WTF???
One of those rare public entries.
Okay, not that the little AIM start up page doesn't piss me off regularly in its attempt to be chic, but I sorta want to stab it more than ever right now, with it's "Single Men to Stay Away From"
Mr. Workaholic
AIM says: There's no doubt about it; a successful man is very sexy. But many women forget the amount of work it takes to reach the top.
Still, too many broken dates because of late meetings. That signifies that this is a man married to his job, and he hasn't quite figured out how to manage the delicate work/love life balance just yet.
The thing is, if you push for more time, you'll just be pushing him away. Best not to take him too seriously.
Sa-Ra says: Right, I realise that a relationship needs critical get-to-know-you time. One should not enter into what they want to become a serious relationship with little to no knowledge of the person they're dating. But if you're to the point that you have a 'relationship' with this person, chances are you found time to get to know him a bit beforehand. And you probably are aware, in that time of meeting and speaking to him, that he has a very strict schedule. This is NOT the end of the world. If it happens all of the sudden, out of nowhere, then that's one thing, but really, there's something to be said about being independant enough to not need him taking you out constantly. If this is a busy worker, expect late meetings and sudden plans to come up. As a child of a single mother who worked constantly, I can attest to the fact that, yes, it sucks to want somebody's attention and not receive it because they're working. But really, sometimes you can be the one to bend, and make some sacrifices too, not just the other person.
Mr. Womanizer
AIM says: There are some men who just can't get enough attention. Everywhere they go, they have to find a way to be the center of female focus -- not just yours. This is the mark of an insecure man, one who won't be satisfied with just one woman on his arm.
Initially, you may not mind competing with other women to become the apple of his eye. Some women even welcome the challenge. But it's a lonely game, and in the end, not worth the time or effort it takes to keep him focused squarely on you.
Sa-ra says: First of all, this isn't really a womanizer. A womanizer is more along the lines of a man that is certain all women fall into one nice and neat category as far as behaviours, thoughts and actions, and generally that place is inferior to that of his own behaviours, thoughts, and actions. This is a whore.
Second, I love how this entire thing is, essentially, telling women what they SHOULD want. Back to that 'women don't fall in the same nice neat classification' idea, I would HATE to be the center of somebody's attention. I would end up telling them to grow a spine and look at the other anthropoids walking among us, sometimes they can make good friends and companions too. I won't even argue about monogamy v. polygamy. The only issue I see with the latter is the spread of disease these days, most certainly not the 'devotion' issue, being that it's against the nature of humans to be completely monogamous. But it's such a long argument that people do not want to accept, so I won't go any further into it.
Except where I totally will.
While some people have a problem with an open relationship, we should examine WHY people have problems with it. Is it because it's human nature, or is it because society tells us to have a problem with it? Human nature dictates we mate. Mating is done with more than one partner. Thus, polygamy in both men and women is only natural, though men do it more frequently because of the simplicity of male reproduction as compared to the time and tetchy, fragile nature of female reproduction.
Again, very important is the topic of disease. If one DOES enter into a polygamous relationship, this most certainly should be discussed in full, with both partners getting check-ups and testing done regularly. But the polygamous, open relationship is not necessarily one to avoid. It's actually much more natural than a closed relationship.
Mr. Wannabe
AIM says: This is the guy who is always on the verge of making the move that's going to lead him to superstardom. He's just waiting for that big break, and he's always got an excuse for why the last didn't pan out.
If this guy always has a plan, a scam or a dream, you might want to limit the time you spend with him. Just lay low until you find out if any of his big dreams are actually going to turn into something tangible. He could still be a nice guy, but it may be hard to sift through the grandiose tales of "if" and "when" he reaches the top to find out.
Sa-Ra says: Yep, because dating somebody who is determined to do something amazing is terrible. You need a guy who will settle for something 'realistic' and make himself unhappy all of the time. THAT will lead to a healthy, fulfilling relationship.
Life isn't about settling. Life may only be lived once--people who believe this are often much more pleasant and wiser to be around than those who keep their nose to the grindstone and are too afraid to want something that others define as out-of-reach and unrealistic. Because guess what. There ARE people who live those 'unrealistic' lives. I wouldn't decide that the odds of your s/o doing that are slim if I were you. You may end up crushing a lot more than a potentially unique relationship--the hopes and dreams of the person you supposedly love is another thing.
Mr. User and Abuser
AIM says: Lots of men want women start taking them out on dates, or at least go Dutch. But there are a few men out there who want to take advantage of women who have stepped up to the equal-opportunity dating plate.
If you find yourself paying for everything, all the time, you're being used, girlfriend. It might be hard to tell, because a user is a charmer, and he makes you feel like spending all your money on him is really what you want to do. Show some self-control, and if he doesn't start pulling his weight, you know that it's time to pull the plug.
Sa-Ra says: While it's true that you shouldn't pay for EVERYTHING, you should probably REGULARLY offer to pay for SOMETHING. Courtship is not the same as it used to be--you can pull most of the weight instead of him. If you don't have the money, say just that--"I'd love to go out tonight, but I'm broke right now". You can either reschedule, ask him to spot you two this time, or . . . wait for it . . . do something that DOESN'T require money. Where the hell is the creativity of the collective species these days? Isn't said creativity one of the things that is theorised to separate us from other animals? According to my shiny new Phys. Anthropology book, it is, and I believe what anthropology has to say a lot sooner than I will what latest trend does. Why not work on something together? A story? A picture? A fucking JIGSAW PUZZLE? Anything, just don't believe that 'quality time together' involves going out and spending money on a nice dinner or drinks.
Mr. Know-It-All
AIM says: There's a huge difference between dating a man who is smart, and dating a man who thinks he knows it all. Especially if he's the kind of guy who likes to point out how little you know.
You don't need to spend your date nights trying to show the guy you're with that you actually have a few brain cells too. That's a little too much work.
Rather than get into a battle of wits with somebody you're trying to get to know better, it might be easier to let the know-it-all go
Sa-Ra says: Yes, I agree this would be unpleasant to deal with, the fact that I often find this thing very attractive non-withstanding (I love to argue, though). However, I find the idea of "Don't let this guy act like he knows better than you" from the makers of "Let us TELL you what you SHOULD want in a guy" very ironic indeed. If you're believing this stuff you're reading, perhaps you NEED Mr. Know-It-All to smack you back down to reality.
Mr. Narcissist
AIM says: Yes, metrosexuals are the new men in our lives. They are awful nice to look at, but there is a limit to how much the man you're dating should care about himself.
If you thought you couldn't compete with his mother or his job, just think about how hard it will be to jockey for position in front of the vanity mirror. Everything from date place choices to the conversation revolves around him, leaving little room for you -- unless of course you're reinforcing how wonderful he is. Dump him.
Sa-Ra says: The answer to this is simple: DON'T START A RELATIONSHIP WITH A MAN SOLELY FOR HIS LOOKS, YOU PETTY BITCH!
Mr. Broke
AIM says: No, money isn't everything. No, money can't buy you love. But at some point, the guy you're involved with needs to have his financial life straight before you can consider him true dating/boyfriend/marriage material.
It's easy to get sucked in to dating a guy like this, because a lack of funds tend to make men very creative. You'll have fun, but you know you can't live on love alone. Enjoy his company if you'd like, but just don't take him seriously. And, no matter what Kanye West says, it doesn't mean you're a gold digger.
Sa-Ra says: No, believe me, it REALLY DOES make you a gold digger. Or at least grossly dependant. How financially secure he is shouldn't even factor in, as while you're dating, you should be supporting yourself, theoretically. Unless you're looking for somebody to support themselves AND you, in which case, you're a stupid hypocrit for not wanting to date somebody who doesn't 'have his financial life straight'. I'd say the problem is not with HIM.
Mr. Sensitive
AIM says: Sure, every woman likes a man who has a sensitive side, but not one who always lets it show.
Sensitive men get their feelings hurt easily and often, so they're constantly upset about something you did or didn't do, said or didn't say.
Unless you want to spend your dates explaining how you didn't mean to (fill in the blank), you might want to leave this guy alone. Besides, who's going to hold you when you're upset if he's always the one crying?
Sa-Ra says: If he's constantly guilting you and getting upset about something you did or didn't do or say in order to make you see his way, that's controlling. It may or may not fall into the realms of abusive, depending on the severity. In that case, I agree with the assessment. But while men are naturally more prone to internalising their emotions and women more prone to showing theirs, know that ANYBODY internalising their emotions ALL OF THE TIME is unhealthy. Men are allowed to cry and get upset. This is why they have the ability to do so. If they weren't supposed to, nature would have made it impossible for them to do so. It's not a weakness, it's a human trait. How about you lend him the shoulder to cry on as well? Naturally, women are the comforters--the ones that will empathise quickly and understand emotions often readily. It's their for a reason. Trust nature. It knows what it's doing.
Mr Predictable
AIM says: Granted, every date can't be like a scene from a movie, but you do have to put in a little work to keep your dating relationship interesting. Staying in and renting a movie is lots of fun, but not if you're doing it every time you're together.
He's not a guy you should stop seeing right away, though. You could take the lead and be the adventurous one in the relationship, or take some time to teach him what a fun date should look like. But if you'd rather he take the lead all on his own, you might want to find someone else.
Sa-Ra says: Um . . . I'm going to probably venture to guess that going out all of the time or doing something 'different' is both costly and time-consuming. So why not get into a comfortable habit? A steady, everyday relationship might very well also be an incredibly strong one. You shouldn't date somebody because they excite you--attention spans of humans are far too short, and the next time somebody else you find 'exciting' comes along, you'll become confused and conflicted, feeling drawn to them and yet afraid to be unfaithful (unless we go back to that whole polygamy thing, which then kind of makes things easier), becoming unhappy in what could be a very good relationship. Building a relationship on companionship is not at all a bad idea. Having a steady, constant routine creates a feeling of security, safety and trust--things that are never bad to have in a relationship if you're determined to have a monogamous one.
The verdict? If you're going to set your standards according to this weird feminazi, passive-aggressive movement women are pushing, prepare for dissapointment. There are things you can't fight against that are human instincts, and doing so makes one very unhappy and leads to more problems in a relationship than if you were to be a bit more bending in your actions.
Okay, not that the little AIM start up page doesn't piss me off regularly in its attempt to be chic, but I sorta want to stab it more than ever right now, with it's "Single Men to Stay Away From"
Mr. Workaholic
AIM says: There's no doubt about it; a successful man is very sexy. But many women forget the amount of work it takes to reach the top.
Still, too many broken dates because of late meetings. That signifies that this is a man married to his job, and he hasn't quite figured out how to manage the delicate work/love life balance just yet.
The thing is, if you push for more time, you'll just be pushing him away. Best not to take him too seriously.
Sa-Ra says: Right, I realise that a relationship needs critical get-to-know-you time. One should not enter into what they want to become a serious relationship with little to no knowledge of the person they're dating. But if you're to the point that you have a 'relationship' with this person, chances are you found time to get to know him a bit beforehand. And you probably are aware, in that time of meeting and speaking to him, that he has a very strict schedule. This is NOT the end of the world. If it happens all of the sudden, out of nowhere, then that's one thing, but really, there's something to be said about being independant enough to not need him taking you out constantly. If this is a busy worker, expect late meetings and sudden plans to come up. As a child of a single mother who worked constantly, I can attest to the fact that, yes, it sucks to want somebody's attention and not receive it because they're working. But really, sometimes you can be the one to bend, and make some sacrifices too, not just the other person.
Mr. Womanizer
AIM says: There are some men who just can't get enough attention. Everywhere they go, they have to find a way to be the center of female focus -- not just yours. This is the mark of an insecure man, one who won't be satisfied with just one woman on his arm.
Initially, you may not mind competing with other women to become the apple of his eye. Some women even welcome the challenge. But it's a lonely game, and in the end, not worth the time or effort it takes to keep him focused squarely on you.
Sa-ra says: First of all, this isn't really a womanizer. A womanizer is more along the lines of a man that is certain all women fall into one nice and neat category as far as behaviours, thoughts and actions, and generally that place is inferior to that of his own behaviours, thoughts, and actions. This is a whore.
Second, I love how this entire thing is, essentially, telling women what they SHOULD want. Back to that 'women don't fall in the same nice neat classification' idea, I would HATE to be the center of somebody's attention. I would end up telling them to grow a spine and look at the other anthropoids walking among us, sometimes they can make good friends and companions too. I won't even argue about monogamy v. polygamy. The only issue I see with the latter is the spread of disease these days, most certainly not the 'devotion' issue, being that it's against the nature of humans to be completely monogamous. But it's such a long argument that people do not want to accept, so I won't go any further into it.
Except where I totally will.
While some people have a problem with an open relationship, we should examine WHY people have problems with it. Is it because it's human nature, or is it because society tells us to have a problem with it? Human nature dictates we mate. Mating is done with more than one partner. Thus, polygamy in both men and women is only natural, though men do it more frequently because of the simplicity of male reproduction as compared to the time and tetchy, fragile nature of female reproduction.
Again, very important is the topic of disease. If one DOES enter into a polygamous relationship, this most certainly should be discussed in full, with both partners getting check-ups and testing done regularly. But the polygamous, open relationship is not necessarily one to avoid. It's actually much more natural than a closed relationship.
Mr. Wannabe
AIM says: This is the guy who is always on the verge of making the move that's going to lead him to superstardom. He's just waiting for that big break, and he's always got an excuse for why the last didn't pan out.
If this guy always has a plan, a scam or a dream, you might want to limit the time you spend with him. Just lay low until you find out if any of his big dreams are actually going to turn into something tangible. He could still be a nice guy, but it may be hard to sift through the grandiose tales of "if" and "when" he reaches the top to find out.
Sa-Ra says: Yep, because dating somebody who is determined to do something amazing is terrible. You need a guy who will settle for something 'realistic' and make himself unhappy all of the time. THAT will lead to a healthy, fulfilling relationship.
Life isn't about settling. Life may only be lived once--people who believe this are often much more pleasant and wiser to be around than those who keep their nose to the grindstone and are too afraid to want something that others define as out-of-reach and unrealistic. Because guess what. There ARE people who live those 'unrealistic' lives. I wouldn't decide that the odds of your s/o doing that are slim if I were you. You may end up crushing a lot more than a potentially unique relationship--the hopes and dreams of the person you supposedly love is another thing.
Mr. User and Abuser
AIM says: Lots of men want women start taking them out on dates, or at least go Dutch. But there are a few men out there who want to take advantage of women who have stepped up to the equal-opportunity dating plate.
If you find yourself paying for everything, all the time, you're being used, girlfriend. It might be hard to tell, because a user is a charmer, and he makes you feel like spending all your money on him is really what you want to do. Show some self-control, and if he doesn't start pulling his weight, you know that it's time to pull the plug.
Sa-Ra says: While it's true that you shouldn't pay for EVERYTHING, you should probably REGULARLY offer to pay for SOMETHING. Courtship is not the same as it used to be--you can pull most of the weight instead of him. If you don't have the money, say just that--"I'd love to go out tonight, but I'm broke right now". You can either reschedule, ask him to spot you two this time, or . . . wait for it . . . do something that DOESN'T require money. Where the hell is the creativity of the collective species these days? Isn't said creativity one of the things that is theorised to separate us from other animals? According to my shiny new Phys. Anthropology book, it is, and I believe what anthropology has to say a lot sooner than I will what latest trend does. Why not work on something together? A story? A picture? A fucking JIGSAW PUZZLE? Anything, just don't believe that 'quality time together' involves going out and spending money on a nice dinner or drinks.
Mr. Know-It-All
AIM says: There's a huge difference between dating a man who is smart, and dating a man who thinks he knows it all. Especially if he's the kind of guy who likes to point out how little you know.
You don't need to spend your date nights trying to show the guy you're with that you actually have a few brain cells too. That's a little too much work.
Rather than get into a battle of wits with somebody you're trying to get to know better, it might be easier to let the know-it-all go
Sa-Ra says: Yes, I agree this would be unpleasant to deal with, the fact that I often find this thing very attractive non-withstanding (I love to argue, though). However, I find the idea of "Don't let this guy act like he knows better than you" from the makers of "Let us TELL you what you SHOULD want in a guy" very ironic indeed. If you're believing this stuff you're reading, perhaps you NEED Mr. Know-It-All to smack you back down to reality.
Mr. Narcissist
AIM says: Yes, metrosexuals are the new men in our lives. They are awful nice to look at, but there is a limit to how much the man you're dating should care about himself.
If you thought you couldn't compete with his mother or his job, just think about how hard it will be to jockey for position in front of the vanity mirror. Everything from date place choices to the conversation revolves around him, leaving little room for you -- unless of course you're reinforcing how wonderful he is. Dump him.
Sa-Ra says: The answer to this is simple: DON'T START A RELATIONSHIP WITH A MAN SOLELY FOR HIS LOOKS, YOU PETTY BITCH!
Mr. Broke
AIM says: No, money isn't everything. No, money can't buy you love. But at some point, the guy you're involved with needs to have his financial life straight before you can consider him true dating/boyfriend/marriage material.
It's easy to get sucked in to dating a guy like this, because a lack of funds tend to make men very creative. You'll have fun, but you know you can't live on love alone. Enjoy his company if you'd like, but just don't take him seriously. And, no matter what Kanye West says, it doesn't mean you're a gold digger.
Sa-Ra says: No, believe me, it REALLY DOES make you a gold digger. Or at least grossly dependant. How financially secure he is shouldn't even factor in, as while you're dating, you should be supporting yourself, theoretically. Unless you're looking for somebody to support themselves AND you, in which case, you're a stupid hypocrit for not wanting to date somebody who doesn't 'have his financial life straight'. I'd say the problem is not with HIM.
Mr. Sensitive
AIM says: Sure, every woman likes a man who has a sensitive side, but not one who always lets it show.
Sensitive men get their feelings hurt easily and often, so they're constantly upset about something you did or didn't do, said or didn't say.
Unless you want to spend your dates explaining how you didn't mean to (fill in the blank), you might want to leave this guy alone. Besides, who's going to hold you when you're upset if he's always the one crying?
Sa-Ra says: If he's constantly guilting you and getting upset about something you did or didn't do or say in order to make you see his way, that's controlling. It may or may not fall into the realms of abusive, depending on the severity. In that case, I agree with the assessment. But while men are naturally more prone to internalising their emotions and women more prone to showing theirs, know that ANYBODY internalising their emotions ALL OF THE TIME is unhealthy. Men are allowed to cry and get upset. This is why they have the ability to do so. If they weren't supposed to, nature would have made it impossible for them to do so. It's not a weakness, it's a human trait. How about you lend him the shoulder to cry on as well? Naturally, women are the comforters--the ones that will empathise quickly and understand emotions often readily. It's their for a reason. Trust nature. It knows what it's doing.
Mr Predictable
AIM says: Granted, every date can't be like a scene from a movie, but you do have to put in a little work to keep your dating relationship interesting. Staying in and renting a movie is lots of fun, but not if you're doing it every time you're together.
He's not a guy you should stop seeing right away, though. You could take the lead and be the adventurous one in the relationship, or take some time to teach him what a fun date should look like. But if you'd rather he take the lead all on his own, you might want to find someone else.
Sa-Ra says: Um . . . I'm going to probably venture to guess that going out all of the time or doing something 'different' is both costly and time-consuming. So why not get into a comfortable habit? A steady, everyday relationship might very well also be an incredibly strong one. You shouldn't date somebody because they excite you--attention spans of humans are far too short, and the next time somebody else you find 'exciting' comes along, you'll become confused and conflicted, feeling drawn to them and yet afraid to be unfaithful (unless we go back to that whole polygamy thing, which then kind of makes things easier), becoming unhappy in what could be a very good relationship. Building a relationship on companionship is not at all a bad idea. Having a steady, constant routine creates a feeling of security, safety and trust--things that are never bad to have in a relationship if you're determined to have a monogamous one.
The verdict? If you're going to set your standards according to this weird feminazi, passive-aggressive movement women are pushing, prepare for dissapointment. There are things you can't fight against that are human instincts, and doing so makes one very unhappy and leads to more problems in a relationship than if you were to be a bit more bending in your actions.