You'll Love It!
It Looks Just Like A Telefunken U47!
Is this thing on? Is anyone listening? That's the one thing I don't like about this site. Unlike other web portals, there is no way to tell if people are actually visiting and reading what you have going on. Not that I really care, I'll blab away regardless....but curiosity did kill the cat, after all. And speaking of, if your are a curious type person please check this out!
In the last week I have been chastised by two different women on my approach to women. Not that I said anything nearly as derogatory as when I had a conversation at a bar with a chick and she said you really shouldn't call women "chicks." OK, fine. When I was relaying that story to a friend's girlfriend she laughed and asked me who said this....."some chick," I replied. And if you find that offensive, then you might not ever want to ask me my opinion on anything.....
Irregardless of that, I was told that I was entirely too logical in dealing with women. Does that sound a bit off? Is that to imply that women are not logical? So what if you know women that are definitively logical?
One person actually told me I should get drunk, make my move, and if it didn't work out then I could fall back to blaming the alcohol. As much as I like the idea, it just isn't quite my style. The worst thing for me is for other females to tell me things like:
- you should be rolling it
- you are a great guy
- you are good looking
- you should be able to get just about any woman you want
- etc.
Really? My, my, how I find that highly amusing and extremely frustrating. I don't want to hear that. Why does it irritate me? Because if any of it were true I would be exploring far more meaningful relationships than those with my guitar.
Admittedly I don't ask a lot of women out. I don't like rejection and it seems that more often than not that is what happens. I also don't play games, and I think this is the single largest problem. I speak my mind, when asked or provoked, and I refuse to fall into any of the following games (life is too short):
- any type of relationship based on how much I make or social status.
- women that think they hold all the power because they have something between their legs that makes them special.
- any psychological games that involve proving who is in control.
I have often been told I am unapproachable. WTF does that mean? How am I unapproachable? I'll talk to just about anyone on just about any subject (though I do tend to shy away from politics and religion as a general rule of thumb). When asked why people say that I never get a good answer.
And let's not even get into the whole traveling / where the hell do I really live type thing. That is a complete mess.
This could go on for a while, but in reality I am just ranting a bit.....
10 comments:
Wow, I know I am one of the females who has told you that you are "great," "good-looking" and that you should be "rolling in it" so I don't know what to say other than I understand your frustration. I could tell you that you are horrible, worthless and will never have a woman! I think I have told you those things too. Relationships are frustrating because they involve human emotion. The right person for you is out there, but you have to be willing to be open enough to see her. I know I was blind to a few good men in my past.
You need to approach women fairly agressivly. My ex-boyfriend is not even a little bit good looking, but he is one of those guys that approaches every attractive girl he sees. He met me on a dive boat. He saw me and my sister and came right for us and herded off all the other guys. Me and my sis were the only girls on the boat and there were a lot of better looking guys, but he went for it. He tells me he is a river rafting guide and would I like to go rafting, etc and I'm hooked. It turned out that the reason he became a rafting guide is that he went up to the booth at the outdoor sportsman show, to chat up the girl manning the river rafting booth and she got him into rafting. My ex would go up to the best looking girl at any party and chat her up, regardless whether she had a boyfriend or not. One time he was honing in on some poor guy who was playing pool with this girl he was on a first date with. She was Amerasian and gorgeous. After the party my ex tells me that he didn't think that the guy was going to get lucky that night and I tell him, thanks to you you jack ass! He said with the law of averages he was bound to score a lot and believe me he did. When he took me to the emergency room, I would come out and he would be talking to a cute girl. If we went bear hunting, he would chat up the best looking girl friend of some other hunter. As he would say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Of course it annoyed the hell out of his girlfriend at the time, me included, but I have to admit, his strategy works.
Two different opinions from two different women. Interesting.
BTW - the ultra aggressive approach is not for me. I know too many guys like that and I am just not into it. Although I do agree that you have to at least make opportunities happen.
I am going out on a limb and generalize here. White guys have bought into feminism and have had a lot of the manhood scared out of them. I live in the inner city and Asian and white guys never approach a woman, unless fueled buy alcohol. Black and Hispanic guys approach women all the time. Black guys score a lot because they are like my ex, but there is a happy medium. If you see a cute girl, please approach her, she wants you to. I trust Julie's opinion, women do not tell a guy he's attractive for no reason.
I am a MANLY MAN! :-) I am not afraid to be a man, but that still doesn't mean that I am ultra-aggressive.
...often, if I think a cute girl wants me to approach her, I find out she didn't. LOL
I find it amusing that everyone seems to know a guy like that. *I* know a guy like that. So are people saying they think that I should be like that?
Also, I find it interesting that the post that gets the most comments is the one related to the relationships between women and men.
There is a big difference between my ex and the guy on the ferry, for one thing my ex doesn't drink and he's funny and cool to talk to and has a lot of interests. That is why he gets lucky more than most guys. However you can't get lucky from a distance, except for cyber porn that is!!
No one in their right mind
would want to be a chick.
Everytime you say the word
I get a little sick.
I don't want to trap you.
I don't want to trick.
Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.
Chicks go out for coffee
cigarettes and gum.
Chicks bring back the burger king
yum yum yum.
Chicks wait in the parking lot.
Chicks wait in the sack.
Chicks are where the action is
But never get to act.
Chicks are like a jacket.
Chicks are like a car.
The way yr chick is looking
Is the man you think you are.
Chick chick here
Chick chick there
Chicklets on the phone.
I'm gonna start a rumor
And hope it catches it on.
No one in their right mind
would want to be a chick.
Everytime you say the word
I get a little sick.
I don't want to trap you.
I don't want to trick.
Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.
(Hear this at" http://www.barbarabarg.com/Music%20Page/Avant%20Sq/avant_sq.htm)
--------------
The word chick came into useage at the same time as "cat" came in meaning a musician in a swing band. As in cool cat.
http://www.theatredance.com/hipster.html
So let's look at the relationship between a cat and a chick. If you think of relationships in terms of power relationships, a chick ain't the thing to be in relation to a cat.
But of course, the best language instruction in how to speak hip comes from Geets Romo at:
http://www.howtospeakhip.com/
But also, sticking people into categories is a peculiar way to look at the world. For example, when whites (especially around where I grew up) thought of themselves as the center of the Universe, everyone else were "non-whites", defined negatively in relationship to whites. Or non-Christians, defined negatively in relationship to Christians, etc.
Fortunately, the term People of Color, a positive definition replaced that when whites (and others) discovered whites weren't the center of the universe, and the power relations changed somewhat.
If one is a student of language, one begins to see the insidious little linguistic terms we use all the time that guide our thinking without us even knowing about it. Linguistic terms that suggest power relations and social relations and psychological mindsets.
For example:
"the opposite sex". The word opposite immediately implies opposition between the two main biological sexes, which sets up a psychological positioning. However, when you look at the actual physiology, males and females are not opposite, they are complementary. They fit together perfectly.
What if we grew up hearing about the "complementary sexes"? How might that give us an easier psychological framework within which to relate?
Or what if, instead of growing hearing about "the battle of the sexes", we grew up hearing the term "the fiesta of the sexes"?
Think of all the diminuative, or downright nasty terms for women: chick (the prey), slut, bitch, whore, etc.
Now see if you can think of a word for a man that means the same thing. No. You can't Men are cats, the hunters. Men aren't sluts, they're studs. And an ultimate slam for a man is to be called . . . a pussy (which is much different than being called a cat). In otherwords, the thing men claim to want to get next to the most, pussy, is the very thing that is most insulting for them to be called.
Hell, no wonder the sexes feel it's so difficult to relate to each other. We live in these tight little boxes of categorical imperatives. Yikes. Bore me frigging later.
If yr having too much trouble picking up chicks, your box is too tight, your aura is too desperate, you are judging everything before you even speak to the woman. Too much armor, too much calculation, too much fear.
And then of course, there's the matter of who you've got yr eye on. The hottest chick at the party? Or the woman who's as nervous about the whole thing as you are? Are you snubbing the women who would really find you attractive and wonderful because they aren't on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuite issue?
Aunt Barbara
a tough old broad
OMG! I tried to read that without enough caffeine and almost had brain over-load.
I'll have to think about some of the psychology that you wrote about. I'm not sure I agree with it 100% right off th top of my head. But that doesn't meant that the person I am talking doesn't as well.
It's hard to be insulted if you don't take it as an insulted. As an example my friend was in Ireland and got into a fight with his sister-in-law. She started calling him a name he couldn't understand. So he says "what?" and she calls him the name again only now she is really mad. Again, he says "what?" and she finally blows it and really goes off, but explains that the name was a "cow" he just couldn't understand it because of the accent. By then he was laughing so hard it didn't matter.
What does that mean? That a term, such as "chick" might only be insulting if you let it be insulting. Either that or the price of tea in china is a very mysterious catalyst for the rest of the universe.
Sonny, I fear you are missing the point. It's not about being insulted. It's about examining the contents of our ideologies. After all the individual is an ideological construction, and if you don't carefully rethink the way society constructs you, you become an unwitting participant in a lot of stupidities.
Language is a great tool for constructing individuals. We use language constructions everyday wihtout realizing they are not really "facts", but mere groupings of words that are grouped so as to carry/imprint a meaning that we will internalize.
Again I refer you to George Orwell's 1984 and Newspeak, a prime example of wielding language as a fascist weapon.
It goes on a lot today as well. For example, any critisim of the current government is not challenged on the issues being criticized, but immediately condemned as "unAmerican" if one questions policy.
We no longer have really, rational debates about issues, we have soundbytes and slogans. All spectrums of government, Elephant and Donkey, are guilty of this.
In Lincoln's day, there would be real debates, by well-informed and well-spoken politicians. Today, bullshit is all you get.
Here's the thing. People are born into a gender, a nationality, a religion, a sexual orientation and a class. Now, in most societies the culture (language, images, rituals, etc.) usually proscribes their own nationality as "the best", the dominant religion as "the truth", heterosexuality as "normal", men as the owners of the public sphere and women as the makers of the private sphere (home), but not the decision makers.
And ethics, morality, and social manners are generally defined by what the ruling classes are into at the time. (See Frederick Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Geneology of Morals")
If people don't take that inner journey, don't examine their heads and their hearts thoroughly, don't take some risks that challenge their perceptions and ways of looking at the world, don't venture into that dark night of the soul where one's ego and inheirted truths are shredded into a blast of a trillion supernovas, then they remain ideologically constructed by their cultures.
And of course the dominant culture plays to maudlin emotions . . . like flag-waving and eagles flying, and "we're the best" and schmaltzy stories made up to stop critical thinking and make the emotions cause one to rubber stamp every insanity. Read "Mythologies" by Roland Barthes for clearer insight into this.
But back to language. The U.S is supposed to be a civilized nation, and we are signed on with other civilized nations to respect certain behaviors internationally. Like the Geneva Convention when it comes to Prisoners of War.
Yet BushCo claims that the prisoners they've taken and hold in Cuba (and elsewhere) are not POWs, but enemy combatants. Of course they're enemy combatants. That's who you fight in a war, the enemy combatants. There is no excuse for not treating these people by the Geneva Conventions for POWs IF we want to claim we are a moral, civilized societ.
But because we hold other cultures in contempt, because we can't see that what they are fighting for is a true in their eyes and what we fight for is true in our eyes, we treat them without any humanity.
Do you have any idea of how many women and children the U.S. has killed in Iraq? We have caused more hatred and the rise of more terrorists there than Bin Laden could ever have mustered.
Check out Riverbend's blog Baghdad Burning. Riverbend is a young Iraqi woman who blogs (when she can get internet access) about what's going on daily. Her slogan is:
"I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend." Read her, then you might begin to have a deeper understanding of why this war is an outrage.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
The thing is, there are good people in every culture who want to move to a new level of international interaction, and their are the old warlords (Rumsfeld, Cheney included) who want to dominate.
This is not a time to be ideologically constructed by nationality or religion. Those are antiquated notions now and will not advance the pleasure of the species. This is the time for world citizens to rise up with open minds, open hearts, lots of drumming and massage, some good melons and peaches, and free ourselves of plastic surgery and letting designers brand us with their clothing. Oh, and some tuning forks and lots of song, and some orange and lime sherbert.
This is not the time to get pedicures and new shoes while deaths and maimings in the tens of thousands go on in our name.
"In the end you are weary of this ancient world. Weary of living in Roman antiquity or Greek." --Guillaume Apollonaire
"When an old time is over
And a new time is still gas
not yet a star
everything is possible . . ."
--Aunt Barbara
Vison, vision, vision. Follow the poets . . .
Post a Comment