- the best dating site for inter-generational lovers!  

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: "Cougar cub"?

  1. #31
    Optipess Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by truckman View Post
    To me they're all just words, and by themselves mean nothing. Context is everything. It's the context that may or may not offend me.
    I totally agree. The reason we are in agreement is that we have the male point of view, IMO.

    Women are typically more sensitive and look at not only intended meanings, but also consider every possible secondary meaning they can think of, which the user of the word never even thought of.

    Men generally confine themselves to only considering intent. IMO

    Ha! Men are easier to get along with, aren't we?

    It'd be so refreshing not to be called intentionally derogatory things as happened when I was dating a YW. I'd love to be called a "boy toy", "man toy", or DILF.

    However, as a 40 year old YM getting started with an OW (of unknown age), no one is likely to call me a "boy toy", and there is no "man toy" or "DILF".

    Dam! After all the derogatory stuff I was called while dating a YW, I demand to receive my fair share of positive labels, or at least neutral labels, now that I'm dating an OW, but I'm to old for "boy toy" now. Argggh!

    Keep that sense of humor. It's the best defense against unhappiness and insanity.

  2. #32
    truckman Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Optipess View Post
    I totally agree. The reason we are in agreement is that we have the male point of view, IMO.
    Male point of view? I thought what I said was logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Optipess View Post
    Men generally confine themselves to only considering intent. IMO
    We have different friends I guess, because overall the women (friends mostly) in my life then and now seem to be very much like me - interested in intent rather than the specifc words.

    This is probably because I find word-mincers highly irritating, therefore one could easily conclude why I have a different perception than yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Optipess View Post
    It'd be so refreshing not to be called intentionally derogatory things as happened when I was dating a YW. I'd love to be called a "boy toy", "man toy", or DILF.
    It would make no difference to me as I'm not into labels or boxes, and perfectly happy being called "Hon" or something else.

    However, as a 40 year old YM getting started with an OW (of unknown age), no one is likely to call me a "boy toy", and there is no "man toy" or "DILF".

    Quote Originally Posted by Optipess View Post
    Keep that sense of humor. It's the best defense against unhappiness and insanity.

  3. #33
    Optipess Guest
    i.e. - I don't think most men mind neutral labels applied to us, and I think most of us like positive labels applied to us. Men are indeed labelers, but we don't mean any harm when it's a neutral or positive label.

    Men do hate negative labels applied to us though.

    It seems that most women just hate labels entirely, though some don't mind the positive or neutral ones.

    I think these are key differences in men vs women and how we think and feel.

    Men are sensitive too, but in somewhat different ways.

    Ladies, I promise to do my part to battle negative labels applied to you, but I'm not going to lift a finger to fight the ones that are intended to be positive. You can fight all labels if you want to, but you'll just be making yourself unhappy. Men are labelers, and you can only change us to a point. I think a reasonable goal would be to get men to stop the negative labels because that is something they understand to be offensive. You will never get them to stop the labels that are intended to be positive (or neutral) because we just don't emotionally understand that.

    Also, ladies, how about giving us men some more positive labels? We like positive labels because they are of positive intent. We love positive intent.

    So while men should try to label women less because so many of them don't like it, including disliking labels of positive intent; the women should label men more often with positive labels of positive intent because we like it, IMO.

    Hey, we're different (but of equal value). If a woman wants to date someone who is the same as her, she'll have to date another woman, or turn her man into a woman (as many try to do). You might not have much luck finding a lesbian who shares the typical female point of view though, because the two lesbians I've been friends have a distinctly male point of view, IMO.

    The easiest and best thing would be to accept each other as different and like each other anyway. IMO
    Last edited by Optipess; 08-28-2008 at 02:00 PM.

  4. #34
    Optipess Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by truckman View Post
    Male point of view? I thought what I said was logical.

    We have different friends I guess, because overall the women (friends mostly) in my life then and now seem to be very much like me - interested in intent rather than the specifc words.
    I wasn't referring to my women friends IRL. I was thinking of many of the women in this thread. Many of them do seem to be much more interested in the specific words than in the intent.

    Your women friends IRL sound awesome. Some of mine are too.

    Then again, one of my YW friends was just a few days ago thowing about negative labels about another YW in an AG relationship, using words like "gold digging s-word". I was shocked because she's normally so nice and sweet, but apparently she's got some huge issues with AG relationships. It occurred to me that she doesn't know my age, and after that, I won't mention it. My objections to her words is not that she used labels, but that she used labels of clearly negative intent.
    Last edited by Optipess; 08-28-2008 at 02:02 PM.

  5. #35
    Kristin's Avatar
    Kristin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    The fact that the discussion keeps coming back to negative vs. positive labels for men vs. women just shows that the point is completely missed.

    Silly women - always taking things the "wrong" way. Letting their emotions make them go off the deep end over an "innocent" little comment.

    How much more condescending and patriarcal can it get??

    MILF is not meant as a compliment to a woman. It is meant as guy talk for how "do-able" a woman is and how he'd "hit that."

    What those men fail to grasp is the fact that women have been fighting for years to escape the male view that all we are is sexual objects to be used as men like. That our worth is our "F-ability" and nothing more. We should be seen and not heard. We are possessions, toys.

    Until you know what it is like to be viewed as only worth how "F-able" you are and your brains, dreams, hopes, talents, knowledge, experience and personality take far last place, then come talk to me about what is insulting and what isn't. It's not just one comment - it's the whole attitude BEHIND the comment. Sure, men get judged on their looks too, but it stays where it belongs - in the courtship rituals. For women, it effects them in all areas of their lives.

    A strong woman, no more than a man, gets snide comments like "She needs to get laid." A plain woman doesn't get the job soley because the boss "doesn't want to look at that every day. The hot chick can't spell, but at least she's eye candy."

    The fact that some men feel women should think being "F-able" is a compliment is the problem in the first place. They need to get over themselves. Once we live in a world where being "F-able" is in last place and women know we are appreciated as total human beings first - THEN it would be a compliment. It's not that we don't want to be sexually attractive - we do IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT - but to have so many terms that break us down into what sexual catagory we are in vs. being looked at as whole human beings is what is sad about this whole thing.

    Even terms like "lech", "dirty old man" etc are based on perception of behavior and usually said tongue-in-cheek. Men still are not judged first on there sexual worthiness by most women. even if they were, they don't hold most of the positions of power for it to affect most men's lives.

    I really never got into "negative labels" on this topic, that was someone else's thing. It's not the label, it's the arrogance and ignorance of the person making the comment. Sure there are as many negative labels for men in various situations, but that is not the point. Those labels do NOT affect male position in society. They don't harm the male sex as a whole in reinforcing negative stereotypes.

    The labels that women are given DO affect how we are viewed. It reduces us to a "type". And I'm not saying that it is just men's fault - many women are just as guilty as reinforcing those stereotypes and keeping many men as truly seeing women as equal human beings.

    We're just silly, emotional women who take everything the wrong way. If she's not a virgin, she's a s-l-u-t. If she's not married by a certain age, she's an old maid and somehow "failed" in life.

    If you want us to look at the "intent" behind MILF, quit trying to pretend it's anything more than a man looking at a woman soley as a sexual object and her "F-ability" and showing off to his buddies his masculinity.

    It says nothing about the woman and everything about the man.

    The fact that we aren't "meant" to hear it proves that.

    It's not really that it's personally insulting. It just shows that too many men only see women as objects and not whole people.

    That is what is insulting.

  6. #36
    truckman Guest
    Good post Kristin... you certainly spelled out what I've said before in that people should be judged for what they've become rather than what they are. I certainly cannot appreciate the near-daily barage of "you're inferior, you're an object" scenarios as I don't experience them since I'm not a woman, even though I can logically understand and measure this through observation of the world around me.

    I really hope you're not lumping me in that category, even though I attempted to explain certain phrases - maybe I wasn't too clear with my explainations but I'm happy to let that go because of the amount of energy I'd have to expel to make it clearer.

    But, lets have some fun with this and give the roundtable a serious spin and see what happens, for this in my mind sparked some tangents that I find interesting...

    One the one hand, many women have been asking for equal opportunity in business for at least 30-40 years. On the other hand, many women are highly offended if you don't hold a door for them, don't send flowers regularly, or as a male pay for dinner/drinks/entertainment all the time.

    Which side of that equasion is correct? For if you wanted to be treated as equals, the above statement really isn't that equal, wouldn't you agree? To me, the expectations are too lopsided, giving women an overall "greater than" designation of all of the above is followed. This is just pure logic, not necessarily my view on this (I'm now going to add disclaimers on any kind of potentially heated topics).

    Here is a real example that occured within my "crew" at a global bank in 1996. Due to expansion of my responsibility my crew was to expand by 20% which translated to about 40 new hires in one month alone.

    We hired based on attitude, aptitude, skillsets and prior performance, the latter being difficult to accurately gauge because no one gives references that will say they are "lousy employees who steal your copier paper." This is why all new hires have a 90-day trial period as part of the offer letter.

    Anyway, I can assure you that the 40 person hiring spree included all of the standard categories of people that most HR departments like to keep track of for EOE reasons, even though we hired without regard to anything but what I outlined above.

    One woman I hired failed miserably early on as measured against her MBO (management by objective, which at least under me was measurable, tangiable, and consistent unlike many employers who list vague statements which can mean three different things to three different people). Anyway, after coaching proved ineffective, I moved to the standard written warning, then final written warning, then finally termination. Before termination paperwork was completed and issued, she filed a formal complaint with HR that she was being discriminated against because she's a woman.

    HR took her complaint seriously (as they should) and investigated.

    HR was not interested in the fact that the other five or six employees (out of about 225-240) who were also to receive final written warning at this time were coached, then documented in the exact same manner as this woman experienced.

    HR was not interested in the fact that the 14 other women I hired the same month as this particular woman, were without exception exceeding expectations as indicated by their own MBO's and quarterly reviews.

    HR was not interested in the same 14 women stating one on one with HR they were in fact treated as equals and further, one thought I was a "**** good boss" to use her words. This was documented in HR's findings, her exact phrase.

    Nope. Their conclusion was to "make this go away and avoid a lawsuit" I should either throw an undeserving salary increase at her, OR promote her to my level thus forcing a transfer to another division (and in turn, another HR division's problem as well).

    HR gave me a week to decide, then execute whichever I chose, then tell them about it after the fact.

    I chose neither and fired her.

    I spent close to eight months afterwards rehashing this with HR as well as my management, all of whom agreed rewarding an ineffective employee for a lie is better than being sued.

    Professionally, I am employee number 1784832 and must achieve certain objectives. If I do, I am rewarded with praise, salary increases, bonuses, and the opportunity to remain employed. If I fail, I'm ejected typically with a nasty bootprint my dry cleaner might struggle with.

    Personally, I don't believe in women's rights, gay rights, black rights, or any other kind of special rights over and above whatever rights I have as a human being and specifically outlined by the country, state, county, town that I reside in.

    In the eyes of the law, we're all the same. In the eyes of each other, we should be judged solely on who we have become, and not what we are, and current law reflects that and should remain constant.

    To suggest otherwise is hypocritical and dishonest.

  7. #37
    Kristin's Avatar
    Kristin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by truckman View Post
    On the other hand, many women are highly offended if you don't hold a door for them, don't send flowers regularly, or as a male pay for dinner/drinks/entertainment all the time.
    Those are the women I refered to as being just as guilty as anyone in promoting those negative stereotypes.

    Therein lies the problem. Women are PEOPLE. They will be stupid and greedy and lazy just the same as any man. To expect more is part of the problem. There are just as many men taking advantage of disability and workman's comp benefits as women who may abuse equal rights laws. People are people and many will take what they can get. But men can't say it's a "woman" thing to try to take advantage of the system.

    Only if you don't see women as PEOPLE, just like men, will you be perplexed at their behavior.

    So the excuse that some women abuse the system or expect special treatment is not sufficient to say that there is not still an overall problem for many qualified women and that women deserve to be objectified. (I know you aren't saying that, but the same argument you give is used often.)

    So, you are one of the good ones caught in a bad situation.

    To expect women as a whole to act differently than men is part of the problem.

    But women DO often need the intervention offered by equal rights laws. Too many men still unconsiously (or knowingly) feel that women ARE inferior. Not strong enough, not smart enough, not tough enough to do a "man's job." Too many women are brainwashed into feeling the same way and not pushing their daughters the same way they push their sons. Too many classes are taught geared towards male-centric learning styles. Women are still told, in this day and age, "You're not worth the effort, because you'll just get married and pregnant anyhow" in spite of the fact that the majority of households NEED the woman to be working outside the home.

    And society refuses to accept that and accomodate the fact that these women would be much more successful and productive if they had a work structure which acknowledged that she was balancing a home life. Corporate America still has it's policies back in 1956 when men were the only employees and expected to be detached from family life and were expected to have work come first.

    And we have all seen how that has affected subsequent generations who dealt with distant, absent fathers.

    The fact that women are stepping up and balancing a life of being a mother and yet bringing home a paycheck should be praised and supported and society should be doing everything they can to make her successful. Instead, she is vilified for not being home with the children and held back in her workplace because she is forced to do it without support of the corporate world. Women with children are less likely to get hired and offered less pay than men with children - who usually get HIGHER salaries than average. (2005 Cornell University study)

    This is not like after WWII. You can't tell Rozie the Riveter to take off the work gloves and put back on the cleaning gloves, because her family needs her out there bringing in the income. Yet many women still get treated like they have a choice.

    Thats not even getting into women who chose career over family yet still get treated like they should be home, barefoot & pregnant.

    Should unqualified women get special treatment? Maybe not. But maybe if society was forced to accept her as equal a little earlier, she wouldn't be less qualified in the first place. Women are usually just catching up.

    A woman still needs to work twice as hard and do the job twice as well to be considered equal to a man in the eyes of many people - male & female.

    And the door opening argument is very popular with guys arguing equal rights. But we all know that has nothing to do with the fact that the woman can't open the door for herself and everything to do with manners. It's no different nor more archaic than how you hold your fork at the table or not pointing in public. It doesn't make sense, it's just good manners. A custom started because often a woman was toting a baby in her arms or her dress made it difficult to reach the door handle.

    I open the door for just as many men and women as I get opened for me. I'll still think it rude if you reach the door before me and walk right in front of me. Does it make any sense that the first to the door should hold it for others? No, it's just custom and good "manners." It's the same for a man holding the door for a woman.

    Same for courting rituals of flowers and dinners/drinks. (Not to mention that women still make about 25% less income than men, on average.)

    So, guys need to give that argument a rest.
    Last edited by Kristin; 08-28-2008 at 11:34 PM.

  8. #38
    supernova Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Optipess View Post
    The male version of MILF? There isn't one that I know of.

    How about FILF ??

  9. #39
    PinkCat's Avatar
    PinkCat is offline Animals are people too!
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Vancouver, BC
    Quote Originally Posted by truckman View Post
    One the one hand, many women have been asking for equal opportunity in business for at least 30-40 years. On the other hand, many women are highly offended if you don't hold a door for them, don't send flowers regularly, or as a male pay for dinner/drinks/entertainment all the time.
    I've heard this question asked many times and I can understand how it might be confusing for a fella... but I just ask this question: what was the intent behind that sort of chivalrous behaviour (holding doors, sending flowers, etc.)? Was it to make up for women being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens? An apology, or even a trade-off? No. So I don't think one precludes the other. Personally, I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

    I know that's off topic.

    Back to our regularly scheduled program...

    ETA: Sorry, I guess Truckman was referring to those who EXPECT all that sort of thing. Yeah, there are men AND women who feel entitled to being treated like royalty and personally, I'll never understand that. It's definitely not an exclusively female thing by any stretch.

    Lesson learned: do not attempt a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

  10. #40
    truckman Guest

    My door example didn't spark that dialog I was hoping for, but like you I hold the door for the same reasons - common courtesy - but let me try this another way.

    Most of my career I've been a mid level or senior manager within the fortune 25 companies - giant global telcos, giant global banks, giant global insurance companies and so on - 75,000 employees and larger. I've personally hired about 1500-2500 people across my career, and had about 12,000 people working for me directly and indirectly throughout (typically in clumps of 300-500 at a time). These are ballparks because I certainly didn't count them for a sum total but it should illustrate that I have experience in hiring and management of employees.

    My hiring practices has always been the same - I try to hire the greatest talent most appropriate for a given opening for the least amount of dollars - this is strictly a value for dollar concept. In case this concept isn't obvious to everyone, I'll give a brief made-up example.

    For one position that requires 5 skills, I have a choice between two candidates:

    • Person 1: has the required 5 skills plus two others, and is looking for a $70K salary.
    • Person 2: has the required 5 skills only, and is looking for a $72K salary.

    I get better value for my budget dollars with person 1, because they'll work for less money and bring more to the table. "Skills" can be hard skills (configuring servers/routers, capacity planning, project management, relationship management, DBA, programming, etc) or soft skills (people skills, relationship building, teamwork mentality, and so on).

    HR on the other hand, forces me to hire a minimum percentage of what I call "protected groups" - generally identified as minorities and women, to maintain their EOE quotas. This in turn supports the very concept that women and minorities have increased opportunity in the workplace as compared to me - a white male - as HR does not have any kind of requirements as to the number of white males that can or cannot be hired within the organization.

    This defeats the concept of equal opportunity - because some groups have increased opportunity over others.

    This is the first thing that makes me nuts, as it violates the very concept of "equal opportunity". To suggest otherwise is insane.

    The second thing that makes me nuts are those who fail miserably, instead of actually trying to do the job correctly with the help that I provide (coaching, retraining, peer support and so on) they sit and wait until the final written warning stage, then run to HR and claim discrimination even when it's obvious and well documented not to be true. Sadly, HR rarely arrives at a reasonable conclusion after investigating, and always goes for the "least pain" recommendation without regard for what is best for the company's objectives, goals and budgets - all the things I'm held accountable for.

    While only a very small percentage of people about to be terminated do this, it's highly offensive none-the-less, and the six to eight months of justification to HR after the fact is frustrating and distracts me from what I'm being paid to do - achieve well defined, measurable goals within budget.

    I am totally fed up with the whole concept of "equal opportunity" because it doesn't exist. Years ago it was one way (and incorrect), and now it's flip-flopped the other way (and still incorrect).

    To suggest otherwise is insane


    I appreciate all that you've said, I need to "nitpick" and would like to ask you to change your "Nobody" to "most men" if you will because I happen to like tomboys... and my relationship history illustrates this very well. I know what you meant so I am just nitpicking - I admit that :-)

    To all,
    I do realize I do not fit the mold of the "typical man" in many aspects (yet in other aspects, I do) thus I hope you appreciate my poking this topic as hard as I do.

  11. #41
    Zapped1x Guest
    To all,
    I do realize I do not fit the mold of the "typical man" in many aspects (yet in other aspects, I do) thus I hope you appreciate my poking this topic as hard as I do.[/QUOTE]

    Ah....wouldn't "typical man" be putting someone in a box? hehehe.

    Personally, unless a man (or woman) is somehow abusive... verbal, physical, emotional or financial....I think thatt we all have some redeeming qualities...we are all so far from perfect and so far from undamaged that we must indeed allow for weakness and if not forgive at east understand them. I also think labels are used inappropriately a lot...but as much as we might hate them...they exist and will continue to exist. I try to form my own opinions on someone ... I can appreciate anothers take on someones motives and personality, but I will never base MY opinion of anyone on someone's single minded opinion, or a group opinion to be honest. I need to make an evaluation on how they interact with me and go from there. I have been know to be the only friend in a work situation where the others have "labled" an employee either a premadonna or a slacker or some other derogatory labels..when mostly its a misunderstanding or simple jealousy.

    Oh and as for the flowers, door thing...If I happen to be first I will indeed hold the door for a man...if they will allow it...most won't by the way....and I send flowers to my man often....I also iron his shirts and vacuum his car on occation...and he does all those things for me as well...that is what equality is right, giving and recieving somewhat equally? Correct me if I am wrong....

    Blessings, Jann

  12. #42
    Peachy's Avatar
    Peachy is offline Lost in Love
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Ok, I know this is an old thread, but I just found it! I never come to this section and was just wondering around.

    Kristin . . . where are you these days? I miss your posts.

    In response to this question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristin View Post
    What is the male version of a MILF? There isn't a name for it. That's what I mean about male terms vs. female terms.
    Of course there's a term for it! It's StudMuffin!!!!!!!

    And, for the record, coming straight from the Milfhunter's mouth (you know who I'm talking about ) -- a woman cannot call herself a MILF . . . only a guy can call a woman a MILF. According to him, she can't decide that, only the guy can decide that.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but to slide in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "WOW . . . What a ride!"

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts