It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....

Relationship Health Message Board

Relationship Health Board Index

[QUOTE=GypsyArcher]Women are the ones giving birth and nurturing their babies with their milk when they are young, therefore it would point to women being the ones responsible for watching over and raising them. That leaves going out and providing shelter, food, clothing etc to the man, if only because he doesn't have anything else to do. And some men can't even be bothered to do that. There are some theories going around then men will be obsolete one day. If I was a man, I'd be embarrassed, I mean really.[/QUOTE]

Well I am a man and I'm not embarrassed. It's about time us men realize how independent women can be. Any man who still thinks a woman "needs" a man needs to wake up and join the 21st century. But the idea that women should be the ones responsible for raising children sounds incredibly antiquated (sp?). If I said something like that, I would be labeled a chauvinist pig, and rightly so. Women may give birth and nurse children, but as far as I'm concerned any responsibilities beyond that should be shared equally. If a woman is expected to scale back on work for the sake of the children, a man should do the same. The idea that a man should go out and be the provider because he has nothing else to do is offensive. I would work to provide for my family because I want to, not because I feel like that's all I'm good for. If I had children, I would never delegate the job of raising my children to their mother. It's my job too.

[QUOTE]It used to be, if you got a woman pregnant and deserted her, you were branded. Now if you do that, you're a "player."[/QUOTE]

That's not the word I'd use. How sad our society has become that we've come up with a less offensive name for someone like that. Are we that forgiving a people? You hurt someone like that, you deserve to be called more than a "player."

[QUOTE]I think for some people, it is just really important to have a SO. So they are more willing to compromise and sacrifice in order to keep the other person around happy. Me, since I'm fine on my own, I'm not going to go out of my way to keep a boyfriend around. If they don't like me, then they can walk, 'cause I ain't changing anything about myself. Like Burger King, I have it my way. And it is odd too, because that attitude creates an unintentional psychological appeal. Who wants a partner who gives in to whatever they want and is easily malleable? My casual take-it-or-leave-it attitude only makes my boyfriend value me more and makes him feel he has to work harder to keep me. You know what that means - more expensive gifts ;) Also I found that it has a powerful psychologic effect. The harder a boyfriend has to work for me, the more valuable I appear. Who wants an easily malleable GF/BF who does whatever you want? The more someone acts like they can live without you, the more you want to prove them wrong. In the past,whenever I've hung on a guy and done whatever I could to please him, I ended up being tossed aside. But whenever I've acted like a guy could matter less to me, I couldn't get them to leave me alone.[/QUOTE]

The word I would use to describe such guys, the ones who showed more interest in you when you adopted a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, is PATHETIC. If a woman doesn't show as much interest in me as I show in her, I'll move on and any other self-respecting male would too. No one wants to be with someone who's easily malleable or someone who's totally inflexible. But you make it sound like these are the only two choices. Most people fall in the middle. They're willing to compromise on some things, but not on others. They will make changes to accomodate their partner, but only up to a point.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 AM.

© 2020 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!