In Support of Strong Puppy

[Burgbud]

A) No thanks, I can do it myself because I just took a class on auto repair at the community college.

"Community college? I've got a master's in roadside tire rotation. I'll just observe so I can see what they're teaching you kids these days."


B) No thanks, I've got my mechanic-to-go on the phone and he'll be here in a minute.

"Excellent. I'll leave you here on the side of the road by yourself until he arrives."


C) Thank you. I was feeling so helpless and in need of manly assistance. (bats eyes) (slight whiny tone) Be careful not to mess up my expensive hubcaps.

"Those *are* nice hubcaps. You really need to call in a pro."


D) Thank you. I was about to get out my owner's manual and open my trunk and figure out if I could remember how to do this but this was kind of the last straw at the end of a rough day and I would really appreciate your help. Plus, I'm good at handing people tools. (smiles and peeks at your muscles).

"Let's get started then. Um, did you say you were good at handing people tools or handling people tools?"


If I found myself in a man's meticulously made-up by a maid bachelor pad I would be kind of creeped out.

If you were hot for the guy's wolf, how much would you really care?


Sometimes a man who takes too good care of himself in that manner becomes unattractive because he gives off too much of the vibe of a monk or a fussy grandmother stockpiling jams and preserves.

I suspect if the guy has his other animals in order they'll thwart the monk/grandmother vibe before it gets off the ground.


IOW if a man avoids being strong puppy by being too much of his own St. Bernard that's not a good thing.

It's not a good thing because it's more difficult for a woman to feel secure in that situation. Women want to feel secure so they want to see the puppy. Fair enough. The question, though, is would a lack of puppy do anything to dim her attraction or her investment in the R?

ETA:

Let me ask this...has anybody ever heard a woman say, "He was a blast to be around, he fu(ked me silly and took great care of me. But I dumped him because he was so self-sufficient."? Does anybody think it's possible that no woman in the history of the world has ever uttered those sentences?

[MJontheMend]

Any of my meaningful interactions with Fs came out of a result of them pursuing me.

Yuck. Big turn-off reading this.

Sigh. I'll give you a pass on account of your gender, silly girl. Not the same. Quite different actually

I know. I didn't express myself well. I meant that it was a male code message, not that it was the same message. My second sister who is a happily married former party girl married to a former gang member party boy told me that her H signaled something like this when they hooked up. However, I do agree with you that if I am wrong your two interpretations are the most likely alternatives. The context is that he is 41, never married, no desire for children, recently achieved great deal of career/financial success and has life-list of things he'd much better enjoy doing with female companionship. He doesn't want to sip a chocolate malted with me but I think that he really would like me to go to Mexico with him to get tattooed (I informed him that although I like the idea of Mexico and the idea of tattoos, I don't like the combination-lol)almost as much as he would like to have sex with me. Think about it. Why would a guy who is vibing reasonably wolf to me bother to court a woman on the phone for a month and pay to fly her out just to get laid? Heck, if that is the case, I'm just gonna feel real validated for being super hot - lol.

[MJontheMend]

The question, though, is would a lack of puppy do anything to dim her attraction or her investment in the R?

I can't say for sure. Why don't you ask Mrs.NOP? Not all SSM's are caused by lack of the wolf.

[MJontheMend]

Let me ask this...has anybody ever heard a woman say, "He was a blast to be around, he fu(ked me silly and took great care of me. But I dumped him because he was so self-sufficient."? Does anybody think it's possible that no woman in the history of the world has ever uttered those sentences?

Of course not. What she would say is "He was a blast to be around, he f*cked me silly and took great care of me but I left him for another guy who did all three even better because I knew he would be okay with that because he was so self-sufficient."

[Stigmata]

Kind of reads to me the same as: Peacekeeper missile.

Yeah, except that actually worked. The Russkis didn't stay out of Western Europe because they were such peaceloving nice guys, after all.

Certainly not. But I won't get into what I think of the brilliance of juicing the American voters via Evil Empire lexiconology and juicing the Russkies with pie in the sky SDI Star Wars plans Reagan knew would never come to technological fruition.

Hm, yes. Why fight when you can totally bankrupt your enemy out of irrational fear you have an unstoppable Doomsday technology that must be countermeasured? Like I said, brilliant.

Perhaps I should have gone with my second oxymoron choice then:

Strong Puppy=Jumbo Shrimp

(the F usually sniffs this sap out pretty quickly thankfully)

Thankfully? Why would it be such a terrible thing from your point of view if "this sap" got some love. I'd rather see him get laid than some of the thugs and idiots that keep outbreeding the rest of us.

Well, I was looking at it from her angle and not his.

Thankfully from my point of view because, to me at least, it spares the F from wasting her time if and when she finds out he's not as mysterious as her fantasy projected and he is merely, as you say, just trying to get laid.

I've found Fs really really don't like being "used" even if a lot of times they just can't seem to prevent it from happening over the course of their dating lives.

That's why I like radical honesty. If I am emotionally unavailable I will say so from day one. And genuinely from my heart -- not said in cold detachment. I won't ever lead an F down some primrose path so I can satisfy my egocentric need to get laid.

I will, however, leave the door open to the fact floppy socks guy is just a wee bit naive and is actually a worthwhile guy who wrote that line because he heard it before and thought it might help get him laid.

I wish Ms would stop writing lines like that. It's hokey and usually inauthentic. I might add the majority of us use it out of insecurity, however, so the odds of floppy socks guy being #1 are in his favor.

The true azzholes are usually the ones who never mention past azzholeship and just let their malodorous feces rise to the surface of the cess leach field naturally over time. IMO

-Stigmata-

[MJontheMend]

Okay, here is the real root of it. If I am just a primitive woman squatting in front of the campfire, I will follow the Wolf when he calls. However, I will leave him to follow the bigger Wolf when he arrives in town. But consider the classic gesture of romance which is the man who kneels in front of you to ask for your hand in marriage. There is no way a man can render himself more vulnerable than that. My 2bx never did that and that is why I don't consider that I had a commitment to honor.

[Burgbud]

(Mojo) What she would say is "He was a blast to be around, he f*cked me silly and took great care of me but I left him for another guy who did all three even better because I knew he would be okay with that because he was so self-sufficient."

I ain't buying that for a second. What she would say is "He was a blast to be around, he f*cked me silly and took great care of me but I left him for another guy who did all three even better."

If stays with the inferior man because he needs her more, that's Dysfunction 101.

[SolidMechanic]

Let me ask this...has anybody ever heard a woman say, "He was a blast to be around, he fu(ked me silly and took great care of me. But I dumped him because he was so self-sufficient."? Does anybody think it's possible that no woman in the history of the world has ever uttered those sentences?

I could be wrong. Forgive me if I am way out of line on my speculation. I have a theory that Blackfoot's xw became alienated from him because he signaled to her that he didn't have any use for her.

If you require your woman to heal you, you will wear her out and loose her respect. But if she can see that you are bleeding (a smart woman can see it even if you hide it), and she offers to help, why would you deny her the personal satisfaction of helping? You can make it clear, if you want, that you don't need her help (can you do this without sounding defensive?) but you can choose to let her help anyway, because it is good to have someone on your side. Especially in a LTR.

Example from this morning:
I can get my own coffee. For years when my wife asked me if I would like a cup of coffee, I declined. I told her I would get it myself, because, I didn't want to inconvenience her, and because I was perfectly capable of getting my own coffee. Now when she asks, I accept the invitation. She got me two cups, this morning! I get the vibe from her that it makes her feel good that she can do something for me. She is trying to tell me that she loves me, and by graciously accepting, I am hearing her message. I still don't ask, and I certainly don't expect. But letting her perform these little acts of love bring us closer together.

It's not all about attraction, it's also about bonding. If she can do things for me, voluntarily, that can heal me and make both of us feel good about the relationship, it helps foster the "you and me against the world, baby" mindset that a couple needs in order for their relationship to survive the peaks and valleys of attraction and thrive in the long haul.

Just my $0.02

SM

[MJontheMend]

I ain't buying that for a second. What she would say is "He was a blast to be around, he f*cked me silly and took great care of me but I left him for another guy who did all three even better."

If stays with the inferior man because he needs her more, that's Dysfunction 101.

I agree if she hasn't committed to him and his puppy is weak rather than strong. However, as my little story illustrated, I believe that a relationship is a dance of the animals and if she felt herself to be with an inferior man this was at least 50% due to the fact that she was an inferior woman. I don't understand why a man would want to be with the woman who won't do her fair share in the relationship. I would hypothesize that the man who is willing to be with such a woman is the inferior man. People want to be used but not abused. Wanting to be useful is not a sign of dysfunction although needing to be needed is.

[Burgbud]

(Mojo) But consider the classic gesture of romance which is the man who kneels in front of you to ask for your hand in marriage. There is no way a man can render himself more vulnerable than that.

So far we've unearthed two notable exceptions to the "no puppy" theory: when a family member dies and when proposing marriage. Seems reasonable.


(SM) I have a theory that Blackfoot's xw became alienated from him because he signaled to her that he didn't have any use for her.

I know little of blackfoot's sitch. Recently he's said that although he didn't make her feel secure, she stepped out when she lost her attraction for him. That's all I know.


...she offers to help, why would you deny her the personal satisfaction of helping?

If you're denying her some personal satisfaction, that sounds like your St. Bernard is need of a tune up. If you're taking care of her by allowing her to take care of you, I don't see that as puppy.


It's not all about attraction, it's also about bonding.

I'll say this about the relative merits of bonding and attraction...if she loses her attraction for you all those cups of coffee will retroactively turn from gestures of love to proof of how demanding and unappreciative you've always been.


...it helps foster the "you and me against the world, baby" mindset that a couple needs in order for their relationship to survive the peaks and valleys of attraction and thrive in the long haul.

Is that really a necessity?