# Fitness Tests Through the Ages



## Conrad

Plagiarized from a superb column by the late Joseph Sobran:

************************

The secrets of success with women are laid out clearly in an old play called RICHARD III.

It was originally published anonymously in 1597 and later ascribed to someone called "William Shakespeare" (not his real name). The title page read quaintly THE TRAGEDY OF KING RICHARD THE THIRD, with the arresting subtitle "Containing, His treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence: the pitiful murder of his innocent nephews: his tyrannical usurpation: with the whole course of his detested life, and most deserved death."

That gives you some idea of the plot, though I think it's a little judgmental and apt to prejudice the reader. It also leaves out Richard's winning ways with the fair sex.

In the second scene, Richard interrupts the funeral procession of King Henry VI to woo the mourning Lady Anne. Not only does this seem an inauspicious occasion to begin a courtship but Richard himself has killed the deceased, as well as Lady Anne's late husband.

So he has several strikes against him, apart from bad timing. In addition, he is an ugly hunchback.

(Insert BigBadWolf here to guess what's coming next)

Lady Anne serves notice that he's facing an uphill fight when she screams, "Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity!" At this point most men would take the hint.

When she goes on to call Richard a devil, a toad, a diffused infection of a man, a hedgehog, a homicide, and a dissembler, and then spits in his face and tells him to hang himself, the warning signs are hard to miss.

For most of us, such expressions as "lump of foul deformity" (which I personally would reserve for someone like Franklin D. Roosevelt) are apt to touch secret insecurities. Coming from a woman we are attracted to, they may cause us to get discouraged, to sulk and brood, or to react defensively. This is especially true if we suspect there is a grain of truth in them. 

During my teens, I used to wilt every time a girl called me that -- until I discovered Richard.

Richard is not one to be put off by a huffy reception. Maybe his disability has inured him to initial rejections by the fair sex. Or maybe he thinks that whatever her lips may call him, her eyes are saying, Yes, yes. Or maybe, in traditional masculine fashion, he reckons it's just the wrong time of the month with her.

Whatever the reason, he hangs in there, ignoring the verbal abuse, pouring on the sweet-talk, and trusting that she just needs to be exposed to his finer qualities to see the sensitive human being behind the hump.

Richard replies to her insults by calling her "divine perfection of a woman." He explains that he killed her husband only "to help thee to a better husband" -- himself. Her first reaction to this is to spit, naturally; but still, it's not a line she hears from all the guys.

Well, by now you've guessed the rest. If you've seen other plays by "Shakespeare," you'll recognize the formula: the guy who perseveres gets the girl. Petruchio needs determination to tame Kate the Shrew, Bene**** has to put up with Beatrice's sharp tongue, and the sharp bantering leads to true love in the end. For a "Shakespeare" hero, being called a lump of foul deformity can be the beginning of a lasting relationship. =But only if he refuses to throw in the towel.

Sure enough, the Lady Anne relents -- cosi fan tutte -- and winds up as Richard's queen. Bygones are bygones, and Richard gets on with the business of dealing with his nephews and other obstacles to success. The same determination that has conquered the Lady Anne serves him well in his other endeavors.


----------



## Deejo

Thus was born, "The Pickup Artist"


----------



## Trenton

There is always the story of Romeo & Juliet for those who believe in love.


----------



## MEM2020

Fitness testing does not imply a lack of love. IME fitness testing provides an opportunity to strengthen your marriage. If you mostly pass them the M gets better. My Wife's baseline behavior towards me is good. After a successful response to a fitness test it is noticeably better for a while. The test might or might not be calculated. Sometimes it feels like it is calculated. But the her response to me afterwards is based on love. She loves me more for passing the test. 

From what I read this behavior while not universal is pretty common. And most of this testing does not escalate to a "precipice dance". Just a quick, light scuffle that ends in both of us laughing pretty hard. 




Trenton said:


> There is always the story of Romeo & Juliet for those who believe in love.


----------



## Conrad

MEM11363 said:


> Fitness testing does not imply a lack of love. IME fitness testing provides an opportunity to strengthen your marriage. If you mostly pass them the M gets better. My Wife's baseline behavior towards me is good. After a successful response to a fitness test it is noticeably better for a while. The test might or might not be calculated. Sometimes it feels like it is calculated. But the her response to me afterwards is based on love. She loves me more for passing the test.
> 
> From what I read this behavior while not universal is pretty common. And most of this testing does not escalate to a "precipice dance". Just a quick, light scuffle that ends in both of us laughing pretty hard.


MEM,

It continues to make me smile that William Shakespeare, James Cameron, Green Pearl, BigBadWolf, Deejo, and MEM can all agree on a certain phenomenon, but others see fit to resist for some reason.

Not certain what that reason is.


----------



## MEM2020

Conrad,
I love your list - any time you can group me with the "Bard" don't hesitate. 

FWIW - add my W to the list of folks who recognize this behavior. She is not proud of it, she simply accepts that she is wired that way. 



Conrad said:


> MEM,
> 
> It continues to make me smile that William Shakespeare, James Cameron, Green Pearl, BigBadWolf, Deejo, and MEM can all agree on a certain phenomenon, but others see fit to resist for some reason.
> 
> Not certain what that reason is.


----------



## greenpearl

Hey, guys

Do you like my new avatar? 

Feel free to compliment me about this!  

By the way, this is not me! 

She is a very very very beautiful actress in China, men lust after her!


----------



## BigBadWolf

Conrad said:


> The same determination that has conquered the Lady Anne serves him well in his other endeavors.


When we pay attention to these stories and tales of old, there is the message over and over.

The fitness tests, the persistence, the denial by the woman that even is part of the test. 

Understand the denial and subtlety as well, it is important and part of it, to watch the actions and behavior shows reality, and understand the words, they are mostly misleading.

Even the most ancient of stories, of the shining knights slaying the dragons to win the maidens.

The old men will sometimes tell the younger men in private the secret meaning of these tales.

The secret that the dragon and the maiden, they are the same person. 

Even these old stories, they are told and retold.

Richard III:
YouTube 

Shakespeare:
YouTube 

And this, well, this is just for fun  :
YouTube


----------



## Trenton

Perhaps r & j never got past lust...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> There is always the story of Romeo & Juliet for those who believe in love.


They were 17 and 14 respectively, and they killed themselves because they weren't friggin' paying attention. Romeo and Juliet is the Shakespearean version of TMZ. I never saw R&J as 'romantic'. Tragic yes, romantic, not so much.


----------



## Boker

You guys should've seen greenpearl imitating John Wayne in the restaurant this afternoon when she was telling me about this thread. It was priceless.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> They were 17 and 14 respectively, and they killed themselves because they weren't friggin' paying attention. Romeo and Juliet is the Shakespearean version of TMZ. I never saw R&J as 'romantic'. Tragic yes, romantic, not so much.


I think that was my point although I do think it is romantic as well as tragic. I only cited it because obviously Shakespeare wrote about all facets of people and life. He was pointing out both the bad and the good about us. Most good writers do, that's why we relate to their writing.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I think that was my point although I do think it is romantic as well as tragic. I only cited it because obviously Shakespeare wrote about all facets of people and life. He was pointing out both the bad and the good about us. Most good writers do, that's why we relate to their writing.


Get thee to a nunnery ...


----------



## MEM2020

Yesterday afternoon I was watching some football. My W came in and sat down next to me. We were talking a little and I made some lightly teasing remark. She flicked my ear and said "watch it bud!" I said "sticks and stones may break my bones but "little girly flicks will never hurt me". At which point she flicked me quite a bit harder on the same ear twice in a row. 

And then we were on - after about 10 minutes of wrestling I got her to say "uncle". Which is a major accomplishment since she almost always uses a combination of sharp elbows, sharper nails, humor and emotional judo to avoid saying uncle in these situations. So she says uncle, gets up and leaves the bedroom. 

The wrestling got me really turned on which was kind of obvious to her. But hey it was 3 in the afternoon and kids were home so I figured we were about 7 hours from any kind of real play. About 15 minutes later she comes back in the room - softly closes the door and locks it behind her. Having learned from the Wolf that talking is often the most unromantic thing you can do in these situations - I just pulled my shirt off walked over and started kissing her. 

John Wayne really is my role model for this stuff.....




BigBadWolf said:


> When we pay attention to these stories and tales of old, there is the message over and over.
> 
> The fitness tests, the persistence, the denial by the woman that even is part of the test.
> 
> Understand the denial and subtlety as well, it is important and part of it, to watch the actions and behavior shows reality, and understand the words, they are mostly misleading.
> 
> Even the most ancient of stories, of the shining knights slaying the dragons to win the maidens.
> 
> The old men will sometimes tell the younger men in private the secret meaning of these tales.
> 
> The secret that the dragon and the maiden, they are the same person.
> 
> Even these old stories, they are told and retold.
> 
> Richard III:
> YouTube
> 
> Shakespeare:
> YouTube
> 
> And this, well, this is just for fun  :
> YouTube


----------



## sisters359

There is a word for people who persist in the face of repeated rejection; it is "stalker." And maybe, in some cases, "rapist." In reality (as opposed to total fiction), most women will not end up marrying men they find repulsive. And please do not put Deejo and MEM in the same category as BBW; they are too good for that.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Get thee to a nunnery ...


My husband uses that line all the time.


----------



## greenpearl

sisters359 said:


> There is a word for people who persist in the face of repeated rejection; it is "stalker." And maybe, in some cases, "rapist." In reality (as opposed to total fiction), most women will not end up marrying men they find repulsive. And please do not put Deejo and MEM in the same category as BBW; they are too good for that.


I still don't understand why you guys are so against BBW.

He appears to be a very responsible man. 

He loves his wife.

He is interested in his wife.

He is faithful to his wife and responsible to his family. 

He has a loving heart to help. 

His man up theory is trying to tell nice guys(NICE GUYS) to stand up for themselves and stop being pushed around by their wives, he tells men to gain confidence themselves and charm their wives instead of begging their wives. He tells men to groom well, to have good manners, and be confident, to be interested in their wives. What's wrong with his theory. 

I know why a lot of women don't like spanking now. But in real life, a man who teasingly spanks his wife shows he is interested in his wife, he is constantly arousing her by being sexual. What's wrong with a teasing spanking? 

I am not trying to start an argument, so please don't feel offended. I am only trying to speak out my mind.


----------



## greenpearl

MEM11363 said:


> Yesterday afternoon I was watching some football. My W came in and sat down next to me. We were talking a little and I made some lightly teasing remark. She flicked my ear and said "watch it bud!" I said "sticks and stones may break my bones but "little girly flicks will never hurt me". At which point she flicked me quite a bit harder on the same ear twice in a row.
> 
> And then we were on - after about 10 minutes of wrestling I got her to say "uncle". Which is a major accomplishment since she almost always uses a combination of sharp elbows, sharper nails, humor and emotional judo to avoid saying uncle in these situations. So she says uncle, gets up and leaves the bedroom.
> 
> The wrestling got me really turned on which was kind of obvious to her. But hey it was 3 in the afternoon and kids were home so I figured we were about 7 hours from any kind of real play. About 15 minutes later she comes back in the room - softly closes the door and locks it behind her. Having learned from the Wolf that talking is often the most unromantic thing you can do in these situations - I just pulled my shirt off walked over and started kissing her.
> 
> John Wayne really is my role model for this stuff.....


My husband tickles me when I don't behave! 

It is the best way he is using to get me beg! 

I always giggle, laugh, and fall on the floor, it is a lot of fun!


----------



## sisters359

BBW isn't talking about "teasing spanking," he's talking about disciplining another adult b/c all women are "naturally" submissive. He's readily admitted that a man should treat his wife like a daughter--not like an equal. He's a misogynist of the worst kind, b/c he is convinced women are inferior to men in many ways. He's not even ashamed to admit it. Women lived in his kind of world for a long time and suffered from it. He will say that is just b/c their men were "bad," but ALL women will be happier if under the control of a "good" man. It's insulting and rather disturbing, not only for what he implies about women, but what he implies about himself.


----------



## greenpearl

Sister,

First I am trying to communicate, so it is based on good intention, please don't feel offended if I have a different opinion. 

Women are not naturally submissive. We are just as strong willed as men in many areas. But through out our history, eastern and western, I think women were taught to be submissive. Only now we advocate men and women should be equal. They miss the power they had over women. 

I don't think a man can treat his wife like a daughter, he spanks his wife, I don't think he spanks his daughter. From the movie, I do find John Wayne's spanking gave the idea of discipline, to me, it is amusing. Because a woman can never be disciplined this way. Only love can discipline her. Did the spanking show love or not? A man who is abusive to his wife doesn't spank, he slaps, kicks, and punches, run away from this kind of men as far as you can. 

For brain work, we are just as good as men, but physically, we have to admit we are smaller and we can't lift as heavy as they can. 

And don't forget the part we are often moody because of our period and our female hormones , men tend to be emotional stable and they are not affected by mood swings. (I am not talking about men who have a hot temper here.)

My personal opinion, if a woman is not happy, she has her own issues, she has to work on it herself. She thinks that her man is the reason why she is not happy, actually it isn't the truth. But if she is married to a man who knows her and understands her, she has someone to help her achieve her inner peace. That is my own experience.

For men, they get a lot of respect in their business world, if they don't get the same kind of respect from their wives, they are lost. They want us to be respectful to them, and they want us to be intimate to them, it is a difficult skill for us women to master, but it is important for us to master, because we want our husbands to be happy. If they are not happy with us, I don't think we can be happy either.


----------



## Mom6547

BigBadWolf said:


> Even the most ancient of stories, of the shining knights slaying the dragons to win the maidens.


I guess I don't get the whole thing. A guy goes out of his way to woo a woman who doesn't want him. Why would a man want a woman who doesn't want him. Having wooed said strumpet (to quote one of the sexiest actors ever), is she going to be a good woman? A loving wife?

I don't understand the get the woman mentality. Why wouldn't you want a partner who wants you?


----------



## MEM2020

GP,
IME - women are emotionally at LEAST as strong as men. Seems to me the average woman is definitely emotionally stronger than the average man. Perhaps this is the evolutionary offset to being physically smaller? 

Lets face it - for much of our evolutionary history people lived just above subsistence levels since they didn't have a good way to store food for long periods of time. If you didn't have a tremendous amount of emotional influence over your larger, stronger male mate - what happened when food got scarce to:
- You
- Your bio children with him AND
- Your children with the mate before the current one - the guy who was your "first love" who unfortunately got stomped to death by a Mastodon during a hunting expedition that went south

<<<<<<<<<<< 

I DEFINITELY do not spank my daughters - when our 14 year old dropped the F bomb on her mom yesterday I did inflict some pain on her but I would never spank her. I am actually cringing at the thought. 

My W on the other hand - when she physically provokes me she mostly knows what to expect. 

As for respect - in a healthy M it mostly has to be earned by both people. It does seem though that "earning" it is not always enough. Sometimes you have to demand it when your partner gets off track. This is just as true for men as women. 




greenpearl said:


> Sister,
> 
> First I am trying to communicate, so it is based on good intention, please don't feel offended if I have a different opinion.
> 
> Women are not naturally submissive. We are just as strong willed as men in many areas. But through out our history, eastern and western, I think women were taught to be submissive. Only now we advocate men and women should be equal. They miss the power they had over women.
> 
> I don't think a man can treat his wife like a daughter, he spanks his wife, I don't think he spanks his daughter. From the movie, I do find John Wayne's spanking gave the idea of discipline, to me, it is amusing. Because a woman can never be disciplined this way. Only love can discipline her. Did the spanking show love or not? A man who is abusive to his wife doesn't spank, he slaps, kicks, and punches, run away from this kind of men as far as you can.
> 
> For brain work, we are just as good as men, but physically, we have to admit we are smaller and we can't lift as heavy as they can.
> 
> And don't forget the part we are often moody because of our period and our female hormones , men tend to be emotional stable and they are not affected by mood swings. (I am not talking about men who have a hot temper here.)
> 
> My personal opinion, if a woman is not happy, she has her own issues, she has to work on it herself. She thinks that her man is the reason why she is not happy, actually it isn't the truth. But if she is married to a man who knows her and understands her, she has someone to help her achieve her inner peace. That is my own experience.
> 
> For men, they get a lot of respect in their business world, if they don't get the same kind of respect from their wives, they are lost. They want us to be respectful to them, and they want us to be intimate to them, it is a difficult skill for us women to master, but it is important for us to master, because we want our husbands to be happy. If they are not happy with us, I don't think we can be happy either.


----------



## Trenton

plastic899 said:


> Or for those who believe in teenage double-suicide.


Righto and you know I'm a big fan of that! Please recognize my sarcasm.

If you are the keeper of knowledge for all things Shakespeare please do share. I would be interested. No sarcasm intended here.


----------



## greenpearl

MEM11363 said:


> GP,
> IME - women are emotionally at LEAST as strong as men. Seems to me the average woman is definitely emotionally stronger than the average man. Perhaps this is the evolutionary offset to being physically smaller?
> 
> Lets face it - for much of our evolutionary history people lived just above subsistence levels since they didn't have a good way to store food for long periods of time. If you didn't have a tremendous amount of emotional influence over your larger, stronger male mate - what happened when food got scarce to:
> - You
> - Your bio children with him AND
> - Your children with the mate before the current one - the guy who was your "first love" who unfortunately got stomped to death by a Mastodon during a hunting expedition that went south
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> I DEFINITELY do not spank my daughters - when our 14 year old dropped the F bomb on her mom yesterday I did inflict some pain on her but I would never spank her. I am actually cringing at the thought.
> 
> My W on the other hand - when she physically provokes me she mostly knows what to expect.
> 
> As for respect - in a healthy M it mostly has to be earned by both people. It does seem though that "earning" it is not always enough. Sometimes you have to demand it when your partner gets off track. This is just as true for men as women.


MEM,

  

Off topic, tell you a story about us yesterday. 

While we were walking down on this alley, we saw a French food restaurant. Boker wanted to try it out, but I am always hesitant to try new restaurants because very often we are disappointed with the food. 

Boker hinted that he wanted to eat there, I asked him:" Do you want to eat here or not? His answer was: "....................." I asked him quite a few times, and his answer was".....................".

So I finally said: We had eaten at the other restaurant many times, we know what their food taste like, it won't be a new experience for us, let's try this one!

Boker was very happy and that's what we did. It turned out that the food was very good and we both liked it a lot. 

So after dinner, I asked Boker: You wanted to eat there, and I wanted you to make the decision, why didn't you say yes?

Boker's answer: Because I know you, if I make the decision, and the food turns out to be not good, you will blame me. 

So I replied:" ha ha ha, you know that I love you, I will say yes to your hint. But you still want me to make the decision in case the food is not good, I have to blame myself instead of you. If the food is good, you get the credit for making the suggestion. You are just shrewd! 

Our story yesterday, when men and women are playing mind games, there is a lot of fun!


----------



## MEM2020

That is classic. 





greenpearl said:


> MEM,
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic, tell you a story about us yesterday.
> 
> While we were walking down on this alley, we saw a French food restaurant. Boker wanted to try it out, but I am always hesitant to try new restaurants because very often we are disappointed with the food.
> 
> Boker hinted that he wanted to eat there, I asked him:" Do you want to eat here or not? His answer was: "....................." I asked him quite a few times, and his answer was".....................".
> 
> So I finally said: We had eaten at the other restaurant many times, we know what their food taste like, it won't be a new experience for us, let's try this one!
> 
> Boker was very happy and that's what we did. It turned out that the food was very good and we both liked it a lot.
> 
> So after dinner, I asked Boker: You wanted to eat there, and I wanted you to make the decision, why didn't you say yes?
> 
> Boker's answer: Because I know you, if I make the decision, and the food turns out to be not good, you will blame me.
> 
> So I replied:" ha ha ha, you know that I love you, I will say yes to your hint. But you still want me to make the decision in case the food is not good, I have to blame myself instead of you. If the food is good, you get the credit for making the suggestion. You are just shrewd!
> 
> Our story yesterday, when men and women are playing mind games, there is a lot of fun!


----------



## Trenton

GP, too funny! That sounds exactly like my husband and I!


----------



## greenpearl

Trenton, 

When I saw you arguing with men, I thought you are like this with your husband in your real life. 

We often jump to conclusion, don't we? 

Now I just see you as a loving wife to your husband!  And you are! 

Internet is funny!

I enjoy it a lot, I am getting used to my Internet life now!


----------



## Conrad

greenpearl said:


> Trenton,
> 
> When I saw you arguing with men, I thought you are like this with your husband in your real life.
> 
> We often jump to conclusion, don't we?
> 
> Now I just see you as a loving wife to your husband!  And you are!
> 
> Internet is funny!
> 
> I enjoy it a lot, I am getting used to my Internet life now!


She gives him the good stuff.

We get her fitness tests.


----------



## Trenton

greenpearl said:


> Trenton,
> 
> When I saw you arguing with men, I thought you are like this with your husband in your real life.
> 
> We often jump to conclusion, don't we?
> 
> Now I just see you as a loving wife to your husband!  And you are!
> 
> Internet is funny!
> 
> I enjoy it a lot, I am getting used to my Internet life now!


Oh I argue with him plenty but he loves me and understands me. I'm just as argumentative in real life if it's about something I disagree with and I think it's important. I do think women and children's rights are important.


----------



## greenpearl

Trenton said:


> I do think women and children's rights are important.


I agree with you!

That's why I often feel sad when some men are heartless, some parents are heartless. But there are women who are heartless too. 

I don't know how those people can be cured, people who treat others cruelly have mental issues, my opinion. 

When I read news articles about bad people, I often feel sad. Why do this kind of people exist in this world? 

I know that people are staying away from religion because of those hypocrites, but Christianity, Buddhism and some other good religions do teach people to love. A lot of people either don't practice anything or become too obsessed with their religion, people's issue.


----------



## Trenton

greenpearl said:


> I agree with you!
> 
> That's why I often feel sad when some men are heartless, some parents are heartless. But there are women who are heartless too.
> 
> I don't know how those people can be cured, people who treat others cruelly have mental issues, my opinion.
> 
> When I read news articles about bad people, I often feel sad. Why do this kind of people exist in this world?
> 
> I know that people are staying away from religion because of those hypocrites, but Christianity, Buddhism and some other good religions do teach people to love. A lot of people either don't practice anything or become too obsessed with their religion, people's issue.


There are heartless people of all shapes, sizes and sexes there is no doubt. The problem is that women and children are more likely to be abused as well as make up the poorest of the poor throughout the world. 

*One in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.
(Source: Sexual Assault Experiences and Perceptions of Community Response to Sexual Assault, 2001)

*One out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.
(Source: Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network)

*Every nine seconds, a woman is beaten in the United States.
(Source: American Institute on Domestic Violence 2001)

These stats are looking at abuse but if I begin posting stats about financial status and the patterns of women who have been abused you'll quickly recognize that women and their children, especially young girls, face both physical and sexual violence at the hands of men as well as institutionalized poverty by norms set by societal standards.

So, I value good men very, very much (of which my husband is) and I am appalled and disgusted by bad men or men who promote stereotypes, standards or practices that abuse/neglect women.

If all women did this, it would change everything but patterns of society and abuse are very, very hard to break and many women defend their abusers and/or have never been abused and promote the abuse by not learning or speaking out about it.


----------



## Trenton

And I'll add that our family does not practice any religion. We teach our children to do good and care about their humanity/Earth but we don't need them to believe there is a higher power for them to find the desire to do so.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
-Steven Weinberg


----------



## greenpearl

Trenton said:


> There are heartless people of all shapes, sizes and sexes there is no doubt. The problem is that women and children are more likely to be abused as well as make up the poorest of the poor throughout the world.
> 
> *One in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.
> (Source: Sexual Assault Experiences and Perceptions of Community Response to Sexual Assault, 2001)
> 
> *One out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.
> (Source: Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network)
> 
> *Every nine seconds, a woman is beaten in the United States.
> (Source: American Institute on Domestic Violence 2001)
> 
> These stats are looking at abuse but if I begin posting stats about financial status and the patterns of women who have been abused you'll quickly recognize that women and their children, especially young girls, face both physical and sexual violence at the hands of men as well as institutionalized poverty by norms set by societal standards.
> 
> So, I value good men very, very much (of which my husband is) and I am appalled and disgusted by bad men or men who promote stereotypes, standards or practices that abuse/neglect women.
> 
> If all women did this, it would change everything but patterns of society and abuse are very, very hard to break and many women defend their abusers and/or have never been abused and promote the abuse by not learning or speaking out about it.


The statistics in China should be worse! 

I don't go to Chinese forums anymore, the biggest reason is I often read heartbreaking news there. Seeing people in pain and I can't do anything, I want to scream and yell. 

Have I told you that men in China still care a lot about women's virginity? They took other women's virginity, then they complain that their wives are not virgins, they divorce them after they find out that their wives are not virgins. Some men divorce their wives because their wives didn't give birth to sons. I want to scream and yell when I see threads like that. I can't imagine that those men in China are so stupid. 

This society is not fair, it is not fair in many ways, I always admire those people who stand out and sacrifice themselves for this society.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> And I'll add that our family does not practice any religion. We teach our children to do good and care about their humanity/Earth but we don't need them to believe there is a higher power for them to find the desire to do so.
> 
> “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
> -Steven Weinberg


Why should they bother?


----------



## greenpearl

I value good men very very very much too. That's why I like nice guys, and I say nice guys are keepers, and we should help nice guys become happy! I am disgusted by bad men too, but for nice guys, they have all my respect! They treat women nicely, that's why they deserve women to treat them respectfully.

I love my husband so much because he is a good man. 

That's why I always say I treat him like my KING and my LORD. 

He deserves this kind of royal treatment from me because he is a good man.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Why should they bother?


Because we value it and teach it.

We run a non-profit. My kids have seen kindness in action regularly for years. Even though they are creating positive change, they understand that it makes them feel good as well.


----------



## Trenton

greenpearl said:


> I value good men very very very much too. That's why I like nice guys, and I say nice guys are keepers, and we should help nice guys become happy! I am disgusted by bad men too, but for nice guys, they have all my respect! They treat women nicely, that's why they deserve women to treat them respectfully.
> 
> I love my husband so much because he is a good man.
> 
> That's why I always say I treat him like my KING and my LORD.
> 
> He deserves this kind of royal treatment from me because he is a good man.


I read you!


----------



## greenpearl

Trenton said:


> Because we value it and teach it.
> 
> We run a non-profit. My kids have seen kindness in action regularly for years. Even though they are creating positive change, they understand that it makes them feel good as well.


That's very sweet of you! 

Action speaks louder than words!


----------



## Trenton

greenpearl said:


> That's very sweet of you!
> 
> Action speaks louder than words!


It's actually selfish of me as it keeps me sane 

Actions are very important. Absolutely.


----------



## r2d210

MEM11363 said:


> Yesterday afternoon I was watching some football. My W came in and sat down next to me. We were talking a little and I made some lightly teasing remark. She flicked my ear and said "watch it bud!" I said "sticks and stones may break my bones but "little girly flicks will never hurt me". At which point she flicked me quite a bit harder on the same ear twice in a row.
> 
> And then we were on - after about 10 minutes of wrestling I got her to say "uncle". Which is a major accomplishment since she almost always uses a combination of sharp elbows, sharper nails, humor and emotional judo to avoid saying uncle in these situations. So she says uncle, gets up and leaves the bedroom.
> 
> The wrestling got me really turned on which was kind of obvious to her. But hey it was 3 in the afternoon and kids were home so I figured we were about 7 hours from any kind of real play. About 15 minutes later she comes back in the room - softly closes the door and locks it behind her. Having learned from the Wolf that talking is often the most unromantic thing you can do in these situations - I just pulled my shirt off walked over and started kissing her.
> 
> John Wayne really is my role model for this stuff.....


I love this entire scenerio! I see healthy here. Thanks for the inspiration. Can't say enough how much your posts help me!


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Because we value it and teach it.
> 
> We run a non-profit. My kids have seen kindness in action regularly for years. Even though they are creating positive change, they understand that it makes them feel good as well.


In the long run, it likely won't be enough.

People are inherently selfish.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> In the long run, it likely won't be enough.
> 
> People are inherently selfish.


I couldn't disagree more but we tend to disagree a lot. If you work in my field you would never believe that. I've seen good people do amazing things under the worst of circumstances over and over and over. 

With children, it's being unafraid to allow them to take action/experience things that actually teach compassion and empathy rather than sheltering them and spoiling them which creates entitlement and selfishness. Of course, adults who have always been given everything as children and believe they are entitled to everything grow up to be selfish. We are responsible for what we teach our children.


----------



## Conrad

If people are so altruistic, why is big government charity such a colosssal flop everywhere it's tried?


----------



## Mom6547

Not all people are the same. Some people are altruistic. Some people are selfish.


----------



## Conrad

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Not all people are the same. Some people are altruistic. Some people are selfish.


People are born self-centered.

Some never quite escape it.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> People are born self-centered.
> 
> Some never quite escape it.


Agreed. Escaping being self-centered is a significant portion of growing up, in my opinion. Some people just grow old.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> If people are so altruistic, why is big government charity such a colosssal flop everywhere it's tried?


Because that's a bureaucracy


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Not all people are the same. Some people are altruistic. Some people are selfish.


I know that we live what we are taught. If you want a world that is less selfish than being selfish has to become less accepted and altruism has to be taught. Look around though, selfishism is promoted and altruism is looked at as a rare trait.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> I know that we live what we are taught. If you want a world that is less selfish than being selfish has to become less accepted and altruism has to be taught. Look around though, selfishism is promoted and altruism is looked at as a rare trait.


It is true. There is an idea that I don't agree with that DH and I were talking about. DH thinks that selfishness, and self pursuit are better for a person. I think that altruism is ... selfish. Or enlightened self interest, I guess. 

When we look to our wants we usually come up with shallow useless things. Things that don't sustain our hearts and minds. And sometimes even challenge our conscience. I don't think a person can be happy and self satisfied if they are morally not good. I think that happiness comes from development of CHARACTER and moral behavior more than boats and condos... 

Character is about finding what is valuable in life and seeking to promote it. There are many good things to consider valuable. Elder care, children, the sick, the poor... But they are usually about advancing the well being of people and thus our society as a whole. It would seem that character development would be altruism. But since happiness requires character, it is also self interest.

Anyway, that is what I think.


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> It is true. There is an idea that I don't agree with that DH and I were talking about. DH thinks that selfishness, and self pursuit are better for a person. I think that altruism is ... selfish. Or enlightened self interest, I guess.
> 
> When we look to our wants we usually come up with shallow useless things. Things that don't sustain our hearts and minds. And sometimes even challenge our conscience. I don't think a person can be happy and self satisfied if they are morally not good. I think that happiness comes from development of CHARACTER and moral behavior more than boats and condos...
> 
> Character is about finding what is valuable in life and seeking to promote it. There are many good things to consider valuable. Elder care, children, the sick, the poor... But they are usually about advancing the well being of people and thus our society as a whole. It would seem that character development would be altruism. But since happiness requires character, it is also self interest.
> 
> Anyway, that is what I think.


Right. No doubt that I do what I do because I get something out of it. This is self interest. I think that being wantingly selfish is good for the individual but not good for the whole. I think since we are intellectually capable of recognizing this we should do something about it.

I'm really not for welfare or other government subsidized hand outs. This isn't what I mean by kind or empathetic. I do believe in a hand up and not a hand out as that's what most of us truly want. I see welfare as a way to keep the poor, poor and so on and so forth. Relating to and feeling for one another is one trait humanity has and it's a beautiful one. I'm for nourishing this and trying to diminish the importance of the monetary value on things and self status.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> I know that we live what we are taught. If you want a world that is less selfish than being selfish has to become less accepted and altruism has to be taught. Look around though, selfishism is promoted and altruism is looked at as a rare trait.


Yeah, kids have a real habit of listening to their parents.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> Yeah, kids have a real habit of listening to their parents.


In my opinion, if our kids don't listen to us, it is because we did not do the right thing in terms of "teaching" them. Many people try to teach by punishment. Or by permissive lecturing and wishy washy words of love and whatnot. Neither are a good way to go, in my opinion.


----------



## Conrad

You betcha.

They'll do just what you say, as long as you do it right.


----------



## Trenton

vthomeschoolmom said:


> In my opinion, if our kids don't listen to us, it is because we did not do the right thing in terms of "teaching" them. Many people try to teach by punishment. Or by permissive lecturing and wishy washy words of love and whatnot. Neither are a good way to go, in my opinion.


I totally agree. To really teach kids you need great examples and you've got to follow through. If my child is punished I make sure that the punishment is fair, we talk about why they are being punished so they understand and I follow through with the punishment till the ends. So if I say no computer for two days then it means no computer for two days. 

My kids do listen to me for the most part and I adore them and who they are. Of course my oldest is only 14 so I've got awhile to go, but so far so good.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> I totally agree. To really teach kids you need great examples and you've got to follow through. If my child is punished I make sure that the punishment is fair, we talk about why they are being punished so they understand and I follow through with the punishment till the ends. So if I say no computer for two days then it means no computer for two days.
> 
> My kids do listen to me for the most part and I adore them and who they are. Of course my oldest is only 14 so I've got awhile to go, but so far so good.


Buckle your chin strap.


----------



## MEM2020

This is one of the few subjects where humor does not belong, and in fact is almost certainly perceived as mysogynistic whether or not that was your intent. 




plastic899 said:


> Wow, that poor woman must have a lot of bruises.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Buckle your chin strap.


So true, so true. My experience is that kids do eventually grow up after their rebellious stage and go back to what they're taught. I'm 36 and turned out okay but I definitely put my parents through hell in my teens.


----------



## Trenton

MEM11363 said:


> This is one of the few subjects where humor does not belong, and in fact is almost certainly perceived as mysogynistic whether or not that was your intent.


Thank you.


----------



## greenpearl

Trenton said:


> So true, so true. My experience is that kids do eventually grow up after their rebellious stage and go back to what they're taught. I'm 36 and turned out okay but I definitely put my parents through hell in my teens.


I was a big disappointment for my family when I was a teenager.

A top one student in class suddenly lost interest in studies and became a bad girl. 

My oldest brother was very disappointed with me, even now we don't have a good relationship. 

My parents couldn't do anything to me. This spring, my sister told me that I caused my mother lots of sleepless nights. 

What happened had happened, I am a good woman now. 

Actually now, in my family, out of five siblings, my life is the most peaceful and organized. And I have given my parents a lot of love ever since I started to make my own living. I can say I give the most.


----------



## Trenton

greenpearl said:


> I was a big disappointment for my family when I was a teenager.
> 
> A top one student in class suddenly lost interest in studies and became a bad girl.
> 
> My oldest brother was very disappointed with me, even now we don't have a good relationship.
> 
> My parents couldn't do anything to me. This spring, my sister told me that I caused my mother lots of sleepless nights.
> 
> What happened had happened, I am a good woman now.
> 
> Actually now, in my family, out of five siblings, my life is the most peaceful and organized. And I have given my parents a lot of love ever since I started to make my own living. I can say I give the most.


It's true. We tend to go full circle. I am sorry that you still don't have a good relationship with your oldest brother, that stinks.


----------



## MEM2020

My "resting" state is beta - focused on building, learning, teaching and entertaining. I have always been up front about the fact that my "blend" is about 90/10 - beta / alpha. I like it/me that way. The 10 percent alpha is a mix of enforcing my boundaries and creating (or at least attempting to) some passion. 

This is a shared space - personally I like it blunt but civilized. Larger males physically bullying/beating their smaller mates is the legacy of a lot of bad primate DNA. My sisters first H beat her. Not exactly sure what is funny about that. 




plastic899 said:


> That's your opinion, and it's supercilious.
> 
> Play to the "crowd" all you like--it's quite beta of you.


----------



## Conrad

I suppose it's difficult for me to understand why people can't see that contemporary liberalism is a religion.

In the United States, there is a harsher social penalty for smoking a cigarette (against the liberal religion) than there is for throwing feces on a statue of Jesus.

Think about it.


----------



## greenpearl

Men who are physically and verbally abusive are disgusting!!!

They are losers.


----------



## greenpearl

Conrad said:


> I suppose it's difficult for me to understand why people can't see that contemporary liberalism is a religion.
> 
> In the United States, there is a harsher social penalty for smoking a cigarette (against the liberal religion) than there is for throwing feces on a statue of Jesus.
> 
> Think about it.


No religions is a kind of religion. They believe in themselves. My opinion!


----------



## greenpearl

In a society, if there is too much freedom, then there is no freedom!

For example, people in the United States have the freedom to have guns, then other people have to be worried about psychos who have guns. 

People who fall on the wet floors can sue restaurants, then businesses are in fear. 

There should be a balance, but the funny part is, they can't find the balance. They are either on the left or on the right. Not in the middle!


----------



## Trenton

GP, balance is always found in extremes and everywhere in between. In my experience, extremes bring about quicker balance by direct opposition.

Conrad, any extreme is like religion in nature in that it gets many to move on concept and the fallout is felt by everyone. I would never argue this.

Plastic, you claimed to be a better than understander of all things Shakespeare and yet you don't address this but always leave comments that are provocative but less than informative. Please do inform me.

Mem, from your writings here I would get that you follow a dominance/submission or submission/dominance based upon what would work although you seem to admit in this thread that your submissive state is more dominant than your dominant state. How ironic is this.

We all want to be loved and understood. This is selfish interest at its best and we can't escape this. The irony is that at the same time we have the ability to empathize. Some are afraid of this and ignore it completely, some envy this and push it forward in extreme, most sway between both and this is how it goes. When it comes down to it, I need to know where I am and I have to be comfortable with it. If someone is on an opposing side I can accept it but have to vocalize my discontent, hence my constant typer chatter. Either way, I love you all.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton,

So, your "LSF" religion is being passed on.

Count on it.


----------



## nice777guy

Conrad said:


> I suppose it's difficult for me to understand why people can't see that contemporary liberalism is a religion.
> 
> In the United States, there is a harsher social penalty for smoking a cigarette (against the liberal religion) than there is for throwing feces on a statue of Jesus.
> 
> Think about it.


Conrad,

You can smoke all you want - as long as your dirty air and littered butts aren't infringing on my right to breathe clean air.

Not sure what to say about throwing feces at a statue of Jesus. Maybe the best answer is that you can't legislate morality - in addition to the normal arguments about freedom of religion with a kind reminder that to some people a statue of a mermaid is as significant as a statue of Jesus.

What is "LSF" - Liberal S....?


----------



## MEM2020

T,
Now you HAVE offended me. Beta does not equal sub. What is wrong with you? Beta is perpendicular to the whole dominance thing. Have you ever read Atholk's blog. There is only one sub in this marriage - but she only acts that way when we are horizontal. Being easy going/accommodating about home decor or what movie we watch is NOT the same as "sub". 

And what is the basis for your general slam of organized religion? If you don't believe - fine. If you want to talk up what you do - fine. Why the need to blast organized religion? IME people who are confident in what THEY believe don't need to attack others for believing differently. 



Trenton said:


> GP, balance is always found in extremes and everywhere in between. In my experience, extremes bring about quicker balance by direct opposition.
> 
> Conrad, any extreme is like religion in nature in that it gets many to move on concept and the fallout is felt by everyone. I would never argue this.
> 
> Plastic, you claimed to be a better than understander of all things Shakespeare and yet you don't address this but always leave comments that are provocative but less than informative. Please do inform me.
> 
> Mem, from your writings here I would get that you follow a dominance/submission or submission/dominance based upon what would work although you seem to admit in this thread that your submissive state is more dominant than your dominant state. How ironic is this.
> 
> We all want to be loved and understood. This is selfish interest at its best and we can't escape this. The irony is that at the same time we have the ability to empathize. Some are afraid of this and ignore it completely, some envy this and push it forward in extreme, most sway between both and this is how it goes. When it comes down to it, I need to know where I am and I have to be comfortable with it. If someone is on an opposing side I can accept it but have to vocalize my discontent, hence my constant typer chatter. Either way, I love you all.


----------



## nice777guy

plastic899 said:


> Wow, that poor woman must have a lot of bruises.


I "think" Mr. Plastic is using an old SNL joke here. Since I got the reference, it didn't strike me as being overly offensive.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Trenton,
> 
> So, your "LSF" religion is being passed on.
> 
> Count on it.


Religion is organized and it moves people to commit acts of both good and bad in a larger sense. You really can't compare the two since one is an organized group of people that have done both horrendous and good things while the other is an inside joke between my friends and I.

You're also just backing up what I said which you earlier denied and that is that our children do pass on and remember what they are taught. So all the work my children do in our community now will be remembered by them later and they will be better people because of it.

If a child is abused and watches their parent abuse them and themselves only a few of them will overcome it hence the patterns of abuse. If a child is taught that empathy and kindness create a better world the same is true.

It's also been my experience that children who have been abused and watched their parents destructive behavior are more likely to overcome it if they have a positive self image which can be built through volunteerism. It is empowering and it does offer its own reward. I've seen this in action.

Niceguy, LSF equals Liberal Socialist Feminist and it's really just a joke between my friends and I. I'm none of the above but often mistaken for all three and so we laugh about this as a way to get over the ignorance.

For some reason I thought Plastic was a chick.


----------



## Conrad

They're easily comparable, as their is as much "proof" that big government liberalism is effective as there is that Jesus was the Son of God.


----------



## Trenton

MEM11363 said:


> T,
> Now you HAVE offended me. Beta does not equal sub. What is wrong with you? Beta is perpendicular to the whole dominance thing. Have you ever read Atholk's blog. There is only one sub in this marriage - but she only acts that way when we are horizontal. Being easy going/accommodating about home decor or what movie we watch is NOT the same as "sub".
> 
> And what is the basis for your general slam of organized religion? If you don't believe - fine. If you want to talk up what you do - fine. Why the need to blast organized religion? IME people who are confident in what THEY believe don't need to attack others for believing differently.


I didn't mean to offend you. It must have been my choice of words. Your man speak of alpha/beta dominant/submissive is lost on me. I've accepted that I don't get it and don't think I like it. Your post just had me thinking and I was typing out loud. I never would have expected you to agree. I read a piece or two on Atholk's blog but it didn't seem relevant to me. The pieces I read were directed at how men can get sex. 

I have nothing more against religion. I think it's been responsible for much good as well as bad. I keep saying this. I totally get someone wanting to believe. I wasn't raised with religion so I hope you can understand that it is a hard concept for me to grasp. 

I'm talking up what I do because it's who I am and I think it's important but I've worked with many kindhearted, deeply religious organizations/people as well and I appreciate them dearly. I do see the negatives of any large organization of people. It's important that we are careful what we preach.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> They're easily comparable, as their is as much "proof" that big government liberalism is effective as there is that Jesus was the Son of God.


I'd never argue with this as I agree with you.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> I suppose it's difficult for me to understand why people can't see that contemporary liberalism is a religion.
> 
> In the United States, there is a harsher social penalty for smoking a cigarette (against the liberal religion) than there is for throwing feces on a statue of Jesus.
> 
> Think about it.


Smoking cigarettes is hazardous to the health of others. Second hand smoke is almost as damaging as smoking. Who wants to get lung cancer from going to a restaurant.

Whom do you physically harm when you desecrate a statute? The only person harmed is the idiot who did it by looking like an idiot. 

What is religion?


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> Maybe the best answer is that you can't legislate morality


I wish this thought was spoken more often and heard by more people. Legislation is not about MAKING people do "right". It is about protecting the basic rights to facilitate successful living for people of different views.

When people spout the Bible as a reason for a legislative position, I want to smack them. They don't have to marry someone of the same sex. But they sure don't have the right to deny someone else that right based on what THEIR god says. 

I have never understood the desire to legislate morality by Christians. Jesus made it pretty clear, he did not want behavior or adherence to rules. There was to be a new law. The law of love.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> They're easily comparable, as their is as much "proof" that big government liberalism is effective as there is that Jesus was the Son of God.


Comparing things is easy. You and I are compatible in that we are both human beings.

Is someone trying to prove liberalism is effective?

There is no proof. Our government is a muddle. But I look at tax n spend Clinton. Economic good times. Balanced budget. I look at Bush tax breaks for the uber wealthy. And the lack of any kind of responsible legislation to protect against the predatorial lending practices of the profit takers... Well I won't go on a tirade here and now.

I have a lot more respect for the views of conservatives of old. Seeking responsible fiscal policy, balanced budgets and the like were good fiscal values. But it really seems to me that since Reagan, the neo-cons have been about protecting the wealth of the very wealthy and excessively hawkish foreign policy that makes enemies out of people who could be friends.

And just forget Sarah Palin. I don't even KNOW what that was.


----------



## Conrad

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Smoking cigarettes is hazardous to the health of others. Second hand smoke is almost as damaging as smoking. Who wants to get lung cancer from going to a restaurant.
> 
> Whom do you physically harm when you desecrate a statute? The only person harmed is the idiot who did it by looking like an idiot.
> 
> What is religion?


For every study you smoking police can cite, I can give you just as many that say the opposite.


----------



## nice777guy

Conrad said:


> For every study you smoking police can cite, I can give you just as many that say the opposite.


Smoking isn't bad for you?

I would think that this country's tobacco industry would have done a better job of educating the public than they've done.

When you say something like this - as though there is a conspiracy - I always wonder where the money is or isn't going.

Seems like everyone loses money if we restrict smoking - except for the smokers. The tobacco industry loses, the healthcare industry loses, even the government loses tax revenues if people quit.

Not sure I see any good reasons to challenge this very commonly held belief.


----------



## Deejo

This is good stuff ... will this get me laid?


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> This is good stuff ... will this get me laid?


Depends what you do with it?


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Depends what you do with it?


I'll have to do some 'polling'? Cool


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> For every study you smoking police can cite, I can give you just as many that say the opposite.


You can cite studies that show second hand smoke is completely without risk? Yes, please.


----------



## Conrad

vthomeschoolmom said:


> You can cite studies that show second hand smoke is completely without risk? Yes, please.


About as risky as eating a cookie per day - when it comes to development of malignancy.

It's certainly irritating.

But, it's also a matter of liberty.


----------



## Conrad

nice777guy said:


> Smoking isn't bad for you?
> 
> I would think that this country's tobacco industry would have done a better job of educating the public than they've done.
> 
> When you say something like this - as though there is a conspiracy - I always wonder where the money is or isn't going.
> 
> Seems like everyone loses money if we restrict smoking - except for the smokers. The tobacco industry loses, the healthcare industry loses, even the government loses tax revenues if people quit.
> 
> Not sure I see any good reasons to challenge this very commonly held belief.


NiceGuy,

C'mon man.

The discussion is clearly about someone else smoking.

No one will tell you that smoking cigarettes is good for you.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> About as risky as eating a cookie per day - when it comes to development of malignancy.
> 
> It's certainly irritating.
> 
> But, it's also a matter of liberty.


You say you have actual studies that demonstrate this? I would like to see them, please. Thanks. What do you mean by "malignancy?" Cancer? Cancer is but one ailment caused by second hand smoke.


----------



## r2d210

vthomeschoolmom said:


> You say you have actual studies that demonstrate this? I would like to see them, please. Thanks. What do you mean by "malignancy?" Cancer? Cancer is but one ailment caused by second hand smoke.


Malignancy (from the Latin roots mal- = "bad" and -ignis = "fire") is the tendency of a medical condition, especially tumors, to become progressively worse and to potentially result in death. It is characterized by the properties of anaplasia, invasiveness, and metastasis.[1] Malignant is a corresponding adjectival medical term used to describe a severe and progressively worsening disease. The term is most familiar as a description of cancer. A malignant tumor may be contrasted with a non-cancerous benign tumor in that a malignancy is not self-limited in its growth, is capable of invading into adjacent tissues, and may be capable of spreading to distant tissues (metastasizing), while a benign tumor has none of those properties. Malignant tumor is synonymous with cancer


----------



## Mom6547

So DO you have cites to research that their is no risk of harm from second hand smoke?

Thanks for the info on what you meant by malignancy.


----------



## nice777guy

Conrad said:


> For every study you smoking police can cite, I can give you just as many that say the opposite.


The studies cited by the smoking police clearly indicate that smoking is bad for you and for anyone inhaling the smoke.

Your statement wast that you could cite studies that say the opposite. Opposite of "bad" is "good" - right?

And to step back a bit, you have every right to smoke in a lot of different places - both inside and out - public and private. Just don't do it next to me at work, or when I'm at a family restaurant with my children, or while you are leaning over the produce at the grocery store.

Do cookies really kill more people than cigarrettes?
Then how about this:
*"Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time."*
- George Carlin


----------



## Conrad

NG,

I don't smoke myself.

But, i do believe in personal liberty.


----------



## Conrad

This stuff isn't difficult to find:

The Facts about second hand smoke - Home


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad that is not a cite of any study. That is an advertisement. Saying "FACT" in bold bold letters does not a study make.


----------



## Conrad

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Conrad that is not a cite of any study. That is an advertisement. Saying "FACT" in bold bold letters does not a study make.


Plenty of well done critique of why gubbermint numbers don't hold up to scrutiny.

But, then again, the gubbermint never lies, right? Certainly not when it comes to anything as mundane as raising taxes.


----------



## greenpearl

Once I read somewhere, it said that people have the need to seek spiritual guidance. That's why there are so many religions. 

I read in many places, people who have religions are more positive, when they face difficulties in life, people who have religions are better at dealing with their problems than people who don't. For marriage problems, people who have religions are better at communicating with each other than people who don't. 

Seeing a lot of people are not content with their life even though their life is all fine, I know where they can find peace, but they won't. 

Good religions teach people a lot of good things, they teach you how to understand yourself, they teach you how to understand people, they teach you how to communicate, they teach you how to control your ugly inner desire, they teach you how to control your tongue, they teach you how not to be jealous, hateful, resentful, greedy, etc. They teach you how to forgive, so many good things they teach, we can't ignore that, it is for our own benefit. 

Large religious organizations are like large companies, they are run by imperfect human being, so very often you see scandals happen within the organization, it is a shame, here it only tells us that human beings are not perfect. Even though they are learning all the good things, sometimes they still lose control of themselves and sin. 

People who believe in themselves are fine when their life is fine, when they face storms in their life, then it is difficult. 

I am not a Christian, I am not a Buddhist, but I appreciate their teaching, I appreciate their wisdom. I don't believe in God, I don't believe in creation, I don't believe in revolution either. How did this earth become alive, it is a mystery to me. Buddhists will become gods or not is not important to me. 

But I do think people shouldn't ignore the good things they are teaching!


----------



## nice777guy

Conrad said:


> I suppose it's difficult for me to understand why people can't see that contemporary liberalism is a religion.
> 
> In the United States, there is a harsher social penalty for smoking a cigarette (against the liberal religion) than there is for throwing feces on a statue of Jesus.
> 
> Think about it.


If you believe in personal liberty, then do we not have a right to throw feces on a statue? Of anybody?

I know that I'm required by law to pick up my dog's feces, so I would think I could be charged for throwing it as well - but the statue of Jesus would be irrelevant.

And why in the hell are we talking about this anyway?

Have to admit that I got a bit riled up by the "socialist" label that was put on Trenton (by herself originally, I believe, but later embraced by others).

Seems like there is more and more name calling around here lately - more arguing over personality traits. I enjoy the different personalities and points of view. And I enjoy debating how we all can see different things in a certain situation or set of behaviors. But when people start criticizing a certain aspect of another poster's personality, it just clouds up the thread. And once that has started, you can tell that people begin trying to get in the last word.

If - for example - Trenton's socialist views (or not?) affect how she sees a situation, then its great to tell her how your view differs.

But if all you have to say is "Figures a socialist like you would feel that way" - then you've basically hi-jacked the thread and said nothing useful.

Rant over. Off my soapbox. Don't care to argue about civil liberties OR smoking - at least not here.

Back to fitness tests - my 11 year old's boyfriend was "forced" by his Dad to break up with her. So she's now planning to become BFFs with his 8 year old brother in order to make him jealous. She had several "plans" that she ran past me last night.

I tried to "reason" with her to just be direct - say "hi" to him - and be his "friend" regardless of the label on the friendship.

For some odd reason she felt my plan was flawed.

So basically - seems like my 11 year old is already playing mind games with boys.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> If you believe in personal liberty, then do we not have a right to throw feces on a statue? Of anybody?


Liberty needs to be balanced. It must be balanced with the protection of the rights of others. I don't have the freedom to kill someone who bothers me. That would infringe on the right of the other to continue living, of course.

I can't help but attribute a little bit of immaturity to hyper libertarians. Like a small child who does not yet realize the truth. Life ISN'T fair. Thumps their fists on the table and cries because of the perceived unfairness.

Liberty is an illusion. True liberty is anarchy. I, personally, would not choose to live in anarchy.




> I enjoy the different personalities and points of view. And I enjoy debating how we all can see different things in a certain situation or set of behaviors. But when people start criticizing a certain aspect of another poster's personality, it just clouds up the thread. And once that has started, you can tell that people begin trying to get in the last word.


I think it can be illuminating to look into people's motives. I did not see where Trenton was called a socialist. I imagine that is only problematic if she views socialism as bad. I sure don't! 

When sharing ideas, understanding someone's motives can help one process and judge the ideas. And when I say judge I mean determine whether or not you view the idea as having merit, judging agreement. A thought, idea or advice that roots in some kind of emotional response rather than reason may have less value to some. 





> Rant over. Off my soapbox. Don't care to argue about civil liberties OR smoking - at least not here.


Why not? Do threads never go OT here? Is that a bad thing?


----------



## nice777guy

Yes - threads go off topic - some become humurous - others just change subjects - and sometimes they find their way back to the original topic again. 

But others become pi$$ing matches that don't benefit anyone - just two people trying to get in the last word.

Trenton and socialism may not be the best example of a personal criticism. She put the label on herself I believe as a bit of a joke.


----------



## greenpearl

Times shows who is who!

Trenton is actually a loving wife and a loving friend. 

There had being some misunderstanding going on.

We all have to examine ourselves why there had been misunderstanding. 

This is Internet communication, it is good that we are all open, it is not good that we tend to jump to conclusion. 

Let time decides who is who!!!


----------



## nice777guy

greenpearl said:


> Times shows who is who!
> 
> Trenton is actually a loving wife and a loving friend.
> 
> There had being some misunderstanding going on.
> 
> We all have to examine ourselves why there had been misunderstanding.
> 
> This is Internet communication, it is good that we are all open, it is not good that we tend to jump to conclusion.
> 
> Let time decides who is who!!!


And to take it a bit further, we need to respect our differences and learn to see things from other people's point of view.


----------



## Trenton

I'm not offended by this thread at all. I understand that we all have differing viewpoints. I always welcome friendship and debate. Politics/Religion can be hard topics to discuss (and obviously off topic) since they evoke such passion in people. I understand this.

I'm not very political. I wouldn't say I'm a full supporter of any form of government and in general I'm for less government. I actually have a great respect for the Supreme Court and think that's where justice is most likely doled out in our nation. 

I mentioned LSF because it really is a fun time with girlfriends where we chat about everything from men to religion to politics but it is a sounding board for mom's and wives more than anything else. I think Conrad feels passionately that Liberal thinking is destroying the country so when I combined the terms Liberal Socialist Feminist in a thread awhile ago he assumed I was all three. I can respect this because it's logical thinking but since he is passionate about it, his logic took a leap and he couldn't read what I was writing beyond it.

No worries. If Conrad and I hung out we'd be fabulous friends and the conversation would never be dull. 

Threads are crazy things. Staying on topic is hard for me and a flaw of mine because I type what I'm thinking at the moment. I won't be offended if my threads or deleted or ignored because of this. I am who I am and that's about all I got.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> And to take it a bit further, we need to respect our differences and learn to see things from other people's point of view.


I don't get this. Why do we *need* to do that? Discussing back and forth gets us to understand each others' points of view. But just because someone has a point of view does not make that point of view worthy of respect.

There are some points of view that are NOT worthy of respect. They are worthy of being called out as wrong and evil. I don't know if Conrad, for example, views my liberal leanings as wrong and evil. But if he did, it would be perfectly appropriate for him to say so and why. When I see sexism on this board, I feel it is my responsibility to call it out and what I think is wrong with it.

I think being nice and respectful is one value. But I think one can be TOO nice and respectful. For a while, people were respectful of the KKK!


----------



## nice777guy

vthomeschoolmom said:


> I don't get this. Why do we *need* to do that? Discussing back and forth gets us to understand each others' points of view. But just because someone has a point of view does not make that point of view worthy of respect.
> 
> There are some *points of view *that are NOT worthy of respect. They are worthy of being called out as wrong and evil. *I don't know if Conrad, for example, views my liberal leanings as wrong and evil. But if he did, it would be perfectly appropriate for him to say so and why.* When I see sexism on this board, I feel it is my responsibility to call it out and what I think is wrong with it.
> 
> I think being nice and respectful is one value. But I think one can be TOO nice and respectful. For a while, people were respectful of the KKK!


There's a difference between saying "that's stupid and sexist" compared to "that's stupid and sexist BECAUSE..."

Or even better - "You're reacting that way might have caused your wife to feel x y or z" compared to "You are a sexist pig and if I were your wife I would divorce you."

And there is also a big difference between agreeing with someone and understanding them. I'm more intrigued with WHY Conrad has suddenly taken a Pro-Smoking stance on a marriage board than any studies he may cite regarding the effects of second hand smoke.

And I will take back what I said about having to respect others. Good point VT. Respect should be earned. Even so, I feel like I will learn a lot more if I keep myself open to the possibility that I don't know everything.


----------



## nice777guy

Actually, for a good example, go back to MEM's thread where Marco started attacking him. Marco had said some reasonable things - but any valid points he made became irrelevant once he started trash talking.


----------



## Conrad

nice777guy said:


> There's a difference between saying "that's stupid and sexist" compared to "that's stupid and sexist BECAUSE..."
> 
> Or even better - "You're reacting that way might have caused your wife to feel x y or z" compared to "You are a sexist pig and if I were your wife I would divorce you."
> 
> And there is also a big difference between agreeing with someone and understanding them. I'm more intrigued with WHY Conrad has suddenly taken a Pro-Smoking stance on a marriage board than any studies he may cite regarding the effects of second hand smoke.
> 
> And I will take back what I said about having to respect others. Good point VT. Respect should be earned. Even so, I feel like I will learn a lot more if I keep myself open to the possibility that I don't know everything.


Except when it comes to smoking


----------



## Trenton

Conrad, did you know that your name was the focus of a comic strip about a frog prince?


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Conrad, did you know that your name was the focus of a comic strip about a frog prince?


Watch what happens when someone kisses me.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> Watch what happens when someone kisses me.


I was just fitness testing you and you passed.


----------



## nice777guy

Smoking is bad and anyone who disagrees with me is a retard!!!


----------



## greenpearl

nice777guy said:


> Smoking is bad and anyone who disagrees with me is a retard!!!


In my opinion, smoking is bad, heavy drinking is bad, gambling is bad, taking drugs is bad, eating junk food is bad, anything else? 

Keep on adding the list......................


----------



## nice777guy

Name calling!!!


----------



## greenpearl

nice777guy said:


> Name calling!!!


I was going to put that on my list, but I didn't. 

Any more?


----------



## greenpearl

Ignoring is bad, screaming and yelling is bad, judging without knowing is bad...............

Rational conversation is good!


----------



## Conrad

nice777guy said:


> Smoking is bad and anyone who disagrees with me is a retard!!!


I feel so wetawded.


----------



## nice777guy

Conrad said:


> I feel so wetawded.


Maybe one day you'll know how good it feels to be right all the time. Until then, just keep carefully reading all of my good advice, and try not to say too much.


----------



## Trenton

Is the retard thing an inside joke?


----------



## nice777guy

I'm not sure...I've just decided that name-calling and pronouncing my views as correct is the best way to help you poor people.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> Maybe one day you'll know how good it feels to be right all the time. Until then, just keep carefully reading all of my good advice, and try not to say too much.


Do you think you are right all the time?


----------



## Trenton

nice777guy said:


> I'm not sure...I've just decided that name-calling and pronouncing my views as correct is the best way to help you poor people.


kk


----------



## nice777guy

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Do you think you are right all the time?


Nope.

I know I am.

And - you're all welcome.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> Nope.
> 
> I know I am.
> 
> And - you're all welcome.


LOL! Well you do have some good wisdom to share.


----------



## Trenton

Plastic you said: 



> You don't "get it" because you are listening to some people who really don't understand women nor Shakespeare.


If "some people" really don't understand women nor Shakespeare it is not a large step to believe that the person writing that statement would know more than (or believe they know more than) "some people" about the topics of women and Shakespeare. It is not a fabrication it is a logical conclusion. In reading comprehension the ability to come to logical conclusions is important.

I always found Shakespeare hard to read. I was hoping you'd be able to offer some interesting insights.


----------



## greenpearl

plastic899 said:


> And, what about women who engage in the same sorts of behaviors?


They are the ones who lose to winners!

Better answer!


----------



## Mom6547

plastic899 said:


> The primary issue, yours included, is a simple lack of reading comprehension. For example, I never stated that I understand all things Shakespeare better than anyone. That's simply something you fabricated.


Everyone has their own filters. It is quite interesting to read what someone said then what someone thought they said... This is the internet.


----------



## lime

plastic899 said:


> What I did indicate was that viewing Shakespeare's works as somehow being focused on male/female dominance issues is an absurdity.


What you _meant_ to indicate was that _you happen to believe that _viewing Shakespeare's works as somehow being focused on male/female dominance issues is an absurdity.

And that's a perfectly legitimate opinion to have, worthy of respect, just like others' opinions, beta or otherwise.


----------



## Conrad

lime said:


> What you _meant_ to indicate was that _you happen to believe that _viewing Shakespeare's works as somehow being focused on male/female dominance issues is an absurdity.
> 
> And that's a perfectly legitimate opinion to have, worthy of respect, just like others' opinions, beta or otherwise.


Indeed.

Being wrong is certainly no crime.


----------



## nice777guy

Conrad said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Being wrong is certainly no crime.


Do we need to start keeping score on some of these threads?

I'm mostly here to learn. If I happen to help someone else, its just a by-product of my own search for answers.

Don't waste time arguing semantics with people you know are stubborn and close minded.


----------



## Conrad

nice777guy said:


> Do we need to start keeping score on some of these threads?
> 
> I'm mostly here to learn. If I happen to help someone else, its just a by-product of my own search for answers.
> 
> Don't waste time arguing semantics with people you know are stubborn and close minded.


Ok, this will be my last post to you


----------



## Trenton

Uh oh, NG just single handedly closed down the forums.


----------



## nice777guy

I've been reviewing the top threads in this section and plan to declare the winners later this evening.


----------



## Conrad

nice777guy said:


> I've been reviewing the top threads in this section and plan to declare the winners later this evening.


I've been holding my breath in anticipation of your verdict.


----------



## Trenton

You mean you don't like discussing things with people who disagree with you and dismiss them as stubborn and closed minded because after explaining yourself they still disagree with you?

"We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them." ~Charles Caleb Colton


----------



## nice777guy

Trenton said:


> "We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them." ~Charles Caleb Colton


That :iagree:

Maybe someone pi$$ed in my cheerios this morning or something.


----------



## greenpearl

Hey, hey, hey,

You guys, happy conversation!!!

Don't get pi$$ed off by each other. 

Or maybe you guys like to annoy each other? 

You are friends, in my opinion. 

I am still trying to figure out what you are trying to do? 

Arguing for fun? Arguing for fun again???


----------



## Trenton

plastic899 said:


> The men who are so invested/obsessed with this whole male/female dominance thing always get "pissy" because they act just like the stereotypical version of a claque of unliberated, hennish, gossipy girls or women. That's why they're betas, that's why they're so obsessed with this stuff, that's why they've got to constantly beat their fists into their chests on an internet message board.
> 
> These very insecure gentlemen are lost, and they are looking anywhere for a solution. When they hear someone willing to provide a slick packaged "answer", it's like a lifeline for them, and they become cultish in their devotion to this stuff. Like any other cult members, they simply can't/won't/refuse to actually think for themselves. Everything about complex human interactions between all males and all females is reductio ad absurdium to this simplistic behavioral game they imagine that is being played between men and women. They believe if it's a "game" it must have "rules" and therefore all they have to do is learn the rules and how to play those rules "better than" their "opponent"--the woman or women in their lives.
> 
> Part of the cultish mentality is rejection of any difference of opinion as an attack on the precepts of the cult.
> 
> Ask yourself would a man who has his stuff together and has found the "answer" or the "key" be spending so much time arguing/chatting/pouring his heart out to like-minded men, and women, on the internet?
> 
> No it's all about a constant desperately insecure quest for affirmation.
> 
> These men will "know" they have the "answer" when they are ready to leave this website.
> 
> Look, I am not saying that women and men don't play relationship games because they do, all the time. However it is only when you get beyond the behavioralistic game playing that you can ever have an authentic one on one relationship. So what these men are advocating is really self-defeating even if it "works." It's like Spy vs. Spy from Mad Magazine. They think they've "won" the "relationship game" if they can "outmaneuver" their woman. Then they wonder when the day comes and she just flips the game board up on them. "Gee how did that happen--that's not allowed, that's not in the rules."
> 
> The answer is there is no "answer." If you are with someone who wants to treat you, your life and your relationship as a game to be won and lost, then you've already lost. If you play the same game they are playing, then you've lost again, because it's a lose-lose game.


Sometimes when you lose, you win.


----------



## Conrad

nice777guy said:


> That :iagree:
> 
> Maybe someone pi$$ed in my cheerios this morning or something.


No worries bro.


----------



## AFEH

plastic899 said:


> The men who are so invested/obsessed with this whole male/female dominance thing always get "pissy" because they act just like the stereotypical version of a claque of unliberated, hennish, gossipy girls or women. That's why they're betas, that's why they're so obsessed with this stuff, that's why they've got to constantly beat their fists into their chests on an internet message board.
> 
> These very insecure gentlemen are lost, and they are looking anywhere for a solution. When they hear someone willing to provide a slick packaged "answer", it's like a lifeline for them, and they become cultish in their devotion to this stuff. Like any other cult members, they simply can't/won't/refuse to actually think for themselves. Everything about complex human interactions between all males and all females is reductio ad absurdium to this simplistic behavioral game they imagine that is being played between men and women. They believe if it's a "game" it must have "rules" and therefore all they have to do is learn the rules and how to play those rules "better than" their "opponent"--the woman or women in their lives.
> 
> Part of the cultish mentality is rejection of any difference of opinion as an attack on the precepts of the cult.
> 
> Ask yourself would a man who has his stuff together and has found the "answer" or the "key" be spending so much time arguing/chatting/pouring his heart out to like-minded men, and women, on the internet?
> 
> No it's all about a constant desperately insecure quest for affirmation.
> 
> These men will "know" they have the "answer" when they are ready to leave this website.
> 
> Look, I am not saying that women and men don't play relationship games because they do, all the time. However it is only when you get beyond the behavioralistic game playing that you can ever have an authentic one on one relationship. So what these men are advocating is really self-defeating even if it "works." It's like Spy vs. Spy from Mad Magazine. They think they've "won" the "relationship game" if they can "outmaneuver" their woman. Then they wonder when the day comes and she just flips the game board up on them. "Gee how did that happen--that's not allowed, that's not in the rules."
> 
> The answer is there is no "answer." If you are with someone who wants to treat you, your life and your relationship as a game to be won and lost, then you've already lost. If you play the same game they are playing, then you've lost again, because it's a lose-lose game.



Naivety, never a good starting point. But it can be a nice place to be. It’s what comes after.


----------



## Conrad

AFEH said:


> Naivety, never a good starting point. But it can be a nice place to be. It’s what comes after.


And you have to figure out how to deal with it.

It's called life.


----------



## nice777guy

Plastic,

Since you've obviously got it all figured out, then I would like to thank you for taking time out of your busy and important schedule in order to enlighten a bunch of losers like us.

All others,

This is the $hit I was talking about. Its no longer a productive conversation. Its a pi$$ing match where someone has come along and taken the hard stance that everything not matching their beliefs are wrong.

They don't ask questions unless they are being sarcastic. They have no desire to even understand WHY people might (or might not) believe in fitness testing and "Nice Guys".

He's right. We're wrong.

Kind of like when people critique BBW - whose views are so polarizing. But if most people read his posts more deeply, they would likely find that they aren't completely opposed to everything he says. But, they see certain trigger words (dominance, submissive, spanking), and automatically begin ranting against no only his views, but him.

I LOVED R2's dishwasher example because everyone focused on how to actually handle a specific situation. A simple, but great thread.

When it becomes about our personalities - and not our views and how we handle things - its no longer productive.

And Plastic - so far as I can tell - isn't telling us *why* he disagrees - just that we are insecure and wrong about everything.

If only the world were truly so black and white.

But at least now I think I know who pee'd in my cheerios.


----------



## Trenton

nice777guy said:


> Plastic,
> 
> Since you've obviously got it all figured out, then I would like to thank you for taking time out of your busy and important schedule in order to enlighten a bunch of losers like us.
> 
> This is the $hit I was talking about. Its not a productive conversation. Its a pi$$ing match where someone has come along and taken the hard stance that everything not matching their beliefs are wrong.
> 
> They don't ask questions unless they are being sarcastic. They have no desire to even understand WHY people might (or might not) believe in fitness testing and "Nice Guys".
> 
> He's right. We're wrong.
> 
> If only the world were truly so black and white.


Did you take the Cheerios with milk today I hope?


----------



## nice777guy

Trenton said:


> Did you take the Cheerios with milk today I hope?


I just edited my post to address this very issue.

Today was Fruity Pebbles day anyway.


----------



## nice777guy

Oh - he's banned?

Well that takes ALL the fun out of this.


----------



## greenpearl

nice777guy said:


> Plastic,
> 
> Since you've obviously got it all figured out, then I would like to thank you for taking time out of your busy and important schedule in order to enlighten a bunch of losers like us.
> 
> All others,
> 
> This is the $hit I was talking about. Its no longer a productive conversation. Its a pi$$ing match where someone has come along and taken the hard stance that everything not matching their beliefs are wrong.
> 
> They don't ask questions unless they are being sarcastic. They have no desire to even understand WHY people might (or might not) believe in fitness testing and "Nice Guys".
> 
> He's right. We're wrong.
> 
> Kind of like when people critique BBW - whose views are so polarizing. But if most people read his posts more deeply, they would likely find that they aren't completely opposed to everything he says. But, they see certain trigger words (dominance, submissive, spanking), and automatically begin ranting against no only his views, but him.
> 
> I LOVED R2's dishwasher example because everyone focused on how to actually handle a specific situation. A simple, but great thread.
> 
> When it becomes about our personalities - and not our views and how we handle things - its no longer productive.
> 
> And Plastic - so far as I can tell - isn't telling us *why* he disagrees - just that we are insecure and wrong about everything.
> 
> If only the world were truly so black and white.
> 
> But at least now I think I know who pee'd in my cheerios.


I still think the girls misunderstood BBW. They were criticizing the wrong man. 

BBW is only trying to help NICE GUYS to man up, and I think that's important for a man to stand up in his marriage. If you put up with your wife all the time and don't speak out your frustration, you get upset but no where to get it out, and she then thinks that you will just put up with her, and she takes you for granted, and she thinks she can say whatever she likes without considering your feeling. It is really not healthy for a happy marriage. 

I have seen many times BBW mentioned in his posts that he is disgusted with men who are abusive and cheaters. 

Men who women really should attack are those bad ones, I have mentioned quite a few times. 

I miss BBW's posts. He is really trying to help!!!


----------



## Trenton

greenpearl said:


> I still think the girls misunderstood BBW. They were criticizing the wrong man.
> 
> BBW is only trying to help NICE GUYS to man up, and I think that's important for a man to stand up in his marriage. If you put up with your wife all the time and don't speak out your frustration, you get upset but no where to get it out, and she then thinks that you will just put up with her, and she takes you for granted, and she thinks she can say whatever she likes without considering your feeling. It is really not healthy for a happy marriage.
> 
> I have seen many times BBW mentioned in his posts that he is disgusted with men who are abusive and cheaters.
> 
> Men who women really should attack are those bad ones, I have mentioned quite a few times.
> 
> I miss BBW's posts. He is really trying to help!!!


I think you misunderstood his postings. It's all where you're looking from.


----------



## greenpearl

Trenton said:


> I think you misunderstood his postings. It's all where you're looking from.


  

Who are you trying to kiss?

Tell you something funny we did today. 

We were in a department store and we saw two girls holding hands, my husband and I started following them, we were trying to figure out if they are lesbians or not. 

But we had to stop since we felt we were being silly.


----------



## Trenton

greenpearl said:


> Who are you trying to kiss?
> 
> Tell you something funny we did today.
> 
> We were in a department store and we saw two girls holding hands, my husband and I started following them, we were trying to figure out if they are lesbians or not.
> 
> But we had to stop since we felt we were being silly.


You have to look at the larger picture, I'm not really kissing anything or anyone, the emotion was that of slight shock, confusion and delight. Cropped photo taken of me after an event.

I've never stalked women to find out if they were lesbians before. Good times, good times.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> Don't waste time arguing semantics with people you know are stubborn and close minded.


I hate to say it, ng, but not everyone agrees with whatever your view of internet etiquette is. Don't waste time trying to convince others to live by *your* standards.


----------



## Mom6547

Trenton said:


> You mean you don't like discussing things with people who disagree with you and dismiss them as stubborn and closed minded because after explaining yourself they still disagree with you?


:smthumbup:


----------



## AFEH

Conrad said:


> And you have to figure out how to deal with it.
> 
> It's called life.



Life? That’ll be the thing that happens to us while we’re busy making other plans.


----------



## greenpearl

Trenton said:


> You have to look at the larger picture, I'm not really kissing anything or anyone, the emotion was that of slight shock, confusion and delight. Cropped photo taken of me after an event.
> 
> I've never stalked women to find out if they were lesbians before. Good times, good times.


Yesterday was very funny.

My husband really has a thing about women licking each other.

So when he sees women holding hands or doing something similar, he gets very excited and tells me right away. I wanted to go up to them and ask them if they were lesbian, I am curious about what they do too. 

When we see men dress up like women, we are both grossed. We try to stalk them too, just to find out how they look like! 

We are naughty, aren't we?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I noticed Plastic was banned, was this Marco /NoLongerSad -yet again?


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> Kind of like when people critique BBW - whose views are so polarizing. But if most people read his posts more deeply, they would likely find that they aren't completely opposed to everything he says. But, they see certain trigger words (dominance, submissive, spanking), and automatically begin ranting against no only his views, but him.


Honestly, ng, you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. Do you realize that you basically just said anyone who doesn't agree with BBW hasn't read him deeply enough... or maybe just plain stupid.

I have not read a lot of plastic's stuff. But when I read you, I get the strong sense that you feel that if someone disagrees with you , they are automatically not listening, being some kind of negative communicator or know it all. When it comes right down to it, if someone doesn't agree with you, it is because you failed to convince them. And how is that a big deal.

I hate net cops who try to police other people's behavior.


----------



## nice777guy

I just re-read Plastic's rant. I think its funny that he called us all "like-minded."

VT and Trenton - I don't think I have dismissed anyone's views. Life isn't black and white. I'm far more interested in figuring out WHY people do what they do than establishing some universal Right and Wrong.

Some of MEM's recent posts really have me struggling. I don't always like his approach to things, but I'm fascinated by the results he gets.

And if everyone here agreed with me 100%, I would probably get very bored and stop posting. I'll learn a lot more by reading posts from people who are different from me than reading a carbon copy of my own beliefs.

I'm still trying to improve my relationship. "Some" of the alpha / beta stuff here has been a bit helpful, but because my wife has a more "alpha" personality, I'm by no means going to adopt the entire program. But I continue looking for pieces to grab that make sense in the context of my marriage.


----------



## nice777guy

VT - maybe I'm not getting my point across.

A "person" is never Right or Wrong.

BBW has a fairly well developed belief system - much of which I don't understand or agree with. But some parts of it make sense and have worked for me. If I had completely dismissed 100% of his ideas because I disagreed with 75% of it, I would have missed some very good ideas.

If you've put me in the "Wrong" category, then that's fine. I will somehow move on.

You and I have now established that we disagree. You feel I'm close minded and stubborn - and I don't.

If you would like to PM me to explain things further, please do so. But I'm done taking up time and space on this post over what feels like a personality conflict.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> VT - maybe I'm not getting my point across.
> 
> A "person" is never Right or Wrong.
> 
> BBW has a fairly well developed belief system - much of which I don't understand or agree with. But some parts of it make sense and have worked for me. If I had completely dismissed 100% of his ideas because I disagreed with 75% of it, I would have missed some very good ideas.


You are making rather huge assumptions that because someone finds someone's views 100% wrong that they failed to understand them or concluded the views were wrong based on him as a person. 

I find it possible to
- disagree with someone's viewpoint 100%
- have actually read it completely and in detail
- have the disagreement have nothing to do with disregarding that person in-tot.




> If you've put me in the "Wrong" category, then that's fine. I will somehow move on.
> 
> You and I have now established that we disagree. You feel I'm close minded and stubborn - and I don't.
> 
> If you would like to PM me to explain things further, please do so. But I'm done taking up time and space on this post over what feels like a personality conflict.


One man's wasted time is another man's discussion. You chose what you choose.


----------



## Trenton

SimplyAmorous said:


> I noticed Plastic was banned, was this Marco /NoLongerSad -yet again?


That's what I was thinking but hey, I always partly agree with their posts so what's wrong with me? 

NG I agree with some of what bbw says as well as mem. I would never discount an entirety of someone's posts based upon key elements of a philosophy that I disagree with. I think you were uncharacteristically biased the other day but that doesn't mean I won't read all your posts from this point on and disagree or agree with them. I take it one post at a time. Come on, you know you can make a joke out of that last line.


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> You are making rather huge assumptions that because someone finds someone's views 100% wrong that they failed to understand them or concluded the views were wrong based on him as a person.


No. Not at all. You fail to understand them as a result of your gender. Given that you don't adhere to gender differentiation in the pursuit of such things, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> No. Not at all. You fail to understand them as a result of your gender. Given that you don't adhere to gender differentiation in the pursuit of such things, it makes perfect sense.


I can't understand English because I am female?? 

How do you adhere to gender differentiation? Lord knows, the genders are different. Do you think I don't understand that the genders are different? I know my parts aren't the same as DH....

In pursuit of what things?


----------



## Trenton

If telling your wife you're going to have sex with a prostitute because she can't meet your needs is a gender differential thing I'm thinking men are self serving idiots that should never get in lifelong relationships to begin with. So, how about instead of doing this I recognize that Mem said this out of frustration and it can't counteract all the good that he and his wife have instead? 

I won't agree with him that what he did was right but I'm fully able to recognize it's a small statement in a sea of a relationship that I can't possibly understand.

If you can't recognize that each person is an individual then you're philosophy is at a loss to begin with. It can make great points, hold half truths and provide guidance for many men but it's still at a loss.


----------



## nice777guy

Trenton said:


> ...I think you were uncharacteristically biased the other day...





> I would rather discuss things with a retard than argue with a jackass.
> 
> I think its truly great that people who already know everything have decided to take time away from their real lives to bestow their wisdom upon us.


Trenton - is this where I was "uncharacteristic?"

The "jackass" I was referring to has been banned.

Retard - was really just trying to say i would rather discuss things with someone who is open minded, even if they aren't as knowledgeable. It wasn't part of my running "Conrad" joke.

When I first came here, I thought BBW and others were overbearing and ridiculous.

But now I believe in "Nice Guys" who try too hard to please and yet end up pleasing no one. I'm still "exploring" this idea of fitness tests - which sounded crazy the first time I heard of it. 

My ideas regarding what women are TRULY attracted to have also changed greatly based on what I've experienced, and what I've read on these forums.

If I was truly so stubborn and firm in my beliefs, why have I changed my mind?

And I have noticed a lot of patterns among different posters recently. Alliances. Mutual admiration societies. Frenemies. People who are consistently name calling or attacking others personalities.

I normally stay out of those things, but felt the need to vent a bit.

Hey - maybe that's a "good thing" if I said something out of character.


----------



## Deejo

nice777guy said:


> Hey - maybe that's a "good thing" if I said something out of character.


F*ckin A, it is ...


----------



## Trenton

nice777guy said:


> Trenton - is this where I was "uncharacteristic?"
> 
> The "jackass" I was referring to has been banned.
> 
> Retard - was really just trying to say i would rather discuss things with someone who is open minded, even if they aren't as knowledgeable. It wasn't part of my running "Conrad" joke.
> 
> When I first came here, I thought BBW and others were overbearing and ridiculous.
> 
> But now I believe in "Nice Guys" who try too hard to please and yet end up pleasing no one. I'm still "exploring" this idea of fitness tests - which sounded crazy the first time I heard of it.
> 
> My ideas regarding what women are TRULY attracted to have also changed greatly based on what I've experienced, and what I've read on these forums.
> 
> If I was truly so stubborn and firm in my beliefs, why have I changed my mind?
> 
> And I have noticed a lot of some patterns among different posters recently. Alliances. Mutual admiration societies. Frenemies. People who are consistently name calling or attacking others personalities.
> 
> I normally stay out of those things, but felt the need to vent a bit.
> 
> Hey - maybe that's a "good thing" if I said something out of character.


Yes, that's where I thought you were uncharacteristic. 

Did I say I thought you were stubborn and firm in your beliefs? I don't feel that way, I think you are very open minded. I think you can embrace parts of posts that apply to you and still question the full validity. 

We're on a forum. I don't think you have to really worry about alliances. Of course, I get along better with those who share my beliefs but take a look around at all the invisibility here. Do you really think alliances are strong standing? 

A month ago I thought GP was crazy and now I want to invite her over for tea and I appreciate her. I've noticed Brennan has been offline a lot. I think about her and hope her and her husband are powering through and connecting. I feel like I was harsh with Conrad on another post when I said he wasn't my husband, implying he was a jerk. I thought it was stupid and rude of me. I care about everyone by default.

Staying open to one another is crucial to understanding or offering help to anyone.


----------



## nice777guy

Trenton said:


> We're on a forum. I don't think you have to really worry about alliances. Of course, I get along better with those who share my beliefs but take a look around at all the invisibility here. Do you really think alliances are strong standing?


I'm not worried about alliances - just noticing them more.

The pi$$ing matches concern me a bit. Becomes very distracting when people are focusing on how their personalities clash more than the issue being discussed.


----------



## Trenton

nice777guy said:


> I'm not worried about alliances - just noticing them more.
> 
> The pi$$ing matches concern me a bit. Becomes very distracting when people are focusing on how their personalities clash more than the issue being discussed.


I see. They are pointless, I will agree.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> But now I believe in "Nice Guys" who try too hard to please and yet end up pleasing no one.


I have a problem with the language choice. These guys aren't "nice guys." They are conflict averse weaklings. Why would someone say "nice" when they mean "conflict averse weakling?" Why do people say "dominant" when they mean "confident?" 

I read very little of BBWs stuff. Most of what he has said was before my joining the group. So I don't know what *he* means by dominant. But I have read other people describe it as confident. Is there an underlying bit of deceit going on here? Is calling it confidence instead of dominance intended to make it sound more palatable? Or is there really just a language issue? 

It is not really about nit picking word choices. It is a matter of trying to understand what is meant. I know for an absolute FACT that I don't value or want dominance** in a man. There are some areas in which DH is not even super confident. We all have our strengths. Where he is strong, he is confident. But between the two of us, I am much more likely to put a confident foot forward in a new and challenging situation.

So I see 1. Our relationship appears to be very different than what these folks are describing. and 2. people are saying things that don't seem to mean what they really mean. So WHAT do they mean?

They say dominant but no they mean confident. They say "skills based dominance" when they really mean dividing responsibilities based on skill and knowledge. That seems to have nothing to do with gender at all. They say "nice" when they mean conflict averse....again that does not seem to be gender related either because no one really likes a push over woman either. 

I wish either MEM or BBW would post ONE article on what it is that they mean because I have not been able to find a concise treatise on exactly what we are talking about.


** Definitions I found that seem to apply to what we are talking about.
- authority: the power or right to give orders or make decisions
- the state that exists when one person or group has power over another; 



> I'm still "exploring" this idea of fitness tests - which sounded crazy the first time I heard of it.


The fitness test business seems to be straight forward. At least I understand what is MEANT by that concept, I think. But I know for a fact that if I do this, I don't do it consciously. I wonder what the usefulness is of this particular tid bit. If a person is in the habit of acting according to their true nature and with character, then they are acting right. If that does not "pass" someone's fitness test, then tough nuts to them it seems to me. 

But the fitness test business leads to another conversation that troubles me. And I feel advice given based on this is flawed. This particular thread started way back when someone quoted Shakespeare in a story where basically some guy wants to attract a nasty b!tch. The things I don't really see in that conversation is
- how is what she was doing fitness testing rather than just being a jerk?
- why would anyone want someone who has to be convinced to like them?

And no one ever cares to answer either of those questions that I have been able to see. So I am left with my open mind and confusion on these points!

If I were a guy taking the meat from that post seriously, the unhealthy attitudes I would take away from the post would be

- a woman is to get, regardless of whether she is worth it. 
- it isn't about partnership, shared values, making a life and family, it is about MAKING her want me and manipulating her into that position with mental gymnastics.
- a woman is a lesser creature who won't notice this manipulation.

There ARE women out there who will respond to this kind of thing. They envision a knight in shining armor who is going to rescue them from their life of doldrums, want to be provided for with a loverly house, all the while expecting romance. Seems to me that if that is the kind of woman you want, then you are more likely to get traded in for a new model. And even if not you are going to have to step lively to continue the charade you created when you manipulated her into wanting something that wasn't you in the first place.

Also those women are becoming less and less available. Whether you like feminism or not, it has happened. And many of us women don't need a provider. We have degrees, skills and jobs of our own. We don't want a knight. We want a partner. We want a man of character and integrity. We want someone who isn't going to be afraid of us if we can discuss things other than housekeeping, if we want to talk about law, software, electronics, politics, religion... Who isn't going to lose their self respect because we make more money than they do. Who has enough confidence to know that they are awesome people even if they chose to work in forest management instead of executive nonsense.




> My ideas regarding what women are TRULY attracted to have also changed greatly based on what I've experienced, and what I've read on these forums.


I find that hard to understand since what women find attractive *varies*. I remember one description of Scannerguard's about what women find attractive. I know that there are women who WOULD find what he described very attractive. But it sure would not work for me or most of the women I know.

Cheers.


----------



## nice777guy

vthomeschoolmom said:


> These guys aren't "nice guys." They are conflict averse weaklings. Why would someone say "nice" when they mean "conflict averse weakling?"


Guys like me probably wouldn't stick around too long if we were welcomed as "conflict averse weaklings."

Just a thought...


----------



## AFEH

nice777guy said:


> Hey - maybe that's a "good thing" if I said something out of character.





Deejo said:


> F*ckin A, it is ...


It’s called stepping outside of your comfort zone. I used to make a habit of it, especially in my career. But I challenged and tested myself far more than anybody else. At least I think I did.

But it is a way to truly challenge and test ourselves and grow. Others just like a quite life.


----------



## Mom6547

nice777guy said:


> Guys like me probably wouldn't stick around too long if we were welcomed as "conflict averse weaklings."
> 
> Just a thought...


Wow I was not trying to call YOU a converse averse weakling. You are the one who associates with the label "nice guy:" I don't know your story. I apologize if you took me to mean I thought of you as a weakling. I know my manner of speech is often abrupt. (One of the things my DH likes about me, actually!)

Probably conflict averse weakling was not the term I should have used, though it was the first one that came to mind when one "nice guy" described his scene. I guess it stuck. Unlearned and as yet ineffective at limit/boundary setting? Does that work better.


----------



## nice777guy

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Wow I was not trying to call YOU a converse averse weakling. You are the one who associates with the label "nice guy:" I don't know your story. I apologize if you took me to mean I thought of you as a weakling. I know my manner of speech is often abrupt. (One of the things my DH likes about me, actually!)
> 
> Probably conflict averse weakling was not the term I should have used, though it was the first one that came to mind when one "nice guy" described his scene. I guess it stuck. Unlearned and as yet ineffective at limit/boundary setting? Does that work better.


Actually no offense taken. I associate myself with this label based on some things I've read here - and in a book that's commonly discussed around here called No More Mister Nice Guy.

Almost like not being able to get sober if you won't admit you are an alcoholic.

I was somewhat conflict averse. Big things I would argue - but a lot of the little things I was letting go started to really add up.

Weakling? Well - in some ways I suppose so.

And yes - it has a lot to do with boundary setting.

I also tend to see it as a male version of codependency. So much of the codependency literature is aimed at women - often at women married to alcoholics. So it can be a bit hard for men to relate to.


----------



## AFEH

nice777guy said:


> I'm still trying to improve my relationship. "Some" of the alpha / beta stuff here has been a bit helpful, but because my wife has a more "alpha" personality, I'm by no means going to adopt the entire program. But I continue looking for pieces to grab that make sense in the context of my marriage.



I wonder NG, is your wife playing the dominant “alpha” role because you don’t like doing it.

Here’s a thing. As you are aware I’m quite assertive (much prefer assertive to dominant). But there were times in my marriage when I recognised it was me who was taking all the decisions, besides what’s to eat tonight, when to do the washing type decisions. My “assertiveness” is natural. I come from a deprived background, low class school with rampant bullies etc. I had to be assertive to come out of it all more or less in one piece.

But here’s the catch. When I wanted to cut down on my assertiveness, dominance in my marriage I could never do it because my wife would never pick up the reigns type of thing. Maybe your wife is in the same situation as me. I swear if my wife had her way “unassertive way” we would still be living in the council house we had way back in 1972!


----------



## nice777guy

AFEH said:


> I wonder NG, is your wife playing the dominant “alpha” role because you don’t like doing it.
> 
> Here’s a thing. As you are aware I’m quite assertive (much prefer assertive to dominant). But there were times in my marriage when I recognised it was me who was taking all the decisions, besides what’s to eat tonight, when to do the washing type decisions. My “assertiveness” is natural. I come from a deprived background, low class school with rampant bullies etc. I had to be assertive to come out of it all more or less in one piece.
> 
> But here’s the catch. When I wanted to cut down on my assertiveness, dominance in my marriage I could never do it because my wife would never pick up the reigns type of thing. Maybe your wife is in the same situation as me. I swear if my wife had her way “unassertive way” we would still be living in the council house we had way back in 1972!


Maybe - possibly.

Part of where I diverge a bit from MEM or BBW is that I think a lot of this is also personality driven. I think my wife "is" an Alpha, and I lean towards Beta. For a long time, it seemed that our differences were OK - we complimented each other.

I am trying to take charge more at home.

Don't know...


----------



## Deejo

vthomeschoolmom said:


> Wow I was not trying to call YOU a converse averse weakling. You are the one who associates with the label "nice guy:" I don't know your story. I apologize if you took me to mean I thought of you as a weakling. I know my manner of speech is often abrupt. (One of the things my DH likes about me, actually!)
> 
> Probably conflict averse weakling was not the term I should have used, though it was the first one that came to mind when one "nice guy" described his scene. I guess it stuck. Unlearned and as yet ineffective at limit/boundary setting? Does that work better.


Goddamn that was funny.

You don't get to change the term. It's on Wikipedia fer cripes sake! Wikipedia do you hear! Then again, I think foshizzle is on Wikipedia too ...

'Nice Guy' is an archetype. It is a set of behaviors and beliefs. It isn't one thing. It isn't one behavior. It isn't simply conflict avoidance, but that is distinctly a characteristic if you think in terms of the archetype.

There is enough information out there, that I don't nearly feel compelled to try and sum it up ... again. In one sentence? It is a guy that generally believes that pleasing others, particularly women, will make him likable and earn him praise and love - even at the cost of his own boundaries or self esteem.

You can be a nice guy without being a 'Nice Guy'.

I'm at a loss as to why this is a struggle for you other than the semantics.

Same with dominance. Every dating book I've read, every episode of Wild Kingdom I've seen addresses the concept of the dominant male - and it has ZERO to do with manipulation, control or violence (against females). Dominance are the set of traits or behaviors exhibited by the male that attracts the female and defines him as a suitable if not superior breeding option. He's a cool dude. Whether or not he is a cool dude to ALL females is immaterial if he has snagged the one he wants.

I can't help you with your view that this is all manipulation and disingenuous. Apparently using different and softer words to describe the concepts in order to make it clearer, only muddied the water all the more.


----------



## Trenton

The words we use are important.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> The words we use are important.


As is the context.

We are talking about the concepts of the Nice Guy and the Dominant Male.

Neither 'Nice' nor 'Dominant' fully account for all of the attributes associated with the concept.

A nice guy isn't necessarily a cowering pu$$y any more than a dominant male is an abusive SOB.


----------



## Mom6547

Deejo said:


> Goddamn that was funny.
> 
> You don't get to change the term. It's on Wikipedia fer cripes sake! Wikipedia do you hear! Then again, I think foshizzle is on Wikipedia too ...


Ha! Popular culture indeed. I went to a dictionary. Silly me.



> 'Nice Guy' is an archetype. It is a set of behaviors and beliefs. It isn't one thing. It isn't one behavior. It isn't simply conflict avoidance, but that is distinctly a characteristic if you think in terms of the archetype.


I get it now. Thanks.



> You can be a nice guy without being a 'Nice Guy'.
> 
> 
> I'm at a loss as to why this is a struggle for you other than the semantics.


I am just frickin' dense sometimes? Thanks for sticking it out.



> Same with dominance. Every dating book I've read, every episode of Wild Kingdom I've seen addresses the concept of the dominant male - and it has ZERO to do with manipulation, control or violence (against females).


For the record, I never accused anyone of advocating violence. But from some of what I have read on here, manipulation DOES seem part of the equation. In the Shakespeare story, the character was trying to manipulate a woman who wanted nothing to do with him into wanting something to do with him. 




> Dominance are the set of traits or behaviors exhibited by the male that attracts the female and defines him as a suitable if not superior breeding option. He's a cool dude. Whether or not he is a cool dude to ALL females is immaterial if he has snagged the one he wants.


So dominance is a word in the mating game that bears no relationship to its other meanings? Like "Nice Guy" when used in this context it has nothing to do being nice but has adapted a different meaning in this context? 

So the traits that make my husband dominant to me, the best mating material for me, would be different traits than some other woman would want. And these traits work for him because he wants me too? 

Dominant means best, most suitable, highest in rank and has nothing to do with the definitions I have been using?





> I can't help you with your view that this is all manipulation and disingenuous. Apparently using different and softer words to describe the concepts in order to make it clearer, only muddied the water all the more.


Well, I have read enough of what some of you have written to know your intent is not nefarious! But I don't "see" it. Am I getting closer now?


----------



## AFEH

Everybody “gives” with the expectation of something in return. There’s not a single person on the planet who doesn’t do that. Even people like Mother Teresa, Ghandi etc. etc.

In that way everybody on the planet manipulates other people to get what they want and need out of life. For most the manipulation is “unconscious”, for others it’s very conscious. Conscious or unconscious it doesn’t really matter as long as the motivations are honourable and sound. We all have “something to sell” and “something to buy”.

People even manipulate others, especially in a marriage, by withholding what it is they used to give!


----------



## AFEH

nice777guy said:


> Maybe - possibly.
> 
> Part of where I diverge a bit from MEM or BBW is that I think a lot of this is also personality driven. I think my wife "is" an Alpha, and I lean towards Beta. For a long time, it seemed that our differences were OK - we complimented each other.
> 
> I am trying to take charge more at home.
> 
> Don't know...



It is personality driven there’s no doubt in my mind about that. But where do we get our personality from? I think it’s inherited both from the genes of our parents and “inherited behaviour”. Our individual behaviour is a “legacy” from our childhood.

Take a really big 6ft 6 inch guy. He’s going to have a very different personality to a 5ft 2 inch slightly built guy. Their “whole life experience” is going to be very different and they’ll have very different personalities.

But if it’s learned behaviour then it can be replaced with knew behaviour. It’s just a case of acting and faking it for a while until it becomes habitual and “ingrained”.

May be interesting if you “act” dominant/assertive for a day. Just try it out to see what it feels like and how your wife responds.


----------



## Mom6547

AFEH said:


> Everybody “gives” with the expectation of something in return. There’s not a single person on the planet who doesn’t do that. Even people like Mother Teresa, Ghandi etc. etc.
> 
> In that way everybody on the planet manipulates other people to get what they want and need out of life. For most the manipulation is “unconscious”, for others it’s very conscious. Conscious or unconscious it doesn’t really matter as long as the motivations are honourable and sound. We all have “something to sell” and “something to buy”.


I guess words have shades of meaning. I agree with what you are saying, BUT (you knew that there was gonna be one right?) the problem I have is the sense that there is a desire to subvert someone's will. If that is a shade of the word manipulate that I inferred that wasn't intended, then I can accept the notion of manipulation. 

I do think I am coming to understand what is going on here. When I lost a bunch of weight, it was because, yes I wanted to please my husband. But I also wanted that look of wicked attraction that I used to get. I wanted to hear him compliment me and crack jokes about his hot wife. I took an action with a hope of a desired reaction. My goal was not to subvert his will. 

I am beginning to suspect that I inferred the subversion of will where none was intended and thus my confusion.




> People even manipulate others, especially in a marriage, by withholding what it is they used to give!


Well see, that IS the use of manipulation that I object to, if I understand you correctly. I will take the classic example of a woman who is seen to be "withholding" sex from her husband. If she is, in fact, withholding sex to get him to do something, she is using punishment and that is just not right. Nor is it effective, incidentally. 

(In most cases, I think what is viewed as withholding is simply not feeling loving, safe or SOMETHING enough to want to have sex.)


----------



## Mom6547

AFEH said:


> But if it’s learned behaviour then it can be replaced with knew behaviour. It’s just a case of acting and faking it for a while until it becomes habitual and “ingrained”.


This is certainly true. It is the same with many habits, relearning behavior. I had to do that with my parenting style when I realized that I did not like the one I was raised with. You fake it until it becomes real.

BUT in the case of marriage, why would one want to change oneself to assertive if they aren't currently? Or vice versa. Is there a sense that somehow men SHOULD be more assertive than women? Or is that a recommendation to ng specifically based on his view that he is a Nice Guy?


----------



## Conrad

vthomeschoolmom said:


> This is certainly true. It is the same with many habits, relearning behavior. I had to do that with my parenting style when I realized that I did not like the one I was raised with. You fake it until it becomes real.
> 
> BUT in the case of marriage, why would one want to change oneself to assertive if they aren't currently? Or vice versa. Is there a sense that somehow men SHOULD be more assertive than women? Or is that a recommendation to ng specifically based on his view that he is a Nice Guy?


Agreed totally.

A much better plan is to stay emasculated and whipped - hoping for the best.

Why give up on something that brings such great results?


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> Goddamn that was funny.
> 
> You don't get to change the term. It's on Wikipedia fer cripes sake! Wikipedia do you hear! Then again, I think foshizzle is on Wikipedia too ...
> 
> 'Nice Guy' is an archetype. It is a set of behaviors and beliefs. It isn't one thing. It isn't one behavior. It isn't simply conflict avoidance, but that is distinctly a characteristic if you think in terms of the archetype.
> 
> There is enough information out there, that I don't nearly feel compelled to try and sum it up ... again. In one sentence? It is a guy that generally believes that pleasing others, particularly women, will make him likable and earn him praise and love - even at the cost of his own boundaries or self esteem.
> 
> You can be a nice guy without being a 'Nice Guy'.
> 
> I'm at a loss as to why this is a struggle for you other than the semantics.
> 
> Same with dominance. Every dating book I've read, every episode of Wild Kingdom I've seen addresses the concept of the dominant male - and it has ZERO to do with manipulation, control or violence (against females). Dominance are the set of traits or behaviors exhibited by the male that attracts the female and defines him as a suitable if not superior breeding option. He's a cool dude. Whether or not he is a cool dude to ALL females is immaterial if he has snagged the one he wants.
> 
> I can't help you with your view that this is all manipulation and disingenuous. Apparently using different and softer words to describe the concepts in order to make it clearer, only muddied the water all the more.


I'm thinking you should send them your paypal address.


----------



## LFC

Guys how often does your wife throw fitness tests at you my wife seems to it every day,or worse still when I'm tired and off guard for example after a night shift.
She was brought up without a Father and I would class her as LSE.
Her tests are particularly venomous and I have in the past escalated into rowing now I see these outbursts are probably more like these tests you describe


----------



## Conrad

LFC said:


> Guys how often does your wife throw fitness tests at you my wife seems to it every day,or worse still when I'm tired and off guard for example after a night shift.
> She was brought up without a Father and I would class her as LSE.
> Her tests are particularly venomous and I have in the past escalated into rowing now I see these outbursts are probably more like these tests you describe


That is the first step towards a brighter tomorrow.

Once you realize it's "not about you", it's easier to detach and respond appropriately.

I only got fitness tested yesterday every single time she and I spoke to each other.

Not the best day.


----------



## Mom6547

Conrad said:


> Agreed totally.
> 
> A much better plan is to stay emasculated and whipped - hoping for the best.


Obviously if it is not working, it is not working. But not all non-assertive are whipped. Ask DH.


> Why give up on something that brings such great results?


Indeed, for him it is not working well, seems. I was asking what the thought was in general.


----------

