Kabuhi wrote:Nice strawman argument.
Funny how this can sound like a baseless attempt at evasion when it's not followed by any description of why you feel I misrepresented what you said. Almost as if you're simply using the phrase "Nice strawman argument" when actually you know full well I made no attempt to redefine your argument or attribute a different argument to you.
Kabuhi wrote:Why shouldn't a girlfriend support her boyfriend? It seems like common sense to me. It's not about being your partner's mother; it's about trying to give back and be a positive influence, rather than simply being a parasite trying to build your own self-esteem and tearing him down. If you're constantly tearing him down, how is he possibly going to be the type of man you're attracted to huh?
I never mentioned one partner tearing into the self esteem of another. When a partner negatively and deliberately attacks the self esteem of the person they are with this is usually an extremely negative sign that you're not in any sort of normal relationship. Unfortunately the opposite, where a partner needs "building up" would be a bad sign, although in my opinion nowhere near as bad as the former.
Kabuhi wrote:Again, this is simply common sense for how a good partner behaves. A woman who's not willing to share happiness or assist others in finding happiness doesn't deserve happiness herself. Go with the jerks then.
You're slowly trying to change the topic of discussion from the highly specific, fundamental personality change I originally rose objections about to a much more general supportiveness. Allow me to remind you of the specific thing I was objecting to, which I hope you can see is very different to what you're describing.
Kahubi wrote:Then why not try to build your current BF up to be the dominant male that you seek?
Fortunately you do lapse back into your original rhetoric, so the debate can resume.
Kahubi wrote:In this scenario, the selfless woman benefits herself from her willingness to help others, even at her own expense and vulnerability. She ends up with a good guy who she's also sexually attracted to; the best of both worlds. Why not stick with one guy and build him up*1 rather hopping from one guy to the next hoping to somehow win the sexual mate lottery*2? Of course, she wouldn't personally be building him up. She'd persuade and encourage him, but he'd the one building himself up.*3
1. Because she's not his bloody mother. You don't seem to have extracted the poignant piece of information from this so I'll make it apparent with an addendum - "Because she's not his bloody mother -
and she probably doesn't want to be either"
2. It's not equivalent to winning the lottery. Finding a person you have chemistry with is relatively easy, unfortunately people are often confused or don't have purity of purpose when seeking a partner, so they'll get into an unhealthy scenario.
3. If this were true he'd have arrived like that
I'll add an aside, this is purely a matter of my experience but I think most people will agree there's some truth to it - it doesn't actually work the way you're describing. One of the most common mistakes in relationships, especially true for women, is that they'll get a partner and try to do exactly what you're describing, and there's always one outcome - it never works. A change in attitude actually comes from within, 100% of the time, and simply being asked or even encouraged, positively or negatively, simply doesn't work. Very often it's younger, inexperienced women, and by the time they've done it a few times they'll learn to stay well clear of men who failed to grow up.
And finally, there's a certain deranged sexism in your view of a woman's role that sits very uneasily with me. This concept of a woman building up a man smacks of a lazy misogyny that assumes the woman begins perfectly well adapted and, if she has the misfortune of landing with a manchild, has to somehow transfer her universally well adapted state onto the man. It assumes women should be ending up in relationships they're not happy with and then making the best of them, and it takes a huge dump on women who have busy careers or who are dominant themselves and simply find the idea of helping a maladapted child figure out how to turn her on.
I'm going to leave you with a few of the things you've said that I think embody the sexism inherent in your view. They all suggest a certain obligation of women to men, and use guilt and shame as reasons for their enforcement.
Kahubi wrote:In this scenario, the selfless woman benefits herself from her willingness to help others, even at her own expense and vulnerability.
Kahubi wrote:stick with one guy and build him up rather hopping from one guy to the next
Kahubi wrote:Why not give it a try or would the thought of continuing a relationship with this guy simply be too repulsive
Kahubi wrote:You simply don't want to bothered to help your partner?
Why is this way of thinking so averse to you (that I'll help my boyfriend become a man more attractive to women)?