All the single ladies ... and men

[Aurora_Inum]

Lol, this has become QUITE the thread lol.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No, I just know silliness when I see it. Your ideal woman is based off of the Japanese ideal as presented in their cartoons.

It’s also based off a few saints and a historical archetype of women. So I’m guessing that desiring a cuter version of Gemma Galgani is too much of an ideal. Quite the Catholic opinion you got there dood.

I find that, at the very least, to be an unrealistic expectation from anyone who’s, you know, not animated. Combine this with the statements you’ve made in this thread, such as women being “lucky” to submit to you, and you quite frankly paint an exceedingly creepy picture about the whole thing.

Says the guy who has a masochistic attraction to girls who give him trouble. You think I’m creepy? I think you’re pitiful.

Honestly, you are the kind of dude I do everything to avoid becoming. Answering to troublesome women is something I do on such a regular basis. Pardon me if the attraction is nonexistent. Girls like that might be your kind of thing (as with plenty of other typical guys I know) but kindly stop assuming the same goes for everyone. Kindly stop assuming you’re on the moral high road for your preferences as well.

It’s possible that, up to this point, you’ve just chosen some really, really poor words to get your position across; if that’s the case, I’d love to know that my assumption, based off what you’ve said and provided, is wrong.

You’ve been proven to post on impulse and ignore others. That says a lot about how quickly you can grasp the point that others have already gotten.

Nope. Many others here agree with my view so far. If it looks like a duck…

Judging from these posts, your duck is a dragon.

I think Lost Wanderers list leaves a lot of things unspoken, that is they are assumed, and is going into finer detail. I was thinking, “what? Really?” until I got to

and then I got it. He’s also the only one who had mentioned what qualities he’s bringing to the table. The lists are complimentary.

I also don’t know anyone like that. She sounds darling though.

And if you’re wondering I am a feminist female who should have issues with his list but don’t because he has a right to be happy with the one he spends the rest of his life with as long as he respects her as human and never cause any harm to her.

SO STOPPING BEING SO JUDGMENTAL!!!

Thank you……
(Steps down from soapbox)

Now obviously there are some who see submission as an insane, nonsensical thing that females should avoid like the plague, but you can’t expect someone to just fall at your feet or ‘‘stay content’’ just because you want them to, with little to no work on your part. I’m not bashing your opinion, but perhaps you might consider what your future wife might want as well.

So Loch, done antagonizing me now?

 

[Lochias]

It’s also based off a few saints and a historical archetype of women. So I’m guessing that desiring a cuter version of Gemma Galgani is too much of an ideal. Quite the Catholic opinion you got there dood.

I think you have a very convoluted outlook on who St. Gemma was.

Says the guy who has a masochistic attraction to girls who give him trouble. You think I’m creepy? I think you’re pitiful.

At this point, I don’t care much what you think, given the opinions you’ve expressed here.

Honestly, you are the kind of dude I do everything to avoid becoming. Answering to troublesome women is something I do on such a regular basis.

All the examples you gave of “troublesome women” are simply authority figures in your life. How telling.

Pardon me if the attraction is nonexistent.

What does romantic attraction have to do with the people in authority over you?

Girls like that might be your kind of thing (as with plenty of other typical guys I know) but kindly stop assuming the same goes for everyone. Kindly stop assuming you’re on the moral high road for your preferences as well.

Sorry you feel the need to constantly read things I don’t say into the things I do say. Even if my past relationships haven’t worked out, they’ve all had beneficial and rich friendships that resulted, with good life lessons learned. Am I to assume from what you say that a girl that gives you some sort of “trouble” is to be avoided at all costs? Good luck with any kind of married life in the future, with that kind of sentiment.

You’ve been proven to post on impulse and ignore others. That says a lot about how quickly you can grasp the point that others have already gotten.

Proven by whom?

Judging from these posts, your duck is a dragon.

Oh, dear. Two posts against many more in agreement with me. Your copy n’ paste a little selective there, sir?

So Loch, done antagonizing me now?

Just responding to your own posts on the matter. If you feel antagonized, maybe you should analyze why, instead of trying to fire off rounds with no real ammunition in your gun.

 

[celtic_catholic_1]

I think you have a very convoluted outlook on who St. Gemma was.

At this point, I don’t care much what you think, given the opinions you’ve expressed here.

All the examples you gave of “troublesome women” are simply authority figures in your life. How telling.

What does romantic attraction have to do with the people in authority over you?

Sorry you feel the need to constantly read things I don’t say into the things I do say. Even if my past relationships haven’t worked out, they’ve all had beneficial and rich friendships that resulted, with good life lessons learned. Am I to assume from what you say that a girl that gives you some sort of “trouble” is to be avoided at all costs? Good luck with any kind of married life in the future, with that kind of sentiment.

Proven by whom?

Oh, dear. Two posts against many more in agreement with me. Your copy n’ paste a little selective there, sir?

Just responding to your own posts on the matter. If you feel antagonized, maybe you should analyze why, instead of trying to fire off rounds with no real ammunition in your gun.

This is entertainingopcorn: Although, I don’t see how quoting one of my posts helps Lost Wanderer at all.

 

[celtic_catholic_1]

This is entertaining. Although I don;t see how quoting one of my posts helps Lost Wanderer at all.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think you have a very convoluted outlook on who St. Gemma was.

Right. Reclusive and conservative is waaaaay far from what I have in mind.

It’s more like you have a convoluted outlook on what I’m looking for.

At this point, I don’t care much what you think, given the opinions you’ve expressed here.

Really? Your baiting proves otherwise.

All the examples you gave of “troublesome women” are simply authority figures in your life. How telling.

Yes, indeed. Damn me for not wanting to make a slave of myself to the other gender… like you I’m sure.

What does romantic attraction have to do with the people in authority over you?

You’re the type who falls for the troublesome sort. Obviously I know from your personal vendetta against me that you’re the kind who thinks everyone should make slaves of themselves for other people.

Sorry you feel the need to constantly read things I don’t say into the things I do say.

Pot calling kettle black.

Even if my past relationships haven’t worked out, they’ve all had beneficial and rich friendships that resulted, with good life lessons learned.

Yeah well I have beneficial friendships with a lot of women to and NO breakups required. Fancy that.

Am I to assume from what you say that a girl that gives you some sort of “trouble” is to be avoided at all costs? Good luck with any kind of married life in the future, with that kind of sentiment.

Sorry bucko but here is what is wrong with your perspective. If you truly loved someone, you would not deem loving them as trouble. Might explain your lack of success.

Oh, dear. Two posts against many more in agreement with me. Your copy n’ paste a little selective there, sir?

Better than your selective reading.

Just responding to your own posts on the matter. If you feel antagonized, maybe you should analyze why, instead of trying to fire off rounds with no real ammunition in your gun.

Right and portions like the one I’ve just bolded are a necessary substance to your remarks… oh wait, I forgot. They don’t have any. I guess that’s why you just like projecting yourself as the one without any real bullets.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is entertaining. Although I don;t see how quoting one of my posts helps Lost Wanderer at all.

You’re one of those who actually got it. The way you described how obedience is misconstrued by modern eyes as a red flag is one of the reasons why I posted my green ones.

 

[Crescentinus]

You’re one of those who actually got it. The way you described how obedience is misconstrued by modern eyes as a red flag is one of the reasons why I posted my green ones.

And yet, I don’t get why you have “naive” and “gullible” in your green flags.

 

[Lochias]

And yet, I don’t get why you have “naive” and “gullible” in your green flags.

I rest my case.

 

[Crescentinus]

I rest my case.

I really don’t get the motivation behind it seeing as I was trying not to jump the shark. He should have stayed with “obedient” and then tried to explain it.
Some of my green and red flags were explained by me partly because those can be rather controversial and can be construed as report material.

 

[Lochias]

I really don’t get the motivation behind it seeing as I was trying not to jump the shark. He should have stayed with “obedient” and then tried to explain it.
Some of my green and red flags were explained by me partly because those can be rather controversial and can be construed as report material.

I hear you. I certainly didn’t see anything on anyone’s list as report-worthy, but there were a few things that LostWanderer posted that, within the context of the thread, struck me and others as highly strange. His clarifications on the issue have decidedly **not **helped his argument very much.

Edit: “Obedient” wasn’t an issue with me, either. Wives and husbands are to be obedient to each other in various ways, as our Faith instructs us. “Naive” and “gullible”, however, stretch the limits of reason too far.

 

[Crescentinus]

I hear you. I certainly didn’t see anything on anyone’s list as report-worthy, but there were a few things that LostWanderer posted that, within the context of the thread, struck me and others as highly strange. His clarifications on the issue have decidedly **not **helped his argument very much.

Edit: “Obedient” wasn’t an issue with me, either. Wives and husbands are to be obedient to each other in various ways, as our Faith instructs us. “Naive” and “gullible”, however, stretch the limits of reason too far.

Mine tends to have things which can be construed as report-worthy especially by those who may get offended by what my list have. For instance, green flag #19.

The reason why I didn’t put “Obedient” was because it’s already a given. I never expected that it would cause problems in this thread.

 

[chevalier]

In defence of the two guys, while I do get creeps upon the sight of “obedient” too, I guess I’d like to say that, as much as I do appreciate strong personalities and strong-headed women (having been brought up by three of them may have something to do with it), there is one thing not so much about women as people in general. And that thing is:

– knowing when to follow.

We cannot all be leaders. And sometimes it takes a leader to inspire others to listen to another leader. A leader is also not somebody that simply leads but also one that gets things done (sometimes without a single follower to help).

A leader also knows how difficult a task it is to lead and how little sometimes it has to do with getting your own way. From this point of view, people who simply want to stamp their influence, not so much push a specific point through as just get their will done (i.e. for the sake of their will more than that of the substantive proposal), can sometimes be the supreme annoyance. (This is also annoying in people who actually are in charge of the operation but will not listen to advice, which may result in uninformed decisions that they don’t want to delegate (or read up on).)

For this reason, I think a good leader knows when to shut up and do as others say. This seems to me to be an important aspect of maturing as a leader. I wouldn’t know for 100% sure because I’m more of a lonewolf and mostly do things just on my own.

Especially if you move into a going job, you don’t halt the entire operation trying to take over command, get reports from everybody and hand down your new instructions, you just ask where you’re needed or move on to do some other thing. (Unless the job’s in the process of being botched.) “With respect, captain, my job is being the engine technician and your job is, well, being the captain.” Or something along those lines. A WW2 film. Officer and enlisted drove into a landmine but stopped just in time before explosion, if I recall.

Subsidiarity is a very Catholic keyword, incidentally. That is, if the small people (e.g. private citizens in some form of grassroots initiative) are managing, the big people (e.g. the gov’t) stay away. And, this my addition, and use their precious time on other things of which there surely is a long queue (and if not, then they aren’t needed).

Obviously, if subsidiarity is the proper way of action for people who actually are in charge (because they were ordered to, or simply because they were first to start doing it), it should give even more to think to people who are not in charge but would perhaps like to be. (Which includes strong-headed women.)

This said, if you find yourself involved with a strong-willed woman, you don’t break her, you leave her enough freedom and give her enough share in the decision-making to be happy. Problem starts when that seems to be the majority share, of course. Then I guess you need to put your foot down (which you need to know, which means learn, how to do, you can’t really just tell her to “obey” you when you don’t give the appearance of a strong leader; or she will just laugh at you and that will be mighty painful).

 

[Bataar]

Waitasec, if you’re not attracted to someone… you will find her physically repulsive? Of course you can’t logically mean her physique here, so you must mean the physical sensation of being repulsed. Would I be correct in guessing that if you don’t feel the intellectual (or emotional, social, whatever) spark, then you feel as if some kind of physical barrier were in place there? Again, this is just guessword here. Probability hazy.

Like I said, it’s weird. When it comes to thinking of dating someone, my brain basically does two things. If I find her attractive, it will welcome the idea. If not, well, there’s no middle ground. Again, this applies to women I don’t know, basically complete strangers. I’ll either find them attractive or, to put it delicately, I’ll find them less so. If I don’t find them attractive, I feel no desire to get to know them at all. Also, I just want to reiterate that it doesn’t mean I’m only interested in supermodel type women. There have been plenty of women I’ve been attracted to that wouldn’t be up there.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I rest my case.

Again: Says the masochist.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

In defence of the two guys, while I do get creeps upon the sight of “obedient” too, I guess I’d like to say that, as much as I do appreciate strong personalities and strong-headed women (having been brought up by three of them may have something to do with it), there is one thing not so much about women as people in general. And that thing is:

– knowing when to follow.

This said, if you find yourself involved with a strong-willed woman, you don’t break her, you leave her enough freedom and give her enough share in the decision-making to be happy. Problem starts when that seems to be the majority share, of course. Then I guess you need to put your foot down (which you need to know, which means learn, how to do, you can’t really just tell her to “obey” you when you don’t give the appearance of a strong leader; or she will just laugh at you and that will be mighty painful).

You put these two together and you get the reason why I put naive and gullible as positives. Unlike the masochist here, I’ve already drawn a line in the number of relationships where I end up constantly having to defend my position and questioning that of others. You wanna be another woman who plays that game with me, get in line but I can no longer fall in love with you because I am just not attracted to the same-old, same-old.

Just for once, I’d like a girl who doesn’t have to resort to butting heads with me one way or another just so I could give what is due to her. Hence, faith and trust winds up tying with naive and gullible. I’ve seen many people say the same about a saint’s child-like (note: not childish) belief in God. Sue me if I’m wrong for wanting a girl who will have the same child-like belief in me as a man.

P.S.

His clarifications on the issue have decidedly **not **helped his argument very much.

Again: Says the non-substantial non-reader.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Again: Says the masochist.

His clarifications on the issue have decidedly **not **helped his argument very much.

Again: Says the non-reader

 

[Lochias]

Again: Says the masochist.

Good golly…if you think I’m a masochist, what in the world do you think St. Gemma was?

 

[Lochias]

Again: Says the non-substantial non-reader.

I bet you could cram a few more labels on my person if you tried hard enough…there’s space above my left eyebrow.

What other labels ya got for people who don’t agree with your point of view?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Good golly…if you think I’m a masochist, what in the world do you think St. Gemma was?

Here’s a difference: You’re a dude. I’m not gay.

Thanks for proving the labels I put on.

What other labels ya got for people who don’t agree with your point of view?

Only those who have proven they deserve them… just as you did right now.