It's interesting, and probably a lot of truth to it.
But I shudder to think of the sort of backlash that would arise if a man wrote such a list about women.
--Nick Mon Jun 1 06:44:44 2009
Seems like #24 kind of sums it all up!
--YELM Mon Jun 1 07:54:30 2009
Personally, I think the 24 could be tightened up. #9 and #10 probably could be combined and made more specific. They're contradictory as they currently stand.
Otherwise. . .it's a blog entry and not something put together for the point of law, employee handbook or sales presentation or anything.
--The_Lex Tue Jun 2 07:50:47 2009
"But I shudder to think of the sort of backlash that would arise if a man wrote such a list about women."
- give it a go, Nick -- if you can think of even 14.5 such thoughtful items, you might change my mind about the other gender...
--some_chick Tue Jun 2 08:23:12 2009
Well, above all it's a great bit of writing. Also the consensus nature of it is intriguing... in thinking about Nick's "challenge", frankly, much of the charm of this is that it still has the telltales of coming from a group, and I think it's not unfair to say that women are more likely to pull that off than men.
--Kirk Tue Jun 2 09:04:20 2009
hmmmm... sounds like you all are backing down from the challenge.
--some_chick Tue Jun 2 09:49:33 2009
Well, I could do a "what THIS guy wants", but I don't think I'm particularly representative...
--Kirk Tue Jun 2 09:56:09 2009
I suppose this is not what guys talk about when they get together, eh?
BTW, thanks for posting -- I've been sending it around to people of both genders. ;-)
--some_chick Tue Jun 2 10:04:13 2009
Oh God No - it's just not the way guys communicate with each other. In some cases, 1 on 1, they might talk about specific issues in a relationship or general ideas, but besides that, well, a more generalized "What THESE Men Want", that springs from larger guy group interaction, is as follows:
Most everything else is on a case by case basis.
--Kirk Tue Jun 2 10:15:17 2009
--some_chick Tue Jun 2 10:20:27 2009
I think the thing with men is that they generally want a girl that doesn't do the BS playing game things, looks good and is interested in the same things.
In the long run, guys (probably even the sensitive guys once they get into the relationship) want as already listed, a girl that looks good, but after that, they want a girl that plays games and screws with their heads. It keeps things exciting. It helps when under those games, though, that every once in awhile they can't talk about stuff like the news, work and emotional stuff and can bring up kids. . .but until the kids enter the picture before old age sets in and after the bills get paid, most men probably want the excitement that comes with the crazy train.
--The_Lex Tue Jun 2 12:46:57 2009
Oh, sensitive guys probably also want a surrogate mother that will let the man cry on their shoulder, will pat the man on the head and tell the man that everything's all right and nothing's their fault.
--The_Lex Tue Jun 2 12:48:39 2009
Some Guys/need want to be depended on (maybe because subconsciously, being depended on is a way of assuring they are needed/wanted).
I'm not one of those guys, though, which is why I was hesitant to construct a more useful list of What THESE Guys Want.
Nor am I sure I actually like Crazy Train. I think my issue is, I kind of want a gal who interacts like a guy in many (but not all) ways. So it's not she's dependent on him, it's not the sensitive guy him crying on her shoulder, it's kind of independent. Unfortunately this model wasn't ultimately viable for me and Mo, and I think Ks wanted the first model, and it was a strain for me, because I can't take responsibility for something without feeling I need to be 100% responsible for it.
--Kirk Tue Jun 2 13:56:54 2009
The_Lex says guys want girls who don't play games, and then says some DO want games. And a sensitive mothering type. And to be needed in return? This seems opposite of everything I've ever thought men want... maybe it's reverse psychology?
And Kirk says a guy-like girl?
Color me confused... maybe guys just want the same thing as women - EVERYTHING? (Including great breasts?)
--some_chick Tue Jun 2 17:33:37 2009
That's a little what I meant about the original list being able to be shortened and made more succinct. :D
--The_Lex Tue Jun 2 18:50:28 2009
How did responsibility enter the picture?
And just wondering. . .What's your idea of romance, Kirk?
I remember reading an article somewhere by a woman suggesting that woman should think income generation and stability as an equal or more important factor than the love/romance factor.
It's funny how people have boiled the thought about these kinds of relationship into a scientific discipline when our culture idealizes the emotional and romantic parts of these types of relationships.
--The_Lex Tue Jun 2 18:55:46 2009
I hope you get to go to Europe :oD Sounds like a plan to me!
--Tiffany Wed Jun 3 00:01:02 2009
Well, my thesis was either, guys exhibit more diversity in what they're looking for, or more likely, guys are less likely to collaborate and come up with a list as cohesive yet encompassing as the original one.
My idea of romance... you know, for a guy who runs a romance poetry website, I swing a bit towards the utilitarian and unromantic! My natural mode is one of a fairly symmetrical partnership. And again, that hasn't panned out for me in the past, but lately I've been thinking the problem is less that as a base, and more a lack of communication that would let it grow to cover where it might not meet my partners needs.
I know I always need a certain heap of "me time", and start getting antsy when life fills up with a lack of room for little projects and general web surfing and/or reading.
I was reading this book, "The 10,000 Year Explosion", and it talks in part about migration patterns, how bands of pirates and barbarians and sailing merchants would have changed the genetic landscape. You wonder if there's any way to view those pairings through our lens of romance, or if it was probably closer to something like race.
In short, the Western image of romance isn't as universal as we like to assume, or maybe even as important, but it sure can be nice.
--Kirk Wed Jun 3 09:30:29 2009
Err, "rape" not "race".
--Kirk Wed Jun 3 09:30:57 2009
I think if men made such a list, they would probably be less specific and use more abstract thinking.
One problem I have with this list is that it seems reactionary to experience and closing off to future possibilities in which some of these qualities could work. But I guess that could be the problem of having a bunch of people come together and try to make up a list based on individual tastes yet intend on reaching a consensus of those tastes. . .it just seems as if its assuming that the list makers have a lot of "wisdom."
--The_Lex Thu Jun 4 00:04:42 2009
You know I think "closing off possibilities" is one of the reasons I'm nervous about making a list for just myself. I'm pretty easy going and adaptable, and I don't think it's attractive to put out a big "don't be this" out preemptively.
On the other hand, maybe it would help me to find exactly what I want. Though that sounds like a kind of all or nothing deal, with nothing being a real possibility...
--Kirk Thu Jun 4 07:22:36 2009
I think it's easier for one person to come up with a consistent list than for a group of people to come up with a true consensus about what makes a good mate.
--The_Lex Thu Jun 4 07:42:34 2009
Sure, one size doesn't necessarily fit all! Though getting back to the original list, those are some pretty good guidelines.
--Kirk Thu Jun 4 08:27:00 2009
I agree that the items on the original list are _really_ good guidelines. I don't think anyone should take such a list so seriously that it would close off possibilities if a given individual didn't adhere to a few of 29 characteristics...
--some_chick Thu Jun 4 11:25:53 2009
In spirit, yeah, the list is probably a fair list to come up with after going through some sort of revision process that takes into account that there's an audience reading it. Call me anal. . .. :D
--The_Lex Thu Jun 4 12:15:44 2009
Kirk, this is brilliant. It's funny to think of a blog post of mine being discussed this seriously, since I never really deliberate much about what I write. It wasn't that we got together and wrote the list, actually, I one day simply decided to write it based on our endless conversations about men and what we need from them. Obviously, it's highly personalised, I think they'd agree with most of it but not all and would add things of their own that I didn't. Oh, we don't adopt male nicknames, what happens is I have a double first name and the second bit is actually 'John' (only in Portuguese). We have a fair bit of Maria Jo„o, Maria Josť, Jo„o Maria, Josť Maria going on, and foreigners always find it very bizarre. Anyway, after years of people being unable to pronounce it I remembered the Waterboys' song and that was it.
I understand that there are some things that may be culturally determined. My friends and I do not even consider swapping exes stories with a boyfriend, my Anglo friends cannot wait. *shrug* What I fail to understand, though, is this: why is closing off possibilities a wrong thing? If something is really vital to you, in my case, say, being animal daft, why is it bad that I tell life I will not bother with a man who doesn't have it? In my life the times I used that exact approach,'maybe the rest of it will make up for the bits that are lacking', were the exact ones when I found myself wadding through a big pool of rubbish. See, these aren't just any characteristics, these (apart from the tongue-in-cheek ones) are things that I need in a mate, things that have made me miserable in the past when absent. I will always choose being partnerless over being with the wrong partner but I can't be arsed to compromise anymore, life's too long to not be lived with quality, the price is too high and the effects too everlasting.
The_Lex, I don't understand your last comment at all, apologies, night was long and sleep was short. Which explains the rambling on, sorry abt that Kirk, happens when I'm knackered.
--Johnny Fri Jun 5 07:54:52 2009
Comments Disabled... (Thanks Dirty Rotten Spammers)
Feel free to write kirkjerk at gmail dot com!