There was talk about childfree in the comments.
Women who cannot have children for health reasons cannot be classified as childfree. Childfree are those who could have children, but do not want to.
Childfree are different.
Often this is the appearance of a crown, covering a gap in the love resource. The beloved man categorically does not want to have children and the woman agrees, deciding for herself that this man is more important than hypothetical motherhood. Such a crown is quite expensive. Usually loving men they want to have a child together and, if a woman does not have children, they understand all the more that it is desirable for her to become a mother. That is, under such a crown very often hides the low importance of a woman. As a result, such a man may leave the woman, and it will be too late for her to have children. I have seen several "childfree" husbands whose husbands were against children, and then had children with other women.
Another type of hole that is hidden under “childfree” is the absence of a loving and reliable man nearby, distrust of men. The woman would like to have children, but there is no one, so she decides to consider herself childfree so that the clock does not tick so threateningly.
There are also normal childfree ones, without the crown. Although, in my opinion, it is not normal for a mentally healthy woman not to want a child (for men too, but there are more exceptions), sometimes such people do occur. A normal childfree is a woman who does not have a hole in her love resource (there is almost always a loving and beloved person nearby), but due to some difficult work or specific lifestyle, she refuses the opportunity to have children. This happens. In the end, the human species has already multiplied enough to seriously reproach individual people for their reluctance to give birth to their own kind.
Normal childfrees are an exception. And exceptions always confirm the rules. Now I’ll explain exactly how.
But first, here's what. Exactly the same exception for women is sex only without any crown of equality, which does not hurt women’s self-esteem. This happens, and this exception also confirms the rule.
So that childfree is a woman’s choice, and not her inability to have a normal, reliable, loving husband, a woman should have such a husband. If a woman has a husband who would like to have a child or is not against having a child, if he is reliable as a potential parent and is able to provide material and moral support, and the woman chooses to refuse motherhood, only here we can say that yes, this is childfree and this is her conscious choice (or not very conscious, neurotic, based on phobias, but this is her choice, and not bending to circumstances and other people's conditions).
Is this point clear? It is impossible to talk about “conscious refusal of motherhood” when the choice of motherhood is too difficult and carries with it many dangers and problems. That is, when a woman does not have a husband, or does have one, but he is against childbearing, or is not against it, but she does not trust him at all, we cannot say that she “consciously refuses.” She simply cannot afford it (even more often, it simply does not work out). Yes, women who are more frivolous or more motivated to become mothers decide in worse conditions, but still one cannot say that she “refused” when no one offered anything good. If you don’t agree to a feat for the sake of motherhood, that doesn’t mean you “consciously refused.” I wouldn't refuse if possible.
The same goes for sex only and any other option with the crown of equality. If a given man offers a woman a relationship, and she chooses sex only, yes, this is her conscious choice. If a man does not offer her anything, then this is her consent to his terms. She can convince herself and others as much as she wants that they “just coincided”; a choice can truly be made only when an alternative is also available.
I remember two predators, one of whom is a convinced childfree, and the second is a supporter of sex-only. Predators have holes in the resource of work, but in the resource of love there are no holes, on the contrary - a magnet. Because of this, they have crowns in the work resource (“if I wanted, I would wow” and “only fools work”), but there are no crowns in the love resource.
And here we can see what exceptions look like.
Olya (Cat) is truly childfree, since many good men offered themselves to her as husbands and fathers of her child. She always carefully protected herself and the idea of becoming a mother scared her (but she is not completely mentally normal in my humble opinion). This can happen not only to predators. A woman can devote her life to ballet or saving penguins or some other mission, this is her choice. But if there are no good (established and loving) men nearby offering such an opportunity, all “missions” are in question. Perhaps this is just an excuse, since the maternal instinct is quite strong, and seeing other people’s babies, a healthy nulliparous woman closer to thirty experiences a storm of emotions and a desire to have one of her own. But it also happens differently. It’s clear what it looks like, right? One, two, three men who would like to have children with you, all - great options, but you don’t care, although you really like these men, you sleep with them. Have you seen many such childfrees? The question is rhetorical. Okay, let’s not be rhetorical. Have you seen it?
And sex-only. This is about Ira, of course. It's always a question for her serious relationship- This is a matter of material well-being and comfort. That is, she sought to live together and marry with wealthy men, older than her, of the fatherly type. But she sometimes fell in love with others. Mainly to Roma, of course. And she wanted to have sex only with them, tried to persuade them to do so. They say, why should we live together, why should we get married or spend a lot of time together? They met, slept together and went their separate ways. Then we can meet again when the body requires. Those who have read stories about these guys remember how much hatred this caused in Roma. He always wanted a serious relationship with her. Always, from the first day we met, I never agreed to sex only. But she wanted it, yes. And she had reasons for this. Roma is a handsome guy and a great lover, and she liked to live with others more for many reasons. Besides Roma, she also had options, when for sex - ok, a handsome young guy, but for a serious relationship - there are others, more respectable. There are others - that's the key.
I also saw one career woman. She really liked the guy, he loved her, but she was afraid like fire to let him closer to sex only, because she seriously thought that he would interfere with her career. This happens sometimes. In men it is more common (fear that the relationship will interfere with work), in women it is rare, but also. But there must be offers and the offers are tempting enough, then we can talk about such fear.
This is the exception to the rule. See how this proves the rule? In order for you to prefer sex only, they must offer you something more than this, they must insist, but you refuse. How can you refuse if they don’t offer it? What are you giving up? From the hypothetical “even if he wanted it, I wouldn’t want it anyway”? Well, yes, maybe. But the only thing is that he doesn’t want to. And you know it for sure. Even if you get ahead of him and say that you don’t want to. You still know that he doesn't want to. Otherwise we would definitely find out. Because it's very nice when you are taken seriously. Even if you don't take the person seriously. Are you serious about yourself?
Is it clear how the rules support exceptions?
Do you have your own examples?
I personally don’t have a single example of a woman supporting a man who loves her. They pay equally - yes, often, although loving men always (!) want to pay more and most often pay. But a loving, independent woman can refuse if she earns more. He may refuse outright and insist. But loving men do not allow themselves to be paid for. One-time - yes, but systematically no. Even if a woman is wealthy, but a man loves her more or just as much as she loves him, he does not allow the woman to support himself. And if it allows, then there is an imbalance with its plus. What do you think is the point here? Why, given the balance and its minus, does it not allow? Does anyone know the answer?
Typically what attracts a woman's attention is the guy who exudes confidence, who is unconventional, and who is probably the loudest and most noticeable guy in the room. And with such a description, it is not surprising that you focus your attention on him.
The downside is that these guys usually turn their attention...to all the other girls in the room. They usually know their worth and meet women without problems. They often become womanizers or just assholes.
On the other hand, there are those who are almost perfect in relationships, but they are underestimated because they rarely take the initiative in dating. They are the ones who wait for the right moment and it takes forever. They may seem tongue-tied, awkward, or shy, but they shouldn't be dismissed so easily.
That's why women often start dating the wrong men, because they underestimate the good ones, or because they have different ideas about what a good guy should be. It's limiting. So it’s time for single women to expand their horizons and look around. To help you out, here are some types of guys who are really good in relationships:
1. Nice guy.
One that many would call too good—a code word for “boring.” But that doesn't have to be the case. After all, he will try his best to make you happy - is that bad? Give him a chance. At the age of 20 you may want extreme sports, but at 30 and beyond you need someone who is loving and caring.
2. Humble.
He is the one who looks at you from a distance and never approaches, but you know that he is looking at you. He may eventually dare to approach you, but will start to stutter or say some nonsense. It can be difficult to understand what this means. But if you see through his sympathy, help him. He is simply frightened by the image of you that he created in his head, imagining you as a goddess among other women. But in fact, he can give you a lot if you give him time and opportunity.
3. Best friend.
The word “friend” can kill the romance in a relationship. Others are afraid of ruining their friendship. In any case, if you feel that something might work out, that there is something more between you, have best friend and a lover rolled into one - this is a recipe for a successful relationship.
4. Not from your social circle.
Many women judge a man by his social status and level of education. But this does not guarantee happiness. You shouldn't judge people based on this. If the guy doesn't have higher education, don't devalue it. Maybe he had to start working early, maybe he’s just ambitious and, without a “crust,” he also runs his business very well.
5. Single dad.
This guy will definitely only be in the mood for something serious. He won't introduce his child to a new girl every weekend. So if you are not afraid of serious prospects, pay attention to this one.
6. Divorced.
This one has been through a lot. Divorce may have nothing to do with it. Sometimes it's his ex or the circumstances. In any case, you shouldn’t put a brand on it, just because it didn’t work out the first time. He is more mature, more experienced. And if he says he's ready to move on, it's probably true.
7. Sensitive.
This is considered not courageous enough. But the fact that he feels everything subtly and is not afraid to show it does not make him less of a man. On the contrary: he is not a coward, he is not afraid of what they will think of him. In addition, he will definitely be able to better understand how you feel. And you will always know how he feels.
Bad guy
What do girls imagine when they are told about a “bad guy”? Certainly not Chikatilo, not an alcoholic and not a young sadist who tortures cats. Before their eyes there always appears a mysterious, strong man, sarcastic and seemingly incapable of feelings, who leads a rather riotous lifestyle and is popular with women. Such a guy must have a reason for such behavior. Most likely, he has a deep mental trauma, associated with love or family, which broke the young man. In his soul, a “bad” guy must necessarily turn out to be a good person who knows how to love and for the sake of his beloved, he must change, showing his true essence. Yes, these are the “bad guys” we most often see on screens. But the scriptwriters tend to idealize them, focusing on a female audience. But what happens in real life?
A person who behaves in this way, that is, treats others with contempt, indulges in various antics, simply cannot find a place in life, always has deep complexes, which he tries to get rid of at the expense of others. That is why such young people behave cheekily, mock, and can offend and humiliate. Moreover, they choose such behavior completely consciously, because this path is the simplest. Why work on yourself, change, achieve something in life, if you can assert yourself at the expense of those who are weaker, softer and kinder? Such a man will never change for the better for the sake of the woman he loves. He simply does not have this better side. Such behavior is a clear manifestation of his cowardice and cowardice. The guy is simply afraid to admit to himself that he is not cool, that he is constantly worried about the opinions of others, and in himself he is nothing. Therefore, if he sees that a woman loves him, he will definitely take advantage of her feeling, and in a despotic way.
"Bad" guys never think about the feelings of others, not because of personal tragedies. They simply don’t notice anything around them except their own petty worries and self-dissatisfaction. If you are next to such a man beautiful woman, he will show her to everyone like a doll and say that she is lucky, because beautiful means stupid need constant care. And he made such a broad gesture and took her under his wing.
Such a man will never allow a woman to be better than him. And he will never forgive anything, because it infringes on his manhood, which, in fact, does not exist at all. But he will justify all his misdeeds and believe that the lady is obliged to forgive everything. Moreover, such actions include beatings, betrayal, alcoholism, and so on. Therefore, if you see that a guy is “bad”, you should not entertain your hopes and believe in book and TV series images. A person who has something good in his soul will never allow himself to unfairly insult others, humiliate, or simply hurt. He can be a loner, he can get angry when people interfere in his personal space, but he will never torture others for the sake of self-affirmation. Therefore, there is no need to confuse “bad” guys with unsociable and withdrawn ones. The “bad” guy, on the contrary, often always tries to win everyone’s attention, because at heart he is very cowardly and complex, but he will never admit it.
Nice guy
Now let's talk about how young virgins imagine a good guy. Two different images may appear in the minds of young female representatives. The first is a nerd with glasses who is incapable of adventurous acts, has never tried alcohol, lives with his parents, obeys them unquestioningly and wears a tweed jacket. He is very correct and decent, only thinks about kisses after the wedding, has no sense of humor, in general boring, tedious and overly smart, which he constantly reminds everyone of. The second version of the “good” guy is radically different from the first. This is an incredibly handsome young man, smart and strong, who always rushes to help everyone indiscriminately. He does absolutely everything for his beloved, pulls stars from the sky and never refuses anything. He is an understanding, kind, honest, devoted young man. In fact, neither the first nor the second image has anything to do with reality. The first case describes a very shy and insecure person who grew up in a family where parents tend to terrorize their children by setting harsh limits. And the second image is generally unrealistic, because every living person has his own fears and experiences.
A “good” guy is, first of all, a person who lives according to conscience and justice. He respects the people who are around him and treats women as women, not as objects for sex and ridicule. A “good” guy will not allow himself to humiliate, insult or discuss a representative of the fair sex. This young man does not always run to save everyone, but if he sees injustice, then most likely he will not pass by. Such men can be trusted because they do not try to manipulate anyone and persuade people to make the decisions they need through blackmail. These guys may well have complexes, but they deal with them themselves, and do not earn a name for themselves by humiliating others. A good guy can drink and swear. At the same time, he can be very romantic dedicating his favorite ballads. But no matter what this person is, first of all, he will always make sure that his loved ones do not need anything. Good people are not always distinguished by ideal manners, beautiful appearance, or a sharp mind. A “good” guy can be a young mechanic or a brilliant programmer. Such guys are united not by external qualities and sharpness of mind, but by a craving for justice, the ability to respect and help people in difficult times, but without idealizing their actions and with a sober look at everything that is happening around them. Therefore, when you choose between a “bad” and a “good” guy, think about how correctly you characterized him, and whether you made a mistake by confusing and substituting concepts.
Loading...