Just learned that a friend will be divorcing his wife of 16 years

[iqqi]

-

Perhaps you clue us guys in on what ARE the actual PREREQUISITES for marriage, sweetie. And spelling counts, this time.

Already did, sweetie pie. Go on ahead and reread what has already been written. Or did you just jump on my last post, without reading the full thread...

 

[STR8UP]

Nobody here is studying nothin about nothin. In reality this site is a bunch of tips, technigues, and "old wives tales", with contradictory opinions on what works and what doesn't. Don't sit here and pretend this sh!t is a science, or ever will be.

"old wives tales"....hahaha

And these "contradictory opinions" are EXACTLY what fuels the knowledge tank.

You can't even compare an average guy's understanding of this subject matter to that of many of the posters here on the MM board. Even the "naturals" don't have the depth of knowledge that is shared on here.

Don't you have something better to do than slam an internet message board that you spend a LOT of time on?

 

[iqqi]

Don't you have something better to do than slam an internet message board that you spend a LOT of time on?

I am not slamming this board, STR8UP, I am slamming the people who think it is a science. That the DJ Bible is THEE bible, and that the rules are really rules.

It isn't a science. You aren't scientists. Not by a long shot. I think that is actually what I said, too.

Damn.

 

[iqqi]

Even the "naturals" don't have the depth of knowledge that is shared on here.

I'd put knowledge in quotations, actually. Naturals are the lucky ones who know that there is no real knowledge. The wisest men know that really you know nothing at all. The naturals are lucky in a sense that all your "techniques" and "rules" will never come off as unnatural for them, as it does for so many of you, who think you have "mastered" some lesson.

I don't bash the ideas or "theories" on here, just the fools who take it way too seriously. Many of the ideas and theories are really good, but they aren't the rule. And to try and pound it into people's heads as being some kind of proven rule in all situations is a big mistake.

People need to get comfortable with thinking for themselves. The tips on this site are great guidelines, and that is IT. This board is great most of the time for people who need a sounding board. Many posters here (or at least in the past) are extremely intelligent, with a lot of experience. The smartest ones, and the more respected ones, will tell you in a heartbeat:

This sh!t ain't no science. There are no rules, and those of you carrying around the DJ bible in your little hearts are just like godboys carrying around the real bible in their little pockets... people who need rules and guidelines, because they are afraid to think for themselves.

There is NOTHING wrong with needing guidance here and there. But to live your life by it like it is the holy grail is ridiculous. And to preach it as the WORD is irresponsible.

 

[aliasguy]

I'd put knowledge in quotations, actually. Naturals are the lucky ones who know that there is no real knowledge. The wisest men know that really you know nothing at all. The naturals are lucky in a sense that all your "techniques" and "rules" will never come off as unnatural for them, as it does for so many of you, who think you have "mastered" some lesson.

I don't bash the ideas or "theories" on here, just the fools who take it way too seriously. Many of the ideas and theories are really good, but they aren't the rule. And to try and pound it into people's heads as being some kind of proven rule in all situations is a big mistake.

People need to get comfortable with thinking for themselves. The tips on this site are great guidelines, and that is IT. This board is great most of the time for people who need a sounding board. Many posters here (or at least in the past) are extremely intelligent, with a lot of experience. The smartest ones, and the more respected ones, will tell you in a heartbeat:

This sh!t ain't no science. There are no rules, and those of you carrying around the DJ bible in your little hearts are just like godboys carrying around the real bible in their little pockets... people who need rules and guidelines, because they are afraid to think for themselves.

There is NOTHING wrong with needing guidance here and there. But to live your life by it like it is the holy grail is ridiculous. And to preach it as the WORD is irresponsible.

-
-
--

READ my posts. Not just on this thread, but all of them. And STR*UP's posts, iqqi.


You are CONFUSING the issues, here. You're NOT helping. You are TOO invested in being RIGHT.


Happy Easter Egg, baby. Look at what YOU want from MEN, angel. How does that square with the stuff you WRITE here?

Nitey-nite.

-
--

 

[iqqi]

-
-
--

READ my posts. Not just on this thread, but all of them. And STR*UP's posts, iqqi.

I'd rather slit my wrists. Why would you wish such harsh tortue on me, baby? Alias baby?

Everything you said after that makes no sense, either. Start a new thread, if you want to know what iqqi wants in a man. Otherwise... what is your point exactly? Do you claim to know what I want from a man? Did I say something about it in this thread... sorry... baby angel face... don't get it.

 

[aliasguy]

-
--
-


This is SO much fun.

It's HILARIOUS. I really do have to go to bed, but I'd welcome any other masculine input.

BTW, iqqi, don't slit your wrists. If you DO turn out to be hot, we'd all feel bad. Really.

Old offer still stands (if you're hot.)

-
--

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

But this is about marriage. Most people do not marry someone based on looks or reproduction ability.

The fact that so many of you are arguing that people marry for such superficial reasons alone is bleak. I am glad I have so many examples of just the opposite in my own life.

You are all so hung up on looks.

And then you say pity the fool that doesn't marry for superficial reasons! They are trading down, you say. But the truth is PITY YOU. Pity you for not being able to see that looks are just a superficial attraction. Yes, they attract. But do they HOLD long term? NO. Looks are just the opposite of what makes one worthy of marriage.

Ah, and if all men could be made to believe so, so much easier would it be for women to perpetuate controlling the frame of their own sexual selection. Why should physical appearance be a criteria for anything?

But here's the operative question; Why should the importance Men place on the physical alway be characterized as "superficial"? Why is it that man is "shallow" for following HIS biological imperative, while a woman seeking committment is considered "prudent"?

Because women, such as my dear IQQI, are only acting on behalf of their own biological imperatives when they do so. And, like all feminine social contrivances, if men can be made to believe that a woman's best interest is actually his own, she retains control of the frame. How do they effect this? Repeat it over and over until men identify with it and it becomes a societal norm. This then places men into a state of internal conflict - they're not 'supposed' to want hot women for fear of being deemed "shallow", but yet they always seem to find themselves attracted to, and aroused by, the most physically ideal women they encounter.

So, how, and why, then does this social contrivance work? Why is it necessary? The simple answer is that the latent purpose of shaming men into denying their own biological imperative better serves to maintain women's control of sexual selectivity.

The cold hard reality all women face is that, in the sexual market place, they are always a depriciating asset. In a biological sense, a woman's sexual marektability decreases as she ages. Even when this isn't universally the case, the insecurity that comes from realizing ths decline is still present for women. With effort, a woman can be drop dead gorgeous at 40, but the internalized anxiety she experiences from having to remain sexually competitive with women 20 years younger doesn't diminish - at some point she'll lose her edge.

In order to counter this dynamic a social contrivance had to be developed. Men would need to be shamed for their biological preoccupation with younger, sexier, more sexually available women that they naturally, and observably, prefer. If men could be psychologically convinced that physicality (their primary determinant for attraction & arousal) was less valuable than intellect, integrity, or any other esoteric, moralized virtue (or the perception of it at least), this then would level the playing field of sexual competition. By making physicality "shallow", women of all shapes and sizes could be instilled with "inner beauty". It's what's on the inside that counts and any man to disagree is "shallow" and undeserving of their intimacy.

Now women can have their cake and eat it too. Sexual selectivity in their youth AND a realitive assurance (this is only one contrivance that serves the same purpose) of that same selectivity in securing a long term committment of male provisioning as they age. Social contrivance circumvents biology and women retain the frame. It's only when "scientists" such as STR8UP or myself pull back the curtain and show you the Wizard of Oz that men are labelled "misogynists" or "superficial." It's the perfect contrivance; one that even in revealing it still shames the one doing so - or at least calls into question his motives for doing so.

 

[azanon]

I see a whole lot of posts when choice C (the right one) isn't getting any airtime.

Men are definitely going to want to marry a woman that looks as good as he can possibly catch (by my standards, even if i were single, i'm going to require at least a "7" before the real competition begins). But if that's all she has going for her and the man marries her anyway, he is nothing short of a fool.

I can think of several men who married 8, 9s, and 10s who are existing within a living hell because said woman is a b****, or is just a worthless person otherwise. Looks is important to a man..... very important, but it isn't everything.

I want the total package.

 

[Interceptor]

Actually, when you come down to it, I think Iqqi is saying if you get this situation:

Guy: "You're Hawt. I want to marry. Let's marry.

Chick: "Um..OK."

They get married.

.....is NOT the BEST way to go about the deal of getting married. Meaning, these people are only looking at their outer selves, not evaluating or assessing, or even taking into consideration their future life with that person, other than the way a person "looks".

...which I think everyone here agrees with.

It's like going to buy a used car, and buying the car based on the paint job, and if it's waxed and polished, but you don't care about the inside at all. Yet, you still buy it.


You will get situation in the future like:

[I]"I didn't know you were that way!"[/I] when something comes up that may reveal the person's true nature (thus revealing their emotional and psychologicsal development) in some life event.
Why?
Because they never seemed to have delved deeper than how the person looks.

Anyway, there are a lot of reasons on why marriages go bad.
But I think number one, that affects everyone everywhere is their ability (or inability, actually) to adapt to change, and their outlook on change.
Essentially, how do they deal with life and their partner when things ain't all hunky dory....


OK, I'm out. (steps back out of the ring)



Are you ready?!


Are you ready?!

Let's get it on!!

Hajime! Fight!!!

 

[STR8UP]

It's like going to buy a used car, and buying the car based on the paint job, and if it's waxed and polished, but you don't care about the inside at all. Yet, you still buy it.

That's why I believe in fully expecting the engine and drivetrain prior to purchase.

Oh, and don't forget to give the undercarriage a good once-over. Gotta make sure previous owners didn't defer any maintenance

 

[LovelyLady]

One thing to consider is: just because a marriage ends in divorce, did it truly fail? If the purpose was to to enjoy shared/common interests and interests changed - then it succeeded while the common interests were shared. If the common goal of childrearing, a business venture, financial success is reached - it succeeded with the completion of that goal. The purpose of the marriage was fulfilled and subsequently it was over.

To use your Manly "car" analogy Interceptor (or can I call you "Vulcan" :flowers: to my newly annointed title of "Venus" :crackup: We Goddesses are far more interested in communing with Gods than we are being worshipped yawn, and as you know I love to play with fire xoxo) I digress though.... back on topic: Besides needing a low maintence, well-cared for engine, you still need to know ahead of time what purpose/use in your life you want the vehicle to serve.

What are you buying the car for? Whether it is for status, speed, a motorcycle with or without a side car, a mini-van, a truck with a nice flatbed (LOL) etc.

many people like the look of the car, some are wise enough to check the engine, but they have not taken the time to really determine what the vehicles longterm function needs to serve - hence the high rate of trade-ins (divorces LOL).

You men and your cars.... :flowers: I adore you guys... :yes:

 

[Interceptor]

:crackup: LL xo xo

 

[LovelyLady]

:crackup: xoxo

 

[Interceptor]

deleted

 

[LovelyLady]

deleted Smooches

 

[Interceptor]

deleted

 

[Latinoman]

When you enter into a relationship or marriage there are unspoken "deals" or "contracts" that are made. One is how you take care of yourself - your exercise habits, grooming, smoking, drinking, and yes, your weight. It feels like a betrayal when a spouse breaks that unspoken contract. It feels like you got suckered, lied to.

If your spouse receives a physical imperfection through no fault of their own (a fire, masectomy, etc,) that is one thing. But the decision to eat and get fatter and fatter and fatter, knowing it will create problems of being able to be intimate with the most important person in your life is just wrong - whether you are a husband or a wife. This marriage has very real problems that are much bigger than 100 pounds of fat.

Agree with you 100%.

 

[Latinoman]

Ah, and if all men could be made to believe so, so much easier would it be for women to perpetuate controlling the frame of their own sexual selection. Why should physical appearance be a criteria for anything?

But here's the operative question; Why should the importance Men place on the physical alway be characterized as "superficial"? Why is it that man is "shallow" for following HIS biological imperative, while a woman seeking committment is considered "prudent"?

Because women, such as my dear IQQI, are only acting on behalf of their own biological imperatives when they do so. And, like all feminine social contrivances, if men can be made to believe that a woman's best interest is actually his own, she retains control of the frame. How do they effect this? Repeat it over and over until men identify with it and it becomes a societal norm. This then places men into a state of internal conflict - they're not 'supposed' to want hot women for fear of being deemed "shallow", but yet they always seem to find themselves attracted to, and aroused by, the most physically ideal women they encounter.

So, how, and why, then does this social contrivance work? Why is it necessary? The simple answer is that the latent purpose of shaming men into denying their own biological imperative better serves to maintain women's control of sexual selectivity.

The cold hard reality all women face is that, in the sexual market place, they are always a depriciating asset. In a biological sense, a woman's sexual marektability decreases as she ages. Even when this isn't universally the case, the insecurity that comes from realizing ths decline is still present for women. With effort, a woman can be drop dead gorgeous at 40, but the internalized anxiety she experiences from having to remain sexually competitive with women 20 years younger doesn't diminish - at some point she'll lose her edge.

In order to counter this dynamic a social contrivance had to be developed. Men would need to be shamed for their biological preoccupation with younger, sexier, more sexually available women that they naturally, and observably, prefer. If men could be psychologically convinced that physicality (their primary determinant for attraction & arousal) was less valuable than intellect, integrity, or any other esoteric, moralized virtue (or the perception of it at least), this then would level the playing field of sexual competition. By making physicality "shallow", women of all shapes and sizes could be instilled with "inner beauty". It's what's on the inside that counts and any man to disagree is "shallow" and undeserving of their intimacy.

Now women can have their cake and eat it too. Sexual selectivity in their youth AND a realitive assurance (this is only one contrivance that serves the same purpose) of that same selectivity in securing a long term committment of male provisioning as they age. Social contrivance circumvents biology and women retain the frame. It's only when "scientists" such as STR8UP or myself pull back the curtain and show you the Wizard of Oz that men are labelled "misogynists" or "superficial." It's the perfect contrivance; one that even in revealing it still shames the one doing so - or at least calls into question his motives for doing so.

A classic.

I wish I knew IQQI age. She sounds too young.

 

[Tazman]

^^ Clear and concise, can't beat that logic.