|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Career
Alpha Woman...thanks, vix | from conan - Wednesday, June 20, 2007
accessed 1686 times So, back by popular demand...I am actually fairly interested in this topic and people's opinions on it as well. I hope you don't mind me reposting this vix...but if you do, remember fighting online is like winning a race at the Special Olympics; you may have won, but you're still retarded :D Sorry, but an Alpha woman will never be happy with a Beta man
Defiant, chin up, looking the world in the eye, Sarah Churchwell insisted in the Mail this week that she is perfectly happy to be childless, thank you very much - even if she is nearly 37 and in every biological sense running out of time.
You may believe her if you will. Personally, I think she doth protest too much and that a barren future will hurt her more than she knows; certainly her evident adoration of her "dazzling" two-year-old niece suggests that she is, after all, what she calls "mother material".
But what really caught the eye is that long before she got to the pros and cons of children themselves, we were regaled with a list of reasons that she has not, so far, had any - a list that boils down, basically, to a lengthy diatribe against the men she has had in her life, all of them so lousy that she could not bear for them to have fathered her babies.
As she reflected on the failings of these men, all you can think is: Here we go again.
Only last week we had more of the same from the Mail's columnist Liz Jones, musing - as she has done in print for years - on the failings of all her men, especially her estranged husband, which have culminated in her now living alone.
They have much in common, these two women. Churchwell has scaled the dizzy heights of academia to the elevated position of senior lecturer at the University of East Anglia; Liz Jones made her career in publishing, including a stint as editor of a top glossy magazine and now as a columnist and writer.
Churchwell describes herself as "a devoted career woman"; Jones cuts right to the chase and calls herself "an Alpha female" - before going on, much as Churchwell does, to lament what this means to her personal life:
"New men, metrosexual men, men who are in touch with their feelings, who are willing to take a back seat, supporting and nurturing you, don't exist."
And that, in a nutshell, is the sad conclusion that afflicts today's Alpha women.
In my circle, there are legions of them: clever, confident, capable women who - given half the chance - could run the entire FTSE 100 companies single-handedly, but whose troubles start the moment they leave the office desk.
Their men, they moan, are useless. Their men, they sigh, can't handle a woman's success. Their men, they grumble, are to blame for being so pathetic that you daren't risk a future and a family with them.
But blame their men as they might, the Alpha women should know this: In the end, they really only have themselves to blame.
They, after all, picked them. I have lost count of the times I have seen this syndrome play out: an attractive, achieving, successful woman who appears almost to go out of her way to choose a disastrous mate.
He is often younger, usually dimmer and always poorer than she is; he will never be her equal - an imbalance that eventually will cause resentment on both sides - but, at least, at first, he suits her purposes.
She says she loves him for his difference, for his sweetness, for his gentleness; so unlike her get-ahead contemporaries at work.
She says she loves him for the poet in his soul; the perfect counterpoint to the rigours of her own frenetic routine.
In fact, what she loves is his ordinariness. She may even today be uncomfortable with her post-feminist success; her mother didn't have it, her grandmother didn't have it and to her - underneath the brash exterior, it still feels unnatural, unwomanly, unworthy.
She might be a little embarrassed by her wealth; she may have worked all hours to earn it, but she still doesn't feel she deserves it.
And here is a man, who, the better to accommodate his own inadequacies, implicitly agrees that, no, she doesn't.
Thus, it starts out compatibly: he puts her down, she puts him up. She tells him how gifted he is, how talented. She showers him with gifts, money, support, treating him almost as an investment.
So he adopts the role that turns a man into the "plus one" or the "and partner" on the joint invitations that inevitably centre around the woman and her earning world.
Hard for any man with a smattering of pride. Hard for any man worth having. But the woman doesn't see it that way - yet.
By the time she does, social status has become the least of her concerns. Because while a disparity of success might - only might - allow a couple to scrape along somehow, the almost inevitable disparity of income is another matter.
No matter how generously it starts out, it is astonishing how quickly finance will poison these imbalanced relationships.
Even some 15 years later, Sarah Churchwell, for instance, can still cite the exact amount of the wretched £1,000 loan which she was still owed when that partner was sent on his way.
What begins as a belief that love will conquer all, that what's mine is yours and all that, doesn't last.
Ask those who really know. The results of a recent survey suggested that we are now so egalitarian that four out of five people, of both sexes, claim they would be perfectly happy in a relationship where the woman hugely out-earned the man.
I suggest that's because they asked the question, as a hypothetical, of those who had never tried it - and that if they polled only those who had, the results would be very different.
If a woman is constantly paying for meals, holidays, cars, Christmas gifts, clothes and sundry other expenditure, she rapidly reaches the biggest Catch 22 of all:
If he minds her paying, as any man worthy of his testosterone should, he will come to resent her - the common punishment being the persistent infidelities wherein he can at least play at being a real man.
And if he doesn't mind her paying, she will come to resent him for not minding - the usual punishment being her withdrawal of sexual favours, because she cannot be aroused by someone who is not a real man.
In short, it is a lose-lose situation and doomed from the start. And when she has finished counting the cost of him - both emotionally and financially - the relationship finally collapses, with both parties oozing resentment.
Then, our high-flyer is left to agonise over the fact that she worked her butt off to make something of herself - only to discover, yet again, that success at work is paid for by failure at home? How could she have chosen the wrong man again?
Well, on one level, yes, she did. But the solution for this miserable woman is not to change herself, her hard work, her drive or her ambition; she probably couldn't if she tried.
The solution is to change the men she chooses. For in love, as in war, the stern playground rule is the same: pick on someone your own size.
My hope for women in their 20s, growing up watching the troubled progress of the thirty-something Alphas, is that they will be smarter than this; that they will muster some selfrespect, take pride in what they have achieved, stop feeling guilty about it, forget all the nonsense about the sweet but low-achieving partner - and stick to their own kind.
The problem for these women was that they repeatedly picked themselves a Beta minus, when it is already obvious that the modern Alpha woman is only ever going to settle happily with another Alpha. Or, better still, an Alpha plus.
It is feminist-inspired claptrap that a woman could be properly happy taking charge of a lesser man; every hope for the survival of the species screams otherwise.
We are programmed by nature, and for good reason, to aspire to mate with the cleverest, toughest, strongest - and the cleverer, tougher and stronger we women get, the more admirable he'd better be.
God knows, there are enough Alpha women to prove the point. Kate Winslet married the sweet, low-key Jim Threapleton - but that was his problem: he was sweet and low-key.
Now she is on surer, far more besotted ground with the utterly dynamic director Sam Mendes. Even 40 years ago, Germaine Greer thought she'd found the perfect man when she wed a builder. It was over in weeks.
If hard work and determination make you, say, a successful lawyer, you will never really respect the more idle or the more stupid; you need to choose yourself, as did Cherie and Hillary, a Tony Blair or a Bill Clinton.
As for the most Alpha woman we have ever seen, Mrs Thatcher: she could never have settled for a lifelong marriage with other than Denis.
Quieter than she was, of course. But clever, powerful and rich in his own right. In other words, a man she could look up to without having to put herself down to do so.
The good news for today's high-achieving younger women is that men like that will not resent them.
Indeed, where once "trophy wife" meant someone who was there for decoration, now it means someone to brag about: "My wife", a wealthy restaurateur told me last week, "is a solicitor, you know. Her own firm and everything".
There might not be millions of Alpha men to choose from, and he might even need to be fought for in much the way we have to fight for a top job.
But settle for less and look what you get: a future filled with resentment and years - no, decades - to regret that you ever looked twice at second-best.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?
in_article_id=460423&in_page_id=1879
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from repost on behalf of PopNFresh
Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 14:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
(08/06/07)
Great article!
Vix, when I saw the title the first thing that came to mind was your parents. Don't kill me. I was just thinking of the wrong alpha/beta. I was thinking in terms of personality in the dog way. I guess I've been reading too much about that recently. I always saw your mom as the alpha, as she was very firm and dominant with everyone around her, while your dad was so meek and quiet. I was ready to come on here and say "Aha!", but it has nothing to do with the actual article.
Anyway, the article stirred a lot of emotion in me because it hit so close to home, not only with me but a lot of my close friends. Overall I would have to say I agree, Alpha women + Beta men as described in the article are doomed for failure. And I don't think people can understand that unless they've been in the position themselves where the woman is in a substantially higher situation than a man. I don't think this applies to the couples where the woman makes a slightly higher salary.
There is another aspect too that is not addressed in the article and that is the one where the couple starts out with the husband alpha, but then the woman sees a large success (often with the help of her husband), and goes on to surpass him. I believe those relationships do have potential.
The problem that the author doesn’t address is that most alpha men do not want alpha women. Part of the picture of an alpha man aside from his success and wealth is the picture perfect wife. The wife in that picture is not a strong, dominant, and successful woman. She is a pretty thing with style and poise, who raises their perfect little children to complement her husband’s perfect life.
Alpha men also treat alpha women differently than they treat other women and that can make the woman feel less like a woman. When an alpha man and an alpha woman date, it almost always ends up in a pissing match in some way or another. He will want to show her how great he is, and usually he equates that with his success. She will try to relate to him by flaunting her own success and that will eventually turn one of them off.
There are also the cases of affairs, where passion and lust bring an alpha man and woman together. Whether or not there is spouse on either end, the woman is expected to be devoid of feelings and treat the relationship like a business arrangement. These sort of things can drive a woman away from “someone her own size”.
Personally it takes a lot of effort some days to keep up that brave and superior façade that gives you respect in the workplace. And after a long day like that it’s not surprising when you pull into your mechanic’s garage with your guard down and find yourself completely attracted to the mere $60k earning masculine figure in front of you who is exuding confidence and control, and doesn’t have a clue what you do for a living. But then that takes you back to the cycle that the author discusses. It’s just plain hard to be an alpha woman.
(reply to this comment)
|  From repost on behalf of vix
Sunday, July 08, 2007, 14:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
(09/06/07)
So I decided to address your feedback first :-)
I wonder if there would be a different dynamic if the woman had a much higher earning power but the man still made a substantial salary? I think that as long as he has the means to pay half the mortgage (or his own if they own separate properties), can afford to buy the day-to-day things that he wants, is able to afford a holiday or two a year, and can treat her to a meal out as often as she is able to do so for him, it would not be as problematic. But of course I'm speaking without any basis in reality. What do you think, from your experiences?
The scenario you mention above (about the woman who goes on to surpass her alpha male's success) is different, in my view, because as long as the man is confident in himself and does not view her success as a subtraction of his own worth, they are both still alpha and so they are equally matched, if not in financial terms then probably in intellect, drive, ability and self-confidence. Of course there are also plenty of times where it doesn't work in the long run.
Is it true what you say about most alpha men not wanting an alpha woman? I'm not sure about this because I've nothing to base any conclusion on. I wonder if there is quite a marked difference in expectation from the US to here. I don't believe that the average alpha male in this country is content with marrying far beneath him any more. I think he looks for a woman with similar level of intelligence who has achieved a similar level of education and whose career aspirations and achievements match his own fairly well. Yes, he may want a family eventually but I think the woman is more likely to make her own decision as to whether or not she will take a career break in order to be the perfect housewife and model mother. On a related note, in the UK 53% of university graduates are female, and statistics indicate that women with a H.E qualification are 50% less likely to have children than those without them. Perhaps the alpha man chooses a beta woman simply because her higher achieving sisters are less likely to choose motherhood. I'd be interested in hearing from people in the UK on how you feel about this.
Hmmm, more to say but I've got to get my girlies some lunch. (reply to this comment) |
| | From repost on behalf of PopNFresh
Sunday, July 08, 2007, 14:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
(10/06/07)
I had a difficult time commenting on this article too because I have so many thoughts and opinions on it, and it's just very hard for me to put in writing. I'm not much of a writer, so I tried my best to comment on a few things. If we were discussing this verbally, I'd probably have a better time expressing my opinion and thoughts.
_______________
I wonder if there would be a different dynamic if the woman had a much higher earning power but the man still made a substantial salary?
I thought about that too, but I don't know any people who match that scenario. In a situation like that I think it would work if their lifestyle matched his income level, but I have no examples in my life on which to go by.
_______________
Is it true what you say about most alpha men not wanting an alpha woman? I'm not sure about this because I've nothing to base any conclusion on. I wonder if there is quite a marked difference in expectation from the US to here.
I'm sure there are alpha men out there who would want an alpha woman, but from what I've seen it's not very common. My experiences are also based in an area that is a political hub, and that probably has an effect on how things are. I do wonder how different it would be in Europe, or even in other cities in the States.
_______________
Of all the alpha women I know, I can only think of one that does not want children. When I do have children I would actually be happy to give up my career and become a full time mom and most of the other women have either done that already or would do that when the time comes.
I have a lot more to say, but I have to go to bed. It’s almost 4 AM and I’m getting evil glares from my pets because it’s way past their bedtime. Hopefully I’ll get around to discussing this more. I’ll try to hop into chat with you one of these days and give you some examples so you can see what I mean.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Sunday, July 08, 2007, 14:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
(11/06/07)
On a note related to the issue of respect between the sexes, I wonder if the author puts too much emphasis on the financial issue within a power-couple's relationship? It seems to me that there are other ways (emotionally, for example) in which a man could assert his ability to provide for, protect and support his wife and maybe more importantly, his family, besides ones related to career and finance. Do you think it's telling that the case that the author mentions where the alpha woman still remembers with resentment the unresolved issue of a loan from years ago, involves a childless couple? Let's say that this alpha woman had instead started a family with a man who, though he might have been substantially less successful than her in monetary terms and maybe not quite on par intellectually or in respect of business acumen, was exceptional in the area of fatherhood and commitment to his children, whereby his ability to apply himself fully to the role of primary carer without a twinge of self-deprecation for being 'less of a man' meant that every day she saw in him a tower of strength in her and her children's lives. Do you think that then such comparatively paltry issues as who pays for what and when would matter half as much?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From repost on behalf of ErikMagnusLehnsher
Sunday, July 08, 2007, 14:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
(11/06/07)
It's tough to envision a compatible couple dating-wise where the lady was banking 3 or 4 times as much as the guy though I'm sure it happens. I have a very good friend who is married to a woman who dramatically out-earns him (by probably 5 to 10 times) and he is still your textbook Alpha man. However, when they got married they were pretty much in the same boat and then after a few years her career exploded. He doesn't make near as much but he is probably working as hard and they have a joint bank account. They seem very happy together to me.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From repost on behalf of vix
Sunday, July 08, 2007, 14:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
(11/06/07)
And another thought, isn't it an affront to the true ethos of feminism for any woman who has assumed an alpha position to then turn around and claim a right to treatment that goes against that stance? Surely, if she maintains that 'anything you can do i can do better' she should not, then, allow herself after the fact to resent her man for not being able to exceed or even match her ability! Feelings aren't rational though, are they, and there, I think, is the main difficulty. Social conventions and the deeply imbedded notions that most people internalise from these without realising it, still hold a lot of sway when it comes to the reality of day to day life. Does the fact that so many women still struggle with the conflict between self-assertion and independent living and the yearning for a stronger, more-able-than-herself male to take care of her, indicate that where our thinking has, on the surface anyway, evolved quite rapidly over the past half century or so, biology is still lagging far behind?
Argh, i do ramble. Forgive my tendency to run-on sentences.
(11/06/07)
Ach I'd better correct something there real quick before someone misinterprets:
"...isn't it an affront to the true ethos of feminism..." leading into my later comment regarding "anything you can do I can do better" is not meant to indicate that feminism is concerned with anything other than a level playing field.
And now I think I should take a break from thinking because I am getting confused.
(11/06/07)
Hmmm. How much of the problem of power-struggles within the high-level relationship do you think is down to the man's need to be needed? This, too, as a rather obvious counterpoint to the female need to be protected, seems to be a deeply entrenched aspect of the masculine personality. Is it ever *really* possible to get away from these basic motivations? If the alpha female-alpha male relationship is marred by power struggles, wouldn't the alpha female -beta male be even more so fraught with tension? I can imagine many men thinking, no way, it would be GREAT to be endlessly wined and dined by a wealthy woman with no demands made of me, but in reality I do think that if they had any self-respect at all they would end up resenting the situation.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Sunday, July 08, 2007, 14:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
(12/06/07)
Your call on article. I think it's an interesting topic. I think Madly's got a J.Edgar Hoover-esque file on every poster. :) Actually I just think she's painfully curious and could have a successful career as a sociologist. Madly, am I right or am I right?
I found another interesting article on the subject while searching for the technical meaning of "Alpha Woman". I've often heard it used exclusively related to financial aspects but I always thought of the Alpha as the "man of the house", the H.M.F.I.C, the one who wears the pants in the family. It appears the financial connotation is strong.
Interesting article:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/
Honestly, I'm as comfortable taking care of kids and house as I am working fulltime. In my case, this works out because I actually do both jobs...though I don't really excel at either role due time contraints. I do think in general that a guy is going to feel pretty bad about himself if he feels like he is failing to provide sufficiently for his family and eventually get very, very angry. I have some friends who relish the role as H.M.F.I.C. and I can't think of a single one who would accept the role at the opposite spectrum as an L.M.F.T.O (Little Mutha Fucker Taking Orders...not to be confused with Laughing My Fucking Tits Off).
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From repost on behalf of cheeks
Sunday, July 08, 2007, 14:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
(08/06/07)
I think it depends on the woman, if a woman can't find a man that she wants to have children with I think that is on her. Perhaps she should look first for a father for her children and secondly for a spouse. Chris, my spouse is an excellent father and always has been. I have never worried about leaving our kids with him no matter the age. We certainly have had our share of issues other than the children. Relationships are not easy it is a lot of work. I think it's what you make it.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from exister
Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 09:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
This article made me chuckle. Thanks for the laughs.
(reply to this comment)
| from alfa
Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 05:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
all you ever need to know about dealing with women....alpha or whatelpha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HGW_OfwyJ4
(reply to this comment)
| from J_P
Monday, July 02, 2007 - 01:22
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Besides the whole "I hate eternal love" theme in the comments below, I wonder what the reaction to this would be if the "she" was "he" and the "her" was "him". To write something essentially saying that both partners must be equally contributing in a financial or intellectual way seems somewhat insulting. I might (or might not) out-earn my partner by a very large factor, but that does not negate our partnership or imply that I do, or ever will, resent her. It especially does not mean that I do not "deserve" to be in this situation.
Why would it be any different if the earner is a woman? There are some assumptions in the post that seem to say that the woman does not feel she "deserves" to be out-earning her partner, and her partner agrees, however that agreement is implied. Why start with that assumption at all? Why can't the partnership, and its motives, be taken at face value and any change in attidude be taken the same way, if and when it changes?
(reply to this comment)
| From conan
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 14:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with this 100%. The entire premise of the article I copied from somewhere to repost here is flawed. I posted it in the hopes that people on this site would enter into a discussion about the lurid, lucid lunacy of the author's point of view. The idea of a woman out-earning her significant other cramping their relationship is astonishingly close-minded in my opinion. It is genuinely preposterous.
I would consider myself to be an alpha-male, but that is an attitude thing over anything else. I haven't reached my earning potential yet, not by a long shot, and the women I generally am attracted to, coincidentally usually earn more than me. Besides which, this terrible aberration of an article begins with the premise that every woman wants children. Are you kidding me? I know that many women do, perhaps even the majority of women do. But to surmise that a woman who states that she is happy to not have a child secretly wants one despite her bold pronouncement is a far-fetched fallacy.
" "New men, metro-sexual men, men who are in touch with their feelings, who are willing to take a back seat, supporting and nurturing you, don't exist."
Their men, they moan, are useless. Their men, they sigh, can't handle a woman's success. Their men, they grumble, are to blame for being so pathetic that you daren't risk a future and a family with them.
But blame their men as they might, the Alpha women should know this: In the end, they really only have themselves to blame.
They, after all, picked them. I have lost count of the times I have seen this syndrome play out: an attractive, achieving, successful woman who appears almost to go out of her way to choose a disastrous mate.
He is often younger, usually dimmer and always poorer than she is; he will never be her equal - an imbalance that eventually will cause resentment on both sides - but, at least, at first, he suits her purposes. "
OK! There is so much that is wrong with these few preceding paragraphs that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, those 'new, metro-sexual men' absolutely do exist. Then there's the notion that these 'alpha women' resent their success. This notion is asinine at best! I don't believe for a moment that income differential can genuinely affect a relationship in the bland, across-the-board manner to which this slightly addled author espouses. I know many couples where the woman out-earns the man, by a lot, and they are happy, together, and planning a family and future together.
The fundamental error in this article is the fact that most relationships just don't work out. There are so many mitigating factors to finding a 'compatible' mate that the options listed in this alpha-beta debate are so far-fetched and over the top that it surprises me that the editor of the publication this was written for allowed it to be. How many people go out, enjoy each other's company, sexual chemistry, and intelligence, only to find that after a few weeks or months or maybe even years, their spark is fading and their bond has lost its luster. This could be due to any number of incalculable scenarios and happenstances that to assume these relationships fail due to social standing within the confines of the unhappy couple is, to me, completely unbelievable.
Now, while it is true that many men will marry a beautiful woman whom they see as their inferior as a ‘trophy wife’, there are an equal amount of heterosexual couples where the woman is the ‘head’ or ‘wears the pants’ due to social standing, income earned, etc. In my limited experience and small contact with such scenarios, I’ve come to the realization that the vast majority of these cases are based more on a state of mind or an attitude that these couples share more than any other factor.
While I agree that there are many men who would be incapable of handling the far superior success of the woman they are attracted to, the notion that this stupefying minority would actually have an affect on a whole generation of ‘alpha-females’ is so nonsensical, I can’t get past it. This article bothers me because of the infantile suppositions and assumptions based on one or two very limited examples. The gross generalizations on both sides are disgusting. Relationships, flawed as they are, are usually begun on a mutual attraction of two individuals. They are perpetuated by a mutual respect, admiration, and ability to communicate. When these issues become the stalling issues of the relationship that to me is when earning potential and social standing then begin to have a wear on the experiment of the two people’s lives together as a couple.
Again, this article makes the assumption that women everywhere are looking for the father of their children, and while in the basest forms of human instinct it is ingrained that only the strong survive, and in that sense it is completely believable that a man and a woman would seek the strong, successful counterpart in the opposite sex to procreate and have progeny with, the idiot of an author believes that this matter is the heart of any relationship to any woman of means.
I can’t even begin to express how erroneous I find this article and its subsequent assumptions to be. It’s appalling to me that in this modern era, what alpha woman most want, according to this article, is someone who will out-earn them, and be of equal or higher social standing. It is so fantastically absurd. Plus, for the feminist (and I use that term in as flattering a manner as I can) who wrote this tripe to cite the failed marriage of a celebrity (Kate Winslet) as proof of her point is just awful. The ‘failure’ or collapse of said marriage could have had to do with any number of issues unbeknown to the author.
Well, I don’t know if I’ve said anything here of note, but the reason I reposted this originally was to have some sort of discussion on the scenarios and problems within the article itself more so than the definition of true or eternal love or the lack thereof. Those comments, thoughts and debates have their place on this site, but it’s not on this thread.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Hansel
Wednesday, July 04, 2007, 16:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Relationships ... are perpetuated by a mutual respect, admiration, and ability to communicate."
This is sweet & I'm sure a lot of girls have given you a thumbs up for this prose, but relationships in many cases are quite biologically driven: Women are generally looking for the maximum security they can get for them and their possible future children (through either wealth, confidence, or power) and men are generally looking for the hottest female they can attract.
The reality is, most people end up with the best they can get given either their lack of looks for girls, or lack of security they can provide if a guy. (reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Wednesday, July 04, 2007, 19:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wouldn't consider my statement above as 'sweet'. If that's the way you view it, so be it. I should have clarified that statement by saying that those were my thoughts on why someone should be in a relationship as opposed to the reasons why they are, across the board. That being said, I've been given 'thumbs up' so to speak by girls for prose much less profound, but I am a fan of my own thoughts and as such, enjoy boasting that my speech causes panties to drop, but that's another story for another day.
My personal panty dropping stories aside, I find relationships to be a travesty and a sham, and usually involve deception in some form or other. I agree with your biological reasons being a precursor to many a relationship, but I find those same conclusions to be insufficient reasons to instigate or perpetuate a relationship. I've made comments on this thread and others regarding my personal views on marriage, relationships et al., but if, as you say, most people end up with the 'best they can get' (in a derogatory sense), well that is just pathetic and only strengthens my belief that relationships are futile in the sense in which they are generally perceived.
I hold to the axiom that if you are with someone, it should be because you have good sexual chemistry, stimulating conversation, pleasure in each other's company, the attributes I've mentioned above and you copy/pasted, and not much else. Security, financial or otherwise, is important if the intent is to have a family, but I am opposed to that notion too. I don't want to denigrate anyone who has children and is in a happy marriage, but the institution of marriage is fundamentally flawed, as is the concept of 'family' in society today. In my opinion.
I may be in the very small minority here, but the only reason for me to be in a relationship is for the mutual pleasure of myself and my counterpart. If it is something that needs 'work', I'm not interested. Maybe that makes me a hideous, depraved individual, but that's the way I feel. I don't want to plan a future with anyone, because I don't know what I'll want in 10, 5 or even 1 year from now. There is someone I want to be with now, and she knows it. But do I want to marry her? No! I want to be with her and to bask in her presence and have her do the same in mine, but I have no idea how long the passion and feelings will last and would never expect her to seek marriage or to contemplate anything long term.
I don't know what this has to do with anything in regards to 'Alpha women', but it is entertaining so far, so vix, madly, anyone else...feel free to post whatever you like along the lines of anything regarding relationships in this thread. If you have something to add on the thread of 'alphas', that's just gravy. :D(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I never thanked you for reposting the article, conan. As it happens, after I was all done with my little hissy fit and realised that it was immeasurably arrogant and self-centred of me to remove the article after people had made serious and valid contributions to the thread, I emailed JW to ask him if he could put it back up and he informed me that you had already done so. Now it's conveniently no longer my article and I am posting in response to an invitation, which suits me much better. Thanks. A little later I will repost the relevant comments from the other thread, since they can no longer be accessed.
As to your comment above, there are so many good points being made. Let's just say I agree with a lot of what you say, especially the 'every woman wants a child' thing. That part really grated on me. I am hugely offended on behalf of womanhood in general that anyone would make such an assertion. While I accept that biology often does win out, I don't agree with the author's simplistic stance on the issue. However I do think that her generalisation that a lot of women (particularly once they are 30+) are looking for a potential father to their children and a suitable head of a family, is fairly representational. It seems to me that for many women 'of a certain age', such factors do still play a big part in their approach to relationships. In general it seems less of a woman's trait to be content with a relationship for its own sake.
As to the use of the examples to back up the arguments, I agree it's a faulty basis for any hard and fast assertions, but let's not forget we are talking about very subjective issues here. There is no way to make such assertions without using gross generalisations, since every relationship is unique to itself. These things will never be truly quantifiable and there will always be a wide margin of error.
I also was outraged that she puts men in only two categories. 'Alpha men' and losers. I think that's hugely unfair. It makes sense *in a way* that she focuses so much on finance but that also really grated on me. A man who earns less (or contributes no finances at all) but shoulders other responsibilities to balance out the dynamics within the relationship, should never EVER be put in the same category as the kind of man discussed in the article. Any man who is actively contributing in some way to the relationship is earning his woman's respect in whatever way is right for them, and that is far more than can be said for the type of man that the author misguidedly describes as beta.
As for your opinion on what drives a relationship - mutual respect, admiration, and ability to communicate - I'd disagree with you (only slightly, mind). I'd say that *healthy* relationships are built on such mutual qualities, but many relationships are not particularly healthy. Many relationships are based on nothing more than dread of being alone, defining oneself by one's partner or lack of, or any number of maladaptive behaviour patterns.
Now, about what kind of man modern women want, I can't speak on behalf of alpha women (at least not within the narrow terms of this article) but I have to say that yes, for a long-term relationship I absolutely would only be interested in a man who I perceive as equal to or above me. Maybe not in financial terms or social standing but certainly in the qualities that I put great stock in. It's difficult to assess what would actually constitute 'equal to or above me' in real terms, though, because of course the qualities that I value are highly subjective in nature as opposed to monetary value which can easily be deduced. Perhaps this is a terribly non-progressive and backwards position, but that is who I am. I cannot become intimately involved on anything more than a cursory level with someone whom I cannot respect and admire. In order for them to command my respect they must be able to offer me something of value. Otherwise I'd rather just be alone. Point is (or i think it is anyway), every relationship has its currency. For Alpha women whose identities are closely tied in with ambition, power, social standing and other related currencies, it isn't that unreasonable, in my view, for them to show similar expectations to mine only within the parameters of their particular social corridor.
There is more I want to talk about but I realise that now I have got on to a completely different train of thought than the one I started in reply to J_P's comment. I should probably try to finish that. I guess I'll have to try and see if I can manage to switch tack a little bit. Or maybe that little essay can wait till tomorrow.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Thursday, July 05, 2007, 01:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
One thought in response if I may;
What might constitute an 'equal' in your male (or female) counterpoint aside from a financial or social standing, would be intellectual compatibility. I use the word compatibility instead of equality, because there is an enormous differential between the two, which hardly need be explained. While this may be an unspoken given, I find the ability to converse with someone beyond smalltalk, inane/mundane anecdotes, etc., would be the unequivocal delight in the recognition of a mind you appreciate and idolize, but are still able to connect and converse without one being 'inferior' to the other.
I'm sure that's not something that anyone needs to be reminded of, but at the same time, to me that is a much more important factor than income, financial stability, social standing, or good genes when it comes to any relationship I would even consider getting involved in.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Monday, July 02, 2007, 23:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Uhm, why might it be different for some women?? Wow, I never thought I'd have to explain such obvious points but hey, it gives me something to do, I guess. I'm keeping it simple because I'm just *that* lazy, so don't expect a well-balanced analysis. I am speaking in generalisations because that is the only way to hold any discussion of this kind, so spare me the chidings about stereotyping.
How might it be different for women to hold down a high-earning job and be married to someone who in no way pulls his own weight? For starters, cultural expectation and social convention plays a big part in any relationship. The ways in which the man and woman see themselves will be highly influenced by unconscious expecations of themselves and of each other. Further, the two people in that relationship do not exist as their own private cell - Multiple aspects of their separate and individual identities will be influenced by their perceptions of other's opinions of them. There is a certain pride in a man being able to provide for his wife and family. For many people the state of being provider is very much a fundamental part of what it is to be masculine. Having a wife who does not need to work is a positive reflection on the man's earning power. Having a trophy wife (by which I mean here someone who does NOT raise a family, further comment later) does not usually take away from a man's esteem in fact it may serve to confirm his status and power. The implications for a woman in a comparable relationship might be vastly different than a man's experience of the same.
Oh my, it's time for the school run.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From J_P
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 02:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I didnt say "some women". I am generalising the point saying that why would it be different for women in general. I dont see my comment as having any "obvious" questions to be answered by you, aside from a non-progressive and backwards mentality. You are answering a question I did not ask.
You tell a man that they should "take pride in providing for a his wife and family" and the flip side is represented as a woman "hold(ing) down a high-earning job and be married to someone who in no way pulls his own weight". You wouldn't think to call it a man holding down a high-earning job supporting a dead-beat wife, but thats your implication with a small role reversal.
In a truely progressive marriage, I would say that its about participating in the partnership, each pulling their load and contributing in any way they can.
Your, or the author's, views seem to me to be very backwards here and reflect an attitude from another time, nothing about equality or respect.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 03:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
You asked why it would be different for women. I prefaced my answer with a concession that my answer applied to why *some* women might feel differently than men would in comparable situations. The points I brought up are obvious in their connection to and contribution to the issues being discussed. I certainly did begin to answer the question that you asked. Unfortunately I was interrupted and had to cut it off before I'd hardly started. I'm sorry I didn't leave you enough to work with to gain an understanding of what I was getting at. Clearly I will have to try to set out my arguments more carefully and cogently from now on. Not a strong point of mine, i'm afraid.
As to a non-progressive and backwards mentality, you didn't make your point very clearly there so i'm not sure what you were saying. If you're calling my opinions non-progressive and backwards, well that's your prerogative. You might consider the possibility that one can espouse certain values and still see past those ideals to what reality is actually made up of. I have very progressive views and i am fiercely proud of them. That does not mean that i can't, as part of an overall analysis, see certain patterns that play out and voice the underlying attitudes that accompany them.
On to the next point: Where exactly do you see me saying that a man 'should take pride in providing for his wife and family'??? That is patently NOT what I said. I said that cultural and social convention dictates that for many people this is seen as a fundamental part of masculinity. More importantly even than other people's views, this is usually what the man unconsciously expects of himself. If he is not the main wage earner then he will need some other equally vital role (such as fulltime father, or a highly fulfilling job that just pays less) in order to feel valued and important. I believe that most self-respecting men who do not actively contribute *in some way* to a relationship will end up resenting the situation.
As progressive relationships go, I completely agree with you. A healthy relationship consists of a partnership of complementing strengths and weaknesses. But this is not the kind of relationship the author describes. Read the article again. Do you see anything in there that points toward relationships where there is any equality and true partnership?? I don't think so. The article is about deadbeat men and the women who stay with them and then complain about it. The alpha-beta thing, and the author's insistence on making finance the main issue, detract from the broader issues she addresses. As to your assertion that I 'wouldn't think to call a man holding down a high-earning job supporting a deadbeat wife', I can tell you that you're wrong. I bloody well would call it that and I am fiercely critical of any woman who allows herself to be bought like that and kept by a man.
I am offended that you automatically align my views with that of the author. That is a terrible assumption to make and one which is highly innacurate. I might agree with some of it. I might also disagree with much of what she says. I am interested in the article for its potential to create a lively exploration of post-feminist relationships, nature vs. nurture, conscious vs. unconscious attitudes, and any and all aspects of the modern woman's negotiations through life. *Not* for the specifics of the article itself.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From J_P
Wednesday, July 04, 2007, 02:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I apologise for automatically assuming the authors views to be closely aligned to your own. Since I did not see a disclaimer or any comment to that effect or else to say that it was only meant to provoke discussion, I assumed you somewhat agreed to the basic premise of the article.
I stand by what I said, though that should not be directed at you, or the poster, rather at the author if that were possible.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 01:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't have time to continue just now but I'll say this:
I think one major flaw in the author's argument is her designation of the terms alpha and beta. In my opinion both of the specific cases she describes are not alpha-beta at all. It would have been more appropriate to call the latter theta or something instead of assuming that there are only two valid states of being, as far as being male is concerned. As a result of this failing on the author's part the title, too, is misguided. Her points would have been far more valid had she thought to title it something like this: 'A self-respecting woman will never be happy with a deadbeat man.' Of course that wouldn't have had the handy soundbite quality required of a headline.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From madly
Monday, July 02, 2007, 20:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are missing the point, as it is not that I hate “eternal love”, I actually very much like the idea of it, I just don’t believe it to exist and that is the only point I am trying to make. On the other hand, I do believe you can care about someone for the entirety of ones life, in the way that you could remain friends and be concerned about their welfare, being there for them, etc,. I just can’t imagine being romantic with the same person forever, in the way that you would want to go home to them every night or continue to want to have hot passionate sex with them on a permanent basis, etc, etc, etc. Sorry, I am just not buying it. Forever is a very very long time. Other than that, I agree completely with what you said. I happen to find this article faulty at best.(reply to this comment) |
| | From J_P
Monday, July 02, 2007, 23:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I stand corrected. You are not a "love hater", you are an "eternal love agnostic". A position like that is understandable, since I am an athiest and would take a similar view of religion that you take to eternal love and commitment, though perhaps somewhat more hardline (I absolutely don't believe it to be true from a lack of evidence point of view).
I would say that to a degree you are right, but then add "so what" since that is what you need to get by, but for many others its not.
I can only speak from my personal experience that the commitment I made when entering into my partnership is no weaker than when it started (going on 11 years). Some of the passion might be on a lesser scale, but that to me is not a defect. It's a case of values. If you value passion, romance and excitement above everything else in a relationship, then a long term relationship might not be for you. If you value stability, providing the best environment for your kids, etc, and the partnership you are in provides that, then what is inherently wrong with that? And who's to say that values dont change with time, and a person could slip from one category to another.
Now, slap me down dear.(reply to this comment) |
| | From madly
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 20:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
On the contrary, I completely respect your right to say or do anything you like. I know that I promised you that I would respond in turn, but it seems that we are going into the whole married with children topic and I have always stated that having children and wanting to raise a family was the only reason that I find marriage to be a worthy undertaking. I have expressed my feelings on this subject adequately enough on my “Mammals” article, so if you care to know my opinion, you will find more than enough of it on there. This article was about an entirely different subject and I will now leave it to the original intended subject.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From J_P
Wednesday, July 04, 2007, 02:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I disagree that this is specifically about "married with children", except that is an attribute of my situation. My nature (and I dont assume to be so unique in this world) means that I do not require an eternity of wild romantic feelings going on forever. This does not make my love for my partner any weaker, it just means that my choosing to stay together as a family long term (which I believe was the point of your skepticism) is not dependant on that type of intense romantic feeling going on forever.
I agree though that this is off topic to the article somewhat.(reply to this comment) |
| | From madly
Wednesday, July 04, 2007, 11:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good for you, JP. I really hope that it will always be what you and your wife need and want. Honestly though, I have heard what you are saying quite a few times from married couples and you know what? A lot of those couples are divorced now or openly seeing other people while staying together for their children. I don’t think that what you are saying is unique in nature, but rather following through with your commitment “forever” is which, by the way, is impossible for you to be certain of, at this point in time. Even is you are sure of this forever, it doesn’t mean your wife is and a lot of times even though one of you is happy, satisfied, and fulfilled the other one is not or does not remain so. Again, I hope that you are… only time will tell.
Please understand that I am not belittling what you have, nor saying my opinion is the right one. Or saying you are doomed for divorce. I hope that what you have lasts and that you and your wife are truly content with your marriage forever. I am just very much a skeptic when it comes to marriage or staying with the same person for your whole life and completely and honestly remaining content and satisfied.
I also really wish everyone would quit thinking that what I am saying is all about looking for romance after romance, a constant high or whim of excitement, about wanting new people to have sex with or whatever, because that is not what I am about. I also want to clarify that I haven’t been jaded or heartbroken or sworn off love because of a bad break up, etc. My opinions come from my realization that we are constantly changing as we go through life and that we will need fresh people and environments in order to grow as a person, learn new things and experience life and all it has to offer fully.
I believe that we get a fresh view on life through every person that we meet; a new set of eyes to view the world from. It is like seeing things that we have stared at in the same way forever in a brand new way through their eyes. I believe that we need this fresh outlook or we start to die in a sense. It is about being honest about being comfortable that it is okay to need something new and just because something is standard or has always been assumed to be the proper way or desired way of life, doesn’t mean we have to go along with it and that maybe it is a flawed idea and has always been so.
It does happen now and again, where two people remain together and in love forever, but I would dare say it is a very rare thing to find. Most people that have stayed together their entire lives have gone through affairs, periods of horrible fights, living away from each other and end up staying together simply because it wasn’t worth the aggravation of separating.
Also, my “Mammals” article pertained to all my opinions on marriage, most of which had nothing to do with having children. So again, if you would like to understand what I am trying to say in more detail, it is there for you to do so. This is my last comment on the subject and I didn’t mean to make this one as long as it has become. I am sure we will see each other in chat and can there continue, if you wish. I am honestly sick of the subject and I am beginning to feel like a broken tape recorder and I am sure most of you are getting tired of what I am saying, as well.
I apologize for this being so off the subject of the intended article.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Wednesday, July 04, 2007, 15:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't see why it should suddenly matter so much that a thread develops that is not 100% on topic. When has that stopped anyone on this site before? Part of the charm of this forum is that interesting exchanges can pop up in quite unlikely places. Anyway I personally think this thread is relevant enough to hold a valid place here. But if you *really* want us to stick only to the original topic, conan, then fine, I will make this my last post on it too.
I think marriage suits some people much more than it does others. Some people just don't need to be going off to sample the goods every so often and they're content with what they have. Good for them.
Some people are lucky enough that they both change throughout the years in ways that are parallel enough to offer each person enough of what they need. They might also be more successful at constantly challenging themselves rather than giving in to lethargy and complacency. Taking the other person for granted is such a relationship killer, and it's so easy to do that when you feel that you know the them inside out and they can no longer surprise you. So maybe those who succeed are those who rely on themselves to create their identity more than on their partner. It is perfectly possible to find 'fresh people and environments in order to grow as a person, learn new things and experience life and all it has to offer fully' while staying with the same person. I think it probably has to do with different personality types and ways of operating, that's all.
Others struggle much more but they still make it. Maybe for them the barren times were difficult but in the end there was enough of value in the relationship to make sticking with it worth it. There is much to be said for the building up of shared history between two people, and as much as there is a certain excitement in reinventing yourself through being seen anew, there is almost immeasurable value in having been seen and understood time and time again by one person and knowing that through all that they still love you. I think that if there is a deep love and connection on the part of both parties, they absolutely can fall in love over and over again through the years, with each ebb followed by an even stronger flow. It all depends on whether or not both people are willing to do the work involved. There's a saying, 'you get out of your marriage what you put into it' and it's always bothered me, because it's not strictly true. You get out of your marriage what you *both* put into it, and sadly that's where the trouble usually starts. Often by the time people realise that there are serious problems it's too late, the damage is done, and one party doesn't want to save it anymore. It doesn't matter then how much the other begs and fights and changes. 'Tis not love's going hurt my days, but that it went in little ways.'
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Kelly
Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 04:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Question:
When picking a life partner, would you choose romantic/passionate or practical?
Of course, both qualities would be ideal. I think ultimately, most men prefer practical for the long run.
I tend to see a lot of woman with men whose partners would be someone they don’t like at all minus the love factor.
Anyhow, that’s just my observation –I am definitely no expert on the subject.
(reply to this comment)
| From madly
Saturday, June 30, 2007, 11:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I realize that it is a sweet idealistic notion to find your partner for life, but picking anything for life is, to me, pretending that you know the outcome of an unforeseeable future. Being with someone for life is like having to pick only one colour to stare at for the rest of all time. It is like saying you will like the same flavor of ice cream served to you everyday until you die. It is saying you will never change enough to need someone new in your life and neither will your partner. It is a limited, unrealistic, somewhat delusional idea to choose or promise to be with anything for life.
Tell me who you will be and what you will need at the end of your life and tell me that who you are now and what you need at this moment is and will continue to be the same until then, only then will you be able to determine if the same life partner can fulfill your present and future needs. I would rather pick my lover for right now and let life live as it will, changing me and giving me new needs and desires. Limiting yourself to one option for life is like choosing to stay the same forever. I would rather die.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 14:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
A quick comment along the same thought pattern, if I may: with more than 5 billion people on are planet, the notion of there being the 'ONE' person out there for you is statistical anomaly. I mean, if you consider the odds, chances are that there is someone out there who is better suited to your individual needs both chemically and intellectually than the person you are currently with.
Then again, there are those who believe that your 'ONE' changes as you change and you need a different 'ONE' as you progress and evolve.
My grandfather (may he rest in peace) told me after I had broken up with someone I was very fond of at the time several years ago that there are 'billions of fish in your ocean' and that I may catch and release a million before I was done. I've taken his advice to heart and don't expect that the women I date are the 'ONE' for me for the rest of my life, but then again, him and I are cynics...so, heh...what do we know? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From madly
Sunday, July 01, 2007, 12:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
“A mutual pact of delusion”, how perfectly said. Two people experiencing these overwhelming amazing feelings that they hope will stand the test of time, so they decide to make a promise to each other to feel this way forever; believing that somehow promising can be enough. With out thinking it through, they promise something they have no right to promise, committing to something they should never commit to. At that moment logic doesn’t matter… they want it to last, they need it to last and they feel they can find a way to never let such a beautiful feeling die. If it could only work this way, if feelings could always remain as strong, if there was a way two people could always change along side each other and always need the same thing in order to remain content and satisfied…it might just work, but alas, this never seems to be the case.
A delusional naive act of bliss, a pact made in a moment of passion is a pact destined to be broken as soon as the passion dies and logic appears after the misty romantic fog has cleared. They say love is blind, but it can also be plain stupid and get you to promise things for a future you are not currently living in and don’t hold the rights to yet. The sad thing is, that the very promise you make, to the one you love, seems to be the thing that holds you to them and bites you in the ass when you realize you want out. “But Harry, you promised to love me forever.” “Susie, you lied to me… how could you?” The things we think that we mean when we say them. How can we not know that the only thing that never changes is the fact that everything will always change?
The only thing worse than saying such things is believing them enough to actually make it legal and now you have bound yourself to someone who is legally your partner forever. Wow… that is scary stuff. How does that even appeal to people, I will never understand. I will lend myself to people that I fall for, if and when that happens for me, but when my feelings change I will simply take myself back again. Call me selfish, but it is MY self and I will use it as if it were so. No one owns the rights to me, but me and I will not be blindly handing those rights out on a romantic whim. I only wish I could break up with myself when I get sick of me in the same way I could from a man, but that is an entirely different subject.
Words are empty and mean nothing when there are no feelings left to give them life or depth. Empty words and broken promises are what most relationships end up as, sad, but so true. “I can love you now and I would like to love you always, but since always is not here, nor is it in my power to give you, I can only promise you my feeling for now and hope they are mine to offer you in the future as well.” A man that could understand these words from me or better yet, be the one uttering them, is a man I would like to spend my now with.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From con-artist
Sunday, July 01, 2007, 23:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow! You really are lame. You are so lame that I can't really express how really lame you really are. I really hate even having to verbalize how much I really hate how lame your pathetic copying, really lame ass is. I mean really, how lame are you that you say the same thing as someone else because you hope it will get you noticed? Fucking REALLY lame!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, July 02, 2007, 05:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, conan, it's almost as lame as the posting the same dumb ass comments under each of my comments that you see because you hope it will get you noticed. Atleast show some originality! I see nothing wrong with with picking on vix, she knows I'm just kidding her.
And I might take you a bit more seriously if you would quit rating your own comments.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from rainy
Friday, June 22, 2007 - 04:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
My comment, that I would have made if I'd been able to post, was that I'm all for beta-beta. It's the kind of relationship I'm in right now, and it certainly works for me. No domination, no one there to support the other's ambition, just equal respect and acceptance. A sort of live-and-let-live vibe.
(reply to this comment)
| from neez
Friday, June 22, 2007 - 02:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just as boring the 2nd time around.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From exfam stud
Wednesday, July 04, 2007, 16:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Kelly, you are right. There was an implied "degree" in not having issues as there was in all of those factors. And more importantly, "issues" relate back to ones that create either a lack of confidence or lack of loyalty. Of course, this is only if one is looking for a serious relationship.
If not, only one of those factors matters...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]