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.

Absolutely not.  If I feel the need to "change" a guy, I don't date him.

that's a smart approach because the change would be
external, and would likely crumble over time.

   One of the answers in a quiz published in "Dykes to Watch Out For"
years ago was that men are "sometimes educable." 

is that a Bushism?

"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.

   "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.

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.

Bingo.

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.

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

huh?

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

Greg, only you would try to "deflour" a girl.

it's better than baking and then eating, though i've had the pleasure of eating
a self baked girl:)

(I'm pretty sure I've seen Dykes to Watch Out For at Underworlds.  The comic
that is, not the genuine article. )

i need a translation of #14

baked=high on pot usually, or X

its not a vocabulary issue, its a sentence structure issue i'm having.; for
instance .. what's a self baked girl?

one who decides to get high and then seek you out
helps with those psychological issues

A female E-tard.

eh. it was fun
but then i hold minority views on drug use

        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.  

alot of women try and train men.
you can only be happy though, when you learn to accept who someone is.

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.

And some men try to train women too.

I'll be honest, I'm not good at expressing my emotions.  I like 
physical affection, but in a reserved setting.  OTOH there are another 
things I won't tell a potential partner yet, because when you're just 
getting to know them those things don't need to be on the table yet.

        It's not just women who try to train men and men who try to train
women.  Every time two people interact, a version of the same game is played
out.

i dont like thinking of a relationship as a game. i can see how you could,
but i really make every effort to just be myself and let my partner be
himself and just go with the flow. people make it so complicated and im not
sure it has to be.

parents make it so complicated

Re #27 - complete and total agreement on this end.  :)

        The problem is, though, it's not a matter of one person or another
"making" things a game.  Whether they do it consciously or unconsciously,
people wind up doing the same things, testing their partner to see how much
they can get away with and at what point they'll stand up for themselves. 
When someone "isn't playing a game", they're just doing it unconsciously.

        Unfortunately, the term "game" has two different connotations, one
from game theory, which deals with mapping complicated repetitive
interactions, and one from dating, where they have completely different
meanings.  I'm not talking about being deliberately evil to someone you're
going out with.

i think unconscious things like testing arent games, they are being human.
unconscious interaction is unavoidable. but learning about yourself and
tryi9ng to change those things so you can interact honestly is very
empowering. its only a game when 2 people play. 

I'd agree that the ideal is for both people to communicate honestly and
openly, etcetera etcetera.  Realistically, that doesn't happen all the time,
and it's not going to happen all the time, even in the best of relationships.

I'd say trying to "train" your SO is a lot healthier than suffering in silence
when there's something you don't like, or being passive-aggressive about it,
or trying to get revenge.  It's not ideal, but it's probably second-best.

        I don't tend to think of someone playing a game knowing what they're
doing intentionally as being all that different from someone playing a game
and not knowing they're doing it.  The effect is the same.  The difference
is whether they're reasonable about what they're testing, and if they can
play it well or not.

i think using the word train when refering to your mate is wrong. you train
a dog, not a mate. you try and be considerate of each others needs. you do
things to help each other, and when you need help, you ask for it. either you
will be compatable and communicate well, or you wont. if my man does a bunch
of things i just cant live with, and i ask him to change and he is unwilling,
than its time for a new man. one who is either more compatable with me, or
one willing to compromise. if you try and train a person like a dog, you are
asking for trouble.

This response has been erased.

resp:30 Perhaps "dance" more closely expresses what you mean than 
"game".

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss