the kinda girl you marry vs the kinda girl you mess with [Archive]

monkey

07-25-2006, 08:45 AM

adam_f

07-25-2006, 08:51 AM

You asked your bf to marry you, so apparently you're the marrying type.

skra75

07-25-2006, 08:52 AM

but how do they decide that? like,, what about me screams "she aint fucking around"?

It's a fine line. It could be that you aren't coming across as a girl who likes to just hang out and have a good time. Yeah, I know, you probably don't want to appear to be the kind of girl who is shallow-ly having fun - and you are doing some shit that's honest and trying to befriend the guy. Nothing wrong with that, but it turns some guys off.

I think (just speaking as a guy) that if you meet a girl and she's up for a good time - you can break the ice and go deeper if you want to. Shit, lotta guys really don't want to, I'll be straight with you. But, if you are open to that kind of "I'll mess with you but I won't call you the next day" kind of relationship - you may want to think about how you come across to guys.

My 2¢.

monkey

07-25-2006, 08:53 AM

You asked your bf to marry you, so apparently you're the marrying type.

haha. different situation. but good point.

p.s: way to keep a secret!

adam_f

07-25-2006, 08:54 AM

I'm almost postive you said it in a thread too. I'll edit if you want.

na§tee

07-25-2006, 08:54 AM

i think that is a very immature distinction they are making there and they obviously have not had much experience with the whole variety of womenkind available for perusal.

they are probably just saying you are marriage material because they have major crushes on you. it's a bit of a cowardly form of flattery, if you ask me!

monkey

07-25-2006, 09:02 AM

they are probably just saying you are marriage material because they have major crushes on you. it's a bit of a cowardly form of flattery, if you ask me!

that is most definately not the case. i know these guys in all the disgusting ways they dont show girls and none of them are in any way attracted to me. there's farting in faces involved in those relationships.

beastieangel01

07-25-2006, 10:18 AM

I can understand why they make the distinction. It makes sense I suppose.

About 5 years from now they are going to be falling over themselves trying to knock at your door. That's my guess anyway.

A.B.S.

07-25-2006, 10:24 AM

gotta make a girl one in the same or there's no point. i don't fuck with any bitches i aint engaged to..oh yeah i'm engaged by the way haha.

Waus

07-25-2006, 10:39 AM

For me it has a lot to do with the girl's personality. I've had a couple flings, and it's usually just girls that I couldn't see myself around for more than a few weeks. Shallow girls, annoying ones, whatever - just girls who I wouldn't want to spend more time around than I had to if they weren't pretty.

cookiepuss

07-25-2006, 10:51 AM

guys are dumb that's all. it's just a stupid justification for thier promiscuity and basically it's how the distinguish between girls they respect and girls that they don't.

Qdrop

07-25-2006, 10:52 AM

i think it's based on the percieved maturity and likely future of that girl.

if she comes across as a butterfly...flying all over, flirty, fun, non-commital..liberal. just date em, bang em, move on if nothing changes.

if she doesn't really seem to have a strong future going for her (communications degree, with minor in basket weeving)...well, again...that's someone you just bang for while..

the ones you marry are more like...
someone you see as more lowkey, accepting....intelligent and introspective. likes commitment and seems to have an interest in stability and domestication (as opposed to wanting to backpack europe and then cliff dive in peru).
these are more of the marrying types.
those that are future-goal oriented, want a career, like the idea of family...even if it's down the road.
most importantly, someone who isn't a hopeless romantic...tirelessly looking for the next cinematic relationship spark.
someone who doesn't constantly need to be entertained or challenged.
you marry them.

and, fair or unfair, stereotypical or not....LOOKS play into that.

the hotties with perfect hair and skin tone with lots of make up and a long list of men trailing her at the keg parties will tend to fit in the "date only" description above.

while the cute girls, who don't have the CosmoGlamour-perfect anything...but stil look unique in there own way. quieter, less concerned with latest trends and fashion..put mental health and growth on par with the physical....fit in the "marrying" description.

Waus

07-25-2006, 10:55 AM

Qdrop

07-25-2006, 11:01 AM

Here's the dilemma. I want to meet a girl who is intelligent and introspective and wants to go back packing and cliff diving with me. I just keep meeting the kind who wants to backpack and cliff dive without me.
that's a tough one, man.
outdoorsy adventure thrill-seeker chicks are hard to pin down by their nature.
you can bang them on a cliff off the cost of brazil....but you'll never get her to live in a house with you and work a 9-5 job.

SobaViolence

07-25-2006, 11:03 AM

if the girl can stand me for more than a month and if i can do the same, i think the relationshsip could blossom into something meaningful.

wouldn't know yet, because all the broads i've met have either bored me after a month or have just become friends.

but i have a feeling my theory will be put to the test in september...

plus...marriage is stupid. common-law is the wave of the future.

Waus

07-25-2006, 11:06 AM

that's a tough one, man.
outdoorsy adventure thrill-seeker chicks are hard to pin down by their nature.
you can bang them on a cliff off the cost of brazil....but you'll never get her to live in a house with you and work a 9-5 job.

Feh, I don't ever want to work a 9-5 anyways. I'd rather jump around doing what I can on internets with my whatever my talent can manage. I'm never gonna be rich, but I'll be damned if I'm not gonna be free.

I figure I've got a good 10 years of travel before I try to find somewhere to stay. A girl that I'd marry and not just date would be interested in that kind of schedule too.

fucktopgirl

07-25-2006, 11:07 AM

that's a tough one, man.
outdoorsy adventure thrill-seeker chicks are hard to pin down by their nature.
you can bang them on a cliff off the cost of brazil....but you'll never get her to live in a house with you and work a 9-5 job.

That is the force and attraction of us, "the adventure girl "we are looking for thrill and excitement. MAybe we dont want to be "domesticate" but we want to fucking groove and explore all our lives. We are the kind of girl who cannot stand routine and need to be challenge all the time!

Anyway , what is the fun of working 9-5 everday for all your life....pretty boring life!

fucktopgirl

07-25-2006, 11:09 AM

I figure I've got a good 10 years of travel before I try to find somewhere to stay. A girl that I'd marry and not just date would be interested in that kind of schedule too.

humm, i might be the one for ya!:D Although i got a couples years more then you...

Echewta

07-25-2006, 11:11 AM

I'm sure you could replace "girl" with "boy" in this topic as well.

beastieangel01

07-25-2006, 11:14 AM

I'm sure you could replace "girl" with "boy" in this topic as well.

very true.

Also, you have to keep in mind your age. In your early 20's not everyone is looking to settle down. Some are, some aren't. Those that aren't perhaps decide on the "flavor of the week" to keep themselves occupied and don't want to get settled down with the type of girl they want to marry because they aren't ready for that.

Or perhaps it's a desire to act on selfish impulse. They want to be able to explore and do what they wish, instead of being tied down. Which isn't really a negative thing, we're still growing up after all.

I don't know what my point is here. But anyway.

like2_drink

07-25-2006, 11:16 AM

marry type might be a bit of an exageration, you just might not be the girl that they would have an unmeaningful relationship with, you know? when i first read it i didn't view it as bad thing. maybe they see you as beeing better then a little fling, with you, there'd be a good thing goin on(y)

skra75

07-25-2006, 11:27 AM

trailerprincess

07-25-2006, 11:40 AM

the ones you marry are more like...
someone you see as more lowkey, accepting....intelligent and introspective. likes commitment and seems to have an interest in stability and domestication (as opposed to wanting to backpack europe and then cliff dive in peru).
these are more of the marrying types.
those that are future-goal oriented, want a career, like the idea of family...even if it's down the road.
most importantly, someone who isn't a hopeless romantic...tirelessly looking for the next cinematic relationship spark.
someone who doesn't constantly need to be entertained or challenged.
you marry them.

and, fair or unfair, stereotypical or not....LOOKS play into that.

the hotties with perfect hair and skin tone with lots of make up and a long list of men trailing her at the keg parties will tend to fit in the "date only" description above.

while the cute girls, who don't have the CosmoGlamour-perfect anything...but stil look unique in there own way. quieter, less concerned with latest trends and fashion..put mental health and growth on par with the physical....fit in the "marrying" description.

Is this really what people still think? To be a marrying 'type' you have to be 'lowkey' have an interest in domesticity? And that if I am married, I shouldn't be expected to be 'challenged'? And that a 'marrying type' will have less of an interest in fashion?

I feel like I have stepped back in time.

skra75

07-25-2006, 11:45 AM

Is this really what people still think? To be a marrying 'type' you have to be 'lowkey' have an interest in domesticity? And that if I am married, I shouldn't be expected to be 'challenged'? And that a 'marrying type' will have less of an interest in fashion?

I feel like I have stepped back in time.

You are right, I can think of exceptions to the rule on either side of the fence. Take my soon-to-be-ex-wife for example *shudders*.

Waus

07-25-2006, 11:47 AM

Is this really what people still think? To be a marrying 'type' you have to be 'lowkey' have an interest in domesticity? And that if I am married, I shouldn't be expected to be 'challenged'? And that a 'marrying type' will have less of an interest in fashion?

I feel like I have stepped back in time.

That's just Q's definition. The 'marrying type' for him is a girl who wants to settle with him and can be totally happy in a domestic setting. He's not projecting his desires onto the whole of women, just the one he wants.

trailerprincess

07-25-2006, 11:51 AM

Well, as long as it's just one man's opinion, I'm thankful that I might still expect to be challenged, entertained, go travelling on a whim, like fashion and be unstable for a little bit longer :)

mickill

07-25-2006, 11:53 AM

It's a simple and semi-antiquated way of looking at women. It's generalizing. It lacks any depth.

It's like the old Ginger/Mary Ann archetype. Or Janet/Chrissy. Or Will/Grace.

marsdaddy

07-25-2006, 01:35 PM

It's a simple and semi-antiquated way of looking at women. It's generalizing. It lacks any depth.

It's like the old Ginger/Mary Ann archetype. Or Janet/Chrissy. Or Will/Grace.Or Madonna/Whore.

beastiegirrl101

07-25-2006, 01:43 PM

one night out this guy told me I was the girl he'd marry...but my friend was the girl he'd cheat on me with. :mad:

SobaViolence

07-25-2006, 01:43 PM

Or Madonna/Whore.

is there that much of a difference?

marsdaddy

07-25-2006, 01:55 PM

one night out this guy told me I was the girl he'd marry...but my friend was the girl he'd cheat on me with. :mad:He wanted a threesome. :o
is there that much of a difference?Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna-whore_complex)

cookiepuss

07-25-2006, 02:37 PM

I still like my answer best. you guys can come up with all the bullshit criteria of a differnce in personal golas or intelligence but when it boils down to it, I still think its just a mans justfication of which girls he respects and which girls he doesn't. He tends to hold the one he has the most respect for as the marrying type and the ones he has the least respect for as playthings.

monkey

07-25-2006, 02:53 PM

well then, at least im respectable. the thing is, i took it as "you're not hot", which is ok, but a weird thing to accept. it's hard for a girl to accept that she may be less than utterly desirable. though i realize that for certain people (like the lovely bf) i am quite desirable. eh. whatever.

Qdrop

07-25-2006, 02:59 PM

Is this really what people still think? To be a marrying 'type' you have to be 'lowkey' have an interest in domesticity? And that if I am married, I shouldn't be expected to be 'challenged'? And that a 'marrying type' will have less of an interest in fashion?

I feel like I have stepped back in time.

yeah, just my opinion...but shared by alot more pepole than just myself.

cookiepuss

07-25-2006, 02:59 PM

er I don't think it has anything to do with hotness. guys want to marry a girl that is hot as well as play with a girl whos hot.

Qdrop

07-25-2006, 03:10 PM

er I don't think it has anything to do with hotness. guys want to marry a girl that is hot as well as play with a girl whos hot.

"hot" girls are nothing but trouble and come with too much baggage and nothing in the attic.

beastieangel01

07-25-2006, 03:14 PM

so a girl can never be attractive and have something going on upstairs? or are you using "hot" in a particular context? (kind of like the conversations in the past about the difference between "sexy" "cute" etc?)

Fuck. All I have to say is that whenever I'm in a relationship again I fit in to each category for the person. Otherwise, that would suck.

beastiegirrl101

07-25-2006, 03:15 PM

"hot" girls are nothing but trouble and come with too much baggage and nothing in the attic.

that's a generalization...didn't expect that coming from you. Mr. back it up with tons of evidence man. There are a ton of smarty pants hotties.

The Notorious LOL

07-25-2006, 03:23 PM

why would you even want to marry soemone you arent attracted to physically? It is a pretty rash generalization to say that a hot girl automatically has baggage due to her appearance.

I know guys who will mess around with someone and not take it beyond that and the reasoning they give for it is "if she is the kind of person who will do *insert sexual act here* the first time I go out with her, she isnt good girlfriend material" so basically its okay when thats all you want but beyond that she has somehow invalidated herself as a relationship worthy person. Never made complete sense to me.

cookiepuss

07-25-2006, 03:33 PM

I know guys who will mess around with someone and not take it beyond that and the reasoning they give for it is "if she is the kind of person who will do *insert sexual act here* the first time I go out with her, she isnt good girlfriend material" so basically its okay when thats all you want but beyond that she has somehow invalidated herself as a relationship worthy person. Never made complete sense to me.

I don't think it makes sense to anyone..even the guys who use that excuse. what it sounds like is an excuse not to get close to someone if you ask me. If they just label her a whore and tell themselves she does that with every guy, then they don't have to think about commitment or getting hurt or any of that stuff.

The Notorious LOL

07-25-2006, 03:42 PM

essentially. A lot of "playaz" tend to be guys who got hurt really bad by a girl at some point and just protect themselves by distancing themselves from any emotional connection with the opposite sex and resort just towards hooking up. Its pretty sad.

hardnox71

07-25-2006, 03:47 PM

my guy friends have repeatedly told me im the kind of girl most guys are afraid to date because im the kind of girl that you marry. the alternative is the girls you mess around with (in college). but how do they decide that? like,, what about me screams "she aint fucking around"? and it's not like im aching to get married and im not going saying "oh i cant wait to get a rock." quite the opposite, if anything.

i dont know, it's confusing. what thinkest yous?
I don't know, Pauli. I don't know you. But, me being a guy, I would venture to say that it has something to do with your demeanor, personality and character. It's how you carry yourself. You don't necessarily have to be running around yakking about diamonds all the time. It's not so much what you say as it is what you don't say.

What's the problem? You sound kind of irritated. If I was a female I would want to be thought of as a keeper as opposed to a sleeper.

Qdrop

07-25-2006, 03:51 PM

okay, not all "hot girls" are worthless...
obvioulsy i'm just spouting "guy talk" here...

but in MY experiance...the high-maintenance, dye blonde, french manicure, size 1, super tan, big tittied chicks with lip gloss and fuck-me shoes tend to not make great girlfriends or wife material.

perhaps we should define what is "hot" vs. "cute"....which we've tried before and is virtually impossible.

Randetica

07-25-2006, 03:56 PM

hey ill take that compliment if you dont want it

hardnox71

07-25-2006, 03:56 PM

but in MY experiance...the high-maintenance, dye blonde, french manicure, size 1, super tan, big tittied chicks with lip gloss and fuck-me shoes tend to not make great girlfriends or wife material.

Amen.

fucktopgirl

07-25-2006, 04:05 PM

^ so YOU are marrriage material i assume he?

beastiegirrl101

07-25-2006, 04:06 PM

^ so YOU are marrriage material i assume he?

he was talking about his wife.

paul jones

07-25-2006, 04:11 PM

Why do people throw confetti or rice at weddings?

Who thought that up?

cookiepuss

07-25-2006, 04:21 PM

Why do people throw confetti or rice at weddings?

Who thought that up?

The Origin of Throwing Rice and Old Shoes
The throwing of rice or grain historically symbolized good luck and fertility, or abundance. Among ancient Asyrians and Jews, when a bargain was made, a man gave his sandal as an indication of good faith. A show was the symbol of authority. When the Anglo-Saxon hurled a shoe, it indicated that authority had been transferred.

To the ancient Assyrians, Hebrews, and Egyptians, rice symbolized fruitfulness, so it was "a natural" to be thrown at the new couple, after weddings, as a symbol of good wishes. The origin of throwing confetti over the newlyweds goes back to the Pagan rite of showering the couple with grain, as a symbol of fruitfulness. Pagans held the simple belief that the fertility of the seeds would be transferred to the couple. The symbolism of throwing rice holds same symbolic meaning. Beginning in the Middle Ages, rice became a symbol of fruitfulness amongst many early peoples. The tradition of throwing of rice may also have been a way to ward off evil spirits that hung around near the bride and groom. It may also have its origins in the "food tossing ritual," discussed elsewhere in this article.

In Italian, the word "confetti" comes from the same root word as confectionery and actually refers to sweetmeats, grain and nuts that are covered in sugar and thrown at the newlyweds. More recently, we substituted paper confetti, but today most ceremony sites don't allow confetti because of the cleanup nightmare . . . so wedding bubbles now offer an environmentally safe alternative.

for anyother questions on wedding traditions please refer to: http://www.southshoreweddings.com/topic/025.htm , http://www.hudsonvalleyweddings.com/guide/customs.htmor google.;)