What do they want? What did they want in the Golden era?

[John in Covina]

A friend of a friend had mentioned that it seems today:

Guys want a good girl to be bad just for them!
Girls want a bad boy to be good just for them!

Is this a long term theme or are we talking a new wrinkle on the old puzzle?
What ever happened to- I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad?

 

[Stanley Doble]

You can get away with anything with women as long as you don't bore them. Look around, the biggest louse, the most selfish abusive boyfriends always have their pick of women and they stand by them too.

Then find a real gentleman, who treats women like queens and caters to their every wish and they can't dump him fast enough as soon as they get bored.

In other words they throw away the cake and fight over the crumbs.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Women married, more than anything else, for *security.* Being a "good provider" was the number one qualification for a good husband -- and not in the gold digger sense of showering you with expensive gifts and shiny junk, but in the sense of being day-in-and-day-out dependable. The greatest insult you could throw at a man in the Era was to call him a lounge lizard, a playboy, a cake-eater, a poolroom loafer, a shiftless no-account bum. Today, in certain circles being a "slacker" is a badge of honor.

 

[sheeplady]

You can get away with anything with women as long as you don't bore them. Look around, the biggest louse, the most selfish abusive boyfriends always have their pick of women and they stand by them too.

Then find a real gentleman, who treats women like queens and caters to their every wish and they can't dump him fast enough as soon as they get bored.

In other words they throw away the cake and fight over the crumbs.

That is an incredibly shallow view of women. It also is a very large misunderstanding of how abuse works in relationships. To the outside world it is easy to say that a victim should walk away from an abuser; but anybody who has been in an abusive relationship or seen one closely can tell you it is far from simple. Abusers are adept at isolating, dis-empowering, and physically/mentally preventing their victims from leaving. Also, putting the burden on the victim to leave the relationship is the wrong way to look at abuse- the burden is on the abuser to stop being abusive. The victim has done nothing wrong to deserve the abuse; the abuser is the criminal and should be the one to change his/her behavior.

It is an abuse victim's responsibility to seek help if s/he needs it, particularly if they continually seek out abusive relationships or are having problems due to past abuse. But it is never an abuse victim's fault for being a victim. If abusers didn't abuse there would be no victims, period.

 

[Flicka]

So the idea that men and women may actually be interested in interacting as two equal human beings on an intellectual and emotional level isn't an option? Because that's what most men and women I know are looking for -- a partner to share their life with (except me of course, but I seem to be the exception). I must be moving in the wrong circles!

Also, what sheeplady said.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Partnership implies that both partners contribute equally to the well-being of the relationship -- physically, intellectually, and materially. The modern slacker ethos undermines this on every level -- I'd like to have a nickel for every couple I've known where the man expected the woman to coddle his every need, but ran off to his "man cave" with his ears plugged when she had an issue or a concern. Or the guy who had his wife pay his way thru law school and then at the last minute decided he didn't want to be a lawyer after all and decided to go hiking across the Balkans instead leaving her holding the bag.

A couple should be exactly that -- a unit, putting the well being of the collective ahead of the whims of the individual. Otherwise it's just roommates.

 

[scotrace]

There are also plenty of instances of husbands who hold down multiple jobs, do the cleaning, cooking, attend to the yard work, look after the children, etc., while The Mrs soaks up reality TV and can't hang onto a paying job for more than a week.
Reverse the sexual roles, and it is equally bad. Not all slackers in partnerships are males.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Never said they were. The examples I have personal knowledge of or experience with have been male, however, so those are the examples I cite. My argument is that the modern emphasis on the individual uber alles undermines the Golden Era concept of what "a couple" ought to be.

It's often argued that one manifestation of the Double Standard is that it was considered a fine thing for a man to be a playboy, a rake, and a cad while the woman was expected to be faithful and long suffering. In the circles I grew up in, however, the word "playboy" was synonymous with useless parasite, and was never said with anything but the utmost contempt. Men were expected to live up to their commitments in order to be considered men, just as women were expected to live up to theirs.

 

[Touchofevil]

You can get away with anything with women as long as you don't bore them. Look around, the biggest louse, the most selfish abusive boyfriends always have their pick of women and they stand by them too.

Then find a real gentleman, who treats women like queens and caters to their every wish and they can't dump him fast enough as soon as they get bored.

In other words they throw away the cake and fight over the crumbs.

Obviously an extreme generalization. A statement such as this can be applied to only the immature, shallow, or broken. My experiences have been for the most part, quite the contrary. I have been cheated on by a couple of partners and treated as I should be by others, but I could never throw out such a blanket statement towards all women.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

So the idea that men and women may actually be interested in interacting as two equal human beings on an intellectual and emotional level isn't an option? Because that's what most men and women I know are looking for -- a partner to share their life with (except me of course, but I seem to be the exception). I must be moving in the wrong circles!

Also, what sheeplady said.

All of this. This is how my husband and I operate. That "man vs. woman" crap is lame *yawn* I'm sure they exist, but I'm lucky enough to not know anyone that immature.

Also, men (and women, too) who think they are experts on the opposite sex make me laugh lol

 

[Angus Forbes]

I am not an expert on the behavior of either sex, but several of my otherwise very competent female friends seem to be "moocher magnets," becoming serially involved with male slackers as though that's what they desire more than any other trait. Phooey.

Edit: as far as I can tell, this clearly was not the case with my parents' generation (born circa 1910-1920). My Dad was a paragon of dependability, which my Mom always appreciated very much; same for their cousins, et al., whom I knew.

 

[Touchofevil]

All of this. This is how my husband and I operate. That "man vs. woman" crap is lame *yawn* I'm sure they exist, but I'm lucky enough to not know anyone that immature.

Also, men (and women, too) who think they are experts on the opposite sex make me laugh lol

Crap is correct!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Edit: as far as I can tell, this clearly was not the case with my parents' generation (born circa 1910-1920). My Dad was a paragon of dependability, which my Mom always appreciated very much; same for their cousins, et al., whom I knew.

Same with my grandfather, who put his family before everything he ever did for as long as he lived. He literally worked himself to death to keep a roof over everyone's head, a fire in the stove, and food on the table. I don't know if he was "fulfilled," or even happy with his life -- but that didn't really matter. He had responsibilities and he lived up to them. I wish my father had been half the man he was.

My ideal man growing up wasn't even real: I always thought Skeezix Wallet, from the "Gasoline Alley" comic strip, was the sort of man every woman should marry. Intelligent, decent, dependable, gentle, kind, and honest.

 

[BigFitz]

A friend of a friend had mentioned that it seems today:

Guys want a good girl to be bad just for them!
Girls want a bad boy to be good just for them!

Is this a long term theme or are we talking a new wrinkle on the old puzzle?
What ever happened to- I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad?

Reminds me of a saying I heard once (from a woman):

"A woman marries a man and hope that they'll change but they never do. Men marry women and hope they won't change and they always do."

 

[John in Covina]

What portion of women look for what their father was versus men looking for their mother in a relationship?


I think that people that have been catered to as children often have a great obstical (sp) to get over when seeking the ideal homelife.

Do only children have a different outlook on marrige?

 

[Flicka]

All I can say is that if I was looking for my father in a relationship I'd need to find an emotionally unstable, egotistic, absent man who would let me down at every turn if I would ever be stupid enough to trust him. I can honestly say I'm not looking for that. As for anyone else, I have no idea. [huh]

 

[LizzieMaine]

Ditto. If I wanted to find my father, I'd have to look in the nearest cathouse. But I don't have any interest in finding him, and god help any man I run into who is in any way *like* him.

 

[sheeplady]

I think that people that have been catered to as children often have a great obstical (sp) to get over when seeking the ideal homelife.

Do only children have a different outlook on marrige?

Assuming that someone had a certain life experience based upon their number of siblings is just that, an assumption.

I am an only child. I also grew up on a farm. There's a saying, each child comes with one mouth but two hands; and that's a saying that's very true on a farm. All the large farm families were able to farm more acres and livestock than we ever could, and those families often had a glorious amount of free time I could only dream of as a single child. They played sports, belonged to clubs, took trips, etc. when my family couldn't afford for me to take that time away from making a living. All the kids from the large families always felt sorry for me, because they knew I was doing the work of 3 or 4 kids- and it wasn't easy work even if you spread it out over 3 children.

My parents absolutely gave me a wonderful childhood, and I am not complaining. But I love how people assume that only children somehow are catered to and lavished with gifts. Maybe that happens with non-farming families, but it certainly doesn't happen with all families.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Any statement like the one that started this thread, is a generalization, of course, but there are people who fit the mold.

I've watched women grow bored of nice, stable guys who treated them well. The left said 'nice guy' and went after some do-nothing loser with no job and no prospects. They think they can 'fix him' and enjoy trying, but in the end, the guy ain't gonna change. All they couple does is enable each other. The loser enables the gal to feel useful, while she enables his ability to be a slug. It's a shame, that's for sure.

 

[Undertow]

Settling for someone is demonized in our society. We're told by very intelligent people that settling for someone means you will not likely realize your potential as a human being.

What we're not told is that settling isn't always picking the nearest/first partner. And in today's society, we're most definitely not told how "settling" may in fact equal "settling down".