# Which type of woman is more attractive?



## karma*girl

Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.

I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?

I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it. 
Hope that doesn't turn him off!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ntamph

karma*girl said:


> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This. This is my GF. I know that she has no ulterior motives and wants me for me. It's actually quite flattering when a successful woman wants you.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I think it depends on the guy really. Me personally I prefer a woman I can take care of. If I were married to a woman that was as driven as I am professionally our kids would never see either of us. 

On the flip side a lot of guys like their wives to work and would be upset if their wives stopped contributing financially. Like anything else though its important for couples to talk about this before they get married.


----------



## jld

I think people in general are most attractive when they are just themselves. No pretending. No "trying". Just being themselves.


----------



## Runs like Dog

are people that simple?


----------



## Deejo

Which one's hotter?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

karma*girl said:


> Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> 
> I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?
> 
> *I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it.
> Hope that doesn't turn him off!*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Me & you sound alike karma*girl.... I need my husband too... emotionally, physically, financially...love catering to him, being his helpmate....he supports me in every way.....we live for each other/ family.... this is our happiness...



> *ReformedHubby said*: *I think it depends on the guy really. Me personally I prefer a woman I can take care of.*


This too would be my husband...He is the Protector / Provider type all the way..... I met him when I was 15....one could say I was a bit of a Damsel in Distress at the time...hated my home life... wanted out of there, wanted to feel loved...he was there... he wanted to rescue me and give me a good life...

Just happens...what I wanted and what he wanted for a future was hopelessly in sync... we were both older fashioned minded ..I just wanted to be a Mom, have a family of my own (since mine was pretty messed up)....and his preference would be the wife/ Mother in the home with the children.. so long as it could be swung financially. 

And it wasn't so he can squash me under his foot.. he is just more the Chivalrous type....

He would support me in anything I wanted to do.... because he wants my happiness.. 

My husband would say he LIKES to be "wanted, needed" - we don't see the word "*NEED*" as a bad word..per say, depends on the context used....When a love songs sings of it.. it's generally pretty sweet! Like Peter Cetera's You're the Inspiration ..


----------



## FormerSelf

I my maturing age (well at least hitting 40 this year) I am definitely developing more of an attraction to the independent types.

Yet, myself, being a co-dependent type...I do find myself bonding better with women who has a need I can meet...but I am learning that is not always a healthy arrangment.

IN the book Love is a Choice: Letting Go of Unhealthy Relationships, the author talks about how people ought to have full love tanks. Basically, we are happy and complete enough on our own to function and live in a stable way...with or without others. And when a person with a full love tank (meaning good esteem, happy self-image, hurts and baggage has been managed) and meets another with a full love...tank, then they come together and bring what they have and produce good things together...a very happy, planned, INTERdependent relationship where they are giving the best to each other.
The book also talks about when people with half-full love tanks meet. Half tankers (poor self esteem/image/hurts/hangups/issues) are looking to find others to COMPLETE them, to make them better people, to change life for the better. And when a half tanker meets another half-tanker, they come colliding together like two run away trains!!! The dating period is so wonderful because both are so desperately happy to have someone in their lives...especially if one is a rescuer and the other a rescue-case...a perfect setup for a dysfunctional, immeshed, co-dependent relationship. When these two meet, the fireworks are huge, but later the problems get huge...cos neither have enough in their tanks to fulfill their partner, nor enough to be filled themselves. They get upset that their partner is making them happy anymore...and they don't know it's because you have to be happy by yourself first...NO ONE can ever pour enough into you to erase the demons from your past. One typically will blame the other for failing them and the other will just grow weary and burnt out from trying to fix everything and still see its broken.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

FormerSelf said:


> IN the book Love is a Choice: Letting Go of Unhealthy Relationships, the author talks about how people ought to have full love tanks. * Basically, we are happy and complete enough on our own to function and live in a stable way...with or without others. And when a person with a full love tank (meaning good esteem, happy self-image, hurts and baggage has been managed) and meets another with a full love...tank, then they come together and bring what they have and produce good things together...a very happy, planned, INTERdependent relationship where they are giving the best to each other.*


 How important it is.....this is also well explained in Boundaries in Marriage:  ...



> Boundaries in Marriage: A brief review of Cloud... | Gather
> 
> *One of the biggest barriers to having good boundaries in marriage is not having 2 complete people joining to form 1 complete couple.* Cloud and Townsend explain:
> 
> A complete person is able to do all things that adult life and relationships requires: give love and receive love, be independent and self sufficient, live out values honestly, be responsible, have self-confidence, deal with problems and failures, live out their talents, and have a life (p. 86).
> 
> When a person is already complete, his or her focus can then be turned to the other spouse, valuing the differences in that person, nurturing and developing the treasures he or she has without being clinging or needy.
> 
> Cloud and Townsend indicate rather than seeking one who *completes *the individual, people should seek one who will *compliment *himself or herself. There is nothing wrong with marrying a complete person with different strengths from one's own. If one person is particularly creative, and his or her spouse is very business minded, these traits can compliment each other rather well and provide for a happy marriage. This is a distinct difference from being completed by a spouse - one must be able to hold his or her own for a relationship to succeed.


This is all about *Interdependence*.... some may even call it being "mutually dependent"... but always 2 people in a healthy relationship are said to be interdependent....in contrast to existing alone, it is a voluntary recognition that “no man is an island,” and that we must co-inhabit the space in which we live. 

This wasn't really hitting on marriage per say, but it still explains the concept...










This article captures / explains what makes for a healthy INTERdependent marriage....it speaks about "growing together"... 







Increasing Intimacy in Marriage












> *Formerself said*:
> *The book also talks about when people with half-full love tanks meet. Half tankers (poor self esteem /image/ hurts/ hangups/ issues) are looking to find others to COMPLETE them, to make them better people, to change life for the better. And when a half tanker meets another half-tanker, they come colliding together like two run away trains!!!
> 
> The dating period is so wonderful because both are so desperately happy to have someone in their lives...especially if one is a rescuer and the other a rescue-case...a perfect setup for a dysfunctional, immeshed, co-dependent relationship. When these two meet, the fireworks are huge, but later the problems get huge...cos neither have enough in their tanks to fulfill their partner, nor enough to be filled themselves.
> 
> They get upset that their partner is making them happy anymore...and they don't know it's because you have to be happy by yourself first...NO ONE can ever pour enough into you to erase the demons from your past. One typically will blame the other for failing them and the other will just grow weary and burnt out from trying to fix everything and still see its broken.*


 Very well explained... .it all starts with being "emotionally whole" 1st ..holding up our own -so we are not a burden to the other -but a help....in this way we are free to GIVE and support one another......

How a healthy couple decides to RUN the marriage to their preferences (whether more Traditional styled or Modern) - which so often points to "Independent women" in the financial sense (no need of a man to support them).....it's important to not side step these things you speak of here...


----------



## OhGeesh

My history says the hotter, sexier, prettier, hotter, better looking, one will win out 

Assuming you are talking twins and the "has her crap together" twin is not a total Type A ***** then I'd pick her 

Again appearance trumps alot unfortunately.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Which one's hotter?


Lol,

The identitical thought crossed my mind as I read the OP!:rofl:


----------



## always_alone

karma*girl said:


> Hope that doesn't turn him off!


Ah well, kg, you heard it from the boys. Your personality is utterly irrelevant; all that matters is your looks.

(I have to stop coming to TAM. All it does is make me want to give up on relationships with men altogether. Sigh.)


----------



## bfree

karma*girl said:


> Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> 
> I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?
> 
> I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it.
> Hope that doesn't turn him off!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Balance between the two. I don't think its an either/or situation. Women are much more complex than having to act like the damsel in distress or the hard azz b!tch all the time. My wife is certainly capable of taking care of herself. She can and does make tough choices and big decisions all on her own without my input. But she also likes it when I take charge. She likes to leave some decisions up to me. She likes to be cared for. I think the way I would state it is that she is a woman, is comfortable being a woman, is confident enough to show her vulnerability, but can take charge when necessary and is never a pushover.


----------



## always_alone

Runs like Dog said:


> are people that simple?


Even simpler, apparently.


----------



## browneyes74

*They get upset that their partner is making them happy anymore...and they don't know it's because you have to be happy by yourself first...NO ONE can ever pour enough into you to erase the demons from your past. One typically will blame the other for failing them and the other will just grow weary and burnt out from trying to fix everything and still see its broken.[/QUOTE]*

And you just summed up my marriage beautifully.. Thank you.. 

And yes, we met when we were both 1/2 full.. Mine was temporary.. I thought his was too.. Nope, it's permanent I think.. But that's what I spent my marriage doing.. Pouring every bit of myself into that endless hole of need, trying to fix him, and never succeeding.. 

I've posted before, but I was listening to the radio and they were talking about dating on my station and the guest said, "like attracts like" Damaged attracts damaged, whole attracts whole.. Even the type of damage many times.. I agree with that to a certain extent. Obviously, it's not a one-size-fits-all, but I think it has a lot of truth


----------



## YupItsMe

It depends on the level of self-esteem of the attractee. 

If you are lacking self-confidence then someone depending on you helps with your insecurities.

If you have a healthy level of self-esteem, needy mates are irritating.

The choices are over-simplified however as there are other vital ingredients left out here.


----------



## hookares

Past experience has taught me that the "hot one" doesn't always make for the best spouse. The problem isn't with if "she's dependent" on her spouse, but rather if a whole string of other guys find her appealing while her spouse is earning the money to provide for her.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Ah well, kg, you heard it from the boys. Your personality is utterly irrelevant; all that matters is your looks.
> 
> (I have to stop coming to TAM. All it does is make me want to give up on relationships with men altogether. Sigh.)


Oh c'mon ... that was a layup.


----------



## I Notice The Details

For me, a woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one...is more attractive than one that is just trying to "latch on" to someone else. Those were the two choices from the OP.

Just my opinion. 

I like women who can stand on their own two feet, and know what they like. That is confidence, and confidence is sexy to me.


----------



## Married but Happy

All else being roughly equal, I'd prefer A to B.


----------



## RClawson

karma*girl said:


> Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> 
> I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?
> 
> I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it.
> Hope that doesn't turn him off!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Honestly I have never thought about it in those terms. I certainly did not think of that when I met and began courting my wife. I was attracted to who she was at the time and to the person I believed she would grow into.


----------



## Quant

Dependent because I'm dominant and have the need to feel useful and needed.


----------



## not recognizable

(I have to stop coming to TAM. All it does is make me want to give up on relationships with men altogether. Sigh.)[/QUOTE]

Ummm, no. Don't do that. Stop coming to TAM I mean. Giving up on the relationships? Join the crowd, there are lots of us:
:banghead:


----------



## not recognizable

always_alone said:


> Even simpler, apparently.


And shallower.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

If I'm not needed, I'm not interested.


----------



## Quant

always_alone said:


> Ah well, kg, you heard it from the boys. Your personality is utterly irrelevant; all that matters is your looks.
> 
> (I have to stop coming to TAM. All it does is make me want to give up on relationships with men altogether. Sigh.)


We actually agree, if I was just going for a one night stand it would be 100% looks but if we are talking about a partner looks are more like 30% of the equation. I have to live with and make children with this woman she better not be a boring dullard.


----------



## Quant

always_alone said:


> Even simpler, apparently.


Men like pretty women like women like men with status and money,such is life.


----------



## JCD

This is an either or question?

Here is the deal, ladies. Too often, the vibe a 'strong independent woman' throws out to the man is 'you are a nice option which is definitely NOT needed and is also easily disgarded and/or replaced'.

Well, with THAT kind of welcome, is it any wonder she doesn't have men lined up around the block 

Now, of course, some men will do anything for a regular dose of sex, and to some, who dislike...entanglements, this seems a perfect partner...I mean...FB (and that ain't Facebook, boys and girls) who can supply entertainment, sex and a date on a semi regular basis according to their schedules, all with very strict...boundaries.

Sounds romantic, doesn't it?

I would like to have a conversation with a woman like this: "Yes, I can live on my own and do my own thing. You don't need to check to make sure I don't accidently put Draino in the cake because they are both whitish powders. But while I CAN live alone, I find the prospect of continuing it without you to be a little emptier...a little colder."

The emotional porcupine? Nah, pass. Too many of them were emotionally hurt and decide all men are sons of Satan, looking stridently for flaws...of which men, to be honest, have several. Because women are so flawless, right?

Lots of these women make choices to avoid relationships and then write strident articles for magazines like the Atlantic saying "oh yes, I REALLY REALLY am okay with this lifestyle choice. Really I am. And I barely think about that guy when I was 28 who was probably my last chance at a normal relationship. Nope! I got...um...girlfriends...and...can walk around in my underwear...and...um...cats."

And lest I sound too disparaging, they DO have fulfilling lives. But do they know if their lives would have been MORE or LESS fulfilling with a life partner?

Of course they can't, so their words need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I find this a false choice but it does outline a type of woman who is not particularly attractive from an emotional perspective. If she won't open up to me, why should I open up to her...which really just puts a cherry on the relationship.


----------



## JCD

Quant said:


> Men like pretty women like women like men with status and money,such is life.


Everyone wants a Ferrari, but most of us drive Fords.


----------



## NextTimeAround

To dovetail what JCD said, I get the impression that men avoid "the strong independent woman" because (some) men are looking for someone who is different from them. A woman who is going out to make the bacon may not know how to turn off office personality that got her the career in the first place.

I've known a couple of women who claimed to be strong and independent. They put me down for being interested in dating again after my divorce. One accused me of being daddy's little girl. 

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies.

But I can also see from the man's POV: Both women were pretty attractive but that strident, know it all behavior can get to be a bit tiring. 

The one that accused me of being daddy's little girl was about 43 at the time, in very good shape. But she refused to dye her, she had a Josie and the ***** cat's streak of white hair. I noticed that she regularly did her nails but wore "ethnic looking" clothing that hid her shape.

The other was nice looking but always dressed like a tomboy. 

I guess appearance alone can be man repellents.


----------



## Deejo

NextTimeAround said:


> I guess appearance alone can be man repellents.


I'm big on attraction.

And to answer the question honestly, I almost ALWAYS go for the strong, independent type. 

But yes, appearance certainly matters to me. Presuming for a moment the women in this scenario are identical twins, SOMETHING is going to generally make one more attractive than the other.

If Ms. Independent could care less what she looks or dresses like, while Ms. Congenial is well coiffed and dresses smartly, than it is likely that I will find her more attractive. I'm talking hygiene more than fashion and glamor.

Attraction has a lot of moving parts. I can remember going out with a girlfriend and seeing her all done up for a night on the town, and she absolutely took my breath away. She was FIERCELY independent, sassy, smart and funny. I also vividly remember waking up with her on a weekend, watching her sleep, no makeup, hair on one side sticking up like a rudder and I thought she was utterly stunning.

To me, there is a difference between independent, and 'hard'. The appearance of hard can be attractive, challenging ... 'what is she really like under that tough exterior?' 

But if what she is really like, IS the tough exterior and that's it, than we aren't going to be compatible.

I have said it many times, what a woman looks like may be what catches your eye, but who she is, is what makes you decide to sign up for a lifetime.


----------



## JCD

NextTimeAround said:


> I guess appearance alone can be man repellents.


Well, it certainly sends the message: I can't take 30 minutes out of my day to make a good impression on you.

Where does this put me in her list of priorities? Probably around her Chia pet.


----------



## johnAdams

I guess I go for short pretty blondes or brunettes as she was when I met her. I must like women that are OCD. Anyway, I think there is no set formula. I do not think most of us go out looking for a specific kind of woman. We meet we fall in love and learn to love or live with their little quirks.


----------



## arbitrator

*I've had both! XW#1 was the one who required the man to take care of her more. XW#2(Rich & Skanky) however, was indicative of the independent woman, who provided her own financial means and wanted things greatly done "either her way, or the highway!"

But they both had one element in common: they both knew how to cheat regardless of social status!*


----------



## mxpx4182

karma*girl said:


> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I married the dependent girl and it has been difficult; however, I'm a gradstudent also working a campus job so it's kind of incompatible. I love my wife, but would be more attracted to her if she worked more than 20 hours a week, or cleaned the house. I currently cook and clean along with doing work and school.


----------



## JCD

I think that there is a difference between 'dependent' and 'non-functional'.


----------



## Kaboom

Every woman I've ever had a long-term relationship with in my life has been the 100% dependent type. The worst part of that is, I really don't want that woman.. I somehow just kept ending up with them. I know that's my own fault, but boy would I just love to have a woman who didn't need me all the time, for everything. it's like it never ends.


----------



## tulsy

I don't want to completely take care of another woman. My ex wife was just plain lazy, and got worse every year. I like to be able to help and assist, but she better work and help out in my life too. I find lazy to be the biggest turn-off in a woman.

I found a "partner" this time around...it's much sexier.


----------



## Sandfly

Dear OP!

This may be interpreted as a chauvinistic post, but I trust you wanted honesty.

Blokes often seem to pick the wrong woman, thanks to Alcohol and the sins which make-up can hide.

Apart from alcohol, which type of woman is more attractive depend more on the man's circumstances. 

For example, at home in the US, they want an American woman with curves who is outgoing and has money. They don't want an American woman who is too close to her family. 

Then they go to live in Asia, and they're looking for some dirt-poor girl, slightly built, who wants to stay in the flat, who can't provide much conversation, who has a good close family. But this is the opposite!

Same man, making different choices. Which one is more real and honest? 

In the second case, the man has no 'society' or expectations on him in his choice - his mother is far away, people who grew up with him aren't there to comment... it turns out he doesn't really want an equal. He doesn't want someone as big, as wealthy, as opinionated, as intelligent.

The problem for most men, excluding myself  is that women tend to be more intelligent. Furthermore, in England at least, thanks to alcoholism, hormones in the food and the pill (genuinely, I say this!), they're pretty bulky and aggressive too. The final nail in the coffin is the tendency to look for a fight in discussions.

Men are therefore 'attracted' intellectually and sexually to Beyonces and Demi Moores. Guys who are total suckers might even find Sarah Palin alluring. But those attractions never last.

But in terms of "in which relationship will attraction last the longest" it is more likely to be an average looking woman, who is not too bright, with a positive attitude to life, doesn't need 'fixing', is happy-ish, with not much ambition, not much money, smaller than him by half a foot or more. 

As someone who doesn't care what anyone thinks about my choices, these are all things I look for.

EDIT: Fellas don't want dependent, lazy women? Don't go looking for love in bars...


----------



## Trickster

When I met my wife 22 years ago, she was the "damsel" in distress. At least she was financially. At the time, it felt good to be "needed". I was a wreck back then.

My wife was the happy go lucky woman and diet worry about her future. Her attitude was that everything always works out... At the time, l liked he carefreeness...

The problem is now, I think she doesn't have the opportunity to leave me. I don't think she needs me for intimacy. I no longer need her to fill my love tank.

The women I am attracted to are the independent, career women. If they are mothers as well, that is fine...

I don't want to be a woman's everything. I don't want for a woman to be my everything. 

I want a woman who can actually take care of herself financially. I like a woman with goals, dreams, and ambitions.Even a SAHM can have all that. I like someone with a strong personality .


----------



## weightlifter

75% Independent
25% Dependent


----------



## Kria

NextTimeAround said:


> The one that accused me of being daddy's little girl was about 43 at the time, in very good shape. But she refused to dye her, she had a Josie and the ***** cat's streak of white hair. I noticed that she regularly did her nails but wore "ethnic looking" clothing that hid her shape.
> 
> The other was nice looking but always dressed like a tomboy.
> 
> I guess appearance alone can be man repellents.


There is nothing wrong with this. A woman should be her authentic self when it comes to style and fashion. No need to be fake to attract a man. It is best to be your true self from the beginning. Either a man accepts it or he doesn't. There are men that would have no problem with how they dress.


----------



## heartsbeating

JCD said:


> Everyone wants a Ferrari, but most of us drive Fords.


The background on my husband's phone was our wedding photo. 


Now it's a picture of the new Mustang instead.


----------



## Wiltshireman

IMHO the type of woman men look for is dependent on what purpose they see the relationship fulfilling.

If they want a weekend of mutual passion or a friend with benefits scenario (never appealed to me) then they will be looking for a more independent minded woman.

If they want a life PARTNER to share a home / raise a family then their selection could be different. Not exactly dependant / needy more inter dependant (not codependent) each bringing their own skills and strengths together (the sum greater than its parts).


----------



## anchorwatch

I find a self confident, self sufficient woman to be very attractive. It keeps our game up. 

That's why I married her.


----------



## jld

WorkingOnMe said:


> If I'm not needed, I'm not interested.


Hmm. That's interesting. Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## samyeagar

I am attracted to women who would compliment me, not be the same as me. I don't really care about her career, money, fame, status. Those are all things I am self sufficient with. I want to compliment her as well. Provide the things she doesn't have for herself, while she provides the things I can't for myself.

Sure, confidence can be attractive, but there is a thin line in todays society between confidence, and "you go girl, I don't need no stinkin man' I wouldn't touch a woman like that with a ten foot pole.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Trickster said:


> *I like a woman with goals, dreams, and ambitions. Even a SAHM can have all that. I like someone with a strong personality* .


 You like an *independent minded* woman, a little challenging, goes after what she wants.. speaks her peace....this keeps the attraction flowing.. Stay at Homes can have this too. 



> *samyeagar said*:* I am attracted to women who would compliment me, not be the same as me. I don't really care about her career, money, fame, status. Those are all things I am self sufficient with. I want to compliment her as well. Provide the things she doesn't have for herself, while she provides the things I can't for myself.
> 
> Sure, confidence can be attractive, but there is a thin line in todays society between confidence, and "you go girl, I don't need no stinkin man' I wouldn't touch a woman like that with a ten foot pole*.


I just read this to my husband -he says "I like that -  -Yes"... that's all HIM too!



> Originally Posted by *WorkingOnMe *
> *If I'm not needed, I'm not interested*.


 My husband likes to feel needed too..but not in the way of "she always needs help" that would wear him down & cause him to be grouchy....

But in the way of...she needs me sexually (that's the big one!)....I just asked him...he said he likes that I want to spend all my time with him....(I know the "ALL" is overkill)...even exaggerated.... but that's how he feels, this makes him feel loved, needed... what fills his cup....

One of his lines is ..."Why get married if you don't want to spend time with your spouse"...


----------



## RandomDude

I don't give a flying fk, a woman who loves me for me aside from looks/income is hard enough to find.

STBX is a SAHM, but that's not the reason I'm divorcing her. And hell part of me still wishes I don't have to.


----------



## Kria

Wiltshireman said:


> If they want a weekend of mutual passion or a friend with benefits scenario (never appealed to me) then they will be looking for a more independent minded woman.


That is a really good point. That explains why so many men on dating sites state that they want an independent woman. That is just code for they don't really want a commitment or investment in the woman. They just want to have some fun and then go home alone without any strings attached.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

samyeagar said:


> Sure, confidence can be attractive, but there is a thin line in todays society between confidence, and "you go girl, I don't need no stinkin man' I wouldn't touch a woman like that with a ten foot pole.


I agree. My wife is taking the kids next month for a weekend with my side of the family (I have to work so they are going to have fun). The airline just notified her that the route is canceled, so she is now scrambling to deal with how to handle without paying the ultra high airline prices. 

I love that she is going to call the airline and hash this out all by herself. I also love that she calls me to complain and then talk strategy because she values my input and thoughts.


----------



## treyvion

Kria said:


> That is a really good point. That explains why so many men on dating sites state that they want an independent woman. That is just code for they don't really want a commitment or investment in the woman. They just want to have some fun and then go home alone without any strings attached.


It's true. Independant is code for she can take care of herself, so she'll just need me when she wants to have sex, and we both go back home.


----------



## COGypsy

treyvion said:


> It's true. Independant is code for she can take care of herself, so she'll just need me when she wants to have sex, and we both go back home.


Isn't it interesting that when a man just wants to have fun without bringing rings and picket fences into the mix, he's just a man, but when it's a woman that feels that way, she's "independent" or "feminist"?


----------



## treyvion

COGypsy said:


> Isn't it interesting that when a man just wants to have fun without bringing rings and picket fences into the mix, he's just a man, but when it's a woman that feels that way, she's "independent" or "feminist"?


Well men have adapted to that particular situation. Women shouldn't want to be men, and do some of the stupid things that men do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

treyvion said:


> Well men have adapted to that particular situation. Women shouldn't want to be men, and do some of the stupid things that men do.


*Women shouldn't want to be men?*

And where has anyone said any woman wanted to be a man?

And how does the word independent only apply to men?

I mean seriously, what century is this? :scratchhead:

I've literally never been financially supported by a man, not even my father. Nor would I need to be. WTF?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

COGypsy said:


> Isn't it interesting that when a man just wants to have fun without bringing rings and picket fences into the mix, he's just a man, but when it's a woman that feels that way, she's "independent" or "feminist"?


Unless of course he is labeled as having a fear of commitment.


----------



## JCD

COGypsy said:


> Isn't it interesting that when a man just wants to have fun without bringing rings and picket fences into the mix, he's just a man, but when it's a woman that feels that way, she's "independent" or "feminist"?


So...you are saying a woman who wants sex without the rings, the commitment or any entanglements ISN'T independent? :scratchhead: Seems like the perfect description to me.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> *Women shouldn't want to be men?*
> 
> And where has anyone said any woman wanted to be a man?
> 
> *And how does the word independent only apply to men?*
> 
> I mean seriously, what century is this? :scratchhead:
> 
> I've literally never been financially supported by a man, not even my father. Nor would I need to be. WTF?


What? I mean...what? :scratchhead:

That was the WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD.

We are discussing what is more attractive to men: *INDEPENDENT WOMEN* or what they are calling 'dependent' women.

We are ACTUALLY using the label for women. We have even tried to understand what MEN mean by 'independent', in which the male/female relationship is treated as a luxury or an option. At least that is what I mean.

We KNOW they exist. We see how independent women act. No one is questioning this, or even putting a valued judgment on them! They are what they are.

BUT...you want to be *snap fingers' STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN...there may be trade offs. Just like a single man. Just like a married man. Just like a married woman.

But it seems that Ms. SIW doesn't want there to be trade offs. Too bad.

Porcupines get kissed a lot less than kittens. And if you (generic) hold your male partners at arm's length, don't be surprised if they occasionally slip through your fingers.

But then again, why should they care? They are strong and independent.

By your tone, you say women don't want to be 'men' but COgypsy seems to feel that women should be able to ACT like men, at least sexually, without being treated differently. Okay. How is that NOT being like men?


----------



## John Lee

I need a balance of both. Too much independence and it doesn't feel like a relationship at all, too much dependence is smothering.


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> By your tone, you say women don't want to be 'men' but COgypsy seems to feel that *women should be able to ACT like men, *at least sexually, without being treated differently. Okay. How is that NOT being like men?


I think that's COgypsy's point, women who want sex without rings ect aren't acting like men they are just women who want sex without rings ect. 
Just because it's been more accepted for males to be like this (for a longer period in history) doesn't make it a male trait and a women who is doing what has been always portrayed as a male trait doesn't mean she is acting like a man or trying to imitate a man, she is just doing what's natural to her (no to apply a subcategory).


----------



## COGypsy

TiggyBlue said:


> I think that's COgypsy's point, women who want sex without rings ect aren't acting like men they are just women who want sex without rings ect.
> Just because it's been more accepted for males to be like this (for a longer period in history) doesn't make it a male trait and a women who is doing what has been always portrayed as a male trait doesn't mean she is acting like a man or trying to imitate a man, she is just doing what's natural to her (no to apply a subcategory).


Exactly this. It would be laughable to describe a man who was focused on his career, had great hobbies, friends and family, was happy dating whatever women came into his life and just enjoyed his life as "independent". I'm pretty sure that's just a guy. Or maybe a "single" guy. But not remarkable in his behavior. A woman that isn't living her life trying to button down a marriage and kids situation requires a special modifier when described in conversation, apparently.


----------



## treyvion

COGypsy said:


> Exactly this. It would be laughable to describe a man who was focused on his career, had great hobbies, friends and family, was happy dating whatever women came into his life and just enjoyed his life as "independent". I'm pretty sure that's just a guy. Or maybe a "single" guy. But not remarkable in his behavior. A woman that isn't living her life trying to button down a marriage and kids situation requires a special modifier when described in conversation, apparently.


Its nothing to brag about, but it is a real way to be. Seems like those people tend not to let others get to close, so they do keep a good level of selfishness, it's what they do.

I don't really look up to it on a man or a woman, but accept it is a way of being.

Usually they end up taking advantage of people who want more with them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said: "*BUT...you want to be *snap fingers' STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN...there may be trade offs. Just like a single man. Just like a married man. Just like a married woman.

But it seems that Ms. SIW doesn't want there to be trade offs. Too bad.*"

If she is independent, why would there have to be any trade offs? What trade offs? If I have my own money and property and can screw anyone I want at any time...what exactly do I have to trade for this, being that I have created this on my own? Are you saying that some men wouldn't be interested and that's the trade off? Who cares about those men...obviously it isn't a match. I know dozens of strong, independent women who men are flocking to.

Sorry to inform you, but not every man is intimidated by "strong independent women" and not every man associates the word "independent" with "manly". Just because you or others may have in your head that a SIW is some kind of sl*t with money and therefore undesirable, other men would see the same woman as a hot ticket item who he wants to merge with. 

Not all SIW "snap their fingers" and expect things. Most of them WORK HARD for the things they have.

I am not saying the dependent type women don't also have men who are into that, they do. But some men see them as whiny gold diggers.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "*BUT...you want to be *snap fingers' STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN...there may be trade offs. Just like a single man. Just like a married man. Just like a married woman.
> 
> But it seems that Ms. SIW doesn't want there to be trade offs. Too bad.*"
> 
> If she is independent, why would there have to be any trade offs? What trade offs? If I have my own money and property and can screw anyone I want at any time...what exactly do I have to trade for this, being that I have created this on my own? Are you saying that some men wouldn't be interested and that's the trade off? Who cares about those men...obviously it isn't a match. I know dozens of strong, independent women who men are flocking to.
> 
> Sorry to inform you, but not every man is intimidated by "strong independent women" and not every man associates the word "independent" with "manly". Just because you or others may have in your head that a SIW is some kind of sl*t with money and therefore undesirable, other men would see the same woman as a hot ticket item who he wants to merge with.
> 
> Not all SIW "snap their fingers" and expect things. Most of them WORK HARD for the things they have.
> 
> I am not saying the dependent type women don't also have men who are into that, they do. But some men see them as whiny gold diggers.


It was stereotypically the "strong independants" weren't as fun to be around, that's all. They would tend to be bossy and naggy.

I have had sex with people where the interaction with them was not made up for by the sex.

I'm a fan of relationships, opposite sex people working together as god intended, but single is a real way to be in this world.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "*BUT...you want to be *snap fingers' STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN...there may be trade offs. Just like a single man. Just like a married man. Just like a married woman.
> 
> But it seems that Ms. SIW doesn't want there to be trade offs. Too bad.*"
> 
> If she is independent, why would there have to be any trade offs? What trade offs? If I have my own money and property and can screw anyone I want at any time...what exactly do I have to trade for this, being that I have created this on my own? Are you saying that some men wouldn't be interested and that's the trade off? Who cares about those men...obviously it isn't a match. I know dozens of strong, independent women who men are flocking to.
> 
> Sorry to inform you, but not every man is intimidated by "strong independent women" and not every man associates the word "independent" with "manly". Just because you or others may have in your head that a SIW is some kind of sl*t with money and therefore undesirable, other men would see the same woman as a hot ticket item who he wants to merge with.
> 
> Not all SIW "snap their fingers" and expect things. Most of them WORK HARD for the things they have.
> 
> I am not saying the dependent type women don't also have men who are into that, they do. But some men see them as whiny gold diggers.


Sorry. One of the 'flavor' things didn't translate well. I was not inferring that SIW just snap their fingers and things happen. I was going for a 'snap of the fingers' in the face of society, as in 'Who gives a f--- about you.'

And I'm hearing some defensiveness. There IS a judgment toward SIW. "Why aren't you married?" "Are you trying to be a man?" "What is wrong with you?" "Would it kill you to wear a dress?" etc.

This isn't just coming from 'men who are intimidated'. It comes from family, friends, strangers etc. Women too.

But to offer a counterargument, though I do not want to argue, just pass the time debating. These SIW have done exactly what you have done with pride. And there is a great deal to be proud of!

But...they can't find an eligible man. I could probably point out a half dozen magazine articles on this EXACT subject. What is eligible? It isn't Pete the Plumber. These SIW are ACCOMPLISHED and won't compromise with 'mediocre' mates.. But Sidney Stock Broker may or may not care about their accomplishments. He may be just as happy to marry someone NOT as Strong or Independent. And there aren't a lot of Sidneys.

So are all these anecdotes lies? No. Some guys LIKE SIW. But the reputation for SIW exists: fun but not a mate. This STRONGLY cuts back on prospects.

My SIL is a SIW and is in her forties, alone. She didn't want to be used or domineered by a man, so she will be childless and single for the rest of her life. Nice girl, but proud.

She is probably not alone.


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> Sorry. One of the 'flavor' things didn't translate well. I was not inferring that SIW just snap their fingers and things happen. I was going for a 'snap of the fingers' in the face of society, as in 'Who gives a f--- about you.'
> 
> And I'm hearing some defensiveness. There IS a judgment toward SIW. "Why aren't you married?" "Are you trying to be a man?" "What is wrong with you?" "Would it kill you to wear a dress?" etc.
> 
> This isn't just coming from 'men who are intimidated'. It comes from family, friends, strangers etc. Women too.
> 
> But to offer a counterargument, though I do not want to argue, just pass the time debating. These SIW have done exactly what you have done with pride. And there is a great deal to be proud of!
> 
> But...they can't find an eligible man. I could probably point out a half dozen magazine articles on this EXACT subject. What is eligible? It isn't Pete the Plumber. These SIW are ACCOMPLISHED and won't compromise with 'mediocre' mates.. But Sidney Stock Broker may or may not care about their accomplishments. He may be just as happy to marry someone NOT as Strong or Independent. And there aren't a lot of Sidneys.
> 
> So are all these anecdotes lies? No. Some guys LIKE SIW. But the reputation for SIW exists: fun but not a mate. This STRONGLY cuts back on prospects.
> 
> My SIL is a SIW and is in her forties, alone. She didn't want to be used or domineered by a man, so she will be childless and single for the rest of her life. Nice girl, but proud.
> 
> She is probably not alone.


If every one made the same choice we would not survive as humans.


----------



## COGypsy

JCD said:


> My SIL is a SIW and is in her forties, alone. She didn't want to be used or domineered by a man, so she will be childless and single for the rest of her life. Nice girl, but proud.
> 
> She is probably not alone.


I'd be curious to hear her take on the situation. Does she want to get married and have babies, but the ship has sailed? Or does she see her life as pretty good overall and you are the one that sees it as so desolate?

For me personally, my marriage was a waste of my time and my money. At almost 40, I'm much happier and much more fulfilled with work, my friends and my boyfriend. Sure, I may feel entirely differently in another 5 or 10 years. Maybe menopause will give me a biological clock. There are admittedly no guarantees there. However, I have to say that now, I have a fantastic life and one that I live on my own terms and under my own determination--I can't see a downside to that at all. It just puzzles me that my approach, attitude, whatever you call it--is such an outlier in this day and age.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said: "*But...they can't find an eligible man. I could probably point out a half dozen magazine articles on this EXACT subject*."

Please do point them out, link them, anything. Would like to read them.


----------



## always_alone

COGypsy said:


> It just puzzles me that my approach, attitude, whatever you call it--is such an outlier in this day and age.


Welcome to 1014! Happy New Year!


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> But...they can't find an eligible man. I could probably point out a half dozen magazine articles on this EXACT subject.


You gotta stop believing everything you read in Cosmo! You know they just make that sh!t up, don't you?


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> What is eligible? It isn't Pete the Plumber.


It ain't Dan Dinosaur either, as he's facing rapid extinction.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Certainly not Dan Dinosaur, who's facing rapid extinction.


Whose Dan Dinosaur? A masculine male with a 50's ideal of marritial relationships?


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> Sorry. One of the 'flavor' things didn't translate well. I was not inferring that SIW just snap their fingers and things happen. I was going for a 'snap of the fingers' in the face of society, as in 'Who gives a f--- about you.'
> 
> And I'm hearing some defensiveness. There IS a judgment toward SIW. "Why aren't you married?" "Are you trying to be a man?" "What is wrong with you?" "Would it kill you to wear a dress?" etc.
> 
> This isn't just coming from 'men who are intimidated'. It comes from family, friends, strangers etc. Women too.
> 
> But to offer a counterargument, though I do not want to argue, just pass the time debating. These SIW have done exactly what you have done with pride. And there is a great deal to be proud of!
> 
> *But...they can't find an eligible man. I could probably point out a half dozen magazine articles on this EXACT subject. What is eligible? It isn't Pete the Plumber. These SIW are ACCOMPLISHED and won't compromise with 'mediocre' mates.. But Sidney Stock Broker may or may not care about their accomplishments. He may be just as happy to marry someone NOT as Strong or Independent. And there aren't a lot of Sidneys.*
> 
> So are all these anecdotes lies? No. Some guys LIKE SIW. But the reputation for SIW exists: fun but not a mate. This STRONGLY cuts back on prospects.
> 
> My SIL is a SIW and is in her forties, alone. She didn't want to be used or domineered by a man, so she will be childless and single for the rest of her life. Nice girl, but proud.
> 
> She is probably not alone.


There are a lot of reasons people say they can't find an eligible man or woman, or ask why are all the good ones taken.

In the case of the SIW, she is quite likely, and rightfully so, to have equivalent standards to her confidence, status, wealth, etc, but part of it is that many men simply just aren't interested in what she is offering. Not out of insecurity and intimidation, but rather lack of attraction. In the same way some men try and convince themselves that size doesn't matter, and women aren't visual creatures, some women try and convince themselves that men are intimidated or insecure.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know many strong, independent sisters and they are doing just fine on the dating and sexual market place. Have literally never heard a woman say "wow, I must be too strong and independent because I just can't seem to find a man" as JCD claims is soooo very common.


----------



## COGypsy

samyeagar said:


> There are a lot of reasons people say they can't find an eligible man or woman, or ask why are all the good ones taken.
> 
> In the case of the SIW, she is quite likely, and rightfully so, to have equivalent standards to her confidence, status, wealth, etc, but part of it is that many men simply just aren't interested in what she is offering. Not out of insecurity and intimidation, but rather lack of attraction. In the same way some men try and convince themselves that size doesn't matter, and women aren't visual creatures, some women try and convince themselves that men are intimidated or insecure.


In my experience, this is completely fallacious. I have spent more of my adult life in long-term relationships than not. I don't run into that many men socially that want a Stepford Suzy, most are married or dating women equal to them in education, career and income status. If anything, I see my friend with the ticking biological clock having a harder time finding good guys to date and marry. 

The threat of dying dried up and alone if you dare succeed in life as a woman seems to be an old-school urban legend. I hear the story often, but don't really see it play out in real life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, I am waiting for those links to all those articles about these poor, sad, dateless, strong independent women.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I am waiting for those links to all those articles about these poor, sad, dateless, strong independent women.


There's nothing wrong with being strong an independant.

The stereotype among the male "race" is that women who boast of being strong and independant usually act like they don't really need a man. So they end up taking your kindness for granted, and like I said tend to not be as fun to be around as women who like men.

I think a woman should be able to take care of herself. However, men need women and women need men and there is no way around it unless your doing some sort of artificial insemenation as the norm for reproduction.


----------



## COGypsy

treyvion said:


> There's nothing wrong with being strong an independant.
> 
> The stereotype among the male "race" is that women who boast of being strong and independant usually act like they don't really need a man. So they end up taking your kindness for granted, and like I said tend to not be as fun to be around as women who like men.
> 
> I think a woman should be able to take care of herself. However, men need women and women need men and there is no way around it unless your doing some sort of artificial insemenation as the norm for reproduction.


To my way of thinking, it's nothing but a benefit and compliment to not need a man. It makes me much more aware and grateful for consideration, kindness, generosity because the things they do or give me either ease my workload or my budget. When my boyfriend puts together a table I bought, it means I don't have to call the handyman and arrange to be home for him to come and put it together. The money I'd spend on a handyman can go for a thank-you dinner instead!

On the other hand, I think it's also nice that I just take care of the details of my life, because then the time I spend with my boyfriend is fun. We don't have to spend time on chores and honey-do lists. We can focus on fun and each other. I don't see how that's a detriment either.

Fundamentally, when it comes down to actual people that I actually know, "independent" is not a synonym for "ball busting b!tch".


----------



## treyvion

COGypsy said:


> To my way of thinking, it's nothing but a benefit and compliment to not need a man. It makes me much more aware and grateful for consideration, kindness, generosity because the things they do or give me either ease my workload or my budget. When my boyfriend puts together a table I bought, it means I don't have to call the handyman and arrange to be home for him to come and put it together. The money I'd spend on a handyman can go for a thank-you dinner instead!
> 
> On the other hand, I think it's also nice that I just take care of the details of my life, because then the time I spend with my boyfriend is fun. We don't have to spend time on chores and honey-do lists. We can focus on fun and each other. I don't see how that's a detriment either.
> 
> Fundamentally, when it comes down to actual people that I actually know, "independent" is not a synonym for "ball busting b!tch".


You sound like a kind woman. A woman like you would be a complement to any man.


----------



## not recognizable

treyvion said:


> There's nothing wrong with being strong an independant.
> 
> The stereotype among the male "race" is that women who boast of being strong and independant usually act like they don't really need a man.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> That may have something to do with the resentment some men openly harbor against women who won't work or bring in money. I had a boyfriend who obsessed on whether I would keep my job if we moved in together. He talked about it endlessly and demanded reassurance that I would never be laid off, as if that was in my control.
> Needless to say, I didn't move in.
> 
> You can look around these threads and see many men complaining about the free loading, dependent wives who won't get a job.
> 
> So, which is it?


----------



## TiggyBlue

COGypsy said:


> Fundamentally, when it comes down to actual people that I actually know, "independent" is not a synonym for "ball busting b!tch".


:iagree:


----------



## Faithful Wife

treyvion said:


> I think a woman should be able to take care of herself. However, men need women and women need men and there is no way around it unless your doing some sort of artificial insemenation as the norm for reproduction.


And this means nothing to me, because although I know many strong, independent woman, I do not hear any of them walking around saying "I ain't need no man!" nor are they saying "I guess I'll get one just so I can have a baby".


----------



## samyeagar

COGypsy said:


> To my way of thinking, it's nothing but a benefit and compliment to not need a man. It makes me much more aware and grateful for consideration, kindness, generosity because the things they do or give me either ease my workload or my budget. When my boyfriend puts together a table I bought, it means I don't have to call the handyman and arrange to be home for him to come and put it together. The money I'd spend on a handyman can go for a thank-you dinner instead!
> 
> On the other hand, I think it's also nice that I just take care of the details of my life, because then the time I spend with my boyfriend is fun. We don't have to spend time on chores and honey-do lists. We can focus on fun and each other. I don't see how that's a detriment either.
> 
> Fundamentally, when it comes down to actual people that I actually know, "independent" is not a synonym for "ball busting b!tch".


What you described here is very balanced and sounds very nice. I think where the issues start to come in is when the independance in other areas creep into emotional independance by way of walls blocking deeper emotional intimacy.


----------



## COGypsy

treyvion said:


> You sound like a kind woman. A woman like you would be a complement to any man.


Thank you, that's a lovely compliment. I also don't think I'm especially remarkable...


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> And this means nothing to me, because although I know many strong, independent woman, I do not hear any of them walking around saying "I ain't need no man!" nor are they saying "I guess I'll get one just so I can have a baby".


No they don't say it they just do it. Depends on what geographical region your in. In some regions and groups men may be as disposable as mere props, their lives of no significance.

On a positive note, there are many good women who are a great complement to her man. His rock and light.


----------



## Faithful Wife

treyvion said:


> No they don't say it they just do it. Depends on what geographical region your in. In some regions and groups men may be as disposable as mere props, their lives of no significance.


Are you just talking about your own life then or....?

Can someone please show me the links to all the many many articles which state that strong women don't get dates, and apparently also that even though they don't get dates, they use men as disposable props?


----------



## treyvion

COGypsy said:


> Thank you, that's a lovely compliment. I also don't think I'm especially remarkable...


It's the kindness and intent which blesses people. People can also take you for granted and run you down. With the right friends they will be more than happy to bless you back.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

COGypsy said:


> In my experience, this is completely fallacious. I have spent more of my adult life in long-term relationships than not. *I don't run into that many men socially that want a Stepford Suzy, most are married or dating women equal to them in education, career and income status. If anything, I see my friend with the ticking biological clock having a harder time finding good guys to date and marry. *
> 
> The threat of dying dried up and alone if you dare succeed in life as a woman seems to be an old-school urban legend. I hear the story often, but don't really see it play out in real life.


It seems we are all going in circles...it's just an opinion...some of us feel strongly... we know what works for us... posts like this step on women *LIKE me*, I could be classified as a Suzy Stepford in a variety of ways....I do greet my husband at the door, or he gives me a kiss on his way in...he looks for me... I do all the womanly mundane housework, chores, cooking...no education beyond high school.... all I did was have babies... and I've enjoyed my life...I love being Married... I feel I have lived my dream even...

Just as I need not get offended when many Men would PREFER the career oriented woman & turn their nose up at my type...dissing me...this woman has need of nothing...she LOVES her man...and he doesn't feel he has to provide for her. This works for many men. And this is good. 

Still there is also nothing wrong with men who choose, even prefer a woman staying home...being dependent...this doesn't automatically make those men inferior or something wrong with them either...

It is Wonderful we are all so different... and a variety of people exist.. Obviously I PREFER the older fashioned type men...I am happy some still exist!


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Are you just talking about your own life then or....?
> 
> Can someone please show me the links to all the many many articles which state that strong women don't get dates, and apparently also that even though they don't get dates, they use men as disposable props?


Maybe I should write some articles or have someone I know in a position to do so to do it.

In some parts of the country and world it is a VERY normal thing. Not just my life, the life of MANY men.

I'm done dealing with the segment who would view men like this, but there is alot of them.


----------



## treyvion

SimplyAmorous said:


> It seems we are all going in circles...it's just an opinion...some of us feel strongly... we know what works for us... posts like this step on women *LIKE me*, I could be classified as a Suzy Stepford in a variety of ways....I do greet my husband at the door, or he gives me a kiss on his way in...he looks for me... I do all the womanly mundane housework, chores, cooking...no education beyond high school.... all I did was have babies... and I've enjoyed my life...I love being Married... I feel I have lived my dream even...
> 
> Just as I need not get offended when many Men would PREFER the career oriented woman & turn their nose up at my type...dissing me...this woman has need of nothing...she LOVES her man...and he doesn't feel he has to provide for her. This works for many men. And this is good.
> 
> There is also nothing wrong with men who choose, even prefer a woman staying home...being dependent...this doesn't automatically make those men inferior or something wrong with them either...
> 
> It's it Wonderful we are all so different... and a variety of people exist.. Obviously I PREFER the older fashioned type men...I am happy some still exist!


A woman like you is racing fuel even a turbo charger for her own man. So if this is how you and your partner like to divy up the load and it works for you, I'm all for it.

I'm just not for it when someone subjugates the other, or takes them for granted.

Theres many ways to do it right and the stepford wife model can work too, with everyones needs met.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Would love to see those articles, treyvion. Let me know when you write them or find them or whatever.

I do find it interesting that no one is offering up dozens of them already, since is just "happens all the time".


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA...nothing on this post "steps on women like you". You quoted gypsy talking about her own personal experience, not saying "men don't want women like SA". No one would categorize you as a Stepford Wife. Those wives have no soul, did you see the movie?


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Would love to see those articles, treyvion. Let me know when you write them or find them or whatever.
> 
> I do find it interesting that no one is offering up dozens of them already, since is just "happens all the time".


Actually I could go find some, it's normal enough that it's already out there. 

It represents another segment of our population, where this is the norm for them.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/real-men-are-disposable-so-says-maria/

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16716499

Male genital mutulization is funny to women?

http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/07/disposable-single-men.html

http://www.xyonline.net/content/boo...wer-why-men-are-disposable-sex-warren-farrell


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, please do. Or even just tell me where to look and I will find them myself.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, please do. Or even just tell me where to look and I will find them myself.


Like I said, it's normal enough that it's not a small percentage... There are abusive women who manipulate and use men, will perform physical violence against him, even allow others to control him or perform physical violence on him.

Everyone isn't a saint.

I was just saying there is a percentage of it, not 1% either, maybe more than 10%. It's a percentage of it, just like there is a percentage of men who use, rape and beat women.


----------



## TiggyBlue

treyvion said:


> Like I said, it's normal enough that it's not a small percentage... There are abusive women who manipulate and use men, will perform physical violence against him, even allow others to control him or perform physical violence on him.
> 
> Everyone isn't a saint.
> 
> I was just saying there is a percentage of it, not 1% either, maybe more than 10%. It's a percentage of it, just like there is a percentage of men who use, rape and beat women.


That's nothing to do with someone being strong or independent, abusive people aren't strong that's why they abuse and manipulate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So you know that AVFM is a hate group, right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Actually I think all the ones you have linked are on the boob roll at manboobz.

So yeah...now I get why you are saying what you are saying.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to hate literature but thank you for the links, I did ask for them.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> So you know that AVFM is a hate group, right?


No, I don't want a pissing match. Was just pointing out the scenario I described is a real problem for some people. I know we have to choose better partners and definately don't get trapped for some sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

In other words, treyvion....I don't really care about what men who regularly call women wh*res and c*nts think about strong independent women.

I thought you mean actual, legitimate opinions of men who are not associated with hate groups.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No pissing match here, treyvion...I know exactly what AVFM is.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> In other words, treyvion....I don't really care about what men who regularly call women wh*res and c*nts think about strong independent women.
> 
> I thought you mean actual, legitimate opinions of men who are not associated with hate groups.


I agree with you. I don't represent that group it was just an article, If I would have realized it was a known hate group I wouldn't have went there.


----------



## Enginerd

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, please do. Or even just tell me where to look and I will find them myself.


Your arguments are mostly irrational and tend to be personal when it involves men. In one post you use your personal experience to support your argument. In another post you incredulously ask someone if they're using their personal experiences to support their argument and then go on to ask them for supporting articles multiple times. You can't have it both ways if you expect anyone to respect your posts. Articles published on the web or in magazines do not constitute proof of anything just like a sample size of one is completely meaningless. You're like a honeybadger when you respond to any post that includes a man expressing a non feminist position or opinion. What are you so angry about anyway? What do you think you have to prove?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> SA...nothing on this post "steps on women like you". You quoted gypsy talking about her own personal experience, not saying "men don't want women like SA". No one would categorize you as a Stepford Wife. Those wives have no soul, did you see the movie?


No, I did not see the movie but I have read some stepford wives articles and if one wants to go by *the THINGS the wife does -her living for her husband type thing*...(not her plastic attitude per say or NO SOUL part)... I looked this up on Urban dictionary... ha ha.. #2 is Me 



> woman who lives to serve husband does washing, ironing, cleaning, etc. with great joy. also has huge orgasms every time during sex and has sex every time her husband commands.


 He doesn't command though, I DO!

I've googled this darn term ..she sounds spineless (not me) submissive (only to a good man, not an Azzhole)...but everything seems to point to mocking the older fashioned woman... what am I reading wrong about it? Again, I know nothing about the movie.

Personally... .I would classify myself more like the *Proverbs 31 woman *....but that is "religious"... not exactly embraced either by many.... I find it a beautiful model of what a good wife is intended to be. 

Of course she was not speaking directly to me...but she was saying she doesn't run into men who want stepford Suzy's...basically we are not as in demand as those equal to them in education, career and income status. Yeah.. I know.

So if a few are found on a forum like this...let them be... give their views... I guess we all want to counter.. I am no different...don't we know! 

I've stuck my head in every SAHM thread that I see.....this sort of set up is dying in today's society... It's fine.. I have to live with it.. 

I just think we should allow the men who speak their views to feel as they do... do you really think I could convince a man who wanted an Independent working career status woman who can support a full lifestyle to think I am a good catch.. . why would I even bother to bark up that tree.. let him go after what he wants.. the type of lifestyle that works for him & his way of life.



> *treyvion said*: *A woman like you is racing fuel even a turbo charger for her own man. So if this is how you and your partner like to divy up the load and it works for you, I'm all for it.
> 
> I'm just not for it when someone subjugates the other, or takes them for granted.*


 I couldn't agree with you more about the "taking for Granted" part.. I like your post.. yes I am the racing fuel for my husband.. he wanted the very lifestyle we live, it's worked beautifully for us, and we are not rich educated successful people -but we are very happy... he is a blue collar worker and we are very frugal. I never wasted his money, I have great respect for him, and I guard our resources and take fine care of him.. 

If anything, reading posts on threads like this.. makes me want to squeeze him even tighter, he has always supported me, I've always felt very loved.. and I so want to give back..all that HE has blessed me with.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Enginerd said:


> Your arguments are mostly irrational and tend to be personal when it involves men. In one post you use your personal experience to support your argument. In another post you incredulously ask someone if they're using their personal experiences to support their argument and then go on to ask them for supporting articles multiple times. You can't have it both ways if you expect anyone to respect your posts. Articles published on the web or in magazines do not constitute proof of anything just like a sample size of one is completely meaningless. You're like a honeybadger when you respond to any post that includes a man expressing a non feminist position or opinion. What are you so angry about anyway? What do you think you have to prove?


Feel free to ignore me, Enginerd. I'm not a feminist, I'm just for equal rights and for getting rid of attitudes that divide the genders. If you don't see my posts where I am also championing for men and trying to stamp down stereotypes against them, then sorry...you aren't reading all of my posts and don't have a full picture of my viewpoints.

Not my job to make you like me or explain my view to you, but also, totally within your rights to disregard me or feel that you "know I'm a feminist". Go right ahead.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA...I do recommend you see the movie. It probably isn't what you think it is.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> SA...I do recommend you see the movie. It probably isn't what you think it is.


 I keep saying I need to get Netflix again, we just have the $7 a month streaming, I wonder if it's on there, maybe it is on You tube, sounds like a thriller or something... Yes, I *need* to see what the whole disdain for them is all about...as I am clueless here...I have to agree on that. :thumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also...the more recent version of the movie with Nicole Kidman (I think?) really wasn't very good. I recommend the original version. Here's the whole movie on youtube.

The Stepford Wives (1975) Full Movie - YouTube


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Also...the more recent version of the movie with Nicole Kidman (I think?) really wasn't very good. I recommend the original version. Here's the whole movie on youtube.
> 
> The Stepford Wives (1975) Full Movie - YouTube


I'm going to watch that right now.


----------



## Enginerd

Faithful Wife said:


> Feel free to ignore me, Enginerd. I'm not a feminist, I'm just for equal rights and for getting rid of attitudes that divide the genders. If you don't see my posts where I am also championing for men and trying to stamp down stereotypes against them, then sorry...you aren't reading all of my posts and don't have a full picture of my viewpoints.
> 
> Not my job to make you like me or explain my view to you, but also, totally within your rights to disregard me or feel that you "know I'm a feminist". Go right ahead.


Biology divides the sexes. You can't win that battle regardless of how angry you get.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You're right, men win, Enginerd. And I'm just an angry feminist.

Like I said, you get to decide whatever you want about me.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "*But...they can't find an eligible man. I could probably point out a half dozen magazine articles on this EXACT subject*."
> 
> Please do point them out, link them, anything. Would like to read them.


This one is on the WSJ. It has the same question, but as the 'intimidated' meme, prefers to blame men.

NYT reporter (which is NOT Cosmo)


The Eligible Bachelor Paradox.

Here is a Funny Blog post. Well...I find it funny. Men do the same thing, btw, but generally, it runs about 1 in 20 or 1 in 50.

Forbes: Why are so many professional women unable to find a datable men?

Here is a response to the above article, where it figures mathematically that there are only 8,428 'eligible' men per million in any given city based on a specific criteria.

But the thing to take away from this is that SIW are not happy being dateless or at least a substantial minority (I would guess majority but don't want to assume anything)

Of course, not everyone feels this way: All The Single Ladies

And yet...and yet...how does this happy strong independent woman open her piece? Discussing why she tossed away Alan for no damned good reason except a vague sense of internal dissatisfaction. 

One thing I want to reiterate. I do not think these women or any of the posters are unhappy or unfulfilled. One can find a fulfilling life anywhere. I am saying that choices one makes cuts out other things. If SIW takes 15 years to establish a career, well...at that 37, the 'marriage pool' is pretty darned shallow. This is a CHOICE which has consequences.

But you may have tons of friends with full dance cards. I am only offering a data point.


----------



## JCD

COGypsy said:


> To my way of thinking, it's nothing but a benefit and compliment to not need a man. It makes me much more aware and grateful for consideration, kindness, generosity because the things they do or give me either ease my workload or my budget. When my boyfriend puts together a table I bought, it means I don't have to call the handyman and arrange to be home for him to come and put it together. The money I'd spend on a handyman can go for a thank-you dinner instead!
> 
> On the other hand, I think it's also nice that I just take care of the details of my life, because then the time I spend with my boyfriend is fun. We don't have to spend time on chores and honey-do lists. We can focus on fun and each other. I don't see how that's a detriment either.
> 
> Fundamentally, when it comes down to actual people that I actually know, "independent" is not a synonym for "ball busting b!tch".


This is true. It doesn't HAVE to be that way. Not all of your peers are as skilled as you. You seem to be satisfied in a 'dating' holding pattern and that works for you. Everyone is on their best behavior in a dating situation.

However, if/when the woman wants a RELATIONSHIP, it starts t become tricky. Now a great deal more compromise comes into the relationship with a 'mandatory' flavor on both sides. And some (NOT ALL) Independent women (and MEN) just...won't...bend.

This probably grows the reputation of 'ball buster' to larger than actually exists.

I am just playing with ideas here.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> Would love to see those articles, treyvion. Let me know when you write them or find them or whatever.
> 
> I do find it interesting that no one is offering up dozens of them already, since is just "happens all the time".


Some of us are on different time zones than you are. See the above post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD...Wow, thank you for taking the time to post all those links. Now that's what I'm talkin' about...

I have only had time to read the first one, and I will come back and read the rest later today.

I can say already though, that the first one says literally nothing about "strong, independent women" and how they are men-repellent. It just talks about how women are on a college and career track, and men don't seem to be catching up in recent generations...and it actually talked down MEN a lot, as in, they are still slackers at 30 while the women are more educated and have more money and accept more responsibility. So while yes, the title is "where have the good men gone", in actually reading it, the blame is on the men themselves, and no where does it discuss that these same men are running the opposite direction of strong women, it says they are running from responsibility.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> it says they are running from responsibility.


Shocking, that.


----------



## bfree

*Re: Re: Which type of woman is more attractive?*



jld said:


> Shocking, that.


I personally think it's because too many children grow up in broken homes. Boys don't have their fathers there on a daily basis to teach them life skills. And that includes wisdom about women and how to learn to interact. Instinctively men should have that drive to succeed in order to attract a good woman. But if a man does not know how to talk to a good woman where is the incentive to succeed? I think that's what's missing in this current generation.


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> I personally think it's because too many children grow up in broken homes. Boys don't have their fathers there on a daily basis to teach them life skills. And that includes wisdom about women and how to learn to interact. Instinctively men should have that drive to succeed in order to attract a good woman. But if a man does not know how to talk to a good woman where is the incentive to succeed? I think that's what's missing in this current generation.


Hi, bfree. I appreciate your comment.

We have four sons and I think their dad is a great role model. I wish all young men growing up had that.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD...Wow, thank you for taking the time to post all those links. Now that's what I'm talkin' about...
> 
> I have only had time to read the first one, and I will come back and read the rest later today.
> 
> I can say already though, that the first one says literally nothing about "strong, independent women" and how they are men-repellent. It just talks about how women are on a college and career track, and men don't seem to be catching up in recent generations...and it actually talked down MEN a lot, as in, they are still slackers at 30 while the women are more educated and have more money and accept more responsibility. So while yes, the title is "where have the good men gone", in actually reading it, the blame is on the men themselves, and no where does it discuss that these same men are running the opposite direction of strong women, it says they are running from responsibility.


Yes, that is true. However, when I looked at that, I am looking at subtext. "I am doing so much that even though I can't get a date, there aren't any men out there worthy of my inner goddess anyway..."

This is called 'sour grapes'. But you might take a different message from that. The other posts are much more direct to the point.

And again, I am not saying this is ALL inclusive. These are anecdotes: Women who are having trouble finding men...and as this first post notes, the ones who ARE out there are no prize.

BUT...there was an old comic strip called "Momma". It was about a widowed mother with a 'modern' daughter and a layabout son. This was 30 years ago.

One of the strips stood out and I remember it DECADES later.

Her daughter comes in and says "Momma, all the single guys are jerks and all the decent guys are married."

Momma: "Yes. Marriage is the process of turning jerks into decent guys."

I was a bit of a fixer upper when I first got married (please...be kind...) I have improved with time. So, not to be too blunt, has she. We've rubbed the rough edges off of each other. It was a painful process at times.

Too many people (including cough...strong independent women...cough) seem to think they deserve a ready made Prince Charming. So those habits or characteristics they dislike but aren't deal breakers for their grandmothers...well...they mean that Allen from "All the Single Women" get passed over for no damn good reason. I am SURE Allen found an perfectly decent spouse. The woman who dumped him? 12 years later and not so much, though her article reeks of 'the path not taken' with regret.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> NYT reporter (which is NOT Cosmo)


It's not Cosmo, but it is from 1987, and the world is changing. More recent evidence from the Pew Research Institute shows that strong independent women are not stigmatized in the ways they were in the past. As your other links show, more and more women are becoming educated, financially independent, and ambitious. And amazingly enough, lots of men still find them attractive.



JCD said:


> Here is a response to the above article, where it figures mathematically that there are only 8,428 'eligible' men per million in any given city based on a specific criteria.



There's some funny math going on here, and in some of your other links. They seem to notice that the male pool is shrinking with age, but forgetting that the female pool is as well. I forget the exact numbers, but they are available at the US Census Bureau. A huge proportion of women are married in their 20s, and a lot of them have careers, lives, houses, ambitions. 

Even at age 40+ the number of married men to women is relatively equal, and many of these women also have careers, ambition, ideas, money, etc.

No doubt many men do want a woman that is dependent on them, whether financially, emotionally, practically --or all three. But many also want someone who isn't.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> It's not Cosmo, but it is from 1987, and the world is changing. More recent evidence from the Pew Research Institute show that strong independent women are not stigmatized in the ways they were in the past. As your other links show, more and more women are becoming educated, financially independent, and ambitious. And amazingly enough, lots of men still find them attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's some funny math going on here, and in some of your other links. They seem to notice that the male pool is shrinking with age, but forgetting that the female pool is as well. I forget the exact numbers, but they are available at the US Census Bureau. A huge proportion of women are married in their 20s, and a lot of them have jobs, lives, houses, ambitions.
> 
> Even at age 40 the number of single men to women is relatively equal, and many of these women also have careers, ambition, ideas, money, etc.
> 
> No doubt many men do want a woman that is dependent on them, whether financially, emotionally, practically --or all three. But many also want someone who isn't.


For the ones who AREN'T dependant, we prefer they are good to work with, and also RESPECT what we are bringing to the table and that our contribution makes their life easier. We know they can do it on their own. I don't want to be with someone and feel it's much better to be by myself, thats bad.


----------



## always_alone

treyvion said:


> I don't want to be with someone and feel it's much better to be by myself, thats bad.


Agreed!


----------



## bfree

JCD said:


> Yes, that is true. However, when I looked at that, I am looking at subtext. "I am doing so much that even though I can't get a date, there aren't any men out there worthy of my inner goddess anyway..."
> 
> This is called 'sour grapes'. But you might take a different message from that. The other posts are much more direct to the point.
> 
> And again, I am not saying this is ALL inclusive. These are anecdotes: Women who are having trouble finding men...and as this first post notes, the ones who ARE out there are no prize.
> 
> BUT...there was an old comic strip called "Momma". It was about a widowed mother with a 'modern' daughter and a layabout son. This was 30 years ago.
> 
> One of the strips stood out and I remember it DECADES later.
> 
> Her daughter comes in and says "Momma, all the single guys are jerks and all the decent guys are married."
> 
> Momma: "Yes. Marriage is the process of turning jerks into decent guys."
> 
> I was a bit of a fixer upper when I first got married (please...be kind...) I have improved with time. So, not to be too blunt, has she. We've rubbed the rough edges off of each other. It was a painful process at times.
> 
> Too many people (including cough...strong independent women...cough) seem to think they deserve a ready made Prince Charming. So those habits or characteristics they dislike but aren't deal breakers for their grandmothers...well...they mean that Allen from "All the Single Women" get passed over for no damn good reason. I am SURE Allen found an perfectly decent spouse. The woman who dumped him? 12 years later and not so much, though her article reeks of 'the path not taken' with regret.


Interesting you bring up that comic strip. It reminded me of a conversation my wife and I had. When we first married I was still a recovering addict and "player." So my attitude then is definitely not what it is now. My wife was a very successful career oriented strong woman. But she has a little bit of an edge to her. She really had to because if she didn't she would have been trampled by all the men she worked with/for. After the birth of our first child I noticed her attitude changed markedly. She had embraced that nurturing side of her of course but her attitude toward others was what struck me as much different. I asked her to explain one night and she said "childbirth is an extremely messy humbling process. How could I go through that and still view the world the same way." In addition to still being immensely strong my wife is a very wise woman. So in addition to marriage I would add that mutually creating and raising a family rubs the rough edges off of people.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> It's not Cosmo, but it is from 1987, and the world is changing. More recent evidence from the Pew Research Institute shows that strong independent women are not stigmatized in the ways they were in the past. As your other links show, more and more women are becoming educated, financially independent, and ambitious. And amazingly enough, lots of men still find them attractive.


I noticed the date on that too...but did you bother to note the date on the more recent ones? The problem is still being discussed at length. The only reason this search took longer than 5 minutes is because I stopped to skim these articles, some a second time.




> Even at age 40+ the number of married men to women is relatively equal, and many of these women also have careers, ambition, ideas, money, etc.



I would suggest to you that the number of MARRIED MEN is EQUAL to the number of MARRIED WOMEN...unless you live in certain parts of Islamistan or Utah. It's sort of a one for one thing (what were you saying about math?  )



> No doubt many men do want a woman that is dependent on them, whether financially, emotionally, practically --or all three. But many also want someone who isn't.


Never said otherwise. Amy Alkon, a notable bloggess, is a supposed SIW and she found her bubby. They don't live together, they aren't and won't be married. If they don't want to do things together, they don't. But honestly, she sounds almost gushing in her description of him.

However many professional woman are NOT finding it easy. 

Here's another nice link.

Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough 

Opening lede



> About six months after my son was born, he and I were sitting on a blanket at the park with a close friend and her daughter. It was a sunny summer weekend, and other parents and their kids picnicked nearby—mothers munching berries and lounging on the grass, fathers tossing balls with their giddy toddlers. My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr. Right yet, surveyed the idyllic scene.
> 
> “Ah, this is the dream,” I said, and we nodded in silence for a minute, then burst out laughing. In some ways, I meant it: we’d both dreamed of motherhood, and here we were, picnicking in the park with our children. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
> 
> To the outside world, of course, we still call ourselves feminists and insist—vehemently, even—that we’re independent and self-sufficient and don’t believe in any of that damsel-in-distress stuff, but in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family. And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.


She probably speaks out of turn for some women. For many?

BTW, this article is HILARIOUS! Favorite Quote



> Before I got pregnant, though, I also read single-mom books such as Choosing Single Motherhood: The Thinking Woman’s Guide, whose chapter titles “Can I Afford It?” and “Dealing With the Stress” seemed like realistic antidotes to the faux-empowering man-hunting manual headings like “A Little Lingerie Can Go a Long Way.” But the book’s author, Mikki Morrissette, held out a tantalizing carrot. In her introduction, she describes having a daughter on her own; then, she writes, a few years later and five months pregnant with her son, “I met a guy I fell in love with. He and my daughter were in the delivery room when my son was born in January 2004.” Each time I read about single women having babies on their own and thriving instead of settling for Mr. Wrong and hiring a divorce lawyer, I felt all jazzed and ready to go. At the time, I truly believed, “I can have it all—a baby now, my soul mate later!”
> 
> Well … ha! Hahahaha. And ha.
> 
> Just as the relationship books fail to mention what happens after you triumphantly land a husband (you actually have to live with each other), these single-mom books fail to mention that once you have a baby alone, not only do you age about 10 years in the first 10 months, but if you don’t have time to shower, eat, urinate in a timely manner, or even leave the house except for work, where you spend every waking moment that your child is at day care, there’s very little chance that a man—much less The One—is going to knock on your door and join that party.
> 
> They also gloss over the cost of dating as a single mom: the time and money spent on online dating (because there are no single men at toddler birthday parties); the babysitter tab for all those boring blind dates; and, most frustrating, hours spent away from your beloved child. Even women who settle but end up divorced might be in a better position than those of us who became mothers on our own, because many ex-wives get both child-support payments and a free night off when the kids go to Dad’s house for a sleepover. Never-married moms don’t get the night off. At the end of the evening, we rush home to pay the babysitter, make any houseguest tiptoe around and speak in a hushed voice, then wake up at 6 a.m. at the first cries of “Mommy!”
> 
> Try bringing a guy home to that.


----------



## Stonewall

I like a woman thats independent, has her own and can take care of herself.........when I'm not there................. but is dependent and a damsel in distress desperately in need of a hero when I am with her!!! 

A little duplicitous no? I guess its a white night thing. I'm a caregiver, a fixer, a pleaser. But I need to know she is ok when I'm not there too.


----------



## karma*girl

Wow! Okay, I have to say, the way these threads take on a life of their own, is so interesting..thanks all for contributing. One thing I love about the people here is that most are pretty intellectual & will bring something of actual substance to the conversation. Thank you: )

I can't remember if I responded to SA..but yes, we are a lot alike & so are our husbands!
We married at 18 (& had our 1st baby) so I never had the chance to be independent and on my own. I wonder what it would be like at times, just curious though. We've grown closer as we've grown older, although we both lead our own, individual lives. Still, our marriage comes first. 

I love my life & I do depend on my husband for financial support (although I work part-time,) for emotional support, for the roof over my head, the food we eat, to be a great dad to our 3 kids, etc..in turn, I am SOOOO appreciative, love him, care for him & cannot get enough of him..in every way- yes, sexually too. ; ) I do need him. I want him too. He knows it & I think it makes him feel good.

I take care of him as well as I know how. He never complained about me being too dependent on him though, thank goodness!
In my life, I have maintained my own friendships and kept interested & passionate about my own life, which I suppose has helped him appreciate me as an individual, not just an dependent.

It seems to me that those dating now, maybe are exposed to so many 'independent' type women than when I was younger (35.)
More women are pursuing college degrees & working at the same level as men in male dominating fields & the feminist in me loves that. 
It's possible that the dating pool is full of women with their own lives going on, not looking to settle down, so possibly guys are adapting to that mindset. 
If I were a guy, it would take the pressure off for sure.

I just hope that, because they can provide for themselves and are strong & independent (admirable to me,) that they don't forget how crucial it is to let their guards down with their guy & maybe let the guy 'take care' of them a little. Doesn't that feel fulfilling as a guy? 

I know of a woman who never ever wants help with anything, especially from a guy. It's odd & yes, on the extreme end, but I see that guys kind of tend to ignore her needs eventually. They can't help her, so why try.
I mean, we as women, can do a lot, a hell of a lot on our own...but really, isn't it beautiful when a man offers his help? Why turn him away..let him be a man & make him feel f'ing good!
I love chivalry, it literally makes me horny when my husband opens the door, opens the jar, kills the nasty old spider, etc..it just shows me he cares & that means a lot. 
I honestly wish every woman would honor their guy & be there for them, independent or not. 

Anyways, I guess I just wanted to pour my several cents into the thread, before it goes cold! XO
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

karma*girl said:


> I just hope that, because they can provide for themselves and are strong & independent (admirable to me,) that they don't forget how crucial it is to let their guards down with their guy & maybe let the guy 'take care' of them a little. Doesn't that feel fulfilling as a guy?
> 
> I know of a woman who never ever wants help with anything, especially from a guy. It's odd & yes, on the extreme end, but I see that guys kind of tend to ignore her needs eventually. They can't help her, so why try.
> I mean, we as women, can do a lot, a hell of a lot on our own...but really, isn't it beautiful when a man offers his help? Why turn him away..let him be a man & make him feel f'ing good!
> I love chivalry, it literally makes me horny when my husband opens the door, opens the jar, kills the nasty old spider, etc..it just shows me he cares & that means a lot.
> I honestly wish every woman would honor their guy & be there for them, independent or not.
> 
> Anyways, I guess I just wanted to pour my several cents into the thread, before it goes cold! XO
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why do you hold the assumption that strength and independence in a woman means they never let their guard down with a man, and don't let the guy "take care" of them? 

Men are strong and independent and yet they let women take care of them and they let their guard down with women. 

So why is there an assumption that when women are strong and independent, they are incapable of giving and receiving emotional intimacy, vulnerability, warmth or kindness?


----------



## treyvion

karma*girl said:


> Wow! Okay, I have to say, the way these threads take on a life of their own, is so interesting..thanks all for contributing. One thing I love about the people here is that most are pretty intellectual & will bring something of actual substance to the conversation. Thank you: )
> 
> I can't remember if I responded to SA..but yes, we are a lot alike & so are our husbands!
> We married at 18 (& had our 1st baby) so I never had the chance to be independent and on my own. I wonder what it would be like at times, just curious though. We've grown closer as we've grown older, although we both lead our own, individual lives. Still, our marriage comes first.
> 
> I love my life & I do depend on my husband for financial support (although I work part-time,) for emotional support, for the roof over my head, the food we eat, to be a great dad to our 3 kids, etc..in turn, I am SOOOO appreciative, love him, care for him & cannot get enough of him..in every way- yes, sexually too. ; ) I do need him. I want him too. He knows it & I think it makes him feel good.
> 
> I take care of him as well as I know how. He never complained about me being too dependent on him though, thank goodness!
> In my life, I have maintained my own friendships and kept interested & passionate about my own life, which I suppose has helped him appreciate me as an individual, not just an dependent.


Sounds good.



karma*girl said:


> It seems to me that those dating now, maybe are exposed to so many 'independent' type women than when I was younger (35.)
> More women are pursuing college degrees & working at the same level as men in male dominating fields & the feminist in me loves that.
> It's possible that the dating pool is full of women with their own lives going on, not looking to settle down, so possibly guys are adapting to that mindset.


When I was in College me and my wife were best friends and our relationship was not a detriment it was an asset.



karma*girl said:


> If I were a guy, it would take the pressure off for sure.
> 
> I just hope that, because they can provide for themselves and are strong & independent (admirable to me,) that they don't forget how crucial it is to let their guards down with their guy & maybe let the guy 'take care' of them a little. Doesn't that feel fulfilling as a guy?


No matter how independant you are as a man or a woman, you have to take care of your partners masculinity or femininity and let them be a man or a woman. So of course it feels fulfilling.


karma*girl said:


> I know of a woman who never ever wants help with anything, especially from a guy. It's odd & yes, on the extreme end, but I see that guys kind of tend to ignore her needs eventually. They can't help her, so why try.


Exactly, why even try?



karma*girl said:


> I mean, we as women, can do a lot, a hell of a lot on our own...but really, isn't it beautiful when a man offers his help? Why turn him away..let him be a man & make him feel f'ing good!


you should let him feel good. NO ONE in this world makes it ALL on their own. NO ONE!



karma*girl said:


> I love chivalry, it literally makes me horny when my husband opens the door, opens the jar, kills the nasty old spider, etc..it just shows me he cares & that means a lot.
> I honestly wish every woman would honor their guy & be there for them, independent or not.
> 
> Anyways, I guess I just wanted to pour my several cents into the thread, before it goes cold! XO
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sounds sweet.


----------



## karma*girl

norajane, of course all of those qualities can co-exist, which is why I went on to say that I feel my relationship with my husband allows for all of it, thank goodness! I wasn't trying to separate them. What you say is true- guys can do it, and we can too.

It's more an obstinate or stubborn personality-type that may keep their guard up- my neighbor, (a woman) who never accepts help from our other neighbor, (a man,) was the example I used to express my experience with that extreme type of independence. Not a big deal, just a small example of what we are talking about.
I suppose I didn't explain myself as clearly as I would have liked, but the gist was there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## karma*girl

Thanks Trey..such a good topic..It seems that finding a balance between the two is the most appealing. 
Of course, that's simplified in & of itself, but sometimes, I don't want to put disclaimers on everything I say ; )
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## karma*girl

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

karma*girl said:


> norajane, of course all of those qualities can co-exist, which is why I went on to say that I feel my relationship with my husband allows for all of it, thank goodness! I wasn't trying to separate them. What you say is true- guys can do it, and we can too.


Ok, but that's not what you said here:



karma*girl said:


> I just hope that, because they can provide for themselves and are strong & independent (admirable to me,) that they don't forget how crucial it is to let their guards down with their guy & maybe let the guy 'take care' of them a little. Doesn't that feel fulfilling as a guy?





karmagirl said:


> It's more an obstinate or stubborn personality-type that may keep their guard up- my neighbor, (a woman) who never accepts help from our other neighbor, (a man,) was the example I used to express my experience with that extreme type of independence. Not a big deal, just a small example of what we are talking about.


Any woman or man can be an obstinate or stubborn personality type, not just strong and independent women.

And if your male neighbor is not your female neighbor's boyfriend, she may have her reasons for not letting him help her, especially if she hasn't asked for help.


----------



## JCD

norajane said:


> Why do you hold the assumption that strength and independence in a woman means they never let their guard down with a man, and don't let the guy "take care" of them?
> 
> Men are strong and independent and yet they let women take care of them and they let their guard down with women.
> 
> So why is there an assumption that when women are strong and independent, they are incapable of giving and receiving emotional intimacy, vulnerability, warmth or kindness?


Whether it's true or not, SIW have that reputation and some SIW, not all, wear their politics on their sleeve, frequently on the first date. So after hearing the buzz words, men go into 'flight' mode when faced with certain attitudes. 

And some men, maybe many, see a 'SIW' who can 'let her guard down and let a man take care of them' means that it's all take and no give (What's mine is mine and what's his is mine...)

We aren't talking about reality here, but a set of experiences which have created a reputation. I can't say how prevalent this is. But I know what many men believe.


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> Whether it's true or not, SIW have that reputation and some SIW, not all, wear their politics on their sleeve, frequently on the first date. So after hearing the buzz words, men go into 'flight' mode when faced with certain attitudes.


Once you've witnessed it, you stop trying to get an emotional porcupine to be different. You accept it for what it is. I guess a militant attitude is a bad thing unless they are going to war for you...



JCD said:


> And some men, maybe many, see a 'SIW' who can 'let her guard down and let a man take care of them' means that it's all take and no give (What's mine is mine and what's his is mine...)
> 
> We aren't talking about reality here.


In reference to "what's mine is mine and what's his is mine". The reason many men complain about strong independant women, is because many of these women want to be treated like ladies, but they do not tend to return the favour. So a male is diminished for treating her kindly or applying chivalry. Yes, many of us are happy that you are independant, but if I'm contributing, do not act like I owe you, appreciate it and don't appreciate it with your words, appreciate it with your actions by being a similar level friend to me.

There's enough "whats mine is mine and whats his is mine in the world" that it is a valid complaint.

We have a few posters here mentioning a type of strong independant that knows that they can take care of themself, but also appreciates a man in their life and will feed his masculine side. We don't hear about that too often in these parts, perhaps because we messed with the wrong ones. 

Where are these SIW's, who are great partners, who want to do their part and appreciate a mans kindness?


----------



## bfree

*Re: Re: Which type of woman is more attractive?*



treyvion said:


> Where are these SIW's, who are great partners, who want to do their part and appreciate a mans kindness?


I met my wife at church.


----------



## treyvion

bfree said:


> I met my wife at church.


I saw that too, the church had better looking women than the club.

Thing about it, is there can be corrupt women in church, stereotypically it should be fiewer though.


----------



## jld

Lol, Treyvion, about his money being hers and her money being hers.

I had a little job a decade back, teaching French an hour or two a week at a company. I made a few hundred dollars and wanted to buy something (can't remember what). 

I remember telling dh I was going to buy it with my own money. He got a laugh out of hearing that.


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> Lol, Treyvion, about his money being hers and her money being hers.


It's not all women. But enough of a grouping for men to have to be aware of it. We don't help our situations by feeding into it, because such a selfish viewpoint affects you in many other ways.



jld said:


> I had a little job a decade back, teaching French an hour or two a week at a company. I made a few hundred dollars and wanted to buy something (can't remember what).
> 
> I remember telling dh I was going to buy it with my own money. He got a laugh out of hearing that.


You should. Also you can gift your man and date your man with the money you earned.


----------



## COGypsy

JCD said:


> And some men, maybe many, see a 'SIW' who can 'let her guard down and let a man take care of them' means that it's all take and no give (*What's mine is mine and what's his is mine...*)


See to me, that doesn't sound like a SIW, that sounds like a SAHM. Now let me be clear--for as much as people in this thread seem to know about SIW that they haven't actually met or gotten to know, I'm in the same boat when it comes to SAHMs. I don't actually know anyone IRL that has adopted that lifestyle. However if you're looking for entitlement, it seems like you would find that in a situation where someone is made dependent on another--garnering resources and leveraging influence would have to be an element in that kind of setting. Not so much in a case where each partner can cover the household needs.


----------



## bfree

COGypsy said:


> See to me, that doesn't sound like a SIW, that sounds like a SAHM. Now let me be clear--for as much as people in this thread seem to know about SIW that they haven't actually met or gotten to know, I'm in the same boat when it comes to SAHMs. I don't actually know anyone IRL that has adopted that lifestyle. However if you're looking for entitlement, it seems like you would find that in a situation where someone is made dependent on another--garnering resources and leveraging influence would have to be an element in that kind of setting. Not so much in a case where each partner can cover the household needs.


My wife was a very successful career oriented SIW when we met. After we started having children she became a SAHM. But only until the youngest started school. Then she went back to work, part time at first and gradually increased her hours as it became feasible. Even as a SAHM she was independent minded and I really think that her independence made her not only a great wife but a great mom as well.


----------



## NextTimeAround

I guess there are a lot of definition for SIWs. I just remember a couple women ridiculing me either for wanting to date again and / or letting the guy pay for the date. 

I am at the point when I think of these individual women that I knew --in real life-- that they must have been jealous about something and were trying to make me guilty of the good treatment that I was getting.

This include my sister -- a medical doctor -- who told me that I was "using" this guy if I didn't hurry up and either "agree to marry him " (he never asked me) or stop dating him........ because no guy would take a woman out to dinner that much if he wasn't on the marriage track.

Well, I'm hooked up now. but after my divorce, I very quickly moved myself away from women who put me down for dating choices that I made that had no effect on them.


----------



## JCD

COGypsy said:


> See to me, that doesn't sound like a SIW, that sounds like a SAHM. Now let me be clear--for as much as people in this thread seem to know about SIW that they haven't actually met or gotten to know, I'm in the same boat when it comes to SAHMs. I don't actually know anyone IRL that has adopted that lifestyle. However if you're looking for entitlement, it seems like you would find that in a situation where someone is made dependent on another--garnering resources and leveraging influence would have to be an element in that kind of setting. Not so much in a case where each partner can cover the household needs.


We are looking at this with two different emphasis.

From what I gather from your definition of a 'SIW' (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you see her as strong willed, hard working, accomplished, with high self esteem and one who shoulders the burdens that life throws at her. And these are all perfectly virtuous things, no matter the gender.

However, these virtues, with just a slight twist, makes them rather unsettling to some men.

Men tend to fear that this type of women will have an uncompromising personal autonomy, where any desire of compromise becomes a political point of principle (have you LISTENED to Women Studies programs these days?), or at least a conflict which he REALLY doesn't want every time he has to go see his mother, for example.

And since women have not enjoyed autonomy to an appreciable degree until recently, for some women it IS something to be very definite about...but they use the wrong tone. So they might be warm, caring, vulnerable people who are truly capable of giving...but they come off as political activists instead of a fun date.

The entitlement thing really crosses all lines. A housewife might expect her husband to bring home his weekly check unopened...but a SIW, with an overweening sense of self worth might expect anything from tokens to outright tribute to her awesomeness. One GF of mine mentioned a female friend of hers who demanded just that: if you wanted to date her, you needed to make with a 'gift' to prove YOUR worth. Not a cheap gift either.

And yes, some guys are entitled too.


----------



## bfree

I'd like to ask a question of the single independent women in this thread (although I would also welcome the participation of the married independent women as well.) What is your view of privacy in a permanent relationship. Do you believe that complete transparency and honesty is required? My wife and I feel that privacy should be reserved for the bathroom only. Is that viewpoint shared by anyone else who considers themselves extremely independent? I ask because it seems that my wife is very unusual in her beliefs about privacy amongst some of her other "SIW" friends and coworkers.


----------



## NextTimeAround

bfree said:


> I'd like to ask a question of the single independent women in this thread (although I would also welcome the participation of the married independent women as well.) What is your view of privacy in a permanent relationship. Do you believe that complete transparency and honesty is required? My wife and I feel that privacy should be reserved for the bathroom only. Is that viewpoint shared by anyone else who considers themselves extremely independent? I ask because it seems that my wife is very unusual in her beliefs about privacy amongst some of her other "SIW" friends and coworkers.


since I got here due to an inappropriate relationship that my fiance was pursuing, I agree with the majority of members on this board that transparency is the way to go. 

I just had to respond to this post because on another message board that I participate on, a female [oster who had earlier admitted that her first husband not only cheated on her BUT also snooped on her........ 

and still she would never stoop that low in any relationship that she is in or will be in. (she does say that she is now happily married)..... but she is also putting down other people for snooping....... 

We just have to be ready for people either in cyber space or IRL who will have views different to ours..... whatever history that they have had.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> And since women have not enjoyed autonomy to an appreciable degree until recently, for some women it IS something to be very definite about...but they use the wrong tone. So they might be warm, caring, vulnerable people who are truly capable of giving...but they come off as political activists instead of a fun date.


It takes a secure man to see past her defenses into her heart. A man who listens and is patient can find a fine, but maybe a little bit scared woman. And then he can earn her trust.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

bfree said:


> I'd like to ask a question of the single independent women in this thread (although I would also welcome the participation of the married independent women as well.) What is your view of privacy in a permanent relationship. Do you believe that complete transparency and honesty is required? My wife and I feel that privacy should be reserved for the bathroom only. Is that viewpoint shared by anyone else who considers themselves extremely independent? I ask because it seems that my wife is very unusual in her beliefs about privacy amongst some of her other "SIW" friends and coworkers.


My husband and I agree with the privacy is for potty breaks only rule. Well,potty breaks and gift giving times 

I'm VERY independent minded.My urge is to do everything for myself and I am just now learning how to ask for help. Learning to be a team has been the toughest lesson.

We don't like hiding things from each other bc it makes our bond weak.We're so afraid of losing that specialness. I think the marriage is dead the moment you start treating your partner as an enemy not worthy of your deepest thoughts and the moment you start hiding yourself.


----------



## TiggyBlue

bfree said:


> I'd like to ask a question of the single independent women in this thread (although I would also welcome the participation of the married independent women as well.) What is your view of privacy in a permanent relationship. Do you believe that complete transparency and honesty is required? My wife and I feel that privacy should be reserved for the bathroom only. Is that viewpoint shared by anyone else who considers themselves extremely independent? I ask because it seems that my wife is very unusual in her beliefs about privacy amongst some of her other "SIW" friends and coworkers.


Not single but for me interdependence is needed in a relationship, since there's 2 people in a relationship are in a relationship therefor 2 people's thoughts/feelings/boundaries are needed and valid there's only so much independence one can have in a healthy relationship. Secrets and lies have no place in a relationship imo, all they do is drive a wedge between couples.


----------



## bfree

*Re: Re: Which type of woman is more attractive?*



jld said:


> It takes a secure man to see past her defenses into her heart. A man who listens and is patient can find a fine, but maybe a little bit scared woman. And then he can earn her trust.


Actually it's funny but I took the exact opposite approach with my wife when we met. I had a mindset of "take it or leave it" and was brutally honest with her that I wasn't into games or willing to waste my time with a "project." She said she loved my honesty and forward manner. She appreciated a strong man who was confident enough to come right out and not try to manipulate or sweet talk her. I didn't patiently wear her down. I bulldozed her barriers and challenged her to do the same.


----------



## RandomDude

For all my life; SIW. But I've come to acknowledge the qualities of a SAHM as well... so...

In the end I no longer care either way, as I have new, different and evolved standards now


----------



## COGypsy

NextTimeAround said:


> I guess there are a lot of definition for SIWs. I just remember a couple women ridiculing me either for wanting to date again and / or letting the guy pay for the date.
> 
> I am at the point when I think of these individual women that I knew --in real life-- that they must have been jealous about something and were trying to make me guilty of the good treatment that I was getting.
> 
> This include my sister -- a medical doctor -- who told me that I was "using" this guy if I didn't hurry up and either "agree to marry him " (he never asked me) or stop dating him........ because no guy would take a woman out to dinner that much if he wasn't on the marriage track.
> 
> Well, I'm hooked up now. but after my divorce, I very quickly moved myself away from women who put me down for dating choices that I made that had no effect on them.


I'm pretty sure you can find jaded people with opinions in just about any walk of life--I WISH you could limit that to a single demographic!


----------



## COGypsy

bfree said:


> I'd like to ask a question of the single independent women in this thread (although I would also welcome the participation of the married independent women as well.) What is your view of privacy in a permanent relationship. Do you believe that complete transparency and honesty is required? My wife and I feel that privacy should be reserved for the bathroom only. Is that viewpoint shared by anyone else who considers themselves extremely independent? I ask because it seems that my wife is very unusual in her beliefs about privacy amongst some of her other "SIW" friends and coworkers.


To me, that's a tough one. I think to touch on what SB mentioned--I've always been pretty independent, and also pretty private so it takes more intention than instinct for me to share personal things--period. I don't hide much, but it doesn't really occur to me to just throw personal information out to the world. I can count on one hand the number of people in my life that know anything specfic about my finances, my sex life, my feelings about sensitive subjects. But that's just how I am and I'm pretty sure I would be that way whether I was single in the city or an Amish farmer. 

I suppose to me the biggest factor in the issue is what is the motivation for access. If passwords and logins are requested so that my partner can check up on me and compare my conversation to my documentation, no dice. I'm not on parole in my relationship, nor am I a rebellious teenager. If we have each other's passwords, logins, whatever because it makes life easier then it really isn't a big deal. While I have no idea at all whether my current relationship is "permanent", we have keys to each others homes and access to each others phones. But in this relationship, that seems natural. 

To be honest, having been on TAM makes me extremely reluctant to share too much with a romantic partner. It wasn't anything I thought twice about until I discovered the lengths people will go to in order to substantiate their suspicions.

I guess my short answer is that I'm all in favor of natural transparency and openness. I'm not in favor of attempts to control my communication. If you want to know, ask me--it's that simple.


----------



## COGypsy

bfree said:


> Actually it's funny but I took the exact opposite approach with my wife when we met. I had a mindset of "take it or leave it" and was brutally honest with her that I wasn't into games or willing to waste my time with a "project." She said she loved my honesty and forward manner. She appreciated a strong man who was confident enough to come right out and not try to manipulate or sweet talk her. I didn't patiently wear her down. I bulldozed her barriers and challenged her to do the same.


This is pretty much my approach. I'm not looking for a fixer-upper. I'm not a fixer-upper myself. I've approached every relationship with the idea that we're going to choose to be in or choose to be out. We make that choice every day. Just like we choose to be our best for each other every day.


----------



## COGypsy

JCD said:


> We are looking at this with two different emphasis.
> 
> From what I gather from your definition of a 'SIW' (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you see her as strong willed, hard working, accomplished, with high self esteem and one who shoulders the burdens that life throws at her. And these are all perfectly virtuous things, no matter the gender.
> 
> However, these virtues, with just a slight twist, makes them rather unsettling to some men.
> 
> Men tend to fear that this type of women will have an uncompromising personal autonomy, where any desire of compromise becomes a political point of principle (have you LISTENED to Women Studies programs these days?), or at least a conflict which he REALLY doesn't want every time he has to go see his mother, for example.
> 
> And since women have not enjoyed autonomy to an appreciable degree until recently, for some women it IS something to be very definite about...but they use the wrong tone. So they might be warm, caring, vulnerable people who are truly capable of giving...but they come off as political activists instead of a fun date.
> 
> The entitlement thing really crosses all lines. A housewife might expect her husband to bring home his weekly check unopened...but a SIW, with an overweening sense of self worth might expect anything from tokens to outright tribute to her awesomeness. One GF of mine mentioned a female friend of hers who demanded just that: if you wanted to date her, you needed to make with a 'gift' to prove YOUR worth. Not a cheap gift either.
> 
> And yes, some guys are entitled too.


We are indeed looking through different lenses. I have to say, and it may be an age thing--I'm not quite 40, so I missed the militant Gloria Steinem years when women were just getting significant rights in America. I can't say I know any women who politicize their relationships and their rights to the extent you describe. It sounds like more of a 70's and 80's thing that you'd either hear at a bra burning or by someone in their linebacker-shoulder padded red power suit. 

Sadly I knew lots of girls in college that sound like your GF's friend. Most of them followed the logic of requiring gifts because how else would you know if he'd ever be able to afford to support you once you had a house and kids. Crazy talk to me.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> Originally Posted by *bfree*
> I'd like to ask a question of the single independent women in this thread (although I would also welcome the participation of the married independent women as well.) What is your view of privacy in a permanent relationship. *Do you believe that complete transparency and honesty is required? My wife and I feel that privacy should be reserved for the bathroom only. Is that viewpoint shared by anyone else who considers themselves extremely independent? I ask because it seems that my wife is very unusual in her beliefs about privacy amongst some of her other "SIW" friends and coworkers.*


 You didn't ask me but as one of the dependent type marrieds - (though I still feel I am independent minded - even if that doesn't mean anything on this thread)... we are even more transparent than you & wife Bfree... bathroom not off limits either...we've talked about this...all he cares is to wipe in privacy... 

Our Transparency is what I call a willing / giving transparency, we are more likely to share something - just because we ENJOY the sharing.... anything remotely juicy, entertaining, funny, ...how we feel, what is bothering us...the highlights of his day -and mine. This has always flowed very naturally.. and it means a great great deal to me... and him.


----------



## bfree

COGypsy said:


> To me, that's a tough one. I think to touch on what SB mentioned--I've always been pretty independent, and also pretty private so it takes more intention than instinct for me to share personal things--period. I don't hide much, but it doesn't really occur to me to just throw personal information out to the world. I can count on one hand the number of people in my life that know anything specfic about my finances, my sex life, my feelings about sensitive subjects. But that's just how I am and I'm pretty sure I would be that way whether I was single in the city or an Amish farmer.
> 
> I suppose to me the biggest factor in the issue is what is the motivation for access. If passwords and logins are requested so that my partner can check up on me and compare my conversation to my documentation, no dice. I'm not on parole in my relationship, nor am I a rebellious teenager. If we have each other's passwords, logins, whatever because it makes life easier then it really isn't a big deal. While I have no idea at all whether my current relationship is "permanent", we have keys to each others homes and access to each others phones. But in this relationship, that seems natural.
> 
> To be honest, having been on TAM makes me extremely reluctant to share too much with a romantic partner. It wasn't anything I thought twice about until I discovered the lengths people will go to in order to substantiate their suspicions.
> 
> I guess my short answer is that I'm all in favor of natural transparency and openness. I'm not in favor of attempts to control my communication. If you want to know, ask me--it's that simple.


My wife and I have discussed this at length. In fact it was one of the most important discussion we had even before we were married. I have a lot of skeletons in my closet. Some (most) of which would make 80% of women run in the opposite direction. I was very wary of getting involved with a "fixer" since I really needed to be able to fix myself and not have someone pushing me in any direction. I tend to get very difficult to deal with if I feel I'm being "managed." What attracted me to my wife is that she is most definitely not a fixer. She sees people as being the product of their own devices. She feels people need to take care of their own yards and not give out gardening tips to others. But she's very independent as well and I was concerned that if I put it all out there she would be overwhelmed. She wasn't. But it did instigate that conversation on transparency and privacy.

She believes (and I concur wholeheartedly) that if you are in a permanent relationship each and every decision and action you make affects your partner. And in turn each and every decision your partner makes affects you. In essence, when in a relationship you do not exist in a vacuum. Now, the effect may be small or large but its there. And what I might think is no big deal might in turn be a huge deal for my wife. So by completely eliminating privacy you ensure that no decisions are made in ignorance and no actions can adversely effect your partner. Someone else mentioned things said in confidence by friends. The way we handle it is that all our friends know that we both confide in each other. We always vow to keep those "secrets" between us and never betray that confidence to anyone outside ourselves. If one of my friends doesn't want me sharing something we discuss then don't tell me because I WILL talk with my wife. And the same goes for her friends. It does help that all of OUR friends are friends of both of us as a couple.

The reason I asked the question is because some of my wife's friends don't understand how she can be so open with me. They claim that if she were truly as independent as she claims that she would have her own "secrets" and keep part of her life restricted from me. One friend even called her codependent which I found hilarious.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

bfree said:


> *She believes (and I concur wholeheartedly) that if you are in a permanent relationship each and every decision and action you make affects your partner. And in turn each and every decision your partner makes affects you. In essence, when in a relationship you do not exist in a vacuum. Now, the effect may be small or large but its there. And what I might think is no big deal might in turn be a huge deal for my wife. So by completely eliminating privacy you ensure that no decisions are made in ignorance and no actions can adversely effect your partner*.














> *Someone else mentioned things said in confidence by friends. The way we handle it is that all our friends know that we both confide in each other. We always vow to keep those "secrets" between us and never betray that confidence to anyone outside ourselves. If one of my friends doesn't want me sharing something we discuss then don't tell me because I WILL talk with my wife. And the same goes for her friends. It does help that all of OUR friends are friends of both of us as a couple*.


 Funny, I just did a post today saying the exact same thing.... You explained how it works with us as well... 



> The reason I asked the question is because some of my wife's friends don't understand how she can be so open with me. *They claim that if she were truly as independent as she claims that she would have her own "secrets" and keep part of her life restricted from me. One friend even called her codependent which I found hilarious*.


I've never heard that argument before.. this is just as much a matter of preference and freedom (to share because we ENJOY it & this brings us happiness) over to not share because we value our privacy more so....I would not understand that, I'm just not geared that way I guess...at least not with him.. maybe it would be different if the man was not trustworthy or hurt me in the past...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

BFree don't take this the wrong way but I think your wife has sh*tty friends lol honestly who are they to tell her what her definition of independent should be??
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## COGypsy

Yep. What she said!


----------



## bfree

ScarletBegonias said:


> BFree don't take this the wrong way but I think your wife has sh*tty friends lol honestly who are they to tell her what her definition of independent should be??
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion

ScarletBegonias said:


> BFree don't take this the wrong way but I think your wife has sh*tty friends lol honestly who are they to tell her what her definition of independent should be??
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Alot of friends will steer you with their perfect ideologies. Half the time the stuff is complete nonsense.

It's kinda like the standard agreed upon "I didn't sign any contract" when a single male sleeps with a married wife, shirking the responsibility for getting in the middle of a relationship. It's said and repeated so often that it is the truth.


----------



## Machiavelli

karma*girl said:


> Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> 
> I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?
> 
> I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it.
> Hope that doesn't turn him off!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Two of each, please.


----------



## treyvion

Machiavelli said:


> Two of each, please.


The pop culture is full of "break up songs". Most of it is divisive these days. There is very few illusions to real love or passion, and more about ego and "fun" and unattached sex, drugs and rock and roll is what it basically is.

You know back in the days about being so in love with you, loving on you, etc, etc. They don't do that anymore.

You'll have a better life if you form your own values.


----------



## alte Dame

I’m not sure about most men, but my H wants a woman who can bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan.

He wants a dynamic career woman who is in good shape, attractive, smart, hypereducated, compassionate, willing to have children and raise them, and make sure the house is clean and orderly.

In short (or shorter), he wants an attractive, independent-minded woman who will do the daily work of child-raising because he doesn’t want to. If the child-rearing makes her dependent, then that conflict can be tolerated…

What he got is a GDI of a wife who almost burned out before she ratcheted it back so she could raise her children decently.


----------



## heartsbeating

Based on the two extremes, my husband is definitely attracted to The Bride (Kill Bill) over a damsel in distress character.


There's a sliding scale of independence and I think it's easier to be independent outside of a relationship. We depend on each other in certain ways because we're together. He's commented on my resilience before and likes that I can hold my own, and is encouraging of this. However we do rely on one another and this is based on our strengths, as well as the care and consideration we share. Hey, I'm working on the cooking!

Over the years there's been ebbs and flows of 'independence' between us. He relates independence with taking responsibility, and that's a quality he admires/respects - along with resilience and conviction. I'm not suggesting I have these qualities... simply stating his preference. Perhaps we're all a bit of a blend at given times.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> It takes a secure man to see past her defenses into her heart. A man who listens and is patient can find a fine, but maybe a little bit scared woman. And then he can earn her trust.


I totally agree. It takes a secure, patient and empathic man.

These traits, alas, are sometimes in short supply.

I think the norm is a man who 'settles' gets the shock of his life when he finds out how great a woman he actually 'settled' with


----------



## Sandfly

Machiavelli said:


> Two of each, please.


That would make four. 

Is this Machiavelli, or Muhammed? 


----------------------




I prefer the dependent one long term, and maybe the first one for just having a fun companion for a while.


----------



## always_alone

COGypsy said:


> Sadly I knew lots of girls in college that sound like your GF's friend. Most of them followed the logic of requiring gifts because how else would you know if he'd ever be able to afford to support you once you had a house and kids. Crazy talk to me.


Crazy talk indeed. And also not strong independent women. Those who demand gifts are those setting themselves up to have others always look after them, with them having to do as little as possible.

Strong independent women, in contrast, set themselves up so that they can take care of themselves and others.

As for politics, they are interesting to discuss and very important for living in a democratic state. If a guy is turned off by discussing politics, well, I wouldn't have much time for him anyway.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Crazy talk indeed. And also not strong independent women. Those who demand gifts are those setting themselves up to have others always look after them, with them having to do as little as possible.
> 
> Strong independent women, in contrast, set themselves up so that they can take care of themselves and others.
> 
> As for politics, they are interesting to discuss and very important for living in a democratic state. If a guy is turned off by discussing politics, well, I wouldn't have much time for him anyway.


What if a guy is turned off for wasting his time talking politics, but turned on for talking about and going out and being prosperous and making money.


----------



## CuddleBug

My wifee is also successful in her career and she wants me and I love that.

To her, it didn't matter what jobs we have and how much money either of us makes. We both work full time and bring to the house and table. I setup the finances so we pay our equal share based on our incomes.


The type of woman I find attractive, here goes.

- works a full time job
- smart with her money
- not a *****, demanding, high maintenance or a princess
- takes care of herself, fit and dresses nice
- healthy sex drive, fun, adventurous
- does chores and errands without being asked
- kind, loving and trustworthy
- my equal, and not a baby needing to be taken care of

Sums it up for me.:smthumbup:


----------



## skype

Machiavelli said:


> Two of each, please.


Why would you want to piss off 4 women?

Made me think about this Wanda Sykes' joke:

That's what they want: two women. Fellas, I think that's a bit lofty. Because, come on, think about it - if you can't satisfy that one woman, why do you want to p*ss off another one? Why have two angry women in the bed with you at the same time? And think about it - you know how much you hate to talk after sex, imagine having two women just nagging you to death.


----------



## Emerald

karma*girl said:


> Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> 
> I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?
> 
> I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it.
> Hope that doesn't turn him off!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Haven't read all of the replies........

Another POV from a Mother who raised 2 daughters born in the 90's.......

I raised my daughters to be strong & independent in all ways. Paid for college so that they could have careers to support themselves. I was not of the mindset that they would grow up & be dependent on a man for their adult life (seriously ?).

It is a parent's job to raise their children to be independent adults.

One is a nurse with a partner (man) & 2 children. They both contribute to the relationship & child-rearing in all ways....financially, emotionally, etc.

The younger daughter also financially independent at age 23 is always in an LTR or dating. Her boyfriends are happy to share dating costs.

My husband (age 54) likes strong, independent women. It's simply a personal preference. My ex-husband will only date strong, independent women. For all the single ladies out there, rest assured that there are many single men out there like both of my husbands


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Crazy talk indeed. And also not strong independent women. Those who demand gifts are those setting themselves up to have others always look after them, with them having to do as little as possible.
> 
> Strong independent women, in contrast, set themselves up so that they can take care of themselves and others.


Um. Respectfully disagree. A male CEO new hire who DEMANDS a specific pay package isn't considered weak and dependent on others: he is setting a metric of his self worth. Whether it is accurate or not is an entire other matter. In any event, it runs the risk of rubbing people the wrong way. BUT....HE doesn't care. He's a Strong Independent Man (see how that works?  )

So I think the 'gifts or no gifts' thing to be irrelevant to the SIW vs. DW discussion.

Politics is about passion. And if the man involved isn't interested in politics (many) or even worse, OPPOSED to your politics (more) than you just wasted a date which might have been better used getting to know one another and see if you had other mutual interests to avoid that one speed bump. (See Mary Matlin and James Carville)

Of course...it's BETTER if you agree on politics. So if you want to use politics as a litmus test, it isn't a bad idea but most people agree that the first date isn't usually the place to do that.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> I totally agree. It takes a secure, patient and empathic man.
> 
> *These traits, alas, are sometimes in short supply.*
> 
> I think the norm is a man who 'settles' gets the shock of his life when he finds out how great a woman he actually 'settled' with


I've noticed.

So many men focus on money and attraction, while forgetting the things that really will make a marriage happy long term.

So that is your feeling, that many men feel they have "settled?"


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Of course...it's BETTER if you agree on politics. So if you want to use politics as a litmus test, it isn't a bad idea but most people agree that the first date isn't usually the place to do that.


Don't you think political stances can evolve along with the couple?

When we met, dh told me that if it had been a century earlier, he would have been a communist. At the time, he was socialist. Now, he is a definite centrist, and even voted conservative once.

Maybe it is the political values, or just values in general that it is important to agree on.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> I've noticed.
> 
> So many men focus on money and attraction, while forgetting the things that really will make a marriage happy long term.
> 
> So that is your feeling, that many men feel they have "settled?"


Sure. Almost as many men as women feel they 'settled' 

It makes the voyage of discovery as you slowly meet this perfect stranger all the more fun.

To this day, I continue to discover things about my wife.


----------



## ca-nami

karma*girl said:


> Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> 
> I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?
> 
> I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it.
> Hope that doesn't turn him off!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I like women who are curvy, or at least have a defined/normal feminine figure. 

I don't go for the Hollywood model look, and never really have.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Um. Respectfully disagree. A male CEO new hire who DEMANDS a specific pay package isn't considered weak and dependent on others: he is setting a metric of his self worth.


A pay package is not a gift, it's a salary. Very different animal, and not at all comparable. Women who are demanding gifts are not negotiating their worth, they are looking for someone who will pay their bills and realize their material dreams.

As for politics, I don't see why it can't be a topic for a first date. It's part of getting to know someone, and better to do that quickly than to waste eons pretending to be someone you're not, no?

As for attracting, I do have one question:. Why is it that when we talk about attraction, men always focus on appearance or the first date? Do men really discover everything they need to know about their attraction to a woman this quickly and easily? Is there really nothing deeper than putting on my best outfit and not saying anything too meaningful, in fear that I might turn him off?


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Sure. Almost as many men as women feel they 'settled'
> 
> It makes the voyage of discovery as you slowly meet this perfect stranger all the more fun.
> 
> To this day, I continue to discover things about my wife.


I am surprised to hear about the settling feeling. 

I am glad you enjoy your marriage, JCD.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Which type of woman is more attractive?*



always_alone said:


> As for attracting, I do have one question:. Why is it that when we talk about attraction, men always focus on appearance or the first date? Do men really discover everything they need to know about their attraction to a woman this quickly and easily? Is there really nothing deeper than putting on my best outfit and not saying anything too meaningful, in fear that I might turn him off?


Attraction has to start somewhere. I don't believe the wiring to be physically attracted to a potential partner is ever going to shift for males. What they find attractive might, and likely will over time and across cultures. But if I'm not attracted to her appearance, then not much if anything at all is going to come of it.

'Deeper' is for beyond the scope of a first date. A successful first date makes deeper a possibility. By all means share something meaningful if you choose, and you are attracted to him, if his response is to say "Huh?", while never lifting his eyes from your cleavage than you have a pretty good idea of where hes coming from.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> But if I'm not attracted to her appearance, then not much if anything at all is going to come of it.


Uh, well, yeah, looks are a part of initial attraction for both men and women, but the OP was asking about different personality types, not cup sizes or hair cuts. 

So why are we back to looks and first dates? And why the insistence that women should hide who they really are so they can better appeal to some guy who doesn't even care 'cuz the only thing he'll ever notice is how hot she is and how much he's "settling" if she isn't?

Frankly, I wouldn't date someone I wasn't physically attracted to either, but if my date can't handle deep from the outset, I wouldn't even bother going on that first date. Why waste my time and breath on someone I clearly can't relate to?

Oh, right. Cheap sex. I forgot for a second that was all that matters.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Uh, well, yeah, looks are a part of initial attraction for both men and women, but the OP was asking about different personality types, not cup sizes or hair cuts.
> 
> So why are we back to looks and first dates? And why the insistence that women should hide who they really are so they can better appeal to some guy who doesn't even care 'cuz the only thing he'll ever notice is how hot she is and how much he's "settling" if she isn't?
> 
> Frankly, I wouldn't date someone I wasn't physically attracted to either, but if my date can't handle deep from the outset, I wouldn't even bother going on that first date. Why waste my time and breath on someone I clearly can't relate to?
> 
> Oh, right. Cheap sex. I forgot for a second that was all that matters.


Wait, cheap sex isn't very deep .... Ohhhh I see what you did there.

In truth I'm not a big fan of the parameters. They just aren't written in stone.

I think there is a difference between a woman who is willing to be sincere, compassionate, vulnerable and a care-giver, than a woman who is 'dependent'.

I also think the woman with the traits above could be very independent. But those aren't the traits people associate with vernacular.

I have known some very tough, capable and independent women who were also very 'soft' with their men. My mother is a standout. The woman was fearless. She was a corporate executive who people respected, and some feared. Once she came home, no one would ever possibly imagine the power she wielded in the workplace. Just didn't register. She wore multiple hats. Just like most of us do.

In the long term? I'm more attracted to the kind of woman that loves me best. No cheap sex required.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Uh, well, yeah, looks are a part of initial attraction for both men and women, but the OP was asking about different personality types, not cup sizes or hair cuts.
> 
> So why are we back to looks and first dates? And why the insistence that women should hide who they really are so they can better appeal to some guy who doesn't even care 'cuz the only thing he'll ever notice is how hot she is and how much he's "settling" if she isn't?
> 
> Frankly, I wouldn't date someone I wasn't physically attracted to either, but if my date can't handle deep from the outset, I wouldn't even bother going on that first date. Why waste my time and breath on someone I clearly can't relate to?
> 
> Oh, right. Cheap sex. I forgot for a second that was all that matters.


Not to be blunt, but you asked the question, not us.

May I respectfully point out that if you are bringing all these deep political issues to a first date and you are not getting a second date, you are doing it wrong. 

I was being glib on the 'settling' thing. What I mean is there are market forces at work. If I am a 5'6" 140 lb. man, I can WANT a hi society supermodel as much as I want. What I can pull is something else entirely. 

What I am looking for on a first date is The Spark. Heck, it doesn't take a date. It takes a glance. And this isn't all appearance based. Poise does enter into it. Style. Personality.

Please note: I never said compromise your inner self or your passions. I said the 'hello' date is NOT the place to start making strident political statements. Because then you are driving away anyone who doesn't full bore share your political views...or who may misunderstand what you are saying. This is a market signal you are sending:" I care so much about X that I am willing to ruin your night to do it if you don't agree."  To which the man will nod politely and count the minutes til the check comes. He wanted some light conversation and maybe a bit of flirting, not rabid discussions on the Euro crisis. Cheap sex really doesn't become ANY issue til way down the road.

So aim at that 1% who agree with you. This isn't bad...but realize you are setting the bar which may be making your dating life what it is.

And if ALL men like pretty things and you don't like it, the problem is NOT the men. Men marry women of all shapes and sizes. Remember that guy who was 5'6"? Be realistic in what you can pull...or improve your game. That's it.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> I am surprised to hear about the settling feeling.
> 
> I am glad you enjoy your marriage, JCD.


I do indeed. It has been a ride. And I never said I settled.


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> Not to be blunt, but you asked the question, not us.
> 
> May I respectfully point out that if you are bringing all these deep political issues to a first date and you are not getting a second date, you are doing it wrong.
> 
> I was being glib on the 'settling' thing. What I mean is there are market forces at work. If I am a 5'6" 140 lb. man, I can WANT a hi society supermodel as much as I want. What I can pull is something else entirely.
> 
> What I am looking for on a first date is The Spark. Heck, it doesn't take a date. It takes a glance. And this isn't all appearance based. Poise does enter into it. Style. Personality.
> 
> Please note: I never said compromise your inner self or your passions. I said the 'hello' date is NOT the place to start making strident political statements. Because then you are driving away anyone who doesn't full bore share your political views...or who may misunderstand what you are saying. This is a market signal you are sending:" I care so much about X that I am willing to ruin your night to do it if you don't agree." To which the man will nod politely and count the minutes til the check comes. He wanted some light conversation and maybe a bit of flirting, not rabid discussions on the Euro crisis. Cheap sex really doesn't become ANY issue til way down the road.
> 
> So aim at that 1% who agree with you. This isn't bad...but realize you are setting the bar which may be making your dating life what it is.
> 
> And if ALL men like pretty things and you don't like it, the problem is NOT the men. Men marry women of all shapes and sizes. Remember that guy who was 5'6"? Be realistic in what you can pull...or improve your game. That's it.


5'6" guy can pull babes just like anyone else.


----------



## bfree

I always thought I was only attracted to curvy women. Then I met my wife and I grew to appreciate the more athletic type. Funny how that works out.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> May I respectfully point out that if you are bringing all these deep political issues to a first date and you are not getting a second date, you are doing it wrong.


What I don't get is why you think I'm looking for dating advice, or why you think any strong independent women would listen to dating advice from someone who so clearly prefers women to be soft, dependent, and unchallenging.

I mean obviously you're not attracted, but your assumption that this must mean the SIW of the world are all suffering or doing something wrong is a bit beyond the pale.


----------



## over20

I have to chime in .....my 
Dh say's a sexy woman that LOVES to be married and have a family.......


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> What I don't get is why you think I'm looking for dating advice, or why you think any strong independent women would listen to dating advice from someone who so clearly prefers women to be soft, dependent, and unchallenging.
> 
> I mean obviously you're not attracted, but your assumption that this must mean the SIW of the world are all suffering or doing something wrong is a bit beyond the pale.


Sorry. I offered an actually pretty widely held view on what a first date should consist of. It isn't JUST me, but whatever. Good luck with your dating and I mean that sincerely. I am happy to have left that part of my life behind because it's a difficult thing.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Deejo said:


> Attraction has to start somewhere. I don't believe the wiring to be physically attracted to a potential partner is ever going to shift for males. What they find attractive might, and likely will over time and across cultures. But if I'm not attracted to her appearance, then not much if anything at all is going to come of it.
> 
> 'Deeper' is for beyond the scope of a first date. A successful first date makes deeper a possibility. By all means share something meaningful if you choose, and you are attracted to him, if his response is to say "Huh?", while never lifting his eyes from your cleavage than you have a pretty good idea of where hes coming from.


I agree with a lot of what you say. But I do notice a lot of fat and less than attractive women who are hooked up in seemingly happy relationships.

I was thinking that maybe these women are in strong social circles, active members of social clubs and organisations....... in other words, they put themselves in situations in which they can meet and interact with men a few times so that the guy can get to know her before he asks for a date.

Is my theory correct?

Has any woman become more physically attractive to you after a few positive interactions to the point where you asked for a date?

Any other male poster can answer this..... or a female poster who is aware of such a situation.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> I do indeed. It has been a ride. And I never said I settled.


I did not mean that _you_ felt you settled. I was just surprised to hear that you felt that that was common among people.

And again, glad your marriage is good.


----------



## jld

NextTimeAround said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say. But I do notice a lot of fat and less than attractive women who are hooked up in seemingly happy relationships.


My homeschool group is filled with average-looking women who are easily 100 pounds overweight. And they are genuinely happy gals in genuinely happy marriages.

Maybe it's the religion. I don't know. But their marriages, not only in happiness (it's like they glow), but in length (hardly a divorce among them), defy the odds in a big way.


----------



## Deejo

I'm not at all familiar with the dynamic you outline. What I am familiar with is a couple dates, bonds, and falls in love, and the woman puts on weight over time. Attraction and bonding have already been established.
There was a thread a while ago exclusively about men who are attracted to heavier women. 

I dated a heavy set girl many, many years ago. I liked her, she was a wonderful person. Kept chastising myself for what nagged at the back of my head, that I wasn't attracted to her.
Eventually, I simply came to terms with my own attraction radar.



NextTimeAround said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say. But I do notice a lot of fat and less than attractive women who are hooked up in seemingly happy relationships.
> 
> I was thinking that maybe these women are in strong social circles, active members of social clubs and organisations....... in other words, they put themselves in situations in which they can meet and interact with men a few times so that the guy can get to know her before he asks for a date.
> 
> Is my theory correct?
> 
> Has any woman become more physically attractive to you after a few positive interactions to the point where you asked for a date?
> 
> Any other male poster can answer this..... or a female poster who is aware of such a situation.


----------



## treyvion

Deejo said:


> I'm not at all familiar with the dynamic you outline. What I am familiar with is a couple dates, bonds, and falls in love, and the woman puts on weight over time. Attraction and bonding have already been established.
> There was a thread a while ago exclusively about men who are attracted to heavier women.
> 
> I dated a heavy set girl many, many years ago. I liked her, she was a wonderful person. Kept chastising myself for what nagged at the back of my head, that I wasn't attracted to her.
> Eventually, I simply came to terms with my own attraction radar.


After going through some issues with the 10's and realizing how selfish and materialistic some can be, i started to recant the "bleed down" on my life caused by such an interaction if you take them seriously.

So I had a girl heavier than my prototypical type. Out of the map. She's smart, good with money and a hard worker. One day she was dressed real nice and had on some good perfume, and her kindness was starting to make her more and more beautiful in a transformation right in front of my eyes.

I saw that I could bang the holey hell out of her, and before I didn't know I had it in me.


----------



## JCD

To answer your question from a personal POV: the Spark doesn't always care about weight.

As Deejo wisely said, children and good living add more to love to women who were once much skinnier. It happens and while it may or may not cut back on how the man is attracted to her, only a low cad would abandon a woman simply for weight.

But to my point. I have seen women who just had this sparkle in their eyes, or a luster to their hair, or a bubbly welcoming aspect to their personality which somehow went through the cultural filters and just ZOOWIE! So it isn't hopeless.

BUT...most of the heavier women I have been attracted two had a couple of things going for them (Yes, them too. If I'm going plus size, it better be ALL plus size. But my culture goes for Valkyries...)

More than just a big bosom, they also had the Golden ratio: the hourglass figure with a bust, a waist and some hips. How much packaging is used to make the Golden Ratio doesn't seem to matter to me.

And it depends on how big of a sl*t the man is. Just because he's a sl*t doesn't mean he can't be loyal. So he finds a plus size girl and she just rocks his world! And he has to honestly ask himself: "will I get anything better from the world?" And many times, he says "Do I care?"

The rest is glow. 

For the record, Mrs. JCD is svelte, with very nice fur, good haunches and the cutest whiskers you've ever seen.


----------



## Deejo

I should specify that 'putting on weight over time' certainly applies to men as well. 

But ... as my 'attraction' thread indicated most men are aware of a woman's appearance and weight. Most women do put as high measure on his weight and appearance as they do socioeconomic status.

Let me sum up ... We like what we like.


----------



## Enginerd

JCD said:


> Um. Respectfully disagree. A male CEO new hire who DEMANDS a specific pay package isn't considered weak and dependent on others: he is setting a metric of his self worth. Whether it is accurate or not is an entire other matter. In any event, it runs the risk of rubbing people the wrong way. BUT....HE doesn't care. He's a Strong Independent Man (see how that works?  )
> 
> So I think the 'gifts or no gifts' thing to be irrelevant to the SIW vs. DW discussion.
> 
> Politics is about passion. And if the man involved isn't interested in politics (many) or even worse, OPPOSED to your politics (more) than you just wasted a date which might have been better used getting to know one another and see if you had other mutual interests to avoid that one speed bump. (See Mary Matlin and James Carville)
> 
> Of course...it's BETTER if you agree on politics. So if you want to use politics as a litmus test, it isn't a bad idea but most people agree that the first date isn't usually the place to do that.


 How are personal relationships equal to negotiating business contracts? This implies that you view marriage as purely a legal contract and that its OK to award sex to the highest bidder. Apparently you don't really believe in equal partners.


----------



## jld

treyvion said:


> She's smart, good with money and a hard worker. One day she was dressed real nice and had on some good perfume, and her kindness was starting to make her more and more beautiful in a transformation right in front of my eyes.




No one can help what they are born looking like. But the things you mention above are things we have control over. And it sounds like there was a nice outcome.


----------



## JCD

Enginerd said:


> How are personal relationships equal to negotiating business contracts? This implies that you view marriage as purely a legal contract and that its OK to award sex to the highest bidder. Apparently you don't really believe in equal partners.


I tried to use a comparison. How interesting that you infer MY views instead of those of the people making the requests for 'gifts' for dates.


----------



## NextTimeAround

JCD said:


> I tried to use a comparison. How interesting that you infer MY views instead of those of the people making the requests for 'gifts' for dates.


I see something similar between work and personal relationships, that is, one is not afraid to ask for what they want to continue the relationship.


----------



## elenap

Thank goodness for variety. I don't much care if a man has money and prestige and I won't ever land a man that only cares about looks. I want a partner who gets me. And that means it doesn't matter to me if dependent women are more attractive, 'cause I wouldn't know how to make myself dependent if I wanted to. My ability to earn a living wage and repair my own appliances doesn't make my relationships any less important to me; and it doesn't seem to be the case that the smart, emotionally healthy men I've dated are more willing to kick me to the curb just because they don't NEED me.


----------



## MyTimeAgain

My aged opinion. Men that don't like successful, smart, and skilled women probably have a link to ego. They must provide, at least the most. Men that don't like independant women may have a dominant personality, the woman must be submissive. You can be successful in life and submissive at home. If you earn more and the husband has an ego issue with that, remind him that it is a matter of skills but also luck and timing and that you still see him as the man and you need him. You may need to let him lead with money decisions at home. You can, in reality, be independant but very much need a man and you can stress that. In conflict, a submissive gesture will win the day unless your husband has a submissive nature.


----------



## treyvion

MyTimeAgain said:


> My aged opinion. Men that don't like successful, smart, and skilled women probably have a link to ego. They must provide, at least the most. Men that don't like independant women may have a dominant personality, the woman must be submissive. You can be successful in life and submissive at home. If you earn more and the husband has an ego issue with that, remind him that it is a matter of skills but also luck and timing and that you still see him as the man and you need him. You may need to let him lead with money decisions at home. You can, in reality, be independant but very much need a man and you can stress that. In conflict, a submissive gesture will win the day unless your husband has a submissive nature.


She doesn't have to be submissive across the board, but she does need to be submissive some of the time and in certain aspects.

Nothing like a perfectly dominant woman who isn't going to do anything thats helpful for her relationship partner. Everything is a fight, much more difficult than it needs to be, and more than half the time the spouse is providing MOST of the friction in your life.


----------



## MyTimeAgain

You are corret that I didn't mean being totally submissive, just making submissive gestures at times. But to me, submissive doesn't mean doormat and it doesn't mean having no influence or input. It means allowing a person you love, trust, and support make the final decision after a discussion and supporting that decision. It is a way of avoiding power struggles, which both will lose. Marriage is, in some ways, a service agreement. I bring some services and she brings some and that makes us stronger as a couple. If each tries to make part of the service they provide fulfilling to the other and each tries to support and lift the other, we'll be a happy couple.


----------



## Deejo

'Submissive' is effectively a fighting word around here. For any woman who has been victimized or subjected to abuse, I understand that word may be a trigger.

I've always stated my perspective on submission in a relationship is a gift the submitter gives, not something that the person you submit to takes.

A book that I read that I thought fits this dynamic well, is "My Foot is too big for the Glass Slipper" by Gabrielle Reece.


----------



## norajane

To me, submissive implies mindless. It presumes that the non-submissive person always knows better and thus should always be the one to make a final decision.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> 'Submissive' is effectively a fighting word around here. For any woman who has been victimized or subjected to abuse, I understand that word may be a trigger.
> 
> *I've always stated my perspective on submission in a relationship is a gift the submitter gives, not something that the person you submit to takes.*
> 
> A book that I read that I thought fits this dynamic well, is "My Foot is too big for the Glass Slipper" by Gabrielle Reece.


:iagree:

Makes you wonder sometimes.
Absolutely no type of relationship could progress without acts of submission from all parties at various times.
Equilibrium can only be arrived at through various acts submission by all parties involved.

Interestingly enough, the antonym of submission is resistance.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MyTimeAgain said:


> *My aged opinion. Men that don't like successful, smart, and skilled women probably have a link to ego. They must provide, at least the most. Men that don't like independant women may have a dominant personality, the woman must be submissive. You can be successful in life and submissive at home. *


 I would say me & husband have flipped this all upside down, he's not one that would be accused of having an EGO...very giving man, all around "Good Guy".. couldn't brag to save his life...not the type to throw his weight around...it's ingrained in him to be the "Protect & Provide" type, and prefers his wife to stay home with the children..so long as we can afford it... But true, he grew up in a family where his Father supported their family of 6. 

I am dependent on him - but independent minded -always!...I have a more "take charge" personality over him...He likes it - ...nothing about us makes any sense I suppose...but it's always worked very well... I think if I was a career woman making more $$ over him...it would upset our balance, this magnificent dance between us somehow, if I was to be very honest here. 

From observing other's families & upbringings....this appears to play a large role in how they view -what they prefer....as I have asked our sons how they feel- future wives, etc...they too have a more Traditional style vision in their heads (even though they know the world is not like this anymore, they are not against it at all)...they feel it is well & good for the wife to be in the home...raising children.. and happy to support her, feeling this is their role as a man. 

Just as their dad has for me and them...

I've asked them if they look down on me and feel I should do more with my life...and they almost laugh at me for this...they make me feel better anyway! God bless my sons. 

Then out of pure curiosity..I've asked one of their friends who stays over here a lot...11th grade, he was raised in a home where both parents worked all his life - and he said this is what he Prefers for his marriage someday....saying it would be "just weird" otherwise... 

The moral... so often we MODEL how we were raised .... *if we had a good experience - that is.*


----------



## MyTimeAgain

In any relationship there will be conflict. If that is not resolved there will be a problem forever and perhaps resentment, blocking (no one gets what they want), and maybe punishment (you blocked me, now I block you when I would not have before). So how do you resolve conflict? Discussion can lead to agreement and the conflic vanishes. Without that, one partner gives in to the othr (a submissive gesture) Many relationships, especially religious based types, have an agreement that one partner will always decide. It doesn't make the other mindless or weak. In fact, it takes a strong person to be that loving, trusting, and respectful. But the person deciding better consider the other. That is how they can be loving, trusting and respectful.


----------



## daveca

I’ve experienced both. (Two marriages.) In my view it’s not so much about whether one is submissive or independent. The priority is sex.

We all have our “must have” lists but even the most important “must have” is negotiable IF there is another value that supersedes it. For example, one may say their partner has to have a good job, above average income. However, they meet someone who is so caring and empathetic and while not having a university degree has an innate understanding of life and motivations and feelings so they go with that person. 

The only “must have” is the sex of the person. An individual may fulfill a person’s every “must have” requirement but the heterosexual person will not settle for an individual of the same sex regardless of them fulfilling every “must have”. That, alone, should tell everyone the importance of sex. 

In my view divorce is rampant today because the “must haves” have replaced the natural attraction. That magic or chemistry is given short shrift compared to job, education, activities, etc. In other words the attraction is based on what a person has or does as opposed to being natural. I’m always skeptical/wary when I hear a person say, “I love my partner because….and then they list things that are possible for anyone to do, meaning they are not that special.

For example, talking about a stay at home Mom one may say, “My partner is terrific. They are a good housekeeper and the kids are clean and she’s a great cook.” Or a woman may say of her husband, “He’s the perfect husband. He’s a good provider and always interacts with the children.”

What happens when the children are grown? The dynamics change. Maybe Mom decides to get a job. She doesn’t require Dad to be a good provider any more. At least not to the same degree. As for the Dad the three things he loved about his wife---good housekeeper, clean kids, a great cook---are no longer there. She doesn’t have the time to cook a fancy dinner or keep a spotless house and there aren’t any “kids” anymore. Then we hear that all too familiar refrain, “We grew apart.” 

Then there’s those who desired and chose an independent partner and their partner suffers a serious accident or illness and requires help/attention. It’s not unusual for the person to leave because what they “loved” about their partner is gone. 

I think today’s advice regarding romantic relationships is destructive. We’re told to avoid that natural attraction and focus on concrete things like similar activities and views. The problem is they change, people change. One has to love the person. Choosing a partner based on activities or whether they are independent or submissive is, in my opinion, planning on a short term relationship.


----------



## loveforfamily

A woman chiming in: I believe interdependence is a good goal. I think any combination, given the mutual attraction, can work. I think some women can be a little of both and not always one or the other. I have always been independent as far as, I am okay building what I need, time to self etc etc.....However, I do pay mind to the y ing and yang of man/woman and feel that I can also be more dependent in order to be there at home for my kids and spouse and make them the 100percent of my focus. I can still be independent in some thought and interests and pursue them. On my own ad of my own accord. So, for life with my husband,before and now, interdependence is something we both looked for when striving for a good mate, someone we could achieve that with. I wonder if that's a third option in the "attracted to mate because.. .." question?


----------



## options20

karma*girl said:


> Had a lively girlfriend discussion recently about the mixed messages society puts out in terms of what men are more attracted to.
> A woman who is independent, has her own everything, can take care of herself, doesn't 'need' a man, but wants one..
> Or a woman who is dependent on a man, for help, support, etc..more on the damsel in distress side.
> 
> I realize there are different degrees of each type of woman with most falling into a combo of both..but in reality, which type, in general will you notice or will affect you (in a good way) more?
> 
> I feel like I am more dependent, although songs & pop culture tells me I should have my own life, separate from my husband. I do in many ways, but I won't lie, I need that man & he knows it.
> Hope that doesn't turn him off!
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



definitely independent girls are more attractive imo. The other seems like a leech to me.


----------

