminine. 

I can't deny the differences in them that fall into gender roles, even though our household is anything but traditional. Needless to say, it has swayed my view as to what is cultural and what is biological.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

themrs said:


> Oh nevermind. I am at work and doing to many things at once to have effectively communicate my thought.
> 
> Regardless, I used to believe that culture shaped gender roles more than biology. I even wrote my thesis on the subject in college. However, after becoming a mother of sons and a daughter I can not help but notice the differences in them even from birth. My children never went to day care, but before my son was even in kindergarten he bagan to act in ways that were culturally defined as "masculine". The same is true for my daughter and being feminine.
> 
> I can't deny the differences in them that fall into gender roles, even though our household is anything but traditional. Needless to say, it has swayed my view as to what is cultural and what is biological.


You're citing personal experience and transforming it into fact again though. I have two sons and one daughter as well. I have found they are all unique individuals. My experience has been that all three think and behave completely differently without regard to gender. My oldest daughter (14) is the least likely to cry while my middle son (10) is in tears at the drop of a hat and they've been that way since I can remember. This is one example of non stereotypical behavior for genders.

When they get older it's my hope that my daughter learns to cry a little more and my son learns to cry a little less. :rofl:


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

I could have had a child with a monied old man. He would have taken care of me for the rest of my life, if I had made a baby with him. While I admit that the security was attractive, I couldn't rent my womb out for money. I also couldn't have sex with someone who had white hair and wrinkles....ugh!!!

I am much more prone to anger than tears. I will shout louder than a megaphone before I weep. I recently went to a beauty supply store and one of the clerks was rude to me. I took a deep breath and let it pass, as I have been advised to in anger management. She was rude twice more before I let her have it.:smthumbup:

I have used sex and tears to manipulate men in the past. I was unapologetic about it; I met too many jerks whose awful behavior hardened me against men. 

I believe that most women subconciously look for a man who can provide, especially if they want a family. I dated losers who didn't work or selfish misers that complained about the price of gas as soon as I got in the car. After those experiences, I looked for generosity in terms of paying for dates and nice gifts on special occasions. I am not ashamed of this; I could always pay my own way, but I wanted a man who had enough class and cash to treat me well. 

Mr.G treated me like a princess when we dated. This is part of the reason I never turned my back when he lost his job.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> My experience is different. There is nothing worse (for me) than internal struggle and one can have all the money in the world and still face that every day.


I am not suggesting that money buys happiness, not by a long shot. If you have internal struggle couples with financial ones, it IS hell on Earth. Taking one part out of the equation makes it much more tolerable. That is my experience.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Well ... at least until they come out with that sex-bot. And booze. We want booze. Booze and bots.
> 
> It is also a woman's biological imperative to talk. A lot ...


A man's dream woman is a deaf/mute, with nice tits, a sizable inheritance and owns a bar.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I didn't like my post so removed it. You're a fast one ...
Big tits? Not a fan.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Got you Brennan.

Missed Deejo's post. I'm behind. I will admit I talk a helluva freaking lot. Love that my husband pretends to listen.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I didn't like my post so removed it. You're a fast one ...


Ha! I assumed it was older and I didn't read it.

I deleted boat loads of posts after receiving an eerie email. I scare easily. I should most likely delete more but I got lazy and bored with deleting.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I didn't like my post so removed it. You're a fast one ...
> Big tits? Not a fan.


I changed my post.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Brennan said:


> I changed my post.


:rofl:


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Brennan said:


> I changed my post.


Oh! Those? :smthumbup:

And not for nothing but we had this conversation when we discussed that Discovery channel sex show.

And women ARE attracted to security. The example was showing a picture of a 10 that hypothetically worked in a grocery store, along with a picture of a 4/5 that owned his own software company. Despite looks, most found the man with the money more attractive.

There are biological imperatives, regardless of whether or not we like to argue their validity.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Going back to the OP's question, I think women have many biological urges. Why are taller men considered more attractive? Men with a full head of hair? Men with a certain body type? It all comes down to biology. Genetically speaking a man who is tall, has great hair and is in shape has the ability to pass those genes off to his offspring. Women want good looking children so finding a mate that would ensure that is important. 
I think the difference is that once we find that, we are content. A man can find a woman with every attribute that he wants and still keeps looking, citing biology and his inability to control it. So I go back to poking holes in condoms. If biology was uncontrollable then women would have as many children as possible regardless of consequences but we don't. I think biology is used as an excuse to continue hurtful behavior. So I ask, if biology can be used by men to excuse their behavior, then wouldn't they be totally okay with their wives citing their biological imperative to have as many offspring as possible, even through sabotage? I doubt you would find a single man who would support that. Why?


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Deejo said:


> Oh! Those? :smthumbup:
> 
> And not for nothing but we had this conversation when we discussed that Discovery channel sex show.
> 
> ...


That does not prove it is biological! Nor does the behavior of young children b/c gender roles are reinforced by their society--doesn't matter if mom doesn't act girly; daughter will pick up on it from the society she sees in ads, tv, stores, etc. Same for boys. 

And I'm not trying to say that there are NO biological differences (boy, would that be stupid!) It is how we SHAPE our biological responses that is social behavior. Women in other countries--according to other studies--do not demonstrate PMS "behaviors." Some men ogle, others just do the automatic categorizing. Male fetuses are more active than female--but not all men in all cultures are more aggressive than women. The societies in which we live will influence the way we respond to hormonal levels and shifts--that's my point, just as it shapes what women find "attractive" and what men find "attractive."


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Oh! Those? :smthumbup:
> 
> And not for nothing but we had this conversation when we discussed that Discovery channel sex show.
> 
> ...


I'll be the FIRST to admit that part of the attraction to my husband was his potential. Does that make me shallow? Perhaps. It also means I am being honest. Had his IQ been 110 and he dropped out of high school, I doubt I would have been as attracted to him. 

Let's take a look at Brad Pitt. He was a construction worker in Oklahoma before he was discovered for modeling. He talked about it in an interview that he was still the same person, looked the same and had the same charisma. It wasn't until he hit it big in Hollywood that women were throwing themselves at him. What changed? Money and status. Nothing else. Brad Pitt the construction worker was good for a roll in the hay but not long term material. Brad Pitt the Hollywood mega star is the fantasy of millions of women and I bet many would kill to be Mrs. Brad Pitt. Or Mrs. Johnny Depp, Kentucky born grocery store clerk prior to being discovered. 

Women want security, period. Doubt me? See how happy you would be if your husband lost his job, you have to go back to work, your house is in foreclosure, cars repoed and college savings for your kids wiped out to try to salvage your life. Most would saw off their left arm to have the life they once new back. THAT was security. It isn't bad to want that.


----------



## bunnybear (Jan 13, 2011)

I never used crying/ PMS as an excuse to get away with anything. Infact, I haven't cried for a very very long time, last time was when I was a kid. I never even used pregnancy as an excuse to indulge myself with food, emotions, etc.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Anyone who says money can't buy happiness has never been poor. Security and stability is the _ratio sum ultra_ from which everything else flows. If that's why women marry, I wouldn't blame them. It's not the only reason but it's a significant part of it. No one would choose to live on the tattered edges of the world. I have been a homeless mental patient and it suuuuuucccckkkks!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> Anyone who says money can't buy happiness has never been poor. Security and stability is the _ratio sum ultra_ from which everything else flows. If that's why women marry, I wouldn't blame them. It's not the only reason but it's a significant part of it. No one would choose to live on the tattered edges of the world. I have been a homeless mental patient and it suuuuuucccckkkks!


Oh trust me, we have been poor. Try living on $24K in CA with an infant who had health problems. We came home one day and our apartment door was pad locked for not paying rent and a week later our car was repoed. 

You bet your butt I prefer having security and stability. I remember years ago when I was at a grocery store and our son was 3. He asked if he could have some candy and sadly, I could not afford it. The $20 I went in to the store with was all I had for us for a week. I had to stretch every last dollar. Candy was not part of it. I felt awful. Fast forward to 3 weeks ago, same son went to his Senior prom dressed in an expensive suit, stretch limo (just the two of them), ate at a five star restaurant and went to an all night after party at Dave and Busters. 

The smile on his face made me realize I never want to go back to being poor, ever. People who win the lottery are only happy for a short period of time. They usually make bad decisions and end up more miserable than they started, so it isn't money per se. Working your a$$ off to get where you are so you can send your son off for a night he will never forget is happiness.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Brennan said:


> Err, I think my point is getting skewed. What Themrs was saying is that many women want security and a few kind of jumped on that and said it was not true.


I like security. I don't agree that we need or want a man to provide it for us.

I also don't think that is what she was saying at all.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Trenton said:


> You're citing personal experience and transforming it into fact again though.


It may be fact. It may be HER fact. But it sure as heck is not gender biology.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Brennan said:


> A man's dream woman is a deaf/mute, with nice tits, a sizable inheritance and owns a bar.


I can imagine that relationships must be a challenge if that is what you think men want!


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> Anyone who says money can't buy happiness has never been poor. Security and stability is the _ratio sum ultra_ from which everything else flows. If that's why women marry, I wouldn't blame them. It's not the only reason but it's a significant part of it. No one would choose to live on the tattered edges of the world. I have been a homeless mental patient and it suuuuuucccckkkks!


I grew up in an upper middle class neighbourhood. We lived in a large four bedroom home, with two cars. I dressed in designer clothes. Despite the silver spoon, I was often depressed, withdrawn and frightened, not to mention hiding bruises.

I left that gorgeous prison and lived on welfare, along with part time work. I _scraped _to pay my rent and buy food. 

It was one of the happiest times in my life.


----------



## Blanca (Jul 25, 2008)

sisters359 said:


> Crying--I personally think that is 'way overused by women to manipulate men. In fact, I suspect that most of what men *think* is just "natural" for women is behavior women have learned works to manipulate men. The downside is that these behaviors continue to validate--in the minds of men, in particular--that women "are" a certain way; what is socialized behavior is assumed to be biological. So ultimately, this strategy--while serving individual women--gives the impression that women, in general, are simply "more" emotional--and, in a strange twist of logic, therefore less competent than men (we have to remember that for some reason, anger doesn't count as an emotion--it's just tears that count).


I am definitely guilty on this account. My anger never got me anywhere but my H cant stand it when I cry, or pout. I dont really care how it makes women appear in general, but it bugs me that i resort to these tactics so I try not to do it anymore.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> I like security. I don't agree that we need or want a man to provide it for us.
> 
> I also don't think that is what she was saying at all.


I am not saying women cannot provide for themselves, not in the slightest. I was saying (albeit badly) that women want to feel secure in their lives. Whether it is them doing the securing or somebody else, I think it is part of our make up.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> I can imagine that relationships must be a challenge if that is what you think men want!


It was a joke! It went back to a year old thread where Scannerguard talked about the St. Pauli Girl. Lordy. 
Do you really think that is what I think men want? If so, why on Earth would I have gotten married?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Brennan said:


> If so, why on Earth would I have gotten married?


You were stimulated by his HUGE medulla oblangata?


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

Geez, we all want security--hierarchy of needs, blah, blah, blah. There is a huge difference between that and saying that women are biologically programed to choose "a man who can provide for them" etc. The latter is based on the assumption that humans lived in nuclear units from our earliest days, with one man providing for one woman. The evidence says otherwise. That's the only reason the question of security came up. Are there modern women who still expect a man to "provide for" them? Yep. Is that how all women see men? Nope.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Brennan said:


> Let's take a look at Brad Pitt. He was a construction worker in Oklahoma before he was discovered for modeling. He talked about it in an interview that he was still the same person, looked the same and had the same charisma. It wasn't until he hit it big in Hollywood that women were throwing themselves at him. What changed? Money and status. Nothing else. Brad Pitt the construction worker was good for a roll in the hay but not long term material. Brad Pitt the Hollywood mega star is the fantasy of millions of women and I bet many would kill to be Mrs. Brad Pitt. Or Mrs. Johnny Depp, Kentucky born grocery store clerk prior to being discovered.


Personally, I would CHOOSE the small town Construction worker non-famous Brad MORE So than the Rich Successful Brad (though I never even liked Brad Pitt). The More Popular and famous someone is FOR ME , even the more RICH they are, I feel they are more out of reach/out of my league and more a RISK, so the appeal is lost. I would prefer the lower wage worker that is not noticed over the Rich successful guy, I wouldn't welcome the female competition at all with the other ego. 

And Johnny would have MORE appeal to me also as the small town good looking grocery story clerk over the famous Johnny Depp. I look at looks, reasonable availablity & risk more than $$ & popularity, I always did. If they couldn't hold a job, that is another story of coarse, but if they were faithful employees, good savers and good hearted men, I wouldn't at all care about the lower earning pay check.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Mrs.G said:


> I grew up in an upper middle class neighbourhood. We lived in a large four bedroom home, with two cars. I dressed in designer clothes. Despite the silver spoon, I was often depressed, withdrawn and frightened, not to mention hiding bruises.
> 
> I left that gorgeous prison and lived on welfare, along with part time work. I _scraped _to pay my rent and buy food.
> 
> It was one of the happiest times in my life.


Somewhat similar although very different story from mine. I think when I grew up in wealth and saw firsthand the misery that can ebb and flow beneath the appearance of "stability" I developed a different idea of the word value than most have.

My husband is shorter than me although I find him atrociously handsome and have never admired a man more (even if he drives me insane from time to time). When I married him he was a color mixer for a reproduction print company making $10 an hour. He would sketch me while I sat and tell me the stories of his painful past. He was quiet, reserved and hesitant but authentic, steadfast and patient. Since I was loud and impatient, quirky and felt misunderstood...him showing an interest in actually knowing the me below the surface seemed more valuable than any large house or new car. I never felt the desire to vomit. 

I'd actually say that as things become more stable financially, we still face very difficult challenges, they're just different. I've always felt safe and he's always made me feel valuable. I never understood him truly and now we're working on that. Taking the time to actually understand his perspective has been mind boggling awesome and TAM and counseling has helped most with this. He's better than I even gave him credit for.

I've yet to meet a man I admire more and he doesn't make a fortune. Is he intelligent and creative?...beyond belief. Will we eventually get to a financially stable future? I do believe so and rather soonish baring catastrophe, but along the way, the choices we've made and struggles and successes we've faced...even if I were to leave him tomorrow...I'd never regret a single one.

At the root of the root we believe in each other. If anything, I've learned, I should believe in him more.

So what's my lesson? I don't know. Learn to be happy with whatever you have and always be considerate of the happiness of those around you maybe? More so that if you learn to accept and love yourself, your sense of value will pave the road to the life you've imagined. It has nothing to do with the pomp and circumstance or airs of superiority and wealth. We all want to be truly loved.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Trenton said:


> Learn to be happy with whatever you have and always be considerate of the happiness of those around you maybe? More so that if you learn to accept and love yourself, your sense of value will pave the road to the life you've imagined. It has nothing to do with the pomp and circumstance or airs of superiority and wealth. We all want to be truly loved.


Yes, being Loved, this is what we all crave, ultimetely dream dreams about , it need not be so difficult or far reaching. This, in Trentons words, is the road to genuine Happiness.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

I grew up on both sides.

We were very comfortable until my stepdad lost his job - then we got a taste of the other side of the tracks (trailer, the works). So I grew up experiencing both sides of the coin.

I am now very comfortable of my own making.

I had a military career before I married my husband, continiued that career after he retired.

I managed to retire at the top of the enlisted ranks with a hefty retirement check along with VA disability.

I also still work now in a post-retirement job.

I outearn my husband almost 3 to 1 and always have. I bring home more than 85% of our monthly bacon.

I DID NOT marry him for financial security (hey - maybe that's why he married me?).

I married him because I was physically and emotionally attracted to him, not for his wallet.

But - perhaps he married me for "my" wallet? HA


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Brennan said:


> It was a joke!


I know! I was joking back. Tone often does not carry on forums.


----------



## stumblealong (Jun 30, 2010)

themrs said:


> But if there were two men - one a good provider and the other a bum - I'd bet all the women would be drawn to the one who could put a steak on the table.


I'm sure I would pick the bum...for some reason this is in my nature! I would feel sorry for him...hence the reason i'm in my current relationship! A group of gals I've been hanging with lately from work all are after status, they try for the most wealthy and successful. But they all agree, if there was a line up of men...I would pick the poorest of em all! Go figure!


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

stumblealong said:


> I'm sure I would pick the bum...for some reason this is in my nature! I would feel sorry for him...hence the reason i'm in my current relationship! A group of gals I've been hanging with lately from work all are after status, they try for the most wealthy and successful. But they all agree, if there was a line up of men...I would pick the poorest of em all! Go figure!


Pity is not a good basis for a relationship.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

I had someone tell me that I married an engineer because I wanted security. I shut that person down, because I did not marry Mr.G for his profession. I married him because he had an amazing heart. He proposed to me when he was out of a job! 

He is a forestry engineer, which is a very niche and specialized type. My husband went into that because his father was a lumberjack and he admires his father immensely.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> I know! I was joking back. Tone often does not carry on forums.


This is so true!


----------



## discouraged1 (Mar 16, 2010)

Brennan said:


> A man's dream woman is a deaf/mute, with nice tits, a sizable inheritance and owns a bar.


Brennan you forgot about "could suck the chrome off of a trailer hitch"... He he.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

I didn't marry for money or security. I made my own money thank you very much. Until I became a homemaker I made 2X what he did. All I cared about in that department is that he had a JOB. I'm not supporting him while he sits on his arse watching tv all day.

I rarely cry so couldn't use it to manipulate even if I wanted to. 

And on PMS. I'm almost 45 years and I've never had it but now I do. Its horrible and I'm doing everything in my power to fight it and I'm still cranky. I'm smart enough to take it out on anyone but the feeling is there and it's very real. I loathe pms and it's not something I make up just to manipulate men. Up until recently my H didn't even know it was that time of the month unless I told him. I'm very low maintanence.


----------

