Blind Dates and Privilege Princesses
The idea for this topic came up from a set of comments over at Dakota’s, in his magnificently titled thread “Are Androids Better than Women?” One male commenter, “Chris”, argued that men needed to be quite wary of women these days. Another commenter, female, “Zogmama” argued that it was still appropriate for men to be courtly, to be gentlemen.
I have sympathy for both perspectives, of course. From Zog’s perspective, the general decline in civility in our society affronts me — as a man, as a human being, and as a conservative. Moreover, treat every woman as though she’s a ho, and that’s likely what you’ll get.
Rap videos showing Nelly swiping a credit card through some ‘ho’s’ buttocks are an undeniable legacy of some ghastly fusion of feminism and misogyny.
On the other hand, for commenter Chris? A great many women in North America have enormous privilege — social, financial, biological, and legal. As he puts it:
I said before…. women act like this on CREDIT. They have done NOTHING to show, prove or earn ANY special status where men are concerned… and until they do…. it’s a man’s … responsibility to POINT IT OUT!
However….. Men are nice. Too nice. When women behave badly , we WANT to be nice and say things like “what’s wrong?� instead of “Why are you behaving like total BITCH?!� We see something wrong, identify it and WANT to fix it. We WANT things to WORK. The NICE and EASY way. It’s the way we are made. But gents, if you do this with a woman, it will NOT WORK. You will be AMAZED at how GOOD it can be for YOU to say something to the effect of ….
“I don’t accept second class behavior from anyone and I am not enjoying myself. Unless I am enjoying being around you, I will not want to be. If you want me to be with you, respect you, enjoy you, and be entirely committed to you, you will have to give me good reason to be. Or you may leave. It’s entirely up to you.â€?
This desire (on the part of men) to fix things is very much the case, and sometimes it exists to our detriment. Sometimes, we are reluctant to see that the problem is the woman in question and her atrocious behavior.
Here’s a story of a truly disastrous blind date — it’s worse than any tale I have, but not infinitely so. Remember, this is a first date; two people of ordinary middle-class means getting to know one another. Sadly, it’s not so far out of any man’s experience, just an extreme example of more of the same.
My date for the evening opened her purse and pulled out a sheet of paper, unfolding it purposefully. On it, were questions (a cross examination) she wanted to pose to me, so as not waste time of there was not a ‘meeting of the minds’ and a shared idea of ‘priorities.’
My interrogator wanted to know how much I would allot her to spend on clothes. She wanted to know how often we might vacation, and where. What type of travel and accommodation arrangements would I make? Would I bestow a gift of jewelery once a month? What would be her allowance? How large a home she wanted and a decorating budget were mentioned, with the express proviso that the budget was not written in stone. She also believed that fine dining 3 to 4 times a week was not unreasonable. I just listened. At no time was there any reference to what was in it for me.
My evening’s companion then perused the menu and ordered the most expensive item, as the waiter gently hovered over us. I ordered a plate the establishment was well known for, a salmon dish. It then asked if she could order the wine. Being a gentleman, I agreed. She then ordered a $225.00 bottle of wine.
His response? He complimented her on her choice of wine, excused himself from the table, got up, and unobtrusively left the restaurant.
A staggeringly rude, ungentlemanly, and discourteous thing to do. But one, I think, that was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.
You can read the rest of the story. Suffice to say, the friends who’d set him up with her were enraged at him… at first.
My experience in the United States and Canada has been that women are stunningly willing to sleep around and dole out sex like it’s going out of style. Many will rent their bodies for little more than the price of a burger. Then there’s another group. The Privilege Princesses, such as the woman described above.
This seemingly leaves a huge number of women falling into one of two camps: they either view themselves as worthless, or so staggeringly beyond price that no man could possibly be worthy of them, however deep his bankroll. A cynic would say, of course, that these latter are simply much more expensive whores with a very high degree of self-esteem.
In both cases, they appear to hate and envy men and to be profoundly bitter.
Of course there are women that do not completely fall into these categories. (or even at all!) Thank goodness. But even most of the best women seem to have more than a hint of either the whore or princess about them. The phrase ‘high maintenance woman’ springs to mind.
It should go without saying, but I’ll say it before any female abschickeners beat me to it: Of course there’s a whole set of negative behaviors from men, some of which I touched on above in the coarsening of our culture. To a certain degree, the cheap whore motif exists because it’s what some men want, and what a great many women think all men want. The expensive whore motif seems to exist because it’s what a great many women seem to want. And if you read the blind date story I linked to, you’ll see the (male) author links to a female blogger’s blind date story that, if anything, is even weirder (though perhaps slightly less horrific).
Speak away, one and all. Bad blind dates? Is my judgment fair? Or is a recent break-up with a lovable, but horribly high-maintenance woman impacting my own judgment?
-wolfe
September 28th, 2006 at 16:19
That story is too much for words. I’ve heard similar accounts. I hope they’re all real.
-Dick
September 28th, 2006 at 16:58
I picked up a fashion magazine recently which lay among MANY and noticed - for the first time ever - the “message� was right on the cover. Not in the title, or the words….. but in their faces. These women with NO SMILE splattered across the ENTIRE RACK of magazines on every single topic (including cars!) all in unnatural, somewhat overly-confident, “sexy� poses looking down their noses at the camera as if to say . . . .
“You don’t know me. But I already know . . . . If you are a woman, you want to BE me. If you are a man, I know you want to be WITH me . . . . AND I DISRESPECT YOU FOR IT.�
This is being bombarded into every man’s mind constantly. In every single facet of AMERICAN society from Television, the internet, music, literature, film…. everything.
I think Chris’s quote above is really interesting. His eyes are open to possible non-conscious processing, and I would say he is right (somewhat). He is right in the sense that clothes are fashion, and women aspire to own the clothes, they therefore may associate the attitude that goes with the clothes (per the model’s pose) to be necessary to adopt when wearing the clothes…possible to some degree. More likely in the young and immature, but then who knows what may occur after many years of absorbing such images.
The trick may be to find a woman who doesn’t read fashion magazines etc.
wolfe: What that guy did is hilarious and appropriate. What I find hard to understand is why did his friend’s wife think that he and her second cousin would be a good match in the first place? He also sounds polite to have allowed her to even get through the list after item number 1. This post seems to further support the notion that Americans are crazy.
September 28th, 2006 at 17:16
@Dick I have a few similar accounts myself, though not as bad. The questionnaire is certainly something I’m used to.
Indeed, for some years, I deliberately kept a third hand Honda that I would pick my dates up in, precisely so they wouldn’t have a clue what I was worth. (My main vehicle is a Mercedes. As Biff or Al said, I can’t sing the Blues anymore). Now the Benz is nearly 10 years old, so it’s no longer ‘flash’). I don’t need the Honda.
@Female Yes, Americans are crazy, though perhaps not quite as crazy as Australians! I’m not sure that finding a woman who doesn’t read fashion magazines (if such a thing is even possible) is much of a solution.
Because she was blind to her cousin’s ‘Princess’ attitudes. Only by having her nose (and her husband’s) rubbed in it did she acknowledge them.
Women are both viciously critical of one another, and simultaneously astonishingly forgiving. Men? Much more even keel, IMO.
And what the guy did is not hilarious. It’s very sad. I would never want to do that to a woman, and setting that up as an example, however appropriate is simply a sad statement of utter failure on all parts and all counts.
-wolfe
September 28th, 2006 at 17:38
the questionnaire is certainly something I’m used to.
You must be joking, how awful, that sounds like something out of Seinfeld.
If it wasn’t for American, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it.
September 28th, 2006 at 17:54
Seinfeld is funny because a lot of it is very real.
No, I’m not joking. Zogmama and Teri are probably a bit chronologically advantaged to be peers with the women doing this, but they exist, I assure you. I suspect even Z and T will reluctantly say that yes, they’ve known women like this (with a questionnaire).
Americans are awesome and awesomely screwed up. Can’t have one without the other, it seems.
-wolfe
September 28th, 2006 at 18:34
How very American to say “chronologically advantaged.” I’m speechless.
~Z~
September 28th, 2006 at 20:25
LOL, maybe that’s what is called “reverse bluntness”. I had to reread it three times to understand what wolfe mean’t. It is still ridiculous. These people are treating partnership purely as a business transaction and nothing else..and they expect rapport to be able to develop in that context. Dumb and dumber.
Why did the Abs-chicken cross the road?
September 28th, 2006 at 21:23
Why did the Abs-chicken cross the road?
He Abs-olutely couldn’t bear the feminists on this side of the road.
~Z~
September 28th, 2006 at 21:33
and he abschickened out of dealing with them.
September 29th, 2006 at 05:53
Australian women are just as nasty if not nastier than American women.
Female, you are one of those girls who is probably fat but thinks shes hot and knows that decent men are going to resort to a fat bitch becauseall the good looking ones are just too much maintanenceand evil. If male domination came back,the kind of woman you are, would absolutely be begging to us men.The hotter ones would have no choice, but to be nice because the laws wouldnt be so bias towards them.Female, go away.[edited by wolfe to indicate the kind of language that does violate blog rules]Aaron
from Melbourne, Australia
[Aaron - welcome to the blog. Hope you’ll find enjoyable things to post on here. Please check out the about section; the rules for posting are a bit different from on mabtw. Short form: Please consider yourself a guest in my living room and try and be polite to individuals, stay away from personal insults. (”That is a dumb idea” is fine; “You are dumb” is not).
I think you’ve got a good point about better looking women tending to be astonishingly high maintenance, and you’re definitely right about the bias of the legal system. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next generation or so. -wolfe]
September 29th, 2006 at 07:13
If it wasn’t for American, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it.
Comment by Female — Thu, 28 September 2006 @ 17:38
Fem would never say “If it wasn’t for Arabs, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it”, because she would think it racist.
Fem would never say “If it wasn’t for Germans, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it”, because she would think it racist.
Fem would never say “If it wasn’t for Bosnians, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it”, because she would think it racist.
Fem would never say “If it wasn’t for Somalians, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it”, because she would think it racist.
Fem would never say “If it wasn’t for Rwandans, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it”, because she would think it racist.
Fem would never say “If it wasn’t for Iranians, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it”, because she would think it racist.
A society which hangs a sixteen year old girl for talking back will not be criticized by Fem.
A society in which some (female) f—wit [try and use halfwit next time -w] spills hot coffee on herself and gets a burn has legal recourseis Fem’s idea of crazy.
Fem doesn’t think. She gets her opinions from the Sydney Morning Herald, Channel 2 and Channel 28.
They think similarly. They operate on the principle that one man’s terrorist suicide bomber is another man’s freedom fighter. This is enlightened.
The Iranians operate on the similar principle that one man’s sixteen year old girl who talks back is another man’s wanton slut who must be choked to death. This may not be enlightened, but they have the right to carry out their cultural traditions, and at least they hate Americans.
Because if it wasn’t for America, the world wouldn’t know what crazy was or how to define it.
-Big Al
September 29th, 2006 at 10:18
Al, I see that you have commenced your campaign [redacted — play nice please -wolfe]. If you scroll down a few post entries, you might even see a post with “Crazy” and “American” in the title. Gasp. Is that racist too?
I have also previously advised in the forums that I have no animosity towards Americans, [redacted]. You are wrong on the paper I read and I do not watch television, [redacted].
[redacted], this is not my blog and obviously not my place to do that.
Female, Al was up a little beyond the limits in this blog, but he’s new to the blog and therefore deserves extra consideration from someone like you who’s been posting a while. I am serious about maintaining a very different tone from mabtw, and part of that is not responding in a rude fashion. -w
September 29th, 2006 at 12:49
@Al, I didn’t redact your post since it was one of those things on the line. I felt you did stay away from attacking Female (unless watching C2, C28 and reading the Herald is an attack), but instead hit at her idea. That said, I’ve no issue with what she said.
First, I think it’s true; second, I think it’s somewhat funny; third, and most importantly, I have used the term myself repeatedly on this blog semi-jokingly against a variety of targets.
Now the Iranian theocracy? They’re moonbat crazy and evil. All the time. Other than just as an occasional demonstration of ‘crazy’ like the US.
I think the $3m award to the female idiot who spilled coffee on herself probably actually was a good example of ‘crazy’.
America is a society of excess — sometimes glorious excess, and sometimes really stupid excess. The most Nobel prizes, the best Universities, the worst schools, a gigantic Navy as large as the next 10 or 12 combined, awesome special effects, incredibly stupid asinine movies, some of the most magnificent healthy fusion cuisine in the world, and really fat people.
And needless to say, American women are part of that. Often in an excessively bad way. Really bad.
Let’s focus on the meat of the topic rather than on one another. More light, less heat.
-wolfe
September 29th, 2006 at 22:19
wolfe, Al did not merely attack my idea, what he did was 1. infer I have ideas that I do not and state them as if they are fact = slander, 2. call me racist for having ideas, which he actually has and 3. State, “Fem doesn’t think.”
He totally criticised me as a rather stupid and unelightened person for having certain ideas, which I do not even have. I’d call that leaning towards, if not completely, character assassination. And this is not the first time he has done so, so for you to give him such a light pass in this case is not appreciated by me. He’s been around long enough to read “About this blog” (in fact, I think you even directed him to do this) and he knows what is appropriate and what isn’t. He chose to go with inappropriate. If that is the way this blog is going to be, well…
September 30th, 2006 at 00:08
Back from a date that will make wolfe-history… Must blog it sometime. Another time though.
Female he was at or crossed the line. I said so. No, he didn’t call you “racist for having ideas”. Good grief woman, note my defense of your “idea”.
I don’t think he did; I don’t remotely think you are stupid, or I’d not welcome your postings.
No, he hasn’t been around enough to ‘read this blog’ and ‘about’.
Female, try and grasp this, please. Al values YOU enough to respond to you, and respect your views. He’s one of a diminishing number of people on mabtw that do so. Yes, I think some aspects of his response are wrong, but he’s not being an ass.
And, bluntly, I think you are unenlightened. I think you’re a smart woman that needs to learn more about the world. Sue me for saying so, but that is “unenlightened”.
I don’t want this kind of nonsense. I really don’t.
There’s a lot of value both you and Big Al have to say. Can’t you (at this time it’s you, if Al posts slagging you, which I think he won’t) get past personal arguments?
Wolfe contemplating Friday’s date.
-wolfe
September 30th, 2006 at 00:11
Now I’ve had a glass of scotch. Female. One of the accusations people like Dick make against you is that you are an ‘attention whore’. You’ve managed to successfully deploy the topic of conversation of lunatic American women with questionnaires to you.
That’s an unfair accusation, but why work to support it?
Sheesh. You make me want to bang my head against the wall, like my last date. I think I’m off for more scotch.
-wolfe
September 30th, 2006 at 00:14
*sigh*
~z~
September 30th, 2006 at 00:37
All I did was defend myself. Aaron and Al were the ones who jumped on and deployed the topic. I then get my defense of myself censored. As I feel like Ive been gagged. I almost feel as if I am being told to behave like a 1940s woman (ie, smile sweetly, accept all insults, say nothing in response to defend myself, men ar always right, blah, blah, blah). Sorry, but I wont play that game.
September 30th, 2006 at 01:10
I wonder if MABTW has got everyone so hypersensitized to each other that male and female posters can’t help but push each other’s buttons.
The thread was moving in an interesting direction, I thought, before it derailed. It’s tricky business to maintain civility while examining provocative subject matter. Don’t be offended, Female, if I say that there was some good stuff in Al’s post; there was a poetic symmetry to the way he put his thoughts out there.
I felt it was unnecessary to add (female) before f**kwit (which I also don’t care for) in the reference to spilling coffe at McDonalds. I could brush it off, since I’ve rarely (perhaps never?) seen a woman highlighted in the Darwin Awards. Women do stupid things. Men do stoopid things more loudly and with greater bang for the buck. Americans routinely exhibit crazy / stupid / outrageous behavior. Criticize, cringe, quibble, or bitch … a lot of people emulate us.
Well, I don’t know if I had a point, so I won’t know when I’m finished.
Abschicken.
~Z~
September 30th, 2006 at 01:37
Z, I feel it was unnecessary of Al to add, Fem thinks, Fem thinks, Fem thinks etc.
He has no clue what I think and is extremely arrogant to suppose that he does.
September 30th, 2006 at 01:54
Now, you can accuse me of derailing the topic.
Not only is Al arrogant, but he’s also clearly a hypocrite, ie, Big Al Says:
November 7th, 2005 at 3:30 am- IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
“Female said: I thought I’d save you the bother, that’s cleary what you will all choose to believe anyway. Fools.”
Have you noticed, Dick, how many women do that? I mean how they decide without research or enquiry what someone will choose to believe without giving them the chance to choose to believe? And then use their amazing mind-reading to back some stupid or fatuous point. I, for one, would never have believed that Female sucked a lot of cock to get where she is (wherever that is). I’m sure that even those men on this site who may have believed it would have been more courteous than to say it. Yet Female has decided what I believe and then called me a fool for believing it. If only she could use her powers for good instead of evil.
September 30th, 2006 at 02:18
Al doesn’t value my ideas in the slightest. For almost a year he has done nothing but indirectly and directly critcise me. His preferred modus operandi is to take the piss out of me. If that is what you call respect…I don’t understand at all.
And you think I do?
I have ignored Al’s posts to me a lot more than I have responded to them, that obviously doesn’t work. So what else can I do, but call him on his posts to or about me?
btw, when you censored Aaron’s posts, you did so with a strike, but when you censored mine, you deleted what I had typed - that is why I feel like I have been gagged. One rule for men and another for women.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:42
@Female Listen to yourself. This is silly. No, you will recall I redacted Billy’s. One rule for new posters who are merely discourteous to another, and actually had a point, like Aaron; another for new posters who totally cross the line (Billy) and for old posters who violate the rules (Female).
As I said above,
If Aaron’s post had been simply redacted he might well not remember exactly what he wrote. There’d be no indication of language that “violated blog rules”. As his first introduction to my “livingroom ruleset” that would be rather unfair given that it was less contentious that some other material. (Especially since he was trying to articulate a specific general idea, albeit a contentious one).
Aaron was on-topic, but personally highly critical of you, and unfairly so by any measure. Al was tilting off-topic, but responding to something he genuinely thought was offensive on your part. Stripped of context it probably was; however, the fact that two of the Americans posting here have indicated it wasn’t (Zog and I) is indicative.
You then “defended yourself” guaranteeing derailment.
First off, that’s not a 40’s woman. Not even an idealized (by a male) version of one. Those women were incredibly tough and resourceful, and disturbingly (for a conservative society) sexually liberated. If you think Rosie the Riveter was a sweetly smiling dame, you need to go back to the books.
Second, you, Aaron, Al, Billy — anyone who comes in — needs to leave some of the mabtw attitude behind. Zog said it well in post 19, above.
@Female, listen to yourself. You’re quoting Al from nearly a year ago, on another site, another topic. Would it be appropriate for him (or anyone) to quote you on culling, here? No.
I have no interest in people bringing over disputes and non-rational arguments from mabtw to here
If that proves impossible to stop, I will simply go blog elsewhere (without telling those who are disputatious) or, more likely, not at all.
-wolfe
October 1st, 2006 at 22:07
The first time I defended myself, I was entitled to. Remember, I was the one who was abused first, not the one who started it.
[No, that’s not the way this site works. There is no “he was mean to me so I hit him back” defense. If you stop and think about it, you’ll see why.]Â
The derailing of the topic was initially caused by Aaron and Al and secondly by you, via deciding I shouldn’t have defended myself and accusing me of derailing the topic while all the while telling me I make you bang your head against the wall.
[All three of you contributed to derailing it, but they actually had general points pertinent to the topic. Your point seems to be that you are offended.]
I don’t care, my point still stands that I am being expected to sit down and shut up.
[When it comes to repetitively publicly complaining about how you are affronted, yes. Complain away via email all you wish, but this thread is for discussion of ideas, not insults]Â
Just as Al is assuming what I think and then posting on it, presumably based on things I posted in the forums about the Iraq war, which was when? About 6 months ago? Probably. So again, it seems it is perfectly acceptable when someone does this to me, but not okay when I do it , even if I do in defense of myself. Don’t worry about going somewhere else to blog. Clearly, I am the one that should just remove myself.
[Al posted in direct response to what you posted here. The Middle-Eastern references were directly related to his perception of anti-Americanism on your part, not some dredged up 6-12 month old post on another site. You’re welcome to post here whenever you wish to post on ideas. -wolfe]
October 2nd, 2006 at 00:29
@wolfe: I re-read your article, because to great extent I’d forgotten the original content. I believe that you are one of the few who understood what I meant when I posted my comment regarding instilling courtly behavior in my sons. It was inferred that I meant being deferential to women, but that’s both too broad and too specific.
It is too broad because I don’t believe in being a doormat - I have been, but I ascribe that to my personality and my experience moreso than to society or culture, though those are influences which would be foolhardy to ignore.
It is too specific, because courtly behavior should be extended to all who earn it, regardless of gender. And in the absence of proof that they’ve earned it, I believe in a presumption of innocence theory. Please don’t misconstrue my attitude as being overtly New Testament - the golden rule goes only so far.
Ah, blind dates. I’ve been on one or two, after which I was sorely tempted to call my friend and say, “WTF? Have we met?” I think that all in all, dating is for the young and gullible.
So. Back to original topic. Who would like wolfe to tell us the story of his date? Show of hands, then.
~Z~
October 2nd, 2006 at 08:39
Well, what an interesting article, wolfe! I’ve perused the comments, briefly. I think I need a glass of that scotch.
I agree that there are far too many women (and I can only speak from the crazy American front) who mistreat and take advantage of men. I do not think they do this on any reasonable level of “turning the tables.” It has been my experience that men whom I encounter, both casually and on a more personal level (and in a very wide age range), have been entirely respectful. And I treat them likewise. But I am not chronologically advanced (cute phrasing) to have the honor of not seeing the princesses, or at least hearing about them. I choose not to spend my time with women who fall into that ridiculous category. It is somewhat expected from very young girls, but as I may have previously mentioned, I have been in a position to have some amount of influence over young girls over the years and I certainly counsel them against the belief that they are the center of the universe. And I teach respect first for all people. If they lose it, then the consequences should not be a surprise to them. Leaving after she orders the expensive bottle of wine, I think, was entirely appropriate.
I’m afraid that men now have chosen a new path. Not to take women out. Honestly, I have had men (many of them) actually approach me on a yahoo messenger level and say, “Hello, I’m Joe. I’m looking for a long term relationship. I’d like to meet you, but I’ve sworn off taking women out, as it’s a waste of my time and money, since there is no promise of sex at the end of the evening.” (I am not making this up. I even saved one conversation because it was so classically representative of this approach.) So I say, “Then how do you intend to get to know this woman of a potential long term relationship?” The man whose conversation I saved said, “Getting to know someone is something women are interested in, not men.” (I’ll refrain from my usual interjection here, as it would break the living room rules.)
Unfortunately, I can see how men feel their hands are tied. Too, too many women have taken advantage of them on the dating scene. And in this internet world, I think the horrific idea of the woman with the questionnaire, is all too common, as well. It’s the whole “ASL” thing brought to a real table. I can’t think of anything more atrocious. What a great strategy. Hurry and tell me what I need to know about you so I can decide if I’m wasting my time with you!
I’ve heard many people say that they don’t want to get divorced, no matter how bad the marital situation, because they can’t stand the idea of dating again! Since I’ve been divorced, dating has been nothing but a great experience. If you date for fun, it will be fun. What can be terrible about just going out for an evening and spending time with someone who is pleasant and possibly who you enjoy spending time with? Even if it’s for just that one night.
The friends who fixed up the guy in the article with the blind (literally) date, though, ought to be shot.
(If I’d had the scotch, no doubt this would have been a much more interesting and creative comment. Sorry about that.)
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:15
I forgot to add that I think it’s just as hard to find a good woman as it is to find a good man. If it were easy, why would we appreciate them when we found them?
October 2nd, 2006 at 19:37
@Teri: I can’t count the number of times I said that the best thing about marriage was never having to date again. Cosmic payback is a bitch.
~Z~
October 2nd, 2006 at 21:07
@Teri, Zog, some good comments. I won’t address everything you’ve said as this thread has drained some energy from me, but I’ll try and hit the highlights that leap out at me.
@Zog Yes, Zog, I did understand (and semi-agree) with what you meant by ‘courtly’. As for the tale of my date, that’ll have to wait until I’ve recovered some more. But some good tales shall probably be one day told.
@Teri As for scotch, I highly recommend ‘the little lady of the isles’, Te Bheag. (pronounced Chey Vek, meaning literally ‘a wee dram’. An outstanding blended scotch that beats a number of single malts).
Thanks for refraining. Yeah, I’m of very mixed feelings about that kind of attitude. That said, building a relationship with someone who will sleep with you at the end of a single evening isn’t really what anyone sensible is looking for, nor is good sexual compatibility the overwhelmingly important single criterion. (Not saying it’s not important mind you).
I doubt most divorced men would agree, but I could be wrong.
Regards,
-wolfe.
October 2nd, 2006 at 23:12
Well if you are still standing in front of the wall banging your head against it, that’ll tend to happen.
Learn to read and conjugate The quote you are referring to was “you make me want to bang my head against the wall”. On the plus side, it has given me the idea for my next blog post. -w
October 3rd, 2006 at 17:06
wolfe ~
I doubt that most divorced women would agree, either.
October 3rd, 2006 at 17:14
@teri: You must be the exception that strengthens the rule. And exceptional, to boot.
~Z~
February 2nd, 2008 at 03:27
Soma muscle relaxant….
Tempra soma. Soma without rx. Soma. Soma in urine….
July 11th, 2008 at 22:50
“I wonder if MABTW has got everyone so hypersensitized to each other that male and female posters can’t help but push each other’s buttons.”…
Um, no I just skip the ones that I’m not interested in….
“These people are treating partnership purely as a business transaction and nothing else..and they expect rapport to be able to develop in that context.”
Rapport does develop in many business transactions. It’s one of the driving forces of business actually.
However marriage is a business transaction. Actually I have no issue with the blind date in question asking those questions. Really isn’t she being honest? Would she have liked similar questions from the man? How often are you going to wear lingerie, how often are we going to have sex, how often will you exercise, when we are fine dining three or four times a week how often will you dress up nicely? And so on?
If she were able to handle such questions in kind, and agree to an exchange, his needs for her needs, and then more importantly live up to them mutually (both of them) I see no fault. Still I think I hope for too much don’t I?
Kind Regards,
Joseph James Frantz