← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche

Thread 4511

Thread ID: 4511 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-01-18

Wayback Archive

Avalanche [OP]

2003-01-18 20:34 | User Profile

Thought I'd start a thread for consideration of how men and women SHOULD relate and interact -- and, after a brief bio of where I came from, I'll be providing some quotes from the bible of my marriage to NeoNeitzsche.

I WAS a radical (even obnoxious :blink: ) feminist for 20+ years. I found that the men I picked to have relationships with were usually emotionally abusive, or as I would now describe it -- mama's boys who wanted me to be their mommy, and the h*ll with my feelings and my need to be cherished. (And, to describe MY contribution, I was prickly and not quite sure what I wanted in a man and how I should be treated) (I always remember coming back to Philly after having spent a week at home, where we discovered that my dad had inoperable cancer, and when I tried to explain why I was touchy and depressed and upset after driving back 4 hours, the man I was living with wanted to know when I was going to fix dinner. (There really are men who do that!!) So much for cherishing MY feelings!!)

(I never realized till just now, but HE was the 'straw' that led me to my 10-yr celibacy vow! There’s an epitaph!!) And that's what was next. I stopped dating (after I threw him out -- it was my apt.) And after a couple of years of not dating, I decided that since I did such a really poor job picking men to get involved with, that I would make it ten years without dating and sex. (Retroactive to that last relationship...)

I spent a lot of time considering what I liked in a man – doing what Dr. Phil calls a relationship autopsy. I looked at my previous relationships and lined up categories (serious affairs of the heart or just sex; mental or physical attraction, emotionally supportive or not, took care of me or not, how he made me/let me feel about myself, etc.). Also, I ‘measured’ length of relationship, amount of sex, amount of cuddling, comfort level in terms of going out or staying in, and so on.) I listed the men I’d had serious relationships with: it turned out I seemed to switch between what I called “blond bears” (think Jack Nicklaus (younger), Mel Gibson (don’t I wish!), Toby Keith) and and small, slim dark-haired guys (think... Johnnie Depp, Jerry Seinfeld, maybe a shorter Chris Harrison on Bachelor/ette).

Generally, the blond bears were father’s sons, and the dark-haired guys were mama’s boys, of which, more in a future message.

(Around year nine) I’d had a friendship with a Gen X tai chi student of mine, who was born in China, raised in California, and who and how he was got me thinking that perhaps what I needed was a FOREIGN male... since all the American men I had met seemed to want a mommy, and I was NOT taking that role! Then I first learned of Stevie Ray Vaughan, and as I researched who and what he was, I discovered that Texan men seemed to be quite... foreign... and so I thought that perhaps I needed a sh|tkickin’ Texan! Around this same time, I met Neo ON the Stevie Ray Vaughan mailing list.

Neo and I began corresponding about the types of men he described as mama’s boys and father’s sons. I discovered a main ‘problem’ I’d had was that I’d never MET a father’s son (or hadn’t known it if I had) and so I had dismissed the male population of the country. The “Texan” thing I was beginning to identify as desirable was, in fact, the father’s son/adult male (sorry Tex Diss -- turns out it’s not regional... :D ).

Neo recognized me as a woman who could be... how did he phrase it to George? He performed the “struggle of socializing (me) and performing the White Man’s task of returning me to (my) race.” Around this time, as Neo and I were exploring all this, I happened across Pat Allen’s book in the library. I was stunned, astonished, amazed, and completely baffled, because I had never in all my upbringing and brainwashing heard of this kind of common-sensical division of the sexes! I copied a bunch of it and shipped it of to Neo, who was unsurprised by what she had to say, because in HIS view, this was how men and women were supposed to be with each other.

So, the following message is a bit of Pat Allen, on some things I’d like to discuss...

p.s. NeoNietzsche is a combination – he has all the good qualities (physical and otherwise) of the blond bears, and the intellect, seriousness, and care for me I wanted from the dark-haired guys. He looks a LOT like his avatar, so he resembles the blond bears only in height and bearing. I had a long ‘girl talk’ with a friend once, and we decided what our ideal man would be – the only two qualities I REALLY had to have in mine were smarter and stronger than I am. I didn't think that existed, till I met Neo!

Avalanche

2003-01-18 20:37 | User Profile

**Why Should He Commit?

These days, women claim that men are noncommital. I claim that women are, and allow men to follow suit.  Why should a masculine man restrict his bachelor nature to be responsible for an independent woman and her kids?  He would rather invest the money in his life, fun, and property, as long as he can get sex with minimal cost.  Self-gratifying, self-centered men are dating self-satisfied, selfless women who like playing and dating as much as they do.

Many men feel castrated and no longer act like “men,” fighting and competing for the best sex partner.  They have fewer challenges other than watching sports events and clawing their way up the corporate ladder, which is currently infiltrated by many women * more male* than they are.

They have been put in suits with leftover nooses (ties), stuck in cars for hours each day to struggle to an office often dominated by a woman so hard and tough that she would scare the “nightstalker.”  Then, after work, the poor guy is asked to make love to the fair maiden and marry her so he can work for her and the kids when she won’t even respect him enough to let him lead, because she has to be “liberated from the domination of men.”

This is not a pretty picture, and it is one that has turned many men toward an uncommitted life or workaholism.  Balance must come back to a fair trade of respect for cherishing, by respectful men and by women who wish to be cherished.  Let’s teach women how to be cherished, by first teaching them to cherish themselves.

In the past, men felt a moral obligation to marry. These days, men “respect” a woman’s ability to take care of herself and be independent. They see women as “equal” to casual sex the way they are; therefore, they feel no need to protect us, even from themselves.

Only when men get hungry for the best women will they make a deal and settle down. It is the woman’s job to set the parameters for the deal. If we say yes to casual sex, we have assumed responsibility for the results.  It is our ability to say No sex without commitment that is the essence of this book.

Pp. 142-43 Getting to I Do by Dr. Pat Allen**

Avalanche

2003-01-18 20:48 | User Profile

**In every verbal communication in an intimate relationship, there must be one respected leader and one cherished follower. The respected leader says, “I think and I want” and also asks “How do you feel?” and then listens.  The “female” listens to the thinking and wanting of the “male,” shares positive and negative feelings and says yes or no. Men who know what they want will not get rejected as often as men who don’t, whose ambivalence makes them appear weak and indecisive.  Feminine women turn off to men who do not act like respectable leaders.

If you want  to be the female energy, and your man does not have the courage to lead but instead asks you what you want and what you think, decline gracefully, and say, “I will tell you what I feel about what you think and want, but I’m uncomfortable leading.”

... If you choose to be the "feminine" energy, you get what you want by not directly asking for it, because a direct request may feel like a demand or an order to a masculine man, even if you don’t mean it that way.  Masculine men can hear an opportunity to please a woman, but they resist women who seem to issue commands.  Masculine men pride themselves on their freedom to act, to choose, and to control their own destinies.  They enjoy giving to feminine women and making them happy as long as this is not assumed, expected, or demanded.

Most men, when told what you want or think (outside of a work environment), will instead of obediently giving you what you want, have a “man-to-man” competitive reaction, responding with what they want, thus ruining the objective of simply having fun together.

... (example discussed of two interns)

If Marie wanted to be the feminine woman, to Pete’s masculine man, she needed to understand that even though they were totally equal in education, social skills, and economics, she still needed to defer to him, as long as what he asked of her was ethical and moral.

I taught Marie that she should not push for what she wanted in a logical or “direct” manner. Pete had given Marie permission to pursue him, but that did not mean she could control him. Marie decided that she would be happy respecting Pete’s thinking ahead of her own. Marie didn’t need to be happy when he said no to her requests, but she did need to treat him in a respectful manner.  And Pete didn’t need to be insensitive to her pain when he turned her down He needed to cherish her. ... Women attending my lectures and hearing this for the first time often respond with anger. As liberated women, they pride themselves on taking responsibility for their lives and for asserting themselves.  What I recommend often seems to be in direct contradiction with self-awareness skills they have come to learn and prize.

And I can almost hear you saying, “Why do I have to put men on an intellectual pedestal? I’m as smart and talented and educated and successful as they are.

The reason is that if you want your man to put you on an emotional pedestal (in a cherishing place), then you do have to put him on an intellectual one (a place of respect).  You must not try to teach him, criticize him, belittle him, or compete with him for sexual control.  A truly feminine woman shares with her man her feelings about what pleases or does not please her, which allows him to solve a problem – in his way, not hers.  She can always reject him if he is not satisfying her, but until she does reject him, she accepts him as “enough,” and she does not hurt his feelings by being blunt and tactless.

When I say put your chosen man on an intellectual pedestal, it is with this caveat: as long as you can give him feedback about your feelings concerning his ideas, thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, and he listens with empathy and does not impose immoral or unethical values on you.

The idea is that the female energy automatically gives respect for the male’s right to speak.  She does not compete or contradict or confront him with her ideas.

... If the male energy is smart, he will compromise with the female for better results, rather than demand unconditional compliance.  And, if a woman is a feelings-centered feminine energy, she will hear out her man’s input graciously, and use as much of his solution as she can.  At the same time, he accepts her right to incorporate his suggestions into her own solutions.  Equations that are all or nothing, black or white, create confrontations that ruin intimacy and romance.

An egomaniacal dictator type of man (whose woman is unworthy of being cherished because she allows him to act like a tin god without the slightest resistance) is one who believes that his ideas and beliefs are to be rigidly adhered to, without feeling input from his woman and children.

This type of man doesn’t want to hear “I like it,” “I am afraid,” “I am uncomfortable,” etc.  He doesn’t care about her feelings, or, at least, he cares more about his own.  He is narcissistic and uncommittable.

An important thing to remember if you choose to be the feminine energy is to never tell a negative feeling to your masculine man, unless you’re willing to follow his requested solution or give your solution and ask his thoughts on it.  It is frustrating for him to hear a problem and not be able to solve it.

Pp 145-50 Getting to "I Do" Pat Allen**

Avalanche

2003-01-18 20:50 | User Profile

**The male energy is the giving, initiating, leading, active partner, who elicits surrender, receptivity, and bonding from his partner.  When the masculine energy gives protects and cherishes, he is penetrating the other’s defenses to surrender to the pleasure of the relationship.

A masculine man is a natural developer of anything that he sees, and that includes a piece of land or a woman. With a woman he thinks, She’s going to be so great if we just do this or that, and I’ll show her how.

Therefore, one of the most important qualities your masculine man will look for from you is joyous receptivity.  By this I mean that not only will he expect you to receive gifts with joy, but also things that don’t feel too good, such as how-to-do-it messages.

page 71,Getting to "I Do" Pat Allen **

Avalanche

2003-01-18 21:02 | User Profile

** Excerpts from Dr. Pat Allen's Getting To "I Do" (from her website)

There are many thousands of you out there who are successful at work but find yourselves without a relationship because you are confused by male and female roles. I will show you the clue you have been missing. I will tell you ten secrets that will allow you to meet the man you want and become engaged, very likely in the first year.

If you're a powerful woman, you don't have to change. You just have to learn how to use your female side to attract men--that is, if you want to be the female in the relationship. If not, I will teach you how to get the "right" man who will respect your leadership.

** Part One: Before You Go Out the Door....**

Although both male and female elements are vital to the make up of both men and women, I believe that for a relationship to be healthy and successful these must be reconciled and become complementary to each other. In other words, there can only be one male and one female in every relationship. Which would you rather be?

A successful relationship has three components:     * Chemistry     * Compatibility     * Communication

Successful relationships are an exchange of opposite energies. If you want your thinking respected first, you will choose to be the "male" energy. If you want your feelings cherished first you will choose to be the "female" energy.

You cannot chaotically or spontaneously jump back and forth between the two energies. That destroys relationships and wears down one or both people.

The key is to know yourself, know which energy you are comfortable with, and ground yourself in that choice before you enter a relationship.

In a rational family a woman is taught to love herself first. The stereotypical image of the self-sacrificing woman is wrong.

One of the most important qualities your masculine man will look for from you is joyous receptivity. A second thing that a man wants from a woman is that she be available for him.

Casual, non-contractual sex in a normal woman triggers a bonding that can verge on physical addiction. This is due to a sexually stimulated hormone called oxytocin.

To have a loving, sexual, committed relationship all you need is one respectful, caring person and one cherished, fun person...and it doesn't matter which is which.

** Part Two: How to Attract a Man **

Before you to out there to attract a mate, decide whether you are the "male" or "female" energy.

If a woman doesn't take care of her body, if she can live in a messy environment, she is not in touch with her feelings as a woman.

These days you must go out and hunt for romance with the same skill and determination you would muster to look for a job or an apartment.

Chemistry is not negotiable, but whom you flirt with is. The initial attraction between two people is chemical. Chemistry is a body-to-body response.

The more passive a woman is, the more potent she is, because she attracts a man toward her. A woman is most erotic when she is magnetic.

Since male energy is assertive and female energy is passive, the one who speaks first is male.

A man needs to feel respected by the woman he is sexually attracted to, so instead of advice, try offering a man affection and respect. When a man requires a woman to give, he then becomes the female.

** Part Three: The Four Stages of a Relationship **

If you mate too soon, you are likely to be condemning the relationship to a sexual experience rather than to a lovemaking experience. Making love is a combination of physical chemistry, mental compatibility, and emotional generosity.

If you're a feminine-energy woman, you can't ask a man to change for you.

Women have to be patient, and the only way they can do that is to be anchored in their own self-love.

Women who are interested in marriage must signal men before sex that they are moving toward marriage, or too often the woman will be hurt and time will be wasted.

Learn how to talk to your man. You only have three lessons to learn. They are:     * How to ask for what you want     * How to say "no" to what you don't want without becoming emotional     * How to negotiate with the man in your life so you can hear what he  wants (and what he doesn't want)

The relationship commitment takes over where the commitment to a person ends, because a human being cannot be good enough very day to be worthy of a commitment from you. But the relationship can be, and it will keep two committed people together.

How do you get satisfying lovemaking?     * By having good chemistry together     * By sharing a compatible lifestyle     * By verbally communicating all of this to each other     * By agreeing to a commitment of monogamy, continuity and longevity

For many men and women who are phobic about love due to poor early love training, obsessive, addictive relationships with high levels of pain seem like love.

Although most of us have some degree of damage that we've had to deal with, sometimes bad relationships overtake the healthiest of us, or we fall into them unknowingly.

I urge you never to "demand" marriage. I believe it is better for a woman to pass a man up that to demand to be married. You must let him make his own choice. If he wants you enough, he will negotiate. Don't seduce him with money or sexual generosity, and don't try to intimidate him with angry edicts.

In marriage, bodies commit sexually and sensually. The mind commits with money and property and status in the community. When the body and the mind are committed, you have Like, Love, and Lust, and then--and only then--is the person in love.

To love and be loved is the ultimate spiritual goal of all good people. Understand that life is a process, and that our marriages, the way we live together, the way we communicate, and the way we negotiate all must change as we do.**

Avalanche

2003-01-18 22:12 | User Profile

All about father's sons and mama's boys...

From our courting emails (of COURSE I saved them, I'm a girl!): We were discussing Stevie Ray Vaughan and his older brother Jimmie. I had expressed my... discomfort... with Stevie's seemingly rootless, goal-less self; that had SRV NOT been born a guitar god, he'd probably have been knocking over convenience stores... And so how could I find him a god?!

NeoNietzsche wrote: Let me gently take issue with your analysis of the might-have-beens of SRV's life. "Crossfire" tells his uncle Joe Boy Cook's story of having been told not to leave little Steve alone while taking him along for grocery shopping. When uncle Joe's skepticism led him to experiment with hiding from the little guy momentarily, he was rewarded with a squeal of terror that left him in no doubt as to the boy's fundamental insecurity. The authors speak of Stevie as a momma's boy, wanting to be coddled and cuddled, and fearful of ever being left alone. He desperately longed for Jimmie's approval, and bore a sense of shame and guilt acquired from his home environment that burdened him, even in the midst of performances that were launching his audiences into the emotional stratosphere.

Though Stevie had immense physical strength and was Mucho Hombre with the ladies (attesting to his full hormonal endowment), it was Jimmie who was emotionally tough like his father and might well have been a "thug," but for his gift. If this picture of Stevie was accurate, then my sense of his fate without his music would have been one of his relying, first, on his friends and lovers for his indulgences (and I think he had a charismatic loveableness about him, aside from his gift) and only, secondly, thieving for the wherewithal for the pursuit of his habits. It's difficult for me to see this Stevie doing "hold-ups," and, in fact, I'm inclined to take the point that he was so dedicated to his craft, from a very early age and through thick and thin, that, if it's fair to say that someone IS what he does, it might well be said of SRV that "he WAS the music."

On a personal note, I do have a sense of identification with the brothers, based on my own experience growing up in a lower-middle-class home at the same time in a Southern metropolis. I'm just a few months older than Jimmie [my first and middle names at birth were "Lawrence" and "Ray"], (Avalanche note: he changed his names when he worked for Ted Turner's little TV station before it went national) and likewise am the "big" brother of what was, for eleven years, just the two of us. Though my younger brother was only a year, rather than four, behind me, he was the equivalent of four years behind in size and intellect. When I see that photo of little Jimmie and Steve holding their guitars, I see a Christmas photo of myself and my brother with our six-shooters, unholstered from our complete Roy Rodgers outfits and pointed at the camera. A precious moment of harmony in an otherwise acrimonious atmosphere.

All this (and much more of a parallel nature) is by way of saying that I think I have a sense of both the brothers' personalities from having "been there." I concede the point that Stevie's marital faithlessness, as opposed to just sleeping around with casual partners, does not speak in his favor, as do not the events that caused the parting with Cutter Brandenburg - but, on balance, I think I have not misjudged the "essential" Stevie in his loveable vulnerability, charity, and well-meaningness. I could not "love" Jimmie or weep for him, on the other hand, because his inward toughness arouses, instead, my respect as a straight male (a territorial competitor, as it were).

I wrote: I can’t support the picture of SRV as the momma's boy -- his momma doesn't seem to have been real available to him, nor his dad or brother (guessing from the books). And a fear of being alone doesn't (to me) define a momma's boy -- I think often, loneliness and fear of being alone belong to the youngest (speaking of birth order -- I'm yer typical tortured unloved middle kid -- tee hee hee!). I don't associate it with being a momma's boy -- which I more associate with a desire to be indoors, near mom, wanting to spend lots of time with her -- not wanting to grow up and move away (which Stevie actually DID). I think a momma's boy wouldn't have the complete focus and dedication to music that he did.

Talk (write) to me about how you see Jimmie and Stevie differing in their growing up/temperments -- give me the view of a male toward upper/younger bros -- is Stevie's hero worship likely or not?

NeoN wrote: Let me tell you of momma's boys and father's sons as two poles of a continuum in which each boy/man takes his own place. The "momma's boy" of which I speak is not so by virtue of his treatment by others, but by virtue of his vital, inborn need. He indispensably needs his mother's love and esteem as a youngster, to have the courage to face the world as a young man. If he feels that he has that affection from her, he is outwardly courageous and betrays not a need to be near her, except in inward spirit throughout his life. (If he's black, he'll be especially sensitive to the ubiquitous taunt of "motherf^cker," since taunts even that are figuratively true do cut to the quick, nevertheless.) He is a lover, not a fighter (in the sense of a soldier), and his wife will be a friend/companion and a mother to him, of whose affections (rather than of her body) he will be jealous when it happens that he is betrayed.

His older brother, on the other hand, needs to openly prove his manhood - of which his father is, initially, the formidable measure to be mastered. His mother's attentions mean relatively little to him - because objective, competitive measures of his worth are important instead, not the indiscriminate affection of an uncritical older woman. He is a fighter, not a lover, and his wife will be a possession and so a subordinate (even if she is a queen before whom he falls to his knees in worship of her beauty and mystique). His poor younger brother is the frequent victim of his arbitrary and cruel transmission of that which is held by folk wisdom only to roll downhill. So loving little bro' often suffers from "abused child syndrome" and so idolizes/idealizes his heavily-armed tormentor in self-protective response.

These things I claim to know from personal experience and observation.

Oliver Cromwell

2003-01-19 12:13 | User Profile

delete

Avalanche

2003-01-19 15:56 | User Profile

Oliver Cromwell:  Well, it sounds like you were a loose woman, so it isn't surprising that you ended up with weenies. You should have tried a Calvinistic Church, that would have saved lots of time. Loose is a probably an unnecessarily pejorative description; I was a woman of my time, and unusual (I think) in that I recognized the... undesirability... of continuing to participate in the sexual revolution long before ‘physical” brakes (STDs, etc) were put on by society. (Or medicine.) And the ‘weenies’ came not from any ‘loose’ choices , but because I was raised in NY, where I was completely inculcated with the NY/jewish/modern world view. I, like so many up there, deprecated ‘real’ men (as in, non-weenies). You surely wouldn’t be implying that only weenie men are interested in sleeping with whatever woman allows it? ** Man, those correlations between strength and blondism, and smarts with dark hair! What about Thor, Rustam, Eric the Red, Richard Lion heart, King David, George Washington, Ghengis Khan, Benjamin Franklin, etc.. Where do they fit in?** I never met any of them, but I guess I might have dated them, if they'd asked... :lol:

I was NOT making a comment about 'all the men in the world' -- I was describing the (unconsciously chosen, until investigated) men I dated or were involved with.

** I don't mean to be mean, but this bullshit about "returning to your race" is just bullshit.  Nietzsche himself hated Germans and bragged about being an ethnic Pole from way back. He is now in Hell. hhmmmm, I don’t think it is... In kminta’s thread (What You See Is What You Get, A Black Man's Critique on Black America), I pointed out my upbringing to believe that there were no CULTURAL differences between blacks and whites – this turned out to be entirely wrong! There are cultural differences that are probably irreconcilable. And Nietzsche’s nationalist likes and dislikes are not at all the same thing as racial likes and dislikes. And I doubt it matters ‘where he ended up’ – take from his stuff the things that accord with your understanding of the universe, and drop the rest - just like ANY source! All this good stuff that you are posting comes straight from the Bible, and all the junk is just dross that you haven't thrown out yet.** Ah, but in MY view, the bible is ALSO filled with dross that needs to be thrown out (are you still avoiding poly-cotton because the bible says not to wear threads of mixed origin or something like that? :blink: ) I’d suggest that for those of us (and it’s MANY) who don’t want to buy into YOUR bible, there are ways to reach sound, safe, appropriate and healthy relationships even though knowledge of how has been subverted by the destroyed of our civilization.

Too many religious folks insist on the only possible way to a good life is their own version of a moral life... Whatever floats your boat... It’s a bigger... ocean... than requires only your type of boat and no other... I’m offering a different kind of ‘raft’ for people who don’t want to wear the uniform of your navy (there, have I beaten that metaphor into a watery grave!? Glub glub! :D )

How can you call a pig like Stevie Ray a God? Have you no idea about the most basic truths of our Western Civilization? Because I have never before or since heard someone who can work such magic with guitar strings! (Did you, perhaps, misunderstand that I was using a metaphor for his virtuosity? I don’t think he’s an “actual” god, I think he is the most extraordinary guitar player I can imagine...) And I’m not sure what a really astonishingly talented guitar player has to do with the “the most basic truths of our Western Civilization.” ** You're a bright woman, but your still  brainwashed.** Back atcha, from a different viewpoint.. We all pick our... washings.

Northern Bastion

2003-01-24 02:09 | User Profile

14 WORDS.

Avalanche

2003-01-24 02:34 | User Profile

14 WORDS.

?? Which 14?