Priorities and tests of strength

[Burgbud]

(Corri) The jaded lone cowboy schtick... in a martyr wearing chaps.

Nah. The bit about my W's affair was for Lil...it's pretty inarguable that affairs put a pretty good stomp on someone's puppy/bunny. But coming out of my M, affair and all, my belief in openness and vulnerability was sky high. Especially after having splashed my life out for anyone to see for about a year on the Infidelity forum. It's life since then that has led me to believe puppies are to be handled internally.

I'm not at all sure that belief lines up with martyrdom, anyway. I'm not necessarily complaining about it (maybe I am...I'll have to think about that), I'm saying that's how it is. I think there are women that can successfully deal with a man's puppy. The interesting question is: even with such a woman is there a real downside to keeping one's puppy to himself? I rather suspect that there isn't. I think women want to see a guy's puppy because it gives them a sense of security and comfort but if a guy's got his St Bernard in order, I'm not sure the additional comfort and security of a puppy show buys you much. So there's a lot of downside for not much upside.

[Corri]

I'm saying that's how it is. I think there are women that can successfully deal with a man's puppy. The interesting question is: even with such a woman is there a real downside to keeping one's puppy to himself?

Welp... personally... like you, I think both of those animals come out sparingly. A woman with endless needs... like your xW... is, to me, a woman with a weak bunny... and that weak bunny can bleed an R dry. Just like a weak puppy can. Or ANY weak animal, for that matter.

I also think, for the record, that it is harder to find a mate as one gets older, for we DO have past experiences that color our interactions with others... OTOH... we see the red flags almost immediately, instead of blissfully not even LOOKING for them, or ignoring them, probably out of ignorance... when we are young...

Is that a reason to be jaded? No.

But, to give Blackfoot his due... why would you ever settle for less than what you want? And until such time as you MAY find that... why NOT be a beer to slam, if you can handle it emotionally?

Just don't hold 'the puppy needs defending' up as the reason for distance. OTOH... it's a great way to get female attention.

So... there you go.

[Burgbud]

(Corri) Just don't hold 'the puppy needs defending' up as the reason for distance. OTOH... it's a great way to get female attention.

Can you continue to deny THE GENIUS?!?



I think the Blackfoot/puppy discussion is fusing a couple of things and that's adding to the confusion.

First, Blackfoot has said that he isn't looking for an LTR at the moment and when he notices a woman tending to his puppy, cooking meals, for instance, or making his bed, it tends to cause him to feel closer to her than he wants to. So he takes measures to care for his puppy himself...he hires someone to do those tasks. I don't think he's recommending to any married men that they hire out the cooking and bed making in their homes. On the contrary, I suspect he would urge married men whose wives do those things to praise their wives generously for having a strong cow. So I don't see Blackfoot saying he's keeping distance in his Rs in order to defend the puppy, I see him saying that he's defending the puppy in order to keep distance in his Rs. And if it's a great way to get a woman's attention...does it not get her attention in an LTR? Especially if we're talking about guys positing in an SSM forum who may not have done well, historically, at inspiring their W's attraction?

Then there are actual vulnerabilities and insecurities. It's not always 100% possible but it's always best to deal with your insecurities on your own. No doubt though...sooner or later a woman will pop you right in your insecurity. Deida might even say that's her job. Vulnerabilities aren't attractive. In particular, being vulnerable *to the woman* is unattractive to the woman, ergo Deida's million dollar deal story. Strength is attractive, ergo Mojo's monkey flinging poo at the hippo story. To the extent a woman believes in a man's strength she can handle his vulnerabilities but he's walking a fine line. There are times in life when a guy's just going to be flat out vulnerable. Is there value to a guy in being vulnerable at times when he could tend to his vulnerability internally? I don't see that there is. I think that guy is playing with fire and he's well advised not to do that.

[fearless]

Otoh, you have contributed to my overall conviction regarding how a guy should handle his puppy with your view on Brian's sitch. I can't imagine a guy being in any more of a puppy state than when he feels his life is in a touch and go state for a protracted period of time. Yet to you, one of the sanest women I know, it's perfectly understandable that his wife wouldn't be there for him.

That is stretching my POV a bit. The way I expressed this to Raven was to take this example. Say I call Raven at work and ask him to come home right away because I need his help without telling him why I need help. Then let's say he drives by a horrible accident and stops to help a severely injured person. Does that mean that he does not care about me as much as a stranger? Or does it mean that with the knowledge he has, the bleeding stranger seems to be in more need?

I'm definitely starting to think that what women think of as a guy's puppy and when men think of as their puppy are quite different.

I think I have a different view of puppy than you or Mojo have. First I don't distinguish between weak and strong puppy. To me, puppy is puppy; which is vulnerability. The apparent "weakness" or "strength" of the puppy is really about the wolf and/or stallion strength. A man with strong wolf and/or stallion would not come across weak with his puppy behavior while a man without wolf and stallion would appear more weak. IMO.

I also consider puppy behavior to include (along with the Mojo's examples) admitting a fear, talking about what makes him feel vulnerable, talking about something that has hurt them, etc. For example having a man say that he was overweight as a child and talk about how hard it was for him is definitely a show of puppy. For me if I was to "kick" that puppy, it would entail making remarks about his weight AFTER finding out about that information. If he never mentions that part of his childhood and I make some remark about his weight (however mild), he might "feel" like I was kicking his puppy but I wouldn't see that as me kicking his puppy.

To be clear, if I show my bunny, I consider that to include showing my vulnerability. If I don't tell Raven my particular vulnerabilities and he makes some comment that hurts me, does that mean he kicked my bunny? I don't feel so. If I tell him my vulnerability and he proceeds to make comments he now knows will hurt me, THAT I consider kicking the bunny. That might seem like a fine line but that's how I see it. I don't hold Raven responsible for "knowing" what will hurt me if I don't tell him.

But if a guy believes he may be dying, unless he can communicate that very clearly, he shouldn't count on his wife for anything.

I'm saying that people can make mistakes and some seem much more purposeful (i.e. going on vacation when your wife is 39 weeks pregnant and she asks you not to go) and some seem much more circumstantial (i.e. caring for your recovering mother while not being fully aware of your H's health and not getting an update from anyone.) Sure I think Brian's wife SHOULD have been more attentive to Brian's condition. But then again I don't know what issues her mother was facing and what condition brian's wife was in considering all of the stress she had had in that month. I know that after dealing with my mom's illness in college I was not in the best mental state either.

I can't imagine a guy being in any more of a puppy state than when he feels his life is in a touch and go state for a protracted period of time.

The difference I have with your definition of puppy is that it is Passive puppy. Like a guy in a coma is a puppy. My point is that if you do not actively make yourself vulnerable it is not quite being puppy. (Like I am not bunny just because I have to ask men at the store to get something from the top shelf because I am short. Of course I COULD play it bunny but I am talking about the FACT that being 5'2" pretty much automatically puts me in a "bunny" position but I do not consider that as ACTING bunny. ACTING bunny is what is vulnerable to me.)

So yes lying in a touch and go state is a vulnerable state but if a guy's wife is unaware of that state, how can that be kicking the puppy? I would definitely put it in the category of ignoring the puppy which would be bad enough for the guy.

Anyway...

All of this about Brian's wife has been conjecture because, even though Brian stated his wife was a great caretaker at Christmas, maybe she is just a selfish self-centered B!tch who is a horrible wife. All I am saying that I believe is that life can be full of complications and by NOT giving people full information, we place others in even more complicated positions.

[Corri]

(Corri) Just don't hold 'the puppy needs defending' up as the reason for distance. OTOH... it's a great way to get female attention.

Can you continue to deny THE GENIUS?!?

It can be compared to the same genius a woman might display if she were to artfully say... "Just so you know... I'm NOT sleeping with you."

Manipulation has its place... especially if one is aware of it. I like a lot of what Mama Gena writes, but I also see her as especially manipulative... for she uses her knowledge of men to get what she wants.

Do 'what works,' eh Burg?

Now... at least as a High Priced Call Girl... I'm being honest. I can 'manipulate' to play the game... but at the end of the day... I'm just a Call Girl.

Swis?

[Lillieperl]

It seems to me that having an affair pretty much clobbers the whole menagerie, not just the puppy.

I have been taking the "kicking someone's puppy" to mean waiting until the guy exposes his vulnerable side and then dissing him, insulting him, ridiculing him, aiming an RPG directly at the vulnerable spot.

For example, comparing him to a past (better) lover, making fun of something he's sensitive about in front of other people, responding with hilarity, anger, rudeness in a tender moment.

I'm not denying that an affair hurts the other person, but if we go back to the original statement that this is all about, if I recall, blcakfoot implied (or outright SAID) that sooner or later a woman will wait until your puppy is exposed and then kick it to the curb. If we apply that only to affairs, that statement seems to say that sooner or later every woman will cheat on her partner. That certainly isn't true.

And it also isn't true that sooner or later every woman will lull the puppy into a state of false security just so she can kick it. THAT attitude is not good for romantic R's or friendships. It's the equivalent of women who go around male-bashing all the time. I've had a few women friends like that and I've ended our friendships, not JUST because of that, but because people who go around bashing the opposite sex are (in my experience) gloomy, crabby, whiny, tiresome martyrs who spend most of their time complaining about SOMETHING.

[Burgbud]

(Fearless) The way I expressed this to Raven was to take this example.

We can analogize this to death. To me it would be a better analogy if you called Raven at work and told him you were in the hospital and to come right away. If he then drives by a horrible accident and stops to help a severely injured person, how would that be to you? After all he might reasonably assume that since you're in the hospital, you're being cared for to the greatest possible extent. Otoh, you might be within an inch of your life. Should you be able to count on him?




I'm saying that people can make mistakes...

This confuses me because I'm not sure if you're saying that Brian's wife made a mistake or not.


So yes lying in a touch and go state is a vulnerable state but if a guy's wife is unaware of that state,

Brian said he text'd both his mom and his wife. Whatever he text'd was enough to cause his mom to jump on a plane and fly out. I know we hate to assume anything around here but there comes a point where we're just making excuses. You might next claim that for all we know Brian's mom jumps on a plane whenever he gets the flu. I'm content with the belief that his condition wasn't an unknowable mystery to his wife.

I've said this before but I'll say it again in hopes of being perfectly clear. I don't necessarily think what Brian's wife did was unforgivable or some kind of deal breaker. I can see that she was in a difficult spot. I have compassion for anyone in her position. I don't think she needs to walk the plank or be made to feel small. But I think Brian has every right to be upset and to expect better in the future. I think his wife *did the wrong thing.* I don't think that means she's worthless. I know Hap doesn't think she did the wrong thing at all. You and most others seem to be on that side as well.

[Burgbud]

(Corri) Now... at least as a High Priced Call Girl... I'm being honest. I can 'manipulate' to play the game... but at the end of the day... I'm just a Call Girl.

Swis?

I don't think so. I think one could be a Call Girl Genius.

[Lillieperl]

Burg, you've got a great big chip on your shoulder. holds up mirror Isn't it getting in your way?

[Burgbud]

Lil, if what you say is true, all I can tell you is that my life is certainly no worse than when I didn't have that chip on my shoulder. Read thru some of my Infidelity posts if you want to meet that guy.

My claim would be that my life is, in fact, better. So near as I can tell, it isn't getting in my way.

ETA:

You tell me I have a giant chip on my shoulder but my boss tells me that I'm a romantic. He says I always assume that people will do the right thing or the best thing or the thing that makes the most sense. He claims to be a romantic as well and says he's gotten along better in the world as he's learned to recognize and curb those tendencies.