Hetero Men: Would you prefer a traditional woman as a partner?

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

...

*she hugely prioritizes her physical beauty, even after child birth and during child rearing
*she is your complete confidant in any matter
*furthermore she gives you excellent advice when you ask her questions you are clueless of the answer, especially questions you see as female ones
*she is constantly sexually attacted to you and while never pestering you for sex, is keen for it all the time
*you can delegate any or all aspects of running your household to her, with the following caveat:
*ultimately, she is subservient to you. That is not to say necessarily she is meek and incapable of expressing her opinion, just that if there is a conflict your word rules

Another vote for the oddity of the list. My wife is not my equal; she is my better in many ways.

[gunnergoz]

Well, I waited and looked and finally found a perfectly traditional Ukrainian woman to be my bride. She's traditional in the sense of traditions in her country. Fortunately, that works great for me. She's not subservient and she has definite ideas of what men and women are and what behaviors are expected for them. So I have to be able to step up to the plate in some areas too. Works fine for us.

[Jormungandr]

Originally Posted by Athena

So the OP is asking if hetero men want a hot, smart chick who begs them for sex, cooks & keeps the house clean, gives good advice, and knows enough to shut the fuck up when The Man has a difference of opinion with her.

I actually laughed out loud and for quite a while when I read this.

Weird list.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by even sven

Count me puzzled, as well. Do "non-traditional" women rejoice in being ugly, hate sex, avoid confiding in their parters, give bad advice (especially about girl stuff) and rule the roost with an iron fist?

Hmmm. I guess I'm not a fan of non-traditional ladies either.

No, but they apparently only think in excluded middle fallacies.

My answer: No, I don't look for traditional women, but, yes, I do mostly look for what you consider one, save for the subservience, which I think should go both ways.

I do think most men and most women look for their traditional counterparts, however.

[cmyk]

I voted as if that was all or nothing, so I voted against on #3 and #7.

We both try give each other 100%. Not 50/50, but I get the trump. This woman sounds like some romanticized, idealized fantasy from a control freak who sounds like he'd expect dinner on the table and all the laundry folded by the time he got home.

[Airk]

I wouldn't COMPLAIN about any of those - except the last one, which is all sorts of screwed up. I mean really, what the hell? They're not my primary concerns, however.

[bup]

Even from the most mercenary standpoint, where all a man sees a woman as is the factory for his offspring, these qualities wouldn't be altogether desirable. A woman having all these qualities would tend to produce offspring who never questioned and never stood up for themselves.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by bup

Even from the most mercenary standpoint, where all a man sees a woman as is the factory for his offspring, these qualities wouldn't be altogether desirable. A woman having all these qualities would tend to produce offspring who never questioned and never stood up for themselves.

This would have been ideal, actually, back when we needed sons to fight the cold war and daughters to produce more sons.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by you with the face

The OP is using "traditional woman" as shorthand for "a woman who caters her life around me and expects nothing in return except my cock."...

Ok, this woman sounds like a GREAT slave, though not that great a wife.

Can I have both?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

I strongly suspect that in this anonymous poll most heterosexual men would prefer a a partner that I'm not going to define much more clearly than this:

*she hugely prioritizes her physical beauty, even after child birth and during child rearing
*she is your complete confidant in any matter
*furthermore she gives you excellent advice when you ask her questions you are clueless of the answer, especially questions you see as female ones
*she is constantly sexually attacted to you and while never pestering you for sex, is keen for it all the time
*you can delegate any or all aspects of running your household to her, with the following caveat:
*ultimately, she is subservient to you. That is not to say necessarily she is meek and incapable of expressing her opinion, just that if there is a conflict your word rules

I have a theory about the answers but we'll see if they fit it.

You are describing a holodeck fantasy.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

You are describing a holodeck fantasy.

You must understand I was not around in the 1950s so I may be fairly wrong about what women were like, but then again I have based this character on my grandmother so it can't be completely wrong.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

You must understand I was not around in the 1950s so I may be fairly wrong about what women were like, but then again I have based this character on my grandmother so it can't be completely wrong.

You know that much about your grandmother's sex drive, do you?

I wasn't around for the fifties either, or the sixties (except for the last few days). But I know a good number of actual women, and the traits you list are not only rare in aggregate but also are somewhat self-contradictory. Women who are fixated on their physical beauty to the extent you imply, for instance, are rarely good listeners. Women who are willing to be entirely subservient to their husbands don't have good advice to give. Et cetera.

Anyway, I wouldn't want a woman who would be entirely subservient to me. I cannot be trusted with that much power.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

You must understand I was not around in the 1950s so I may be fairly wrong about what women were like, but then again I have based this character on my grandmother so it can't be completely wrong.

And what did your grandmother expect from men?

Even if we posit that most hetero males want a subservient, advice-dispensing sex slave for a wife, what percentage of these males want to be 100% responsible for financially maintaining another adult until death? Or is there another reason you left that part out of your 1950's fantasy-land dreaming?

[Lasciel]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

You must understand I was not around in the 1950s so I may be fairly wrong about what women were like, but then again I have based this character on my grandmother so it can't be completely wrong.

Honey if you based this on your knowledge of your grandmother, then you need to go to jail or to a therapist.

Otherwise, whatever it may have looked like to an outsider (which, as much as she loved you, you were) there was a lot of shit going down that you don't know about.

If her life was anything like my own grandmother's (since we're throwing out inappropriate grandmotherly knowledge here) I would be willing to bet there was a shitload of stuff going down that your grandfather didn't know about either.

[Ibanez]

No thanks, I'll pass on a slave as a wife when it comes to my home. It's her home as well isn't it ? The results of the poll leave me a little dubious as well, I have a really hard time believing that 22% of men want this type of wife.

[Starving Artist]

Traditional woman? You mean like Samantha Stephens, Donna Reed, Jeanne (I Dream of...) or Laura Petrie?

Hell, yeah!

[Emtar KronJonDerSohn]

You forgot the part where "domestic violence" is a new age fad, and real women understand the need for and appreciate physical correction.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by you with the face

And what did your grandmother expect from men?

Even if we posit that most hetero males want a subservient, advice-dispensing sex slave for a wife, what percentage of these males want to be 100% responsible for financially maintaining another adult until death? Or is there another reason you left that part out of your 1950's fantasy-land dreaming?

I'm not trying to produce an "ideal" woman, or justify this caricature in any way really. I'm trying to prove a point although admittedly I may have made some minor errors in doing so.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Lasciel

Honey if you based this on your knowledge of your grandmother, then you need to go to jail or to a therapist.

Otherwise, whatever it may have looked like to an outsider (which, as much as she loved you, you were) there was a lot of shit going down that you don't know about.

If her life was anything like my own grandmother's (since we're throwing out inappropriate grandmotherly knowledge here) I would be willing to bet there was a shitload of stuff going down that your grandfather didn't know about either.

She's still alive you know, and not nearly in a nursing home or anything either - she's still driving and even helping out with my uncle's family business (which was hers and my Grandad's). So I can ask questions and get answers - I think I have a reasonably good handle on what has gone on, in outline if not specifics.

[j666]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

I strongly suspect that in this anonymous poll most heterosexual men would prefer a a partner that I'm not going to define much more clearly than this:

*she hugely prioritizes her physical beauty, even after child birth and during child rearing
*she is your complete confidant in any matter
*furthermore she gives you excellent advice when you ask her questions you are clueless of the answer, especially questions you see as female ones
*she is constantly sexually attacted to you and while never pestering you for sex, is keen for it all the time
*you can delegate any or all aspects of running your household to her, with the following caveat:
*ultimately, she is subservient to you. That is not to say necessarily she is meek and incapable of expressing her opinion, just that if there is a conflict your word rules

I have a theory about the answers but we'll see if they fit it.

Beautiful, trustworthy, intelligent, intuitive, a good sexual partner, enjoys all the work I find tedious, ....

Does she have a brother?

(That whole my 'word rules' thing, though ... I don't know about that.)

[AK84]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

I'm not trying to produce an "ideal" woman, or justify this caricature in any way really. I'm trying to prove a point although admittedly I may have made some minor errors in doing so.

Yes in the same way as aiming to travel to Washington DC from London and ending up in Moscow is a minor navigational error,

[you with the face]

You are trying to prove the point that men want a subservient wife cast in the mold of your idealized granny, but if you only present what's in it for the man without presenting what's in it for the woman, you will not get accurate results. So your point is automatically invalid.

[Mijin]

Think it's a bad poll for at least these reasons:

1. Not all of the features are typically associated with the "traditional woman" e.g. being a confidant, giving good advice. But the thread title implies voting "yes" means you want a traditional woman.

2. It doesn't state that these are in any way important criteria, just whether they are positive or not. So sure, it's a positive if my partner gives good advice, but that doesn't mean it is an important requirement for me, or that I select partners on that basis.

In any case I voted "no" as even though the highly-sexed and good advice stuff are a positive, the other stuff is either neutral or negative to me.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

She's still alive you know, and not nearly in a nursing home or anything either - she's still driving and even helping out with my uncle's family business (which was hers and my Grandad's). So I can ask questions and get answers - I think I have a reasonably good handle on what has gone on, in outline if not specifics.

I'd be very interested in what she thought of your description. I mean that sincerely.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Traditional woman? You mean like Samantha Stephens, Donna Reed, Jeanne (I Dream of...) or Laura Petrie?

Hell, yeah!

In the first place, it's Stevens.

In the second place, while I have no information on Donna Reed, neither Samantha or Jeannie were truly submissive; they were only pretending to be submissive.

In the third place, Laura Petrie sometimes acted in ways approaching the OP's ideal, but not often, as I recall it; certainly she didn't seem inordinately horny. And Mary Tyler Moore was not yet by at the zenith of her hotness during the Dick Van Dyke show anyway. Cite.

There was a fourth place but I forgot what it was. Something about Betty Rubble. It's best omitted anyway as it was quite offensive.

In the fifth place, it's Stevens.

[Acsenray]

I don't think any of these characteristics are what I would list foremost when describing a "traditional woman."

[awldune]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

*she hugely prioritizes her physical beauty, even after child birth and during child rearing

An "ideal" partner is effortlessly attractive, but I would prefer one who looks average to one who spends all day primping and working out.

*she is your complete confidant in any matter
*furthermore she gives you excellent advice when you ask her questions you are clueless of the answer, especially questions you see as female ones
*she is constantly sexually attacted to you and while never pestering you for sex, is keen for it all the time
*you can delegate any or all aspects of running your household to her

I would think every human would like these qualities in their partner.

*ultimately, she is subservient to you. That is not to say necessarily she is meek and incapable of expressing her opinion, just that if there is a conflict your word rules

I would prefer *not* to win arguments with "because I said so." It seems very unhealthy.

Of course there's a difference between a person who *acts* subservient and someone who actually is. The genuine article would easily vastly preferred of those two, but I would prefer someone more my equal.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

In the first place, it's Stevens.

So what? It's been 45/50 years ago. Sue me.

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

In the second place, while I have no information on Donna Reed, neither Samantha or Jeannie were truly submissive; they were only pretending to be submissive.

Who said a woman I'd want would have to be submissive, pretend or otherwise?

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

In the third place, Laura Petrie sometimes acted in ways approaching the OP's ideal, but not often, as I recall it; certainly she didn't seem inordinately horny.

The OP's ideal as presented is faulty. He makes certain assumptions, assigns those assumptions to women of a certain era, and presents them as being "traditional." Well, he has his ideas as to what a traditional woman was like and I have mine. The title of the thread asks if I would prefer a traditional woman, and since Sam, Donna, Jeannie, and Laura fit my ideal of the traditional woman, they are the ones I chose to illustrate that. None of these women were all that submissive (well, I suppose Jeannie was but that's because it was her job as a genie), and neither were most other women of the time. Relationships then, as now, were mostly a matter of give and take. In each of those shows, the couple loved each other, teased and were playful with each other, consulted with each other as to how to deal with problems, and were generally each other's best friend. The women I listed were my ideal of the traditional woman I would like to have as a partner and the relationships portrayed in those shows were my ideal as to what a traditional relationship should be. Since the OP asked what I'd prefer, I simply told him. What you're all pissy about is anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

And Mary Tyler Moore was not yet by at the zenith of her hotness during the Dick Van Dyke show anyway. Cite.

Oh, I disagree quite strongly, both with this oddly phrased ("not yet by at the?"...this is surely a more egregious error than my misspelling of Samantha Stevens' last name ) statement and your contention above that she lacked "horniness." Not only was Laura Petrie in my opinion the most beautiful and desireable of 50s/60s-era housewives, but no woman could be as slinky sexy and romantically playful as her without having her fair share of appreciation of sack time. You may recall also that they had a child.

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

There was a fourth place but I forgot what it was. Something about Betty Rubble. It's best omitted anyway as it was quite offensive.

Fear of offense is way overdone these days. People need to just suck it up when they hear something they don't like. I do it all the time. There is no constitutional protection againist being offended.

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

In the fifth place, it's Stevens.

I don't suppose you'd care to so much as try to explain what sort of victory you think you gain by making a big deal of the correct spelling of a fictional t.v. character from 50 years ago. So you really think my entire position is undercut in some substantial way simply because I used "ph" instead of "v" in spelling the character's name from 50 years ago?

Methinks a chill pill is in order. You don't normally post in such an odd, disjointed way.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

So what? It's been 45/50 years ago. Sue me.

Who said a woman I'd want would have to be submissive, pretend or otherwise?

The OP's ideal as presented is faulty. He makes certain assumptions, assigns those assumptions to women of a certain era, and presents them as being "traditional." Well, he has his ideas as to what a traditional woman was like and I have mine. The title of the thread asks if I would prefer a traditional woman, and since Sam, Donna, Jeannie, and Laura fit my ideal of the traditional woman, they are the ones I chose to illustrate that. None of these women were all that submissive (well, I suppose Jeannie was but that's because it was her job as a genie), and neither were most other women of the time. Relationships then, as now, were mostly a matter of give and take. In each of those shows, the couple loved each other, teased and were playful with each other, consulted with each other as to how to deal with problems, and were generally each other's best friend. The women I listed were my ideal of the traditional woman I would like to have as a partner and the relationships portrayed in those shows were my ideal as to what a traditional relationship should be. Since the OP asked what I'd prefer, I simply told him. What you're all pissy about is anyone's guess.

Oh, I disagree quite strongly, both with this oddly phrased ("not yet by at the?"...this is surely a more egregious error than my misspelling of Samantha Stevens' last name ) statement and your contention above that she lacked "horniness." Not only was Laura Petrie in my opinion the most beautiful and desireable of 50s/60s-era housewives, but no woman could be as slinky sexy and romantically playful as her without having her fair share of appreciation of sack time. You may recall also that they had a child.

Fear of offense is way overdone these days. People need to just suck it up when they hear something they don't like. I do it all the time. There is no constitutional protection againist being offended.

I don't suppose you'd care to so much as try to explain what sort of victory you think you gain by making a big deal of the correct spelling of a fictional t.v. character from 50 years ago. So you really think my entire position is undercut in some substantial way simply because I used "ph" instead of "v" in spelling the character's name from 50 years ago?

Methinks a chill pill is in order. You don't normally post in such an odd, disjointed way.

SA, the entire post was a joke. I made the same point twice, for Athena's sake. My only regret is that I neglected to post to the YouTube link of Mary Tyler Moore in the revealing green dress, but I was distracted by a lack of cheesecake.

[Starving Artist]

Oops! Sorry! Guess I've been spending too much time in the Pit. My sincere apologies!




P.S. - To make up for it, may I present...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANvMAyXuQpI.

Not a green dress but enticing nonetheless.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

Oops! Sorry! Guess I've been spending too much time in the Pit. My sincere apologies!




P.S. - To make up for it, may I present...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANvMAyXuQpI.

Not a green dress but enticing nonetheless.

You only prove my point about Ms. Moore having not reached the zenith of her loveliness at that time, sir.

[Starving Artist]

:: bows head in abject defeat ::

You are correct, sir! I hereby withdraw my previous assertion!

[Starving Artist]

It's a testament to her Mary's appeal that she could look so adorable in such a fugly dress!

[Skald the Rhymer]

That dress was far from fugly; Mary was just too conservative to be comfortable in it (though quite hot enough to pull it off). Ted was right when he said it would have been popular, something I mention because Ted was right exactly 1 & 1/2 times during the entire series.

In other news, you were right about the spelling of the Bewitched characters' surname. I'd apologize for the correction but my being wrong about it supports the joke you missed, so I shall continue to obstinately use the spelling Stevens.

[Starving Artist]

Works for me. I'm so friggin' embarrassed about mistaking your post like I did that I'll happily grant you whatever spelling you like. I just hope people haven't been too disturbed by the howling of that pooch I screwed.

Funny thing is, I was unsure of the spelling myself when I made my original post and so tried it with both the "ph" and "v" and decided based on a guess that "ph" looked better. So I only stumbled into it the right way to begin with.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

I'd be very interested in what she thought of your description. I mean that sincerely.

I'll phone her either tomorrow (unlikely as I'm going out on the piss) or the next day if you like.

Any specific questions anyone wants me to ask her about my theory are welcome as otherwise I'll put it just my way. I will probably be circumspect on the sexual stuff as while she will discuss it with me will be a bit confused if it gets too much that way.

[madmonk28]

I'd like to hear her reaction to that list and whether she feels that it accurately describes her and if so, was she happy within her married life.

[Boyo Jim]

Unlikely as it is, I think it would be hilarious to learn she despised her husband.

[Ulfreida]

Sort of interesting OP, but shallow, because there is no 'traditional woman'. What there is, is a 'traditional relationship'. That means that what the traditional woman is negotiating for with her (body, subservience, lifetime of menial work) is a traditional man: financial support, good father, has traditional manly skill set, defends honor of family, etc.

It's a set of mutual obligations, not a person.

Oh, and ick.