I'm like you a happyily, sensible violent woman and if anyone dosen't like it well they can take a long walk off a short pier =D
Violent women.
- Thread starter IrisEver
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Is there a reason you keep saying things like this? To be straightforward, assumptive, and rude, for a woman so dead-set on appearing strong, you seem awfully quick to try to garner pity. It's quite incongruous.IrisEver said:
Let me elucidate on that...
This statement, coupled with your vehement assertions throughout this thread that, no, you are, in fact, violent, leads me to believe that your aggression and hot temper are not an intrinsic aspect of your personality, but rather, something you have developed due to feelings of frustration and inadequacy. Put differently, you have something you're desperate to prove: That you're not weak. And in order to prove it, you affect the polar opposite, behaving aggressively and violently so as to appear strong (the polar opposites approach is a tactic a lot of people employ without even realizing it, myself included).IrisEver said:
Unfortunately, this tactic fails, and you have already experienced firsthand why. Being violent doesn't make you appear strong, it only makes you appear dangerous. And while a strong woman is attractive to most men, a dangerous woman will actually repel them. It has to do with survival instincts; people don't want to be involved with things they have good reason to believe will cause them harm. They generally don't walk near fires because they don't want to get burned; they generally don't walk near the edge of a roof because they don't want to fall off; and they generally aren't attracted to someone who is physically violent because they don't trust that person to maintain enough control and/or sympathy to not hurt them. Note I'm using the actual definition of sympathy here, ie sharing & understanding the feelings of others, and not the synonym for 'pansy-ass pity' most people think it is.
Of course, this is all speculation. I've never met you in person, and I've read maybe two thousand words you've written online; that's hardly enough to claim I have an effusive understanding of your psyche, and I won't pretend otherwise. But it's something worth considering.
As for your qualms with guys wanting to be 'mothered', I've observed males behaving as such, and I agree, it's usually annoying and frustrating. The males I've seen in those situations are generally only in the relationship to fulfill their own selfish desires, to boot, so all the more reason to get the hell out. Which is not to say such a relationship dynamic is inherently bad; there are probably both men and women who want something like that. But I think it's important to differentiate between wanting to be coddled and wanting to be...open, I suppose is the best word. Cutting straight to the point, men in Western society are expected to never show any feeling whatsoever. It's an archaic and ridiculous standard, but it's there. With that in mind, many men, whether they realize it or not, seek out relationships with people they feel comfortable expressing their otherwise-repressed feelings to. But if they can't do that with a significant other, then...with whom? If a woman does to them the same thing society does, deriding them when they're trying to be real and honest about their feelings, then they aren't going to want to pursue a relationship with that woman.
Really it all boils down to one thing, social expectations and expected roles from a by-gone era.IrisEver said:
In general, the modern day society isn't as set in this mind set as it once was, but as with all things, it takes time in order for an entire social mind-set to change.
While I am aware that the type of woman you have described above is still rare (per-se) to encounter, I personally find such women to be a refreshing break from the stereotypical and socially expected norms and believe that many men (and women) are also of a similar mind set.
In terms of advice to you, I can say nothing more than be yourself (regardless of whom others may want you to be, even loved ones)and you shall, in time, find like minded individuals who appreciate you for who you are.
That is quite an in depth study of me considering how little you know of me, especially considering it's over the binds of the internet. I wont say much on that though, as I do find armchair psychology interesting.DeltaStrata said:
And don't offend me by saying I want pity. I don't blame you for not recognising "Forever alone" as tongue in cheek, as it is only the internet after all. Although I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would use that phrase seriously over the age of 17, and it's probably quite strange that you took it seriously.
My violent nature and hot temper is not about "appearing strong". I am strong, and I pride myself on that, but strength is a seperate thing as everyone here -- including myself, which you seem to have missed -- has pointed out. This is about closeness, relationship dynamics, and my nature. About how I simply could not find myself having a relationship with someone who couldnt accept that side of me, because they expected me to be more passive as a woman or because they didn't share the same values.
Unless you really want to abuse men both physically and/or mentally, I wouldn't use the word "violent". I think that what you mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you want to be dominant, even intimidating in your relationships, to use your charisma to "force" your point of view onto a man, to which I can safely say that there are plenty of men who are in fact looking for that these kind of women. I was in a similar relationship for a while and from my experience, there was something sexually and emotionally gratifying about being under a woman (metaphorically speaking).IrisEver said:
What you have to understand however is that intimate relationships are ones which require a lot of compromise. Sometimes a man likes when a woman is sweet, gentle and caring, when she mothers him. You don't have to change your whole personality to fulfill these needs but you have to at least be willing to become that other person every now and then, just to make him feel better. In return, you can expect him to do similar favors for you.
I guess that some men do find dominant women scary but it mostly comes from their own insecurities rather than the women. Some were spoiled by their mother (and other women in their childhoods) and simply expect other women to behave the same way out of habit. Other feel like they will lose their manhood and become "castrated" if the woman takes the lead in a relationship. I suppose it's impossible not to mention the influence of religion. In the Abrahamic ones (and maybe some others, I don't know the specifics of the lesser known ones), women are the inferior sex so if a person is deeply religious, they tend to follow the "man works and is the head of the family, woman takes care of the house and the children" route.
It's really complicated and it would take me hours to explain every aspect of it so I'm just going to stop there. There are whole books on the subject so feel free to explore the topic more thoroughly.
I hope my input was helpful.
From what I've read I find you rather interesting.IrisEver said:
Sir, you are correct.ChaoticLegion said:
vi·o·lent   [vahy-uh-luhnt]
adjective
1.
acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2.
caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3.
intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4.
roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5.
furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.
Violent is a bad thing. I don't want anything to do with a person who describes themselves as "violent".
Either your word choice leaves something to be desired, or you really are as horrible a human being as "violent" would suggest.
adjective
1.
acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2.
caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3.
intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4.
roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5.
furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.
Violent is a bad thing. I don't want anything to do with a person who describes themselves as "violent".
Either your word choice leaves something to be desired, or you really are as horrible a human being as "violent" would suggest.
My girlfriend is pretty violent. Fortunately, I love that (I'm a bit of a mix of masochist and a sadist). When I tell her about how I'm in a class with about 36 girls, she says that there would be hair pulling and I get a nice tingle in my spine. She isn't always aggressive but the thread isn't about when aggressive women turn non-aggressive
So, in short. Aggressive women = awesome
So, in short. Aggressive women = awesome
My girlfriend is pretty violent. Fortunately, I love that (I'm a bit of a mix of masochist and a sadist). When I tell her about how I'm in a class with about 36 girls, she says that there would be hair pulling and I get a nice tingle in my spine. She isn't always aggressive but the thread isn't about when aggressive women turn non-aggressive
So, in short. Aggressive women = awesome
So, in short. Aggressive women = awesome
My girlfriend is pretty violent. Fortunately, I love that (I'm a bit of a mix of masochist and a sadist). When I tell her about how I'm in a class with about 36 girls, she says that there would be hair pulling and I get a nice tingle in my spine. She isn't always aggressive but the thread isn't about when aggressive women turn non-aggressive
So, in short. Aggressive women = awesome
So, in short. Aggressive women = awesome
I quite like anyone that's fairly aggressive and doesn't take things lying down. It's a good quality to have.
That said, some people are just over the top. My last girlfriend had a nasty habit of getting drunk and attacking me, a mistake I plan on not repeating. Aggressive, opinionated and willing to stand up for oneself, good. Just getting violent, bad.
That said, some people are just over the top. My last girlfriend had a nasty habit of getting drunk and attacking me, a mistake I plan on not repeating. Aggressive, opinionated and willing to stand up for oneself, good. Just getting violent, bad.
I'm going to go ahead an apologize right now if this post ends up being too long, rambling, or unnecessarily personal (in a TMI kind of way,) but hopefully somewhere in what I'm about launch into will be enough to glean some semblance of the answers you're looking for.
Welp, here goes.
First of all, the Escapist forums are probably not the best place to turn for constructive, and in particular, practical, relationship advice (but it is oh-so-tempting to peruse through the relentlessly curiosity-piquing thread titles that litter the right side of my browser when I come here to watch ZP.) I get the general feeling that most of the posters here are comparatively under-experienced and don't have the scope of interactions to really catch some of the more finicky problems, and it's not that I some panning low-opinion of the crowd here, merely that I find I am often surprised to discover how incensed and outraged the average response is in many of the posts regarding even slightly controversial topics in that tricky arena of human romance, and I'm pretty convinced that this kind of idealization mostly comes from a naivety regarding how things often end up really going down (in this very thread it seems every other post is all, "violence is always bad in a relationship!" which has a nice idyllic ring to it when you haven't been exposed to a wide enough spectrum of violence to know when it is and is not malicious.) On the other hand, I'm mostly damaged goods at this point, such to a degree where I'm shocked when I find myself in a relationship where I'm not being abused, and am pretty much conditioned to expect it, so you'd be wise to keep that context in mind.
(Quick aside: my current girlfriend is the only girl I've dated who, after more a couple weeks, hasn't started hitting me on a regular basis. Usually when I start seeing someone pretty seriously it doesn't take long before they notice that I unintentionally flinch at any sudden movement, and when they ask about it I tell them I'm used to being hit, and they all go, "awww," and "that's so terrible," and whatnot while I shrug it off. It doesn't usually take long before they play-hit me or something and then I guess the idea just catches, and when they realize they can get away with it they do it more often and more forcefully until it becomes a thing. Apparently I just invite being hit? I'm pretty resilient, having smashed up a good number of bones and had a great deal of considerably more damaging things happen to my person than most people are able to muster at a moment's whim so, comparatively, being hit on a regular basis doesn't really register. I think for most of the people I've dated it's something like having the desire to kick a kitten, and then realizing you can do so without actually needing to feel bad afterwards about the kitten being hurt, and this combination of elements becomes irresistible. Since the girl I'm dating now has made a living rehabilitating problem horses, and is quite familiar with forcibly shoving around large brutish creatures one still sincerely cares about, the abstract desire to do so I guess seems significantly lessened. The astute reader wonders, if I'm so oblivious to physical pain, why then do I flinch in the first place? The answer is that I'm not flinching in expectation of injury, but as an intentional suppression of the instinctual impulse to strike at things that surprise me; it only takes one time of accidentally punching your girlfriend when she jumps out from behind a door at you (this video presents the phenomenon pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26uEZHm7prY ) before you build some mechanism of making damn certain you never do it again. Net of the story, I'm pretty fucked up, apparently.)
Preamble aside, I've see no problem with a little bit of violence to mix things up in my relationships here and there. As most people have pointed out, the main issue you're probably having is not strictly with finding someone who isn't averse to a violent and aggressive woman, but rather someone who has no problem with you being assertive and dominant in your own right, which generally, in the scope of most kinds of relationships, would be the truth of the matter. But you've held to the case, and I think I might be pretty on board with what you're getting at, that you do in fact mean violence, and where I think people get lost is because what you're referring to is not the "torturing and maiming an innocent animal" kind of violence, but (to use a metaphor that has has probably less resonance here than in nearly any other context,) the "being a linebacker about to run down and pummel a wide receiver," kind of violence. In the first case it is a cruel and vicious violence, in the second, it is the goal of one or the other participant to avoid being injured and there is a real and present threat of injury, but everyone is knowingly placing themselves in the "violent" scenario because it is exciting and bringing that kind of excitement to the a relationship is actually a thing that some people seek out. Fewer of them, probably, than the average, but they're out there.
By example, I dated one girl for nearly three years and while there were a lot of ways in which the relationship was not healthy (mostly in terms of parasitic co-dependency that lingered in any of our interactions for years even after we broke up,) the physical aggression that we each brought to the private aspects of our romance was not one of them. We're both driven, highly demanding and opinionated people and verbally we argued pretty much endlessly, so the ability to mutually come to some manner of consensual assault was actually a fairly safe manner for us to enact our aggressive tendencies productively. Foreplay often involved wrestling with and attempting to forcibly strip the other person, to the point where if anyone had ever walked in on us it would likely look like a rape was going on, with the caveat of not being able to tell who was raping who.
So, certainly, I think I can appreciate, at least approximately, what is meant when you say you're looking for a relationship where you can express not only assertiveness and personal passions, but indeed a degree of aggression and violence, and would like to extend that there are people out there, harder to find as they may be, who will assent to such a relationship (some of whom are probably even not as crazy as I am, though I would hope that this is generally true in most cases.) What you'll probably discover though, is that it will take some mining and endeavor on your part to find them. Most people don't go about thinking to themselves, "why yes, I am the kind of person who will engage in physical battle to attain the privilege of removing your bra, or even, as it may be, the right to decide which milk we buy (or the last slice of pizza or whether the evening is spent watching Project Runway or Top Gear, or you know, whatever,)" it tends to be a kind of emergent occurrence that comes about only in the right combination of people in a relationship.
The problem you face is determining what kind of people in particular will yield a higher chance to rise to meet your aggressive nature, rather than be alarmed by it, timid of it, or turned off by it. In my case I don't go about looking for a violent woman to beat me up on a regular basis a necessary condition of who I date, because while I can appreciate that kind of exchange, it isn't one of the driving qualities in who I chose to be with. I do look for some who could beat me up, or at least give a run for my money, should push come to consensually thrilling shove. Which is to say I'm most attracted by women who are determined, motivated, driven, physically capable, and in making me look like a lazy lout by comparison, inspire me to work harder in my own goals. The irony of all this is that outwardly, I have no problem playing the effeminate, emotional, creative type (what with being an artist and all) and allowing any supposed claim to masculinity be undercut by dating someone who could take me to the floor if she wanted (my current girlfriend is actually a little intimidating in this regard, having the kind of disposition that allows one to spend 60 hours a week manhandling angry 1200 lbs animals that can kick the doors off an Escalade, which is funny considering she's probably the least "violent" among most people I've dated with any degree of seriousness.) (I say "outwardly" as though I am not often, in fact, an effeminate, emotional, creative type, which I obviously am, see: "parasitic co-dependence," above.)
The, hopefully useful, takeaway for you is that to find the kind of person you're looking for you may have to look in some paradoxical locations. The stereotypical, macho-aggressive linebacker in my I'm-disgusted-I-would-even-reference-football metaphor above, though fundamentally synchronized with the potential mindset you're interested in, is far and away also stereotypically turned off by aggressive women types. Some people have mentioned BDSM, and while I can understand it not being really what you're looking for (more fun facts, my current GF apparently has historically taken the role of a dominatrix from time to time, and yet, totally not my thing... she is fortunately cool with this,) it will probably be as a peculiar personality quirk, possibly even thought of as fetishistic, that the individual you're hunting for will express. My advice? Shop around, no one window-displays the kind of thing it seems like you're wanting (again, "I like long walks on the beach and also having fights that might leave bruises" isn't the kind of thing you're probably going to find on an okcupid profile,) and it could end up being surprising who might fit neatly with your degree and intensity of aggression. I would obviously solicit people highly involved in the arts (look for sculptors, the kind of people who bend around metal and use a blowtorch on a regular basis, they're often amenable to putting their bodies through physical peril, while being, typically, more well read than say, a lumberjack) though would warn that most of the mix will be those who use the template of "being artistic" as a social identifier (it pains me to say it, but, see: "hipsters,") rather than being inexorably drawn to a creative desire despite the input and opinions of any other living creature, and you'll probably want to be looking toward the latter category. You might try doctors (or, really, for the best instant fix of high intensity bursts of probably aggressive passion, med students, who unwind hard as shit on the occasions when they actually get a chance to unwind,) or people of any other highly demanding and self-assuring trade.
What you'll most probably find is that the right person is the kind of person who doesn't need you, and doesn't need their social position established by any external source and is self-assured enough to look for a mutual competitor, rather than a trophy or a mother or someone to look after the house or organize the bills. You could say this, conceptually, is the basis of many ideal relationships, but you're probably also looking for someone with enough intensity that the usual day to day activities are just on the pale side of blase. See: Randian Objectivists, but probably those who are nihilistic enough to have rejected that fulfillment will actually come from material wealth and are looking for deep and vivid enough stimulus to pierce through the burden of all their wasted intellect. One way or another it will probably end up being someone with some penchant for abuse (even though you've said you don't want someone who will let you abuse them,) because even with those who strive most adamantly for success there is a degree to which that intensity wells from a degree of self-abuse in the form of constantly pushing themselves beyond reasonable limits. Probably not on this list, and likely part of the reason why most of the response you've got here is in line with "violence=bad," are gamers, as gaming, fundamentally, is a way of mitigating the immediacy of aggression onto some abstracted framework (see: "ragequiting;" a gamer will more likely ragequit an argument they don't want to have, where a power hungry business executive will flip out and punch you in the face. Or buy your entire livelihood and undersell you into poverty. You know, more forward, one way or the other.)
Alternatively, having trudged your way though this intractable bit of hyper-advice, you may decide what you're looking for is actually slightly more upward of normal in which case maybe accountants, maybe that's what you should look into.
Welp, here goes.
First of all, the Escapist forums are probably not the best place to turn for constructive, and in particular, practical, relationship advice (but it is oh-so-tempting to peruse through the relentlessly curiosity-piquing thread titles that litter the right side of my browser when I come here to watch ZP.) I get the general feeling that most of the posters here are comparatively under-experienced and don't have the scope of interactions to really catch some of the more finicky problems, and it's not that I some panning low-opinion of the crowd here, merely that I find I am often surprised to discover how incensed and outraged the average response is in many of the posts regarding even slightly controversial topics in that tricky arena of human romance, and I'm pretty convinced that this kind of idealization mostly comes from a naivety regarding how things often end up really going down (in this very thread it seems every other post is all, "violence is always bad in a relationship!" which has a nice idyllic ring to it when you haven't been exposed to a wide enough spectrum of violence to know when it is and is not malicious.) On the other hand, I'm mostly damaged goods at this point, such to a degree where I'm shocked when I find myself in a relationship where I'm not being abused, and am pretty much conditioned to expect it, so you'd be wise to keep that context in mind.
(Quick aside: my current girlfriend is the only girl I've dated who, after more a couple weeks, hasn't started hitting me on a regular basis. Usually when I start seeing someone pretty seriously it doesn't take long before they notice that I unintentionally flinch at any sudden movement, and when they ask about it I tell them I'm used to being hit, and they all go, "awww," and "that's so terrible," and whatnot while I shrug it off. It doesn't usually take long before they play-hit me or something and then I guess the idea just catches, and when they realize they can get away with it they do it more often and more forcefully until it becomes a thing. Apparently I just invite being hit? I'm pretty resilient, having smashed up a good number of bones and had a great deal of considerably more damaging things happen to my person than most people are able to muster at a moment's whim so, comparatively, being hit on a regular basis doesn't really register. I think for most of the people I've dated it's something like having the desire to kick a kitten, and then realizing you can do so without actually needing to feel bad afterwards about the kitten being hurt, and this combination of elements becomes irresistible. Since the girl I'm dating now has made a living rehabilitating problem horses, and is quite familiar with forcibly shoving around large brutish creatures one still sincerely cares about, the abstract desire to do so I guess seems significantly lessened. The astute reader wonders, if I'm so oblivious to physical pain, why then do I flinch in the first place? The answer is that I'm not flinching in expectation of injury, but as an intentional suppression of the instinctual impulse to strike at things that surprise me; it only takes one time of accidentally punching your girlfriend when she jumps out from behind a door at you (this video presents the phenomenon pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26uEZHm7prY ) before you build some mechanism of making damn certain you never do it again. Net of the story, I'm pretty fucked up, apparently.)
Preamble aside, I've see no problem with a little bit of violence to mix things up in my relationships here and there. As most people have pointed out, the main issue you're probably having is not strictly with finding someone who isn't averse to a violent and aggressive woman, but rather someone who has no problem with you being assertive and dominant in your own right, which generally, in the scope of most kinds of relationships, would be the truth of the matter. But you've held to the case, and I think I might be pretty on board with what you're getting at, that you do in fact mean violence, and where I think people get lost is because what you're referring to is not the "torturing and maiming an innocent animal" kind of violence, but (to use a metaphor that has has probably less resonance here than in nearly any other context,) the "being a linebacker about to run down and pummel a wide receiver," kind of violence. In the first case it is a cruel and vicious violence, in the second, it is the goal of one or the other participant to avoid being injured and there is a real and present threat of injury, but everyone is knowingly placing themselves in the "violent" scenario because it is exciting and bringing that kind of excitement to the a relationship is actually a thing that some people seek out. Fewer of them, probably, than the average, but they're out there.
By example, I dated one girl for nearly three years and while there were a lot of ways in which the relationship was not healthy (mostly in terms of parasitic co-dependency that lingered in any of our interactions for years even after we broke up,) the physical aggression that we each brought to the private aspects of our romance was not one of them. We're both driven, highly demanding and opinionated people and verbally we argued pretty much endlessly, so the ability to mutually come to some manner of consensual assault was actually a fairly safe manner for us to enact our aggressive tendencies productively. Foreplay often involved wrestling with and attempting to forcibly strip the other person, to the point where if anyone had ever walked in on us it would likely look like a rape was going on, with the caveat of not being able to tell who was raping who.
So, certainly, I think I can appreciate, at least approximately, what is meant when you say you're looking for a relationship where you can express not only assertiveness and personal passions, but indeed a degree of aggression and violence, and would like to extend that there are people out there, harder to find as they may be, who will assent to such a relationship (some of whom are probably even not as crazy as I am, though I would hope that this is generally true in most cases.) What you'll probably discover though, is that it will take some mining and endeavor on your part to find them. Most people don't go about thinking to themselves, "why yes, I am the kind of person who will engage in physical battle to attain the privilege of removing your bra, or even, as it may be, the right to decide which milk we buy (or the last slice of pizza or whether the evening is spent watching Project Runway or Top Gear, or you know, whatever,)" it tends to be a kind of emergent occurrence that comes about only in the right combination of people in a relationship.
The problem you face is determining what kind of people in particular will yield a higher chance to rise to meet your aggressive nature, rather than be alarmed by it, timid of it, or turned off by it. In my case I don't go about looking for a violent woman to beat me up on a regular basis a necessary condition of who I date, because while I can appreciate that kind of exchange, it isn't one of the driving qualities in who I chose to be with. I do look for some who could beat me up, or at least give a run for my money, should push come to consensually thrilling shove. Which is to say I'm most attracted by women who are determined, motivated, driven, physically capable, and in making me look like a lazy lout by comparison, inspire me to work harder in my own goals. The irony of all this is that outwardly, I have no problem playing the effeminate, emotional, creative type (what with being an artist and all) and allowing any supposed claim to masculinity be undercut by dating someone who could take me to the floor if she wanted (my current girlfriend is actually a little intimidating in this regard, having the kind of disposition that allows one to spend 60 hours a week manhandling angry 1200 lbs animals that can kick the doors off an Escalade, which is funny considering she's probably the least "violent" among most people I've dated with any degree of seriousness.) (I say "outwardly" as though I am not often, in fact, an effeminate, emotional, creative type, which I obviously am, see: "parasitic co-dependence," above.)
The, hopefully useful, takeaway for you is that to find the kind of person you're looking for you may have to look in some paradoxical locations. The stereotypical, macho-aggressive linebacker in my I'm-disgusted-I-would-even-reference-football metaphor above, though fundamentally synchronized with the potential mindset you're interested in, is far and away also stereotypically turned off by aggressive women types. Some people have mentioned BDSM, and while I can understand it not being really what you're looking for (more fun facts, my current GF apparently has historically taken the role of a dominatrix from time to time, and yet, totally not my thing... she is fortunately cool with this,) it will probably be as a peculiar personality quirk, possibly even thought of as fetishistic, that the individual you're hunting for will express. My advice? Shop around, no one window-displays the kind of thing it seems like you're wanting (again, "I like long walks on the beach and also having fights that might leave bruises" isn't the kind of thing you're probably going to find on an okcupid profile,) and it could end up being surprising who might fit neatly with your degree and intensity of aggression. I would obviously solicit people highly involved in the arts (look for sculptors, the kind of people who bend around metal and use a blowtorch on a regular basis, they're often amenable to putting their bodies through physical peril, while being, typically, more well read than say, a lumberjack) though would warn that most of the mix will be those who use the template of "being artistic" as a social identifier (it pains me to say it, but, see: "hipsters,") rather than being inexorably drawn to a creative desire despite the input and opinions of any other living creature, and you'll probably want to be looking toward the latter category. You might try doctors (or, really, for the best instant fix of high intensity bursts of probably aggressive passion, med students, who unwind hard as shit on the occasions when they actually get a chance to unwind,) or people of any other highly demanding and self-assuring trade.
What you'll most probably find is that the right person is the kind of person who doesn't need you, and doesn't need their social position established by any external source and is self-assured enough to look for a mutual competitor, rather than a trophy or a mother or someone to look after the house or organize the bills. You could say this, conceptually, is the basis of many ideal relationships, but you're probably also looking for someone with enough intensity that the usual day to day activities are just on the pale side of blase. See: Randian Objectivists, but probably those who are nihilistic enough to have rejected that fulfillment will actually come from material wealth and are looking for deep and vivid enough stimulus to pierce through the burden of all their wasted intellect. One way or another it will probably end up being someone with some penchant for abuse (even though you've said you don't want someone who will let you abuse them,) because even with those who strive most adamantly for success there is a degree to which that intensity wells from a degree of self-abuse in the form of constantly pushing themselves beyond reasonable limits. Probably not on this list, and likely part of the reason why most of the response you've got here is in line with "violence=bad," are gamers, as gaming, fundamentally, is a way of mitigating the immediacy of aggression onto some abstracted framework (see: "ragequiting;" a gamer will more likely ragequit an argument they don't want to have, where a power hungry business executive will flip out and punch you in the face. Or buy your entire livelihood and undersell you into poverty. You know, more forward, one way or the other.)
Alternatively, having trudged your way though this intractable bit of hyper-advice, you may decide what you're looking for is actually slightly more upward of normal in which case maybe accountants, maybe that's what you should look into.
I don't approve of play fighting, because it encourages girls and one day a girl is going to do it with some cock-head excuse of a man who is going to use it as an excuse to beat a woman to a bloody pulp.Raesvelg said:
There seems to be a serious shortage of gentlemen in this day and age, people don't seem to even know what the gentlemanly thing to do WOULD be. Like how if a girl takes play fighting too far, how many men (NOT necessarily you) out there seem to take that as an "excuse" to unleash a tsunami of violence without any warning.
I know this goes against convention but I'd say men are WAY more emotional than women, they are way more likely to do things against logic and common sense but just following their raw animal emotions. Women are more likely to empathise their emotions which it the healthiest way of dealing with them. Cry it out, then get down to business. They get their emotions to work for them, not the other way around, and I admire that.
If two guys of similar stature want to fight one on one, I am perfectly fine with that. It's almost natural, practically expected. One thing I can't stand is the anti-intellectual pricks who only pick fights with those way weaker than them, yet act like their are defending their "macho-honour". Queensbury rules are good rules to follow outside the ring, I'd never fight a person (unless it was to defend life and limb) with a weight/height imbalance either if they are too large... or too small.
I'm violent. I'm a girl.
There's nothing sexual about it, nothing that particularly drives me to be. But if my guy-friends are wrestling I won't hold back from joining in. Or someone says something stupid, I'll punch them in the arm/back without a second thought. Every now and then I wonder if it's over the top, but it's in my nature. I'm not going to change it. I'm fortunate enough to have a boyfriend who doesn't care about my wrathful tendancies, but I do wonder whether it might affect any future relationships.
There's nothing sexual about it, nothing that particularly drives me to be. But if my guy-friends are wrestling I won't hold back from joining in. Or someone says something stupid, I'll punch them in the arm/back without a second thought. Every now and then I wonder if it's over the top, but it's in my nature. I'm not going to change it. I'm fortunate enough to have a boyfriend who doesn't care about my wrathful tendancies, but I do wonder whether it might affect any future relationships.
Passion is a wonderful thing to have, nobody wants a doormat. What you're describing is completely different, you seem to want somebody you can abuse without him fighting back. Stop justifying it by saying that's just who you are and it would be mutual. Speak to anyone who's been in a violent relationship and see just how long it took them to realise how bad it had gotten.IrisEver said:
I've dealt with (and observed) more people who whine about their romantic doom than I care to count, so I did simply read that at face value. Apologies for the offense.IrisEver said:
I did actually notice your words on strength, but just speaking about perspective doesn't mean you possess it yourself, neh? But as I said, everything I posted was speculation, and if you disagree with any of it, you're completely validated in doing so. Frankly, the fact you didn't fly off the handle at me for my assessment--in spite of the fact you were clearly offended by some of it--does a lot to make me rethink it. So consider that opinion retracted, with apologies.
On the subject of what women appeal to me....all sorts, really. It'd probably be easier to list those traits I don't like than those I do. But on the specifics you asked about, 'motherly' women do attract me, but that may simply be because I missed out on that sort of nurturing treatment as a youth. As for violent women...well, it depends how we interpret the word. I have nothing against a woman who's physically active and capable--speaking as a martial artist, it would be fantastic to be with a woman I could spar with (not because it would be useful, but because I would genuinely enjoy sparring with someone I care for and trust). I would probably even enjoy some playful wrestling. Actual physical attacks, however, cross a line. Performing an action with intent to cause harm--or indifferent to the harm that could be caused--does not fall under the umbrella of loving behaviour to me.
At the same time, though, I see romantic relationships all the time that have playful verbal jabs back and forth. There's nothing to say the same couldn't occur physically. But, as with words, the pair involved would need to share two things: Trust, and a pain threshold. Just as you shouldn't use words that are too hurtful, you shouldn't hit too hard, or in too sensitive an area.
A woman being pugnacious isn't a dealbreaker for me, then. It's not an enticement, persay, but it is perhaps something I could get to like. A woman who is violent, however, still makes me leery. I think it's because 'violent' implies a lack of control, or of concern for the ramifications of one's actions; it brings to mind a woman who is not merely aggressive, but reckless. And it's that last part that deters me, as per my previous comments about appearing dangerous.
It's not that all men neccesarily want a woman to be passive. It's that society tries to tell us that we want passive women.IrisEver said:
I can't speak for all guys on the subject of being mothered, but I know that I certainly don't want to be mothered at all. I can barely deal with the mother I've already got. Why in the hell would I want another one to deal with?
A quote from a song I heard a while back comes to mind and seems fitting for the topic. "Ain't nothin' wrong with a woman with a little backbone!" I know the day I meet a woman whose profiency with firearms surpasses my own or can best me in a fight, I will have found my life partner.
Violence being less desirable in women is due to culture viewing females as the innocent, fairer sex.
If you're talking about getting into playful arguments and competitiveness, then that's not violence, more like passion or hot-headedness. If you're talking about VIOLENCE, then that by definition means that you are physically harming the person. There's another word for being violent against a significant other; it's called DATING ABUSE. It's something no one should be proud of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_abuse
This includes, but is not limited to, blackmailing, sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse (i.e. unwanted verbal aggression), and psychological manipulation.
If you're doing any of these things, you really should not be dating at all. And from my standpoint, violence in anyone implies reckless and dangerous behavior, the kind of behavior I do not wish to associate with. And there is NO justification for that type of behavior unless the person explicitly asks for it in bed through BDSM (otherwise I would proceed to point him to help since the man/woman would probably have some sort of self esteem and psychological issues if it wasn't just a simple fetish).
That's not to say all men think down upon aggressive women or women that are superior to them in some aspects. For example, I enjoy the fact that my gf is better than smash at me, even though I ***** and moan about she uses OP characters just to tease her. Or how she draws 100 times better than me (though a good deal of that is because she draws things for me sometimes, like the HK-47 sketch I have hanging on my wall). Superiority is never a bad thing in my book; in fact, mingling with a completely inferior person is meaningless to me unless I am specifically going out of my way to impart knowledge to them, because otherwise I have nothing to learn or gain.
If you're talking about getting into playful arguments and competitiveness, then that's not violence, more like passion or hot-headedness. If you're talking about VIOLENCE, then that by definition means that you are physically harming the person. There's another word for being violent against a significant other; it's called DATING ABUSE. It's something no one should be proud of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_abuse
This includes, but is not limited to, blackmailing, sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse (i.e. unwanted verbal aggression), and psychological manipulation.
If you're doing any of these things, you really should not be dating at all. And from my standpoint, violence in anyone implies reckless and dangerous behavior, the kind of behavior I do not wish to associate with. And there is NO justification for that type of behavior unless the person explicitly asks for it in bed through BDSM (otherwise I would proceed to point him to help since the man/woman would probably have some sort of self esteem and psychological issues if it wasn't just a simple fetish).
That's not to say all men think down upon aggressive women or women that are superior to them in some aspects. For example, I enjoy the fact that my gf is better than smash at me, even though I ***** and moan about she uses OP characters just to tease her. Or how she draws 100 times better than me (though a good deal of that is because she draws things for me sometimes, like the HK-47 sketch I have hanging on my wall). Superiority is never a bad thing in my book; in fact, mingling with a completely inferior person is meaningless to me unless I am specifically going out of my way to impart knowledge to them, because otherwise I have nothing to learn or gain.