You Know What Really Grinds My Gears! Fat People...and Misappropriation of Descriptive Terms! (Ode to Family Guy)
Fat People really get on my nerves, and before you get defensive and start with Medical this, Genetic this, obviously not those sort of terribly unlucky Fat people. Just the rest. So Fat People and the associated Misappropriation of Descriptive Terms!
BBW: Big Boned Woman aka Lazy and Looking for an Excuse: In all my years of Study to become a Personal Trainer I never once stumbled across this Chapter. The BBW body shape. I read about Metamorph, Mesomorph and Endomorph...but sadly no BBWmorph. BBW are usually found in certain social groups, they self diagnose the events behind their weight. They often fail to recognise that their Diet consists of Fast Food, M&M's and they do NO exercise aside from walking to the Fridge.
Curvy: A Fat Person who has attempted to Hijack a Term used to Describe Latina Women and others with Similar Measurements. Curvy Women are not Fat. Curvy refers to the Ratio of Shoulder to Waist to Hip and Breast to Ass. It is possible to be 5'2, 10c and Curvy without being fat or be 5'11, 10dd and Curvy, or 4'10, 10b and Curvy. This figure is often similar to Playboys preferred 36/24/34 (Approximated). A woman with a Stick Figure is often 26/24/26, fairly Linear. Curvy does not have an Ethnic Distinction, whether Asian, Latin, European, Indian, African, Islander etc.
Overweight is Not Curvy...although there is a great deal of resemblance to Jelly and Donuts.
I imploy you...fat women...stop stealing descriptive terms that describe the hotter members of your gender! who look good in Bikini's!
Friday, June 1, 2012
Saturday, May 5, 2012
I Promise...Ill Never Cut You Off...the Sentence Done to Death...
The one sentence you hear alot on friendship is the following..."I Promise...Ill Never Cut You Off...
The question is...do we mean it when we say it? I think alot of us hope we do, but then when it comes to the actual situation, can we live with those words? or have we heard it so many times that when someone who means it, actually says it, it doesnt instil any strength of belief?
The other question is...how can we actually prove this to someone, until they push our buttons so much so, that we question this sentence ourselves. I put myself in that situation recently, bad week, bad day, frustrations and an eventual arguement. The arguement led to the end of a friendship, the other party used this type of sentence in their defence. That is a fair statement, they did not believe the integrity of the statement and obviously felt that I would never be able to keep that bargain. It was a very sad sad afternoon, I stared at the mirror and felt like banging my head on the wall. It didnt help, I think I sms'd and called them enough times to be considered a freaking stalker. *Note, generally calling a call 5-10 times in about 30mins and smsing 10+ times would easily qualify you for a stalker tag.
The frustration is, when you cancel on someone due to frustrations or you re-schedule, at what point is that considering cutting them off? In my own views and experiences it is simply an isolated annoyance amongst a multitude of positives. So why do they react this way, as if the world has ended?
I have not really managed to understand this mindset, perhaps I do not like to recognise it, or perhaps I have not given it enough time. One must understand how their previous experiences played out. Did someone cancel once, then cancel again, over and over until they walked away? Did they cancel once and then walk away? Who knows.
Is it smart to pre-emptively strike? and destroy a strong friendship? In some circumstances yes, in others no. I guess the question is, how confident do you feel in what you other the other party.
In this case I feel I offer more than anyone else, however there is a situation where the other parties fears and frustrations and memories overpower what you offer and you cannot find the meeting point to talk. At times one party may question the value within a friendship, this can be frustrating when options are given for them to display this, but their fears push them away.
What a confusing sentence. I need to ponder this.
The question is...do we mean it when we say it? I think alot of us hope we do, but then when it comes to the actual situation, can we live with those words? or have we heard it so many times that when someone who means it, actually says it, it doesnt instil any strength of belief?
The other question is...how can we actually prove this to someone, until they push our buttons so much so, that we question this sentence ourselves. I put myself in that situation recently, bad week, bad day, frustrations and an eventual arguement. The arguement led to the end of a friendship, the other party used this type of sentence in their defence. That is a fair statement, they did not believe the integrity of the statement and obviously felt that I would never be able to keep that bargain. It was a very sad sad afternoon, I stared at the mirror and felt like banging my head on the wall. It didnt help, I think I sms'd and called them enough times to be considered a freaking stalker. *Note, generally calling a call 5-10 times in about 30mins and smsing 10+ times would easily qualify you for a stalker tag.
The frustration is, when you cancel on someone due to frustrations or you re-schedule, at what point is that considering cutting them off? In my own views and experiences it is simply an isolated annoyance amongst a multitude of positives. So why do they react this way, as if the world has ended?
I have not really managed to understand this mindset, perhaps I do not like to recognise it, or perhaps I have not given it enough time. One must understand how their previous experiences played out. Did someone cancel once, then cancel again, over and over until they walked away? Did they cancel once and then walk away? Who knows.
Is it smart to pre-emptively strike? and destroy a strong friendship? In some circumstances yes, in others no. I guess the question is, how confident do you feel in what you other the other party.
In this case I feel I offer more than anyone else, however there is a situation where the other parties fears and frustrations and memories overpower what you offer and you cannot find the meeting point to talk. At times one party may question the value within a friendship, this can be frustrating when options are given for them to display this, but their fears push them away.
What a confusing sentence. I need to ponder this.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Traditional Parenting: Authoritative Figure (Needs some EDITING)
The purpose of this article is to examine the benefits and consequences that the "Authoritative Parenting" model creates in modern globalised society. This article also offers the Authors viewpoint upon what correct Parenting should include and consist of. (Be aware that there is no comparison with a Modern approach, as this model is consistently vague due to the multitude of Parenting views in today's society.) This approach is used quite regularly in the majority of 2nd and 3rd World Countries and is still found in the 1st.
From the Authors experience, observation and discussion it is apparent that the Traditional Parenting Model is based upon the assertion that an Authoritative, Direction-Giving approach be applied. This Model leaves little room for dissent, negotiation, freedom of expression and thought and often results in unintended consequences; at times of average impact, but also possibly disastrous.
Historically this Model obviously flourished during a period in which Tradition, Morals, Family Values and Respect for Authority/Elders was prevalent. This Model worked consistently well in delivering and embedding triggers surrounding Authority and relied on the existing environment and culture in whichALL children were raised in the same manner and showed the same types of Respect and thus had equally similar triggers. This existence allowed for a somewhat "Protectionist" view of the Children and Courtship, Family Arrangements were required for future events and Parental Discernment was possible.
The first consequence of this Model, in relation to modern society, is the creation and prevalence of "Authoritative" and at times "Subjugation" triggers in the Sub-conscious of the children. (More so, a highly negative event for females as opposed to males due to the nature of relationships and the general focus on male’s importance in these societies.)
The second issue, which has some relation to the first, is that this Parenting Model has fallen to the wayside in the majority of 1st World Economies, with the exception of places such asJapan Singapore
Combining and expanding on these two points together gives us a greater overview of the problems that arise. Sub-consciously, the ingrainment of an Authoritative trigger creates the willingness and openness to unintentionally gravitate towards a more dominant, aggressive, authoritative figure. This impact if often shown strongly within adolescent relationships that include a younger female/older male and at times within interracial relationships where one parties view dominates without dissent. This Model creates a willingness to accept and reduces and at times removes the ability to discern dangerous association, question authority, source outside views and develop the ability to confidently make decisions with all the information available. (A general requirement for happiness in Modern Society).
The more negative side-effects may include; a general lack of ability to make correct decisions, a need to control everything within the periphery (due to the removal of this exposure within adolescence), a fear at making incorrect decisions and regret, resentment for Authority and/or a extended need for a Authoritative figure to feel validated and comfortable, sexual validation/issues (due to corrupted views by new Authority figures) and an overall lack of self determination and self belief.
So if these consequences are an outcome, why is this trigger created and used?
This approach and the triggers, as mentioned earlier, require a society without negative corruptive influence. When Tradition meets Modern there is a problem. The usage of this approach creates a more streamlined system in which Parenting decision-making meets little argument and resources can be allocated as required. This also allows for third-parties to provide extended diligence and authority, it is designed to affect the future relationship between that of the Elders and Youth. Negativities aside, this trigger has its positive uses in regards to Employment, maintenance of a Collective Society, Family Strength, Loyalty and Commitment.
Further negative consequences are created due to the overlap and interaction of the two models. This is often shown within the families of International Students returning to their birth country after University Studies and also within Migrant Families who have relocated to the new Society and suddenly have an influx of external influences and views on Authority and Self Determination. The consequence of this is that Authoritative Figures tend to overtly enforce discipline, with an aim at forcing control for decision making back into their grasp. Frustrations and Conflicts often mount and there is a failure to see eye-to-eye, this frustration can drive the Child from the family. Authoritative Figures cite a lack of Respect and Maturity, while the Child argues about a lack of Reason, Negotiation, Self Rule and obvious Control from the Parent. This is highly prevalent in Children with Strong Personalities and Aggressive tendencies as they seek to expand themselves and protect what they have recently been exposed to, and learnt from.
So how? Or what creates these outcomes?
In order to understand these outcomes it would be important to have a definition for what "Appropriate Parenting" should entail. (Please note, this is the Authors own viewpoint). The overall purpose of Parenting is to nurture a level of self respect and morality within a child, to teach patience, determination, and self belief and to engrain the ability to make appropriate, confident decisions and discern outcomes and understand events as they take place, all within an expanding boundary and level of available discipline. This would be considered as a Mentoring/Guidance Figure, as opposed to an Authoritative Figure.
So does this mean that Parents basically let there child do as they wish? Or how can this be approached?
Lets call this approach; "the 3 E's; Expose, Expand, and Engrain", a repetitive requirement in parenting (up to the point where self-determination is available). Expose and Expand work in tandem with one another. However, in getting to this, it is important to understand that there is a requirement for discipline, boundaries and borders to be established; however it is exceedingly more important to realise that these boundaries are dynamic rather than static and require the ability to expand. Expansion is actually created by the child and caused by the Childs level of understanding for their environment and a displayed level of maturity within this area; this is the positive outcome of Exposing a child to new ideas and objects.
This display of maturity sub-consciously demands growth and greater exposure to new choices and situations, failure to understand this, or allow movement creates frustration and difficulty for growth for both the parent and child. Engrainment of the recent concepts is a sign of their readiness for expansion. (Please note that the Expose component is controlled by how much a Parent allows a child to be exposed to. The more choices and objects placed within a Childs periphery, the more confusion is possible. These changes over time as a Child’s ability to multi-task and understand patterns and intertwined relationships develops).
In exposing a child to various ideas, objects and concepts is it important to understand a number of issues;
From the Authors experience, observation and discussion it is apparent that the Traditional Parenting Model is based upon the assertion that an Authoritative, Direction-Giving approach be applied. This Model leaves little room for dissent, negotiation, freedom of expression and thought and often results in unintended consequences; at times of average impact, but also possibly disastrous.
Historically this Model obviously flourished during a period in which Tradition, Morals, Family Values and Respect for Authority/Elders was prevalent. This Model worked consistently well in delivering and embedding triggers surrounding Authority and relied on the existing environment and culture in which
The first consequence of this Model, in relation to modern society, is the creation and prevalence of "Authoritative" and at times "Subjugation" triggers in the Sub-conscious of the children. (More so, a highly negative event for females as opposed to males due to the nature of relationships and the general focus on male’s importance in these societies.)
The second issue, which has some relation to the first, is that this Parenting Model has fallen to the wayside in the majority of 1st World Economies, with the exception of places such as
Combining and expanding on these two points together gives us a greater overview of the problems that arise. Sub-consciously, the ingrainment of an Authoritative trigger creates the willingness and openness to unintentionally gravitate towards a more dominant, aggressive, authoritative figure. This impact if often shown strongly within adolescent relationships that include a younger female/older male and at times within interracial relationships where one parties view dominates without dissent. This Model creates a willingness to accept and reduces and at times removes the ability to discern dangerous association, question authority, source outside views and develop the ability to confidently make decisions with all the information available. (A general requirement for happiness in Modern Society).
The more negative side-effects may include; a general lack of ability to make correct decisions, a need to control everything within the periphery (due to the removal of this exposure within adolescence), a fear at making incorrect decisions and regret, resentment for Authority and/or a extended need for a Authoritative figure to feel validated and comfortable, sexual validation/issues (due to corrupted views by new Authority figures) and an overall lack of self determination and self belief.
So if these consequences are an outcome, why is this trigger created and used?
This approach and the triggers, as mentioned earlier, require a society without negative corruptive influence. When Tradition meets Modern there is a problem. The usage of this approach creates a more streamlined system in which Parenting decision-making meets little argument and resources can be allocated as required. This also allows for third-parties to provide extended diligence and authority, it is designed to affect the future relationship between that of the Elders and Youth. Negativities aside, this trigger has its positive uses in regards to Employment, maintenance of a Collective Society, Family Strength, Loyalty and Commitment.
Further negative consequences are created due to the overlap and interaction of the two models. This is often shown within the families of International Students returning to their birth country after University Studies and also within Migrant Families who have relocated to the new Society and suddenly have an influx of external influences and views on Authority and Self Determination. The consequence of this is that Authoritative Figures tend to overtly enforce discipline, with an aim at forcing control for decision making back into their grasp. Frustrations and Conflicts often mount and there is a failure to see eye-to-eye, this frustration can drive the Child from the family. Authoritative Figures cite a lack of Respect and Maturity, while the Child argues about a lack of Reason, Negotiation, Self Rule and obvious Control from the Parent. This is highly prevalent in Children with Strong Personalities and Aggressive tendencies as they seek to expand themselves and protect what they have recently been exposed to, and learnt from.
So how? Or what creates these outcomes?
In order to understand these outcomes it would be important to have a definition for what "Appropriate Parenting" should entail. (Please note, this is the Authors own viewpoint). The overall purpose of Parenting is to nurture a level of self respect and morality within a child, to teach patience, determination, and self belief and to engrain the ability to make appropriate, confident decisions and discern outcomes and understand events as they take place, all within an expanding boundary and level of available discipline. This would be considered as a Mentoring/Guidance Figure, as opposed to an Authoritative Figure.
So does this mean that Parents basically let there child do as they wish? Or how can this be approached?
Lets call this approach; "the 3 E's; Expose, Expand, and Engrain", a repetitive requirement in parenting (up to the point where self-determination is available). Expose and Expand work in tandem with one another. However, in getting to this, it is important to understand that there is a requirement for discipline, boundaries and borders to be established; however it is exceedingly more important to realise that these boundaries are dynamic rather than static and require the ability to expand. Expansion is actually created by the child and caused by the Childs level of understanding for their environment and a displayed level of maturity within this area; this is the positive outcome of Exposing a child to new ideas and objects.
This display of maturity sub-consciously demands growth and greater exposure to new choices and situations, failure to understand this, or allow movement creates frustration and difficulty for growth for both the parent and child. Engrainment of the recent concepts is a sign of their readiness for expansion. (Please note that the Expose component is controlled by how much a Parent allows a child to be exposed to. The more choices and objects placed within a Childs periphery, the more confusion is possible. These changes over time as a Child’s ability to multi-task and understand patterns and intertwined relationships develops).
In exposing a child to various ideas, objects and concepts is it important to understand a number of issues;
1. A child has no understanding of the concept of material composition; that is to say the child does not know the difference between glass and plastic. This is correct whether the child is 4 or 12 provided their has been no Exposure and Engrainment.
2. A child has no understanding of the consequences from heat, fire, cold, wind, etc and this requires alot of patience in imparting these lessons.
3. A child has little respect for tangible, inanimate objects.
4. A child does not have a fear of dogs, or cats, or bugs, or spiders; the parent has a fear and this over-reaction and attitude becomes adopted by the child for no legitimate reason.
5. A child picks up your self esteem, and body language and mimics ALL of that is it exposed to.
6. A child is from you, and develops certain abilities and levels of intelligence, due to this connection. This is a consequence of cultural influence and thus they may lean towards certain views as opposed to others.
Acceptance of these 6 basics (there are alot more that could be added) gives a Parent the ability to assess and nurture. The reality is, allowing a child to make use of a glass versus a plastic cup comes down to patience and the imparting of a concept. The child needs to be taught/shown the outcomes and consequences of misuse of these items. I.e. break the cup deliberately and show them why care must be applied to avoid subsequent events. This is the fastest way to Expand/Expose/Engrain.
Provided these approaches are applied within Parenting, the outcome will be a child who is confident with choice and avoids numerous pitfalls in life. They will be willing to be Mentored and Guided, while considering themselves capable of certain challenges without fear. The added bonus is that their level of maturity grows and their own ability at discernment allows for Parents to provide less oversight and control and more encouragement and boundary setting/expanding.
In regards to multiple children; perceived favouritism (the Childs view as opposed to the parents) amongst siblings is a consequence of lazy, inefficient parenting and a failure to reset and restore required boundaries and borders for the younger generation. Thus this can cause tension between siblings. Positively this may result in greater growth and development for the younger party, however adversely this may result in exposure to concepts and events without the required discernment and maturity, i.e. the older siblings friendship circle, external attitudes, lifestyle, cultural views.
(I NEED TO EXPAND THE LAST BIT)
Provided these approaches are applied within Parenting, the outcome will be a child who is confident with choice and avoids numerous pitfalls in life. They will be willing to be Mentored and Guided, while considering themselves capable of certain challenges without fear. The added bonus is that their level of maturity grows and their own ability at discernment allows for Parents to provide less oversight and control and more encouragement and boundary setting/expanding.
In regards to multiple children; perceived favouritism (the Childs view as opposed to the parents) amongst siblings is a consequence of lazy, inefficient parenting and a failure to reset and restore required boundaries and borders for the younger generation. Thus this can cause tension between siblings. Positively this may result in greater growth and development for the younger party, however adversely this may result in exposure to concepts and events without the required discernment and maturity, i.e. the older siblings friendship circle, external attitudes, lifestyle, cultural views.
(I NEED TO EXPAND THE LAST BIT)
Power Dynamics: Version 1 (TBC)
Preface: In order to understand the following, it is important to make the connection that these concepts refer to events that exist within the Sub-Conscious, and not what can actually be visually seen physically through Conscious thought. This theory is overly based upon sensory and intangible aspects.
Power Dynamics refers to the role that Objects play in opposing one another, in this case, People. I theorise that People maintain a limited Range for what they can see about them, in regards to other people they come in contact with, or maintain a connection with. This Range, to be known as the "Range of Gaze" for the purpose of this paper, is area encompassing a parties of a Similar level of Self Esteem, to those a number of Points Below the Viewing Party. This range is thus based on the Self Esteem Levels and also includes a "Preferred Point" or Equilibrium which is required to be met as a minimum avoid an "Uncomfortable Range or Perspective".
The complicated matter is that these to Ranges and Preferences are actually inverted depending on the Level of Self Esteem. That is to say that a Party with HIGH Self Esteem Level will ultimately Seek to raise that of Party with a LOWER Self Esteem Level, while a Party with a LOW Self Esteem Level will seek to reduce that of similar or lower positioned Parties. Positive vs Negativity.
Power Dynamics refers to the role that Objects play in opposing one another, in this case, People. I theorise that People maintain a limited Range for what they can see about them, in regards to other people they come in contact with, or maintain a connection with. This Range, to be known as the "Range of Gaze" for the purpose of this paper, is area encompassing a parties of a Similar level of Self Esteem, to those a number of Points Below the Viewing Party. This range is thus based on the Self Esteem Levels and also includes a "Preferred Point" or Equilibrium which is required to be met as a minimum avoid an "Uncomfortable Range or Perspective".
The complicated matter is that these to Ranges and Preferences are actually inverted depending on the Level of Self Esteem. That is to say that a Party with HIGH Self Esteem Level will ultimately Seek to raise that of Party with a LOWER Self Esteem Level, while a Party with a LOW Self Esteem Level will seek to reduce that of similar or lower positioned Parties. Positive vs Negativity.
This theory can also be applied to that of "Peer Pressure" and "SadoMachochist Relationships"; which are ultimately a more twisted extension of "Peer Pressure" on a one-to-one basis. Peer Pressure exists when one Party who is on par or slightly stronger than another, applies a level of pressure in order to have a decision made that is for the most part; negative. This pressure is often to minimise the levels of guilt and/or conscience that arise due the event to be undertaken.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Bridges - Draft
Life and Relationships are like Bridge Building
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Power Dynamics: edit
Power Dynamics is a term I would use to help explain and understand the relationship between all people, a possible derivative of the Law of the Jungle; without the eating and munching on one another of course.
So what do I mean by "Power Dynamics"? This concept refers to the position one person maintains in relation to another. Either Above or Below (Neurality in this regards may appear to exist on the surface as a form of equality, but a deeper examination would show that this is not the case, one party will always need to be be Above or Below the other party the interactions involve).
So what does define whether a person is Above or Below someone they interact with? This definition was traditionally defined through Age, Position, Seniority and things such as Family Placement; a view connected to Collectivism from earlier culture times. For example; The Baker was Above the Farmer, and Above the Maid, but Below the Knight or the Samurai. This Power Structure caused a gravitation effect for those below. However this traditional view thus has a diminished level of impact in the Power Dynamics of Modern Individualistically driven society.
So, if Age, Seniority, Position etc, no longer play a crucial role in this Structure, what does? The lead event that now plays the most importance is that of Intrinsic Self Esteem and Confidence. That is to say "the More Confidence a person is, the more power that are able to exert and influence they are able to express" and generally the Higher up that are considered by those around them, and thus more attractive and desired.
It is important to remember that for the most part, these are subconscious events and not something many people are aware of.
Considering that Intrinsic Confidence and Self Esteem are the key factors, what is it that defines Self Esteem? Self Esteem is an Innate Belief in one's abilities to "grasp Concept, Face Challenges with Success, Deliver Performance with Consistency, and Exhibit above Avg Talent in a number of Interests". (there is likely a number of other expansions available, but this will do).
Self Esteem and Confidence are ever evolving. Traditional measurements still remain, such as; Masculinity, Feminity, Stature, Charisma, ect however today's society has expanded to include measures of abilities such as; Music, Art, Dancing, Mechanical Aptitude, Intelligence, Looks, Sporting Ability and so forth. As technology moves forward, as will this evolve again.
So what do I mean by "Power Dynamics"? This concept refers to the position one person maintains in relation to another. Either Above or Below (Neurality in this regards may appear to exist on the surface as a form of equality, but a deeper examination would show that this is not the case, one party will always need to be be Above or Below the other party the interactions involve).
So what does define whether a person is Above or Below someone they interact with? This definition was traditionally defined through Age, Position, Seniority and things such as Family Placement; a view connected to Collectivism from earlier culture times. For example; The Baker was Above the Farmer, and Above the Maid, but Below the Knight or the Samurai. This Power Structure caused a gravitation effect for those below. However this traditional view thus has a diminished level of impact in the Power Dynamics of Modern Individualistically driven society.
So, if Age, Seniority, Position etc, no longer play a crucial role in this Structure, what does? The lead event that now plays the most importance is that of Intrinsic Self Esteem and Confidence. That is to say "the More Confidence a person is, the more power that are able to exert and influence they are able to express" and generally the Higher up that are considered by those around them, and thus more attractive and desired.
It is important to remember that for the most part, these are subconscious events and not something many people are aware of.
Considering that Intrinsic Confidence and Self Esteem are the key factors, what is it that defines Self Esteem? Self Esteem is an Innate Belief in one's abilities to "grasp Concept, Face Challenges with Success, Deliver Performance with Consistency, and Exhibit above Avg Talent in a number of Interests". (there is likely a number of other expansions available, but this will do).
Self Esteem and Confidence are ever evolving. Traditional measurements still remain, such as; Masculinity, Feminity, Stature, Charisma, ect however today's society has expanded to include measures of abilities such as; Music, Art, Dancing, Mechanical Aptitude, Intelligence, Looks, Sporting Ability and so forth. As technology moves forward, as will this evolve again.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
My Experience with Online Dating: A Case Study
My Experience with Online Dating: A Case Study.
Over a period of time, I decided that I would indulge in some Online Dating; for the perspective of gaining insight into what people (women) think, desire, project, aim for, and accept. The aim's of this paper is to examine a number of key view points and possible misconceptions, dissecting these statements and pointing out the weaknesses and ignorances of this approach.
In the time I have maintained a membership I have noticed a number of glaring statements; the basis for all of these lies within the person stating the desire, rather than with the recipients.
Two of the most notiable claims are as follows; "I want to meet a man who is single, and has no children." and "I want to meet a man who makes me number one and does not spend time with lots of girls."
In my eyes and experience both these views are laughable and rejection of them from a female perspective would bring more contentment than pain.
Let us examine the "Single Father viewpoint first".
The attitude towards Single Fathers and negativity is quite pathetic and immature, Males do not have complete control over conception and birth, this lies within the Females power. If a Male makes a mistake, he cannot always rectify this. However; he can be responsible, patient, open, nurturing, warm, calm and protective. The majority of Single Fathers who are the opposite to this are in fact scared, confused and unsure, they do not understand how to deal with these events and feel overwhelmed.
Secondly, the view regarding Males with Female friends. If someone is of Quality, a Standard, Intelligence and Experience then obviously they will be admired by a majority of people. This includes Women as friends. Women make statements about wanting to be all alone with a guy without realising one simple fact "A Male without Female friends, especially those of a Respectable Lifestyle and Nature are NOT the Quality that they assume." In short "If your bf only has yourself and no friends, he is a loser. No girl is going to try and steal him because they already see his flaws".
Over a period of time, I decided that I would indulge in some Online Dating; for the perspective of gaining insight into what people (women) think, desire, project, aim for, and accept. The aim's of this paper is to examine a number of key view points and possible misconceptions, dissecting these statements and pointing out the weaknesses and ignorances of this approach.
In the time I have maintained a membership I have noticed a number of glaring statements; the basis for all of these lies within the person stating the desire, rather than with the recipients.
Two of the most notiable claims are as follows; "I want to meet a man who is single, and has no children." and "I want to meet a man who makes me number one and does not spend time with lots of girls."
In my eyes and experience both these views are laughable and rejection of them from a female perspective would bring more contentment than pain.
Let us examine the "Single Father viewpoint first".
The attitude towards Single Fathers and negativity is quite pathetic and immature, Males do not have complete control over conception and birth, this lies within the Females power. If a Male makes a mistake, he cannot always rectify this. However; he can be responsible, patient, open, nurturing, warm, calm and protective. The majority of Single Fathers who are the opposite to this are in fact scared, confused and unsure, they do not understand how to deal with these events and feel overwhelmed.
Secondly, the view regarding Males with Female friends. If someone is of Quality, a Standard, Intelligence and Experience then obviously they will be admired by a majority of people. This includes Women as friends. Women make statements about wanting to be all alone with a guy without realising one simple fact "A Male without Female friends, especially those of a Respectable Lifestyle and Nature are NOT the Quality that they assume." In short "If your bf only has yourself and no friends, he is a loser. No girl is going to try and steal him because they already see his flaws".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)