I think if BF were to win a Nobel Prize it ought to be in Economics rather than Science. The "laws" of short term attraction work in an open market in the same way the "laws" of supply and demand work in an open market. For instance, I could have predicted that on the day last week that I got my hair re-platinumed and wore it down the likelihood that a man would go 10 yards out of his way to open a door for me would greatly increase. However, marriage is a closed market in which people can find themselves standing in line for 2 days in order to pay $10 for a rough brown roll of toilet paper. That is why every success on this BB has involved some version of re-opening the closed market. I suppose adultery would be trading on the black market or embezzling.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
(SG) - Blackfoot has some interesting ideas but until he makes it work in a LTR "after eight years and a couple of kids" it's all speculative. Or someone else follows his ideas and makes it work. That'd be proof too.
Burgbud - I see the proof all the time, often on this very chat board.
If making it work in an LTR for sixteen years with a couple of kids is proof of something, I've got a boxful of my old theories down in the basement I can sell ya. Probably some other guys around here do as well. We might make a killing on ebay.
Burgbud,
Making it work, to my definition, means making it work for the man, woman and couple/relationship in a positive way and not just hanging on for 8,16+ years. Since Blackfoot has already clearly stated that he does not want to be in a full time LTR, his theories are only applicable to making his life work for him. Which is just fine in my book. I know men and women who have never married who are very happy with their lives so I see nothing wrong with his position. In fact I admire people who realize that they don't have a need or want for a relationship and keep themselves away from one. Much better than those who don't want a relationship and still end up in one or married.
My only question is whether his theories would necessarily yield a happy marriage. Of course it could in some situations but I also think it would not work in plenty of others. The idea of viewing the woman as "the enemy" does not seem conducive to a healthy relationship although I can certainly see how it would be very useful if you plan on staying single. Specifically that viewing a woman as an enemy would keep her at a distance and prevent unintended entanglements.
To be clear comments like "only reason a man should let his woman see his puppy is to demonstrate that he'll take it back when she kicks it, and kick it she will" are why I use the term "enemy" for how I feel a woman is viewed by Blackfoot (or your interpretation of Blackfoot's theory). Again I am not saying it is wrong that he has that viewpoint given what his XW did and what his goals are with women. I am just saying that I think it is a different viewpoint than Dieda seems to state. Dieda seem to tell men to not rely on their women in order to feel like men which seems different to me than saying that women will kick you when you are down. Even the example he uses is of a man coming home after a million dollar deal and being asked by his wife why he forgot to pick up milk. This is hardly an example of a puppy being kicked. It seems to be it is an example of the wolf/stallion being reminded that his triumphs as a man do not have to be recognized by the woman to still be a triumph for him. At least that was my interpretation...
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
The idea of viewing the woman as "the enemy" does not seem conducive to a healthy relationship although I can certainly see how it would be very useful if you plan on staying single.
Ditto this. And this pov is the flaw in your attitude, Burg.
I am not sure it's a "flaw" for Burg right now. I think he's made it clear he does not have an interest in a LTR so it would make sense that he views Blackfoot's theories as "genius" because in a way they are "genius" for the end result of keeping women at a distance and for keeping LTR at bay. My argument is that I don't believe Blackfoot's theories are equally applicable for men to end up in positive LTRs with women.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Hey, Mojo! I thought you didn't have time to post! If you're gonna post, then hightail it back to your thread and give us DETAILS! \:\)
LOL- I'm just taking mini-breaks today.
Quote:
Burg has had this attitude for a while. Relationship or not, to regard the other gender as the enemy is not good.
I don't think that BB or BF really regard the other gender as the enemy. I think they regard their own St. Bernards and Puppies as the enemy. I can relate because this is roughly analogous to me regarding my own Cow and Bunny as the enemy. However, I think that it is possible to be Strong Bunny or Strong Puppy (vulnerable rather than weak or helpless) and then you don't have to be your own enemy. The only thing that confuses me is the whole sexism issue about whether it is inherently more feminine to be Strong Bunny (vulnerable) than it is masculine to be Strong Puppy (vulnerable). IMO, absent any physical sexual characteristics neither strong bunny or puppy behavior would be read as sexy but simply sweet, dear, lovable etc. It is attractive but not sexually attractive/arousing without added context.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I've got a question for you; something I've been wondering about for some time... and let me state up front... I'm not being in any way critical... I just would like to know your POV.
When you were married... your W put the kids first and you resented this (is that accurate?) because your wants and needs always seemed to fall way down on the list somewhere...
While you were M... would you have missed a band concert or two if that meant you and your W were going to have really hot sex?
Now that you are not M, hot sex will never come before a band concert. Now that you are single, you have this very firm stance that the kids come first... before R's, other people... whatever... why does your marital state change this?
It seems like I see this discrepancy with you, but I certainly don't know if it is an accurate one...
Relationship or not, to regard the other gender as the enemy is not good.
Well I may have overstated it by saying "enemy!" Although I would have stated burg's viewpoint (as far as I can tell) as "men need to protect themselves against women" which certainly leads to the "enemy" status of women. However I think the issue Burg (blackfoot?) might have with women is more due to their view of women as flighty, irresponsible,untrustworthy, crazy, etc. and not so much that women are purposely the "enemy."
I still don't have much of a problem with this viewpoint IF the guys have no intent to get into a relationship. To me it is a woman's problem if she decides that she wants to "make" a relationship with this type of man.
It was interesting to me how many women here didn't take Blackfoot seriously when he stated awhile ago that he did not want to be in a relationship. Rather than listening to his statement, many seemed to "assume" that he was just skittish about relationships or afraid he couldn't be a good partner rather than just believing that he truly did not want a relationship at least right then.
But that's me. I tend to listen to what people say and take them at their words. XH had a hard time stating what he wanted but then would be upset if I couldn't guess correctly. of course guessing correctly is pretty tough to do!!
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
(Corri) When you were married... your W put the kids first and you resented this (is that accurate?) because your wants and needs always seemed to fall way down on the list somewhere...
That wasn't us. I don't remember resenting her putting the kids first, in fact her dedication to the boys is something I really respect about her (maybe the only thing at this point, but I'd have to think about that). I also don't remember complaining very much about my needs not getting met...it was more her complaining that her needs weren't getting met and me complaining that she had limitless needs.
While you were M... would you have missed a band concert or two if that meant you and your W were going to have really hot sex?
No. Our M wasn't sex starved until the very end. We had a bit of a drive imbalance (Five times in two weeks is about right for me, once a week was perfect for her) but about three years before the bomb she commented that the sex was the only thing keeping our M together. During her affair she saw our sexual history much differently, but you see what I'm saying.
I followed Heather to SSM from Infidelity. Having an SSM isn't a particular complaint of mine. Our most significant sexual issue was wide bandwidth vs. narrow bandwidth.
Now that you are not M, hot sex will never come before a band concert. Now that you are single, you have this very firm stance that the kids come first... before R's, other people... whatever... why does your marital state change this?
I wouldn't have missed a band concert for hot sex while I was married, but I might have missed one if I had to work or whatever and I knew my W was going to be there, so the kids saw that they had support. Now that she and I aren't a unit I have to demonstrate my support and interest separately.
ETA:
Plus, I only have them four days out of every twenty-one so that time and any extra time I can get is a precious commodity.
Last edited by Burgbud; 02/12/0807:29 PM.
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
