The Positives Don't Add Up . . .
I was thinking about 2 very different dancers that I like a lot. One is rated a little higher than the other and the more I thought about it, it didn't make sense. One should have been rated a lot higher than the other based on a scoreboard approach.
Turns out the positives even though they're mainly positives in my mind also carry baggage. One positive that is a negative, for me, is that one of the dancers is clearly upwardly mobile and willing to accept social values that she wasn't raised with and may not like. She wants the 2-car garage, the white picket fence, the college degree, and she has the ability and drive to accomplish her goals. The negative isn't the desire for greater wealth or the willingness to work hard to achieve her goals. It is her willingness to accept or at least not openly reject the social values of the dominant group that I see as the negative. The other dancer is much less likely to succeed at whatever she strives for and is more into the gangster culture.
So law abiding citizen versus criminal in this matchup it is thumbs up for the criminal, imo.
The other matchup is intelligence and education. Surprise surprise the unwardly mobile dance wins in both categories. And, they are positives for me and yet they aren't at the same time. I guess it is the intimidation factor. :) Or like many a dancer I'm simply more attracted to losers. :)
As far as the dancers apparent internal heat again the upwardly mobile dancer wins easily. Internal heat or ability to fake same is a HUGE positive for me. I really get off if the woman truly seems to be enjoying herself and there is physical proof.
Looks and skill are equal.
Silliness the less upwardly mobile dancer wins there.
Greediness--surprisingly the upwardly mobile dancer is far less greedy. The really surprises me and impresses me. Again the upwardly mobile dancer wins.
Overall the upwardly mobile dancer wins by almost every measurement. Yet in an overall rating they're running fairly close--it should be no contest in favor of upwardly mobile dancer. And, I think it was due mainly to my be intimidated and her willingness to accept mainstream social values or at least not openly reject them. The intimidation reminded of this man whose wife started to earn more than her husband and I told her that would kill her marriage. In his eyes, she needed to make at least $1 less than him. She laughed at me and said that is so stupid as long as he is working then it doesn't matter who makes more. I said I don't think he'll be working much longer. Again, she said that is so stupid, he is a educated professional and he wont just stop working because I make a little more than he does. Shortly thereafter he stopped working and the marriage was finished. :( He told me that he couldn't take her being the "man" of the household. I said but she is all woman and was only making a little more than you. He says a penny more would be too much!
I guess I'm a little like him. :(
Turns out the positives even though they're mainly positives in my mind also carry baggage. One positive that is a negative, for me, is that one of the dancers is clearly upwardly mobile and willing to accept social values that she wasn't raised with and may not like. She wants the 2-car garage, the white picket fence, the college degree, and she has the ability and drive to accomplish her goals. The negative isn't the desire for greater wealth or the willingness to work hard to achieve her goals. It is her willingness to accept or at least not openly reject the social values of the dominant group that I see as the negative. The other dancer is much less likely to succeed at whatever she strives for and is more into the gangster culture.
So law abiding citizen versus criminal in this matchup it is thumbs up for the criminal, imo.
The other matchup is intelligence and education. Surprise surprise the unwardly mobile dance wins in both categories. And, they are positives for me and yet they aren't at the same time. I guess it is the intimidation factor. :) Or like many a dancer I'm simply more attracted to losers. :)
As far as the dancers apparent internal heat again the upwardly mobile dancer wins easily. Internal heat or ability to fake same is a HUGE positive for me. I really get off if the woman truly seems to be enjoying herself and there is physical proof.
Looks and skill are equal.
Silliness the less upwardly mobile dancer wins there.
Greediness--surprisingly the upwardly mobile dancer is far less greedy. The really surprises me and impresses me. Again the upwardly mobile dancer wins.
Overall the upwardly mobile dancer wins by almost every measurement. Yet in an overall rating they're running fairly close--it should be no contest in favor of upwardly mobile dancer. And, I think it was due mainly to my be intimidated and her willingness to accept mainstream social values or at least not openly reject them. The intimidation reminded of this man whose wife started to earn more than her husband and I told her that would kill her marriage. In his eyes, she needed to make at least $1 less than him. She laughed at me and said that is so stupid as long as he is working then it doesn't matter who makes more. I said I don't think he'll be working much longer. Again, she said that is so stupid, he is a educated professional and he wont just stop working because I make a little more than he does. Shortly thereafter he stopped working and the marriage was finished. :( He told me that he couldn't take her being the "man" of the household. I said but she is all woman and was only making a little more than you. He says a penny more would be too much!
I guess I'm a little like him. :(
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
18 comments
A lady friend of mine commented that she was very impressed that I didn't care about her wealth even a little bit. That struck me. I said you're just a friend. She says I know that. I said also you're a woman, which means you're wealth has no value to me. She says yes that is very odd that you think like that. It seemed odd to me that she would think my thinking on the subject was odd. She isn't a women libber and thus, I thought my view would be her view as well i.e. the man is provider.
She isn't young and she understands traditional roles and yet she thinks my view is odd. I guess even a traditional woman or man as far as gender can have a few non-traditional views. I told her a cheating man isn't a big deal, but a cheating woman is a huge deal---she understood that at least. :)
I don't value upward mobility much, except that I like to see people reach their goals. It is fantastic to share another person's sense of victory after suffering thru a tough battle or working hard.
I'm pretty much out of the mainstream. I did believe strongly in limited government and low taxes and sound money. In personal honor and hard honest work and the right to self-defense. I even identified with Christian beliefs, but it turned out that those beliefs also were very much outside the mainstream Christian religions at least here in the U.S. So as things turned out I ended up liking and respecting the black gangster culture even though I'm an outsider there as well. White criminals would have been acceptable for the most part also, but the hardcore white culture for the most part left my area. Those people remaining who most closely fit my ideals happened to be the black ghetto or gangster cultures.
Because of my family's (one side only) severe problems with alcoholism, my views toward the drug war was also outside of the mainstream.
I don't know, because either my writing is off or some people have a severe limitation when it comes to reading skills.
It seems like there is open hostility whether here or elsewhere when I speak of caring for dancers---that I'm way out of the mainstream. Or, I'm just too sensitive. :)
I hear dancers just want your money and I think even if that is true why would that stop me from caring about them? I'm getting conned? That is always possible.
So a dancer hates my guts. Gives me fantastic dances and otherwise meets my needs. I care about her because she has shown or given me traits that I like. Later, I learn the truth and she is a complete fake. My feelings at that point are that I'm very impressed with her acting ability and is she willing to continue being an excellent dancer for me. Conned or not it seems like a very good deal for me.
More upsetting than that example is where a dancer isn't acting in her best interest because she actually does like you, but you're unaware she is losing money being with you. You thought both parties were benefiting.
Then you have the idiots (close friends of mine included) who claim dancers only care about money. When asked to explain why a money grubbing dancer is supporting a good for nothing deadbeat boyfriend if money is her god, there is silence or they'll say she's just stupid. It never occurs to them money may not be her primary focus as if it would even be wrong for her to focus on making money.
So, I feel I'm out of the mainstream: 1. Thinking dancers focus isn't solely on money. 2. Caring about dancers even if it is a one way street.
I apologize to you if it came out wrong. I was just wonder if my writing is that far off or it is more a case my message is unusual.
There was another instance where you responded to me and I didn't really see where you were coming from. It was about the dancer who recently decided to back away from doing business with me. So, I was left wondering is my writing off? Perhaps there is a typo here or there that confuses things? Perhaps his reading skills need a little work or he is reading too haphazzardly?
More likely, I thought you were making an assumption that I would be interested in more than pay for play because I care for the dancer. Doesn't matter how much I care for her the ideal for me is pay for play.
HOWEVER - your views on a woman's financial earning potential and adultery are quite marginalizing & dreadfully out of touch with today's culture. While some may argue that those lines of thinking are quaint and cutely old-fashioned & "traditional", I would disagree.It's patronising, and presents women as somehow "lesser" than men, which is ridiculous.
And I don't think you have to be a radical feminist to agree.
That is almost true, btw. :) And, that imo is another example of being out of the mainstream. The upwardly mobile is extremely bright and wishes to become better educated. I see positives and negatives being dealt therein.
The other dancer doesn't care about education. As far as intelligence, I'm not sure where exactly she falls except that it doesn't seem like she's in the same ball park with the upwardly mobile dancer. She is into pleasure and rebellion. Her chance of financial wealth seems dismal. Her drive to accomplish seems low.
So I don't know if it is admiration or desire. But, yes I like the "loser" type female so in that regard I'm like dancers who like "loser" boyfriends. I admired the upwardly mobile dancers mental sharpness---now being attracted to it is a different matter--I don't know. I disliked the fact that I believe she would sell out her beliefs to be part of the mainstream or to succeed, but that can be viewed in many different ways. She likes the white picket fence and I would prefer less structure like the grove before it became a place for the wealthy.
I hope my writing is not to messed up!!! I can get carried away or just not be thinking clearly. Especially, when I'm thinking about emotional issues and going back and forth, pro and con.
I don't think "lesser" than men is the issue, although you may see it like that.
I'm not a big guy at all. There are precious few women that can stand up to me unless they have a weapon such as a gun in hand and are willing to use it. Does that make them "lesser?" Not in my book. Am I "lesser" because some large brute can take me apart with fairly little effort? Again, not in my book.
I see a huge difference between men and women. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. Heck, you've got men that love large women or men that prefer the women not look attractive or whatever. It seems like most women prefer tall men and yet some women think I'm hot--it is a minority view definitely, but its true for them. So different doesn't equal "lesser."
When my girlfriend brought up the "cheating" issue, I told her, for example, when she is willing to pay male prostitutes money for sexual favors, then I would consider us to be in the same boat. As it stood she viewed sex very differently than me. Her experience of being wanted in the extreme was very different than my experience of being rejected again and again and again. So to compare her "cheating" with my "cheating" is completely insane. It isn't a question of "lesser" it is a difference of social as well as genetic roles. Not only that in the relationship itself she had all the power as far as sex because sex was whenever she wanted it---very normal among my relatives and hers. Again different roles. So, I say to her when I start rejecting you then go ahead and start claiming the "equality" to "cheat." It is really like mixing apples and oranges because her needs were so much different--like long drawn out sex performed not very often. Where I would prefer shorter sessions and many more.
I guess I could go on and on about my perception of normal gender differences, but I just disagree with almost any notions of "equality." I find it revolting for the most part. It is like a person telling me because he can eat peanuts without ill effect that therefore I can eat peanuts safely also. I don't know if you understand my point. Essentially, when my girlfriend claimed she would be able to duke it out with me, I thought she was the victim of "equality" insanity. She never stood even the remotest chance against me despite training and weight lifting and other silliness. She didn't stand the remotest chance against any half way healthy male. It was sheer lunacy. And, even worse lunacy to suggest she is somehow "lesser" because she isn't designed for hand to hand combat. If anything I put the soldier boys in the "lesser" category and even that ain't fair or right.
Sucker punched by a feminist. I was making fun of a female friend who claimed the ability to be able to beat up her boyfriend routinely. Her boyfriend was small. Very small. And frail looking. The whole notion of her beating him up was a complete joke to me. Even if she could why in the world would she? It seemed dumb and highly unlikely and she was just a poor brainwashed feminist. I was laughing telling her that her boyfriend must be the weakest man in the world. She was getting angrier and angrier. She was a little larger than me, but it is just no contest. She didn't understand that at all. She was on some stupid equality kick. Oh, she later became a stripper so maybe she kicked some customer ass later on down the road. :)
So I just took her as joke and she was more than a little nutty anyway, but fun even without getting in her pants, btw. By complete surprise she hit me in the jaw full force. She accomplished getting a very hurt hand. Very hurt. It was so stupid. And, she was stunned. She couldn't believe her surpise punch delivered to my jaw did nothing. I had to point out to her that she was a girl and only slightly larger than me. And, strength wise I think I could have easily killed her with a single blow to her jaw. It was never a contest. Later, I learned her thinking wasn't as completely nutty as I thought because somehow she did in fact beat up her little boyfriend. It just amazes me that he was that weak. He was getting in her pants routinely so he was definitely better than me in that department and she was good looking. :)
No, I don't get your point at all. When I said "equality", I meant in terms of opportunity, value in society, etc. NOT physical size! That's crazy! While there are plenty of us women out there that could kick some serious male ass, we are surely not in the majority! You seem very set in a rigid out-dated gender structure that is quite primitive & unyielding. "Man is provider" really says it all to me.
Also - cheating is cheating - regardless of the gender, or the reasons behind it. You're really stretching the rationale behind your "logic" - I don't even know where to begin with it! It truly makes absolutely no sense at all to me. Cheating means person A goes fucking around behind person B's back. Period. Societal influences and whether "you've been rejected" or "she won't pay for sex" don't mean a damn thing.
I never "cheated" under that definition. I was right out in the open because I don't consider it wrong in the least for a man to get as much as he can especially when his woman is saying NO!
Yes, I see the male role as being a provider with any luck at all. Of course, there are exceptions.
Well, the differences like my getting rejected while she is receiving the red carpet treatment and rejecting it no less!? are extremely relevant to me. If women were pursuing me left and right while she was being kicked to curb repeatedly, then I'd have a very different view of her "cheating." But, we aren't even talking about the same thing in my case at least because I spoke right from the beginning she was free to reject me and I was free to find my fun elsewhere. Also, she was very aware that I viewed women as being very different than men.
Now, with my buddy that cheats and makes his poor wife all hurt it is more complicated. He isn't honest with her, but at the same time she knows that is part of their culture. For him to be honest in that respect would be to disrespect her. She knows that, but doesn't like that part of their culture. Her interest in sex compared to him? I asked her and the answer was that it didn't mean that much to her. She liked it, but it was very low priority. She mainly didn't want him having sex with anyone else because she views the act as an act of LOVE. That is the furthest thing from his mind and she can't comprehend that. And, for him sex was a top priority and she knew that from when they first started dating. So you think I should consider their "cheating" assuming both to have "cheated" to be equal? Not even slightly in my book. She needs close emotional ties and attaches feelings of love to the sex act. He will screw a coke bottle or perhaps even the family dog if she's in heat. Like I said before it is apples and oranges and not even that close. They are NOT EQUAL. He might be better or she might be better that's a whole different set of issues depending on what you value.
Seeing the male as a provider in my opinion, again, in no way makes women "lesser." Just as a male being a protector against a predator doesn't make a women "lesser." You value "equality" and I see it as revolting for the most part. People are different. Yes, some women can be warriors or whatever. That is an exception and if it works then fine. To say that I'm equal with my woman is depressing if not revolting. To say that I'm superior to my woman is depressing if not revolting. Hopefully, she is a soft traditional female because that is what I'm attracted to. Has nothing at all to do with "lesser" or any feminist nonsense like that. Furthermore, my woman may very well expect or demand that I act like a hard traditional male. Unfortunately, I'm not as much of a dominate male as many soft women would prefer. Some women, otoh, consider me to be extremely dominate. One reason I don't consider myself to be a real dominate male is because I develop feelings of intimacy merely from having sexual intercourse and normally that is what females experience or at least that is what I've read and heard. Something to do with the different brain chemicals secreted by the genders during intercourse. So on the extremely rare occasion that I get offered sex on a first meeting without cash being part of the deal, I feel very depressed about needing to say NO. That really isn't normal, imo, for a guy. It is totally deflating and depressing and some women will shove it in your face real fast. At least I don't get those offers too often. Even thinking about saying NO to an attractive women is depressing. It isn't manly. Men and women are NOT EQUAL imo! :)
I was thinking about a dangerous predator approaching. My job is to protect the female so I immediately place myself in front of her to protect her and prepare for battle. What does she do? She pushes me aside and states that she is aka Ms. Rambo 100% U.S. certified military issue credited with defeating N. Vietnam, Russia, Iraq, Brazil, Cuba, and other assorted enemies to U.S. interests. She even flashes me a tattoo of President Bush on her breast!
Suddenly, my interest in her is about zero if that high and it is not even about jealousy of the President being tattooed on her breast. I guess some people would consider her being a world power as a positive. Leaves me cold just as a large woman leaves me cold. By the same token, if I see a predator approaching and I jump behind the female for protection she may lose all interest in me if she had any to begin with. Look you cowardly weakling get out there and defend me. I'm the woman and your supposed to be the man. Get out there and start defending me and if you get killed or crippled that's not a biggie I'm sure there is another big strong man who can get the jobe done. A real man!
Is it wrong for the woman to desire a "real" man? Is it wrong for the man to desire a "real" woman? Some people would say yes, of course it is wrong just as it is wrong for a man to only be attracted to small shapely women. That's primitive and barbaric!
So the upwardly mobile dancer was throwing me some serious negatives with what should be positives. I could see her telling me what you pay for dinner? Don't be silly I'll buy the whole restaurant chain! Gee, it is impressive she can buy the whole restaurant chain, however, I really did want to buy her dinner. So, yes, in my book a wealthier woman would be less attractive to me generally because I feel I have less to offer her. Much nicer to be with a woman who when I pull up to McDonald's says isn't this a little extravagent and means it! :) And, I can say YES, but nothing is too good for you and in 6 months we might even be able to do it again with some financial cost cutting here and there.
You & I obviously have VERY different ideas about this, and it's a good bet that neither of us is going to be swayed anytime soon into jumping sides. I am certainly NOT your typical woman in any way, so I will never understand how straight females think & how they relate to straight males. So, we live & let live. You have your beliefs, and I have mine.
If you don't mind my asking...what country are you from & how old are you? Just curious.
OK.....now it's time to get back to the important things in life....STRIPCLUBS!
I'm from the U.S., but the culture sure wasn't mom and apple pie nor flag waving. I'm too old--mind, body, and soul. :) Live & let live is a nice goal, imo. Don't think in practice it is too popular. I'm pro gay marriage (they should suffer just like heteros ;) ), but I think one thing pro and anti gay marriage folks can pretty much agree upon is NO to legal polygamy. I think that is far the best family structure for heterosexual females and males.
The one thing we agree on is STRIPCLUBS! :) And, we may have similar tastes in women. I think you like small women, as well.
.
Years ago this larger woman was trying to convince me that I didn't need small attractive women. I liked her personality and spent hours talking with when the club was slow. She never asked for dances or money and I didn't feel guilty because she knew exactly what I was looking for---Young, and Small!
She believed that I was brainwashed--by the media, friends, family, etc.--- and that looks weren't that important. She was positive of it because that is how she felt. She was attracted to the character and personality of the person which was the only logical attraction.
A very long period of time passes and I must have spoken with her for 100s of hours. She was a fun intelligent person. I could see her as a buddy, but I sure wouldn't want to get sexual with her. During all this time I don't think I even tipped her $5 total--she wasn't what I needed and I didn't have a lot of money and I was cheap. Finally, one day she says she wants to prove to me that looks are irrelevant. She doesn't want a penny from me (very important at the time), but just wants the opportunity to prove that I don't need a certain look. I'm shaking my head NO, NO, NO, because that is what I feel. She isn't ugly she just isn't what I'm interested in.
I end up caving in and letting her do whatever she wants. :( Most guys I think would have been thrilled. I just wanted it over with because I knew how my body responds. So she is working and working and working and she has good skill and is enthusiastic (sp?) which is nice. It seems like forever (with a pretty girl I get excited immediately) with new songs keep coming and coming and after all this she gets some minor reaction. She is all excited and says SEE SEE!!! I told you I was right. It hurt her feelings big time when I told her that she proved the exact opposite. It took her forever and my response wasn't much at all. It was a negative. :( The right girl and I'd be getting excited like BOOM and stay excited-- even breathless. Even if I don't like the attractive woman, I will get excited.
So that ended that and she didn't talk with me anymore. I don't think I swayed her even a little bit. I think she is still convinced assuming she is still alive, that attraction is learned (phony) and can be unlearned and that people are naturally attracted by important things like intelligence, personality, character, etc.