a few of my friends are going through ugly divorces right now, and after living with my parent's divorce when i was ten, i'd just as soon settle for living together instead.
A man just wants a wife "to look good, provide great sex, join in his recreational activities and tell him he is wonderful," says Harley, a marital therapist based in White Bear Lake, Minn.
Women's requirements are much broader, he says. "They want affection. They want to feel loved. They want a great conversationalist, a man who is funny, a good father for their kids, someone who is attractive, a good sexual partner, a man who is ambitious and successful. And most men are simply not" all these things, he says.
the only difference i see there is the language. when describing what men want, they're direct and use simple statements. when they talk about what women want, they're more descriptive and draw things out and make them sound nagging. and yet, both paragraphs say we want a partner who will fuck us and love us and work and hang out. it's sort of funny, no?
it does, but it doesn't really say anything about personality specifically. i largely agree with the premise of the article, but some of the quotes in there are hilarious. like the one about "women are having a harder time falling in love and staying in love" sounds really funny as a standalone trend.
i was raised by hippies. all they had was love until my mom couldn't stand my dad's unmedicated bi-polarity anymore. financial security was an afterthought, and that has categorized my approach to love and marriage for the most part.
now that you mention it, the ability for women to stay in love vs. the reasons they marry have been two different things, and when i see a general statement about women having trouble staying in love as a reason for why they're not marrying, i find it preposterous. for the reason that i haven't felt that way about how i've approached my own relationships, and the larger issue of exactly what you brought up--that the reasons for marrying have changed for both partners.
i largely agree with what the results of the study show, i just find some of the quotes funny.
i'm not tryin' to fightcha, I do the same shit when I read some guy claiming that all women are emotionally manipulative bitches. I think most human beings are absolute shits, and the rest of us are consequently going to have bad luck in the dating arena. But I ultimately have hope that us decent people will all hook up eventually.
that's what i mean, these reasons for why men and women want different things are really general. would you say those things if you were asked about relationships in a survey?
Excellent point. What man doesn't wan an affectionate wife who will make him feel loved? A woman who is a funny conversationalist, a good mother, attractive, and good in bed? And if she has a great, cool job that just makes her all the more attractive. Men, at least, will marry someone on a social level beneath them. Most women won't or will but have great reservations. Not many female lawyers marry the guy who pumps her gas.
Most of these findings do sound like they were, as SNL used to put it, published in the medical journal "Well, duh!"
It's bad because this means that young men will continue to be annoying until at least their mid-30s. How many guys do I have to listen to saying how great they are in bed and how many women want them?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 02:14 pm (UTC)wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-21 02:20 pm (UTC)Women's requirements are much broader, he says. "They want affection. They want to feel loved. They want a great conversationalist, a man who is funny, a good father for their kids, someone who is attractive, a good sexual partner, a man who is ambitious and successful. And most men are simply not" all these things, he says.
the only difference i see there is the language. when describing what men want, they're direct and use simple statements. when they talk about what women want, they're more descriptive and draw things out and make them sound nagging. and yet, both paragraphs say we want a partner who will fuck us and love us and work and hang out. it's sort of funny, no?
Re: wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-21 02:22 pm (UTC)Re: wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-21 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 02:47 pm (UTC)now that you mention it, the ability for women to stay in love vs. the reasons they marry have been two different things, and when i see a general statement about women having trouble staying in love as a reason for why they're not marrying, i find it preposterous. for the reason that i haven't felt that way about how i've approached my own relationships, and the larger issue of exactly what you brought up--that the reasons for marrying have changed for both partners.
i largely agree with what the results of the study show, i just find some of the quotes funny.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 02:50 pm (UTC)Re: wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-21 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 02:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 02:49 pm (UTC)you know people who have GOOD LUCK dating???
Date: 2004-12-21 02:54 pm (UTC)Re: you know people who have GOOD LUCK dating???
Date: 2004-12-21 03:00 pm (UTC)Re: wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-21 02:52 pm (UTC)Re: wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-21 02:53 pm (UTC)Re: wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-21 03:56 pm (UTC)Most of these findings do sound like they were, as SNL used to put it, published in the medical journal "Well, duh!"
Re: wait, here's my favorite part...
Date: 2004-12-22 07:30 am (UTC)I think that has at least as much to do with reservations on the male's part.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-22 07:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 10:38 pm (UTC)