NationStates

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:07 pm**

Saiwania wrote:
Victorious Decepticons wrote:"Forget anything about being treated like a princess" How about you forget hooking up with any women of quality? Because you're not going to find any with THAT attitude. An eligible man can afford to hire a housekeeper and is not too stingy to do so, therefore, he will never be trying to get free maid service out of the relationship - and won't ever find out if I can clean or not.

I happen to like to cook, though. However, the minute he mistook me for his kitchen slave would be the minute he became a single man.

No it doesn't work this way. A woman wanting to keep a certain man is going to need to "bring more to the table" than just her body and affections. Think about what is in it for him? If objectively speaking, she is more of a "pain in the ass" to have around than an asset, he is going to leave her for a woman who is more in line with that. Just as most women won't stay with a man who doesn't take care of himself enough and doesn't have status or economic acheivement.

A lady can't expect to sleep around with dozens of men all throughout her 20s (as is too often the case nowadays) and just expect men to still be interested in her for more than just sex after she hits the wall in terms of age. If she isn't wife material, a man isn't going to marry her. Not a woman with her kind of history. Like it or not, a woman's primary value is in her ability to have children and to be a homemaker.

She can't compete with women who can fulfill that role objectively speaking. More men will pass up on a woman who doesn't or can't bring enough such value, but might only use her for sex without any real commitment. I'd say it doesn't necessarily have to be cooking or cleaning, but my point still stands about "bringing something to the table." Tradition holds that women are more suited to domestic tasks and childcare than men are- so that is what is expected whether Feminism likes this or not.

Hiring a maid is a waste of money unless you're more disabled and can't do such work on your own, or if you're wealthy enough as for this to be no real burden and effectively is pocket change in relation to someone's cash flow.

This post brought to you by a 1955 issue of Housekeeping Monthly that the poster didn't realize was now supposed to be ironic...

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:08 pm**

Nakena wrote:
Bear Stearns wrote:Ex girlfriend used to demand I call her and visit her once a week.

And I was like fug that

Just once? Hell, it could have been a lot worse.

I should have clarified. Just the visiting was once a week. The calling was every other day.

Couldn't manage. She made it obvious she was pushing for marriage wayyyy too early in the relationship. Made me uncomfortable.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:08 pm**

Saiwania wrote:
Victorious Decepticons wrote:"Forget anything about being treated like a princess" How about you forget hooking up with any women of quality? Because you're not going to find any with THAT attitude. An eligible man can afford to hire a housekeeper and is not too stingy to do so, therefore, he will never be trying to get free maid service out of the relationship - and won't ever find out if I can clean or not.

I happen to like to cook, though. However, the minute he mistook me for his kitchen slave would be the minute he became a single man.

No it doesn't work this way. A woman wanting to keep a certain man is going to need to "bring more to the table" than just her body and affections. Think about what is in it for him? If objectively speaking, she is more of a "pain in the ass" to have around than an asset, he is going to leave her for a woman who is more in line with that. Just as most women won't stay with a man who doesn't take care of himself enough and doesn't have status or economic acheivement.

A lady can't expect to sleep around with dozens of men all throughout her 20s (as is too often the case nowadays) and just expect men to still be interested in her for more than just sex after she hits the wall in terms of age. If she isn't wife material, a man isn't going to marry her. Not a woman with her kind of history. Like it or not, a woman's primary value is in her ability to have children and to be a homemaker.

She can't compete with women who can fulfill that role objectively speaking. More men will pass up on a woman who doesn't or can't bring enough such value, but might only use her for sex without any real commitment. I'd say it doesn't necessarily have to be cooking or cleaning, but my point still stands about "bringing something to the table." Tradition holds that women are more suited to domestic tasks and childcare than men are- so that is what is expected whether Feminism likes this or not.

Hiring a maid is a waste of money unless you're more disabled and can't do such work on your own, or if you're wealthy enough as for this to be no real burden and effectively is pocket change in relation to someone's cash flow.

Honestly... No?

I know more men I would trust to take care of a child and be homemaker than I do women.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:14 pm**

Bear Stearns wrote:
Nakena wrote:
Just once? Hell, it could have been a lot worse.

I should have clarified. Just the visiting was once a week. The calling was every other day.

Couldn't manage. She made it obvious she was pushing for marriage wayyyy too early in the relationship. Made me uncomfortable.

Oh yeah I get what ya mean. Imagine the Hell that this marriage might have been. Or rather not.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:16 pm**

Nakena wrote:
Bear Stearns wrote:
I should have clarified. Just the visiting was once a week. The calling was every other day.

Couldn't manage. She made it obvious she was pushing for marriage wayyyy too early in the relationship. Made me uncomfortable.

Oh yeah I get what ya mean. Imagine the Hell that this marriage might have been. Or rather not.

Eh. I had that once. They wanted to jump into marriage because they went to one of those cult-y megachurches that looked Down on dating for too long. But they also wanted me to find their specific variety of Jesus first.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:17 pm**

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Nakena wrote:
Oh yeah I get what ya mean. Imagine the Hell that this marriage might have been. Or rather not.

Eh. I had that once. They wanted to jump into marriage because they went to one of those cult-y megachurches that looked Down on dating for too long. But they also wanted me to find their specific variety of Jesus first.

They wanted Jesus-lite or Jesus-plant based?

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:20 pm**

Bear Stearns wrote:Couldn't manage. She made it obvious she was pushing for marriage wayyyy too early in the relationship. Made me uncomfortable.

Wouldn't surprise me if she was only looking to marry you so she could screw you over in a divorce. She was plotting to get half or more of all your stuff.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:23 pm**

Eglaecia wrote:
Chestaan wrote:2. A friend of mine had a girlfriend who considered watching porn to be the same as cheating.

It is.

JoEun is that you ?

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:28 pm**

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:
Eh. I had that once. They wanted to jump into marriage because they went to one of those cult-y megachurches that looked Down on dating for too long. But they also wanted me to find their specific variety of Jesus first.

They wanted Jesus-lite or Jesus-plant based?

Vanilla Jesus.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:29 pm**

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
They wanted Jesus-lite or Jesus-plant based?

Vanilla Jesus.

Mmm, holy beanie.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:09 pm**

Cannot think of a name wrote:This post brought to you by a 1955 issue of Housekeeping Monthly that the poster didn't realize was now supposed to be ironic...

No, it's quite simply BS if too many women nowadays (because of Feminism) think that all they should have to do is "look pretty" and a man will take care of everything including them, all whilst adding nothing themselves to the household or in building a life together.

Older men, and higher value men who aren't Betas, aren't going to put up with bad behavior, nor will they stay with a woman that is more of a burden than an asset. Just as a woman isn't going to stay with a man who doesn't have his shit together and doesn't put in the work to be a provider and to be manly enough to become appealing enough.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:11 pm**

Saiwania wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:This post brought to you by a 1955 issue of Housekeeping Monthly that the poster didn't realize was now supposed to be ironic...

No, it's quite simply BS if too many women nowadays (because of Feminism) think that all they should have to do is "look pretty" and a man will take care of everything including them, all whilst adding nothing themselves to the household or in building a life together.

Older men, and higher value men who aren't Betas, aren't going to put up with bad behavior, nor will they stay with a woman that is more of a burden than an asset. Just as a woman isn't going to stay with a man who doesn't have his shit together and doesn't put in the work to be a provider and to be manly enough to become appealing enough.

That fact that you unironically use the word "Beta" when describing people just gives us less of a reason to take your argument seriously.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:14 pm**

Unacceptable restrictions would be basically things that most reasonable people would consider acceptable. This would be preventing someone from having free time to themselves, seeing friends/family, doing hobbies, etc.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:16 pm**

Costa Fierro wrote:Unacceptable restrictions would be basically things that most reasonable people would consider acceptable. This would be preventing someone from having free time to themselves, seeing friends/family, doing hobbies, etc.

You're the only one here who thinks that.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:16 pm**

New haven america wrote:That fact that you unironically use the word "Beta" when describing people just gives us less of a reason to take your argument seriously.

I know that people don't literally divide people into Alphas, Betas, Omegas, etc. But nonetheless, these are just general descriptions of personality types or traits as it applies to relationships. It isn't supposed to be taken too seriously, but can nonetheless be used in derogatory senses to describe situations that go on with regards to infidelity, hypergamy, and etc.

For example, there doesn't exist a literal "Friend Zone" but plenty of people use that term in a derogatory sense to describe a situation where someone had weak game or blew their chances with someone else for long enough for the other person to only ever consider them a "friend" and doesn't have any romantic interests in them anymore, when this might've been the case had the person had better game, looks, etc. from the beginning or before the first impression.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:39 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Unacceptable restrictions would be basically things that most reasonable people would consider acceptable. This would be preventing someone from having free time to themselves, seeing friends/family, doing hobbies, etc.

You're the only one here who thinks that.

That means I am right.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:40 pm**

1. Expecting someone to always responds quickly to a message, and or answer their calls. People have lives outside their relationships.
2. Trying to dictate what one eats or otherwise puts in their body. If your partner wants to get mcdonalds for dinner, don't freak out at them.
3. Wanting the passwords or other login information for your partners phone or social media.
4. Trying to dictate how your partner spends their money.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:52 pm**

Trying to keep one away from friends and family in general, there can be reasons to not want them to associate with particular friends an family members of theirs but trying to isolate them is a red flag.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:03 pm**

Costa Fierro wrote:
New haven america wrote:You're the only one here who thinks that.

That means I am right.

Sorry, should've phrased that better.

You're the only one here who thinks people think those are acceptable restrictions.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:07 pm**

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:
Eh. I had that once. They wanted to jump into marriage because they went to one of those cult-y megachurches that looked Down on dating for too long. But they also wanted me to find their specific variety of Jesus first.

They wanted Jesus-lite or Jesus-plant based?

Impossible Jesus.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:45 pm**

Chestaan wrote:Usually in relationships people will have red lines as to what their partner can and cannot do. The obvious one that comes to mind is that usually a person will find it reasonable to expect their partner to refrain from engaging in romantic/sexual acts with another person. But at what point do these restrictions cross the line from being ok to being unacceptable?

Some may argue that any restrictions in a relationship are fine, as long as they are agreed beforehand by all parties to the relationship but others will view certain restrictions as overly intrusive and possibly even abusive.

So what do you guys think are acceptable restrictions or unacceptable restrictions? Have you been in relationships where your partner placed unreasonable restrictions on you? Did you find it to be abusive? I'm very interested to hear from both men and women and particularly those who engage in same sex relationships to see if you guys have a different experience or perspective.

To get the ball rolling I have a few examples of what I consider unacceptable:

1. An ex of mind got angry at me when I brought a classmate back to my room in college to do maths work together. I was young and stupid at the time so afterwards I was terrified to even have those visiting me or friends enter my room.

2. A friend of mine had a girlfriend who considered watching porn to be the same as cheating.

3. On a social media group, a lady complained that her partner was liking photos of other girls on Facebook.

4. Several of my friends have told of cases where their partner did not allow them to see some of their friends.

5. A friend of mine, who is not an alcoholic, was told exactly how many drinks he could have by his girlfriend.

Watching porn while in a relationship is the same as cheating.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:50 pm**

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Watching porn while in a relationship is the same as cheating.

It is arguably better that someone does this than actually have sex with a different person you don't know about and maybe expose you to an STI (if you're not careful). Not all cheating is created equal in that it can range from something not being a big deal to being such a betrayal.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:52 pm**

Saiwania wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Watching porn while in a relationship is the same as cheating.

It is arguably better that someone does this than actually have sex with a different person you don't know about and maybe expose you to an STI (if you're not careful). Not all cheating is created equal in that it can range from something not being a big deal to being such a betrayal.

Or you could have some fucking self control instead of being a caveman who needs to beat off or fuck anything in sight. If you're not satisfied in your relationship, break it off.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:55 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
That means I am right.

Sorry, should've phrased that better.

You're the only one here who thinks people think those are acceptable restrictions.

Then you clearly didn't read what I posted. Wouldn't be the first time, certainly won't be the last.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:59 pm**

Victorious Decepticons wrote:How about you forget hooking up with any women of quality? Because you're not going to find any with THAT attitude.

What exactly is wrong with expecting the person you want to have a relationship with to be able to look after themselves? Is it surprising to you that basic skills that most people should know but don't are now qualities that people want in a partner?

NationStates

Unacceptable Restrictions in Relationships?