|
|
| Author |
Message |
phenix
|
|
trainable = datable?
| 
Sep 6 16:50 UTC 2001 |
Trainable:
a friend recently stated that when women first look at men they start
to wonder, and one of the things they wonder is how "trainable" the guy is
ok ladies, this true?
|
| 36 responses total. |
michaela
|
|
response 1 of 36:
|
Sep 15 00:16 UTC 2001 |
Absolutely not. If I feel the need to "change" a guy, I don't date him.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 2 of 36:
|
Sep 15 14:22 UTC 2001 |
that's a smart approach because the change would be
external, and would likely crumble over time.
|
void
|
|
response 3 of 36:
|
Jan 6 12:11 UTC 2002 |
One of the answers in a quiz published in "Dykes to Watch Out For"
years ago was that men are "sometimes educable."
|
oval
|
|
response 4 of 36:
|
Jan 6 12:13 UTC 2002 |
is that a Bushism?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 5 of 36:
|
Jan 6 12:49 UTC 2002 |
"Dykes to Watch Out For"? void, I'm a bit confused.. can you provide
the context?
I'm guessing, but it's likely my assumptions are incorrect or
inaccurate.
|
void
|
|
response 6 of 36:
|
Jan 6 20:03 UTC 2002 |
"Dykes to Watch Out For" was a lesbian comic strip drawn by Alison
Bechdel. Ms Bechdel also drew several DTWOF calendars. Some of the
the books might still be available. Anyway...in one of the calendars
was a "test your lesbian correctness" sort of quiz, and one of the
questions went something like:
"Men are:
A: Evil, greedy, destructive perpetuators of the patriarchy
B: Our brothers
C: Sometimes educable
D: Kinda loud"
The last two options are verbatim; the first two I have forgotten,
but the A and B answers above pretty much contain the gist of the
original options. I may still have that calendar around somewhere.
If I run across it, I'll enter the entire quiz in another item.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 7 of 36:
|
Jan 7 03:51 UTC 2002 |
Heh, I'd like to see that. :)
I guess I see no reason to date a guy, just to "train" him. I'm not his
mommy, he'd better come to me somewhat trained! :)
Actually, though, what is the point of dating somebody if you are just going
to change them anyway? If you change them, then you are effectively not
dating the same person anymore.
|
michaela
|
|
response 8 of 36:
|
Jan 7 16:04 UTC 2002 |
Bingo.
|
kewy
|
|
response 9 of 36:
|
Jan 7 23:31 UTC 2002 |
Although I can't imagine "training" a man, there is a certain amount of
learning that goes on within a dating relationship. You learn what your
partner likes, what annoys them, and if you're the least bit sensetive you
take those things into consideration.
|
phenix
|
|
response 10 of 36:
|
Jan 8 00:50 UTC 2002 |
otoh if you get a kid, part of that is trying to unlearn them every little
hangup about sexuality they're picked up from parents, techers etc.
it's really annoying, but very rewarding
|
oval
|
|
response 11 of 36:
|
Jan 8 15:21 UTC 2002 |
huh?
|
phenix
|
|
response 12 of 36:
|
Jan 8 17:00 UTC 2002 |
without digging into greg's treasure chest of memories:
fantasy example: you get a 16 year old gf/bf, they're virgin's
err, they are a virgin.
in the case of a guy you're going to have to train them to actually
make love, 'cause i can tell you from being a teenage male, technique
training is highly lacking in today's schools.
if you're dealing with a female you have to deal with the whole deflouring,
and if you're REALLY lucky, psychological hangups about enjoying sex,
talking her out of thinking she's a whore for having sex at all etc.
now, it's always nice when you can help correct societies failings, and in
general remember to demand money from your fellows of the correct sex when you
succeed in creating a well adjusted adult, but it's time consuming and reuires
patience of job
|
eeyore
|
|
response 13 of 36:
|
Jan 8 17:08 UTC 2002 |
Greg, only you would try to "deflour" a girl.
|
phenix
|
|
response 14 of 36:
|
Jan 8 17:42 UTC 2002 |
it's better than baking and then eating, though i've had the pleasure of eating
a self baked girl:)
|
flem
|
|
response 15 of 36:
|
Jan 8 19:30 UTC 2002 |
(I'm pretty sure I've seen Dykes to Watch Out For at Underworlds. The comic
that is, not the genuine article. )
|
oval
|
|
response 16 of 36:
|
Jan 8 21:33 UTC 2002 |
i need a translation of #14
|
phenix
|
|
response 17 of 36:
|
Jan 8 22:57 UTC 2002 |
baked=high on pot usually, or X
|
oval
|
|
response 18 of 36:
|
Jan 8 23:14 UTC 2002 |
its not a vocabulary issue, its a sentence structure issue i'm having.; for
instance .. what's a self baked girl?
|
phenix
|
|
response 19 of 36:
|
Jan 8 23:29 UTC 2002 |
one who decides to get high and then seek you out
helps with those psychological issues
|
cyklone
|
|
response 20 of 36:
|
Jan 9 03:31 UTC 2002 |
A female E-tard.
|
phenix
|
|
response 21 of 36:
|
Jan 9 04:02 UTC 2002 |
eh. it was fun
but then i hold minority views on drug use
|
jazz
|
|
response 22 of 36:
|
Jan 9 18:57 UTC 2002 |
I don't think it's quite the same thing that #0 is asking, but everyone
does this in some sense, not just women, or men, or hets or straights, not
even just in the context of a relationship. When two people first meet - and
less frequently but occasionally thereafter - they often define their roles
and feel out patterns of dominance and submission, and precisely how much one
person is willing to put up with from another, and what people will do when
lines are crossed.
|
jules
|
|
response 23 of 36:
|
Jul 8 20:27 UTC 2003 |
alot of women try and train men.
you can only be happy though, when you learn to accept who someone is.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 24 of 36:
|
Jul 8 20:43 UTC 2003 |
That assumes you are able to tell who someone is when you are in the
"accepting" mode. Some men are very good at covering their "real" persona.
And I suppose you will find some who will say the same about women.
|