3 ms·

That's all just because the father never read 'Girls 101 for Dummies -- Boys', and that's partly because I have not written it yet. Material such as in the OP

by graycat 12y ago

That's all just because the father never read 'Girls 101 for Dummies -- Boys', and that's partly because I have not written it yet. Material such as in the OP would be some of the best in the book, along with much, much more about girls that boys just have no clue about. They should have much more than a clue, as boys, when meeting, dating girls, when picking a wife, and certainly when they have one or more daughters. The old norm that boys/men get to ignore such things about girls easily leads to a lot of hurt and harm. The lessons are not very complicated, but they are next to impossible for a boy to discover when following through the usual paths in life. E.g., I've been a student in five colleges and taught in two more, and I doubt that any of those schools had a course that covered what is in the OP or what would be in my book. Why? The norms are, just don't explain that stuff, especially to boys/men. So, get hurt and harm. Bummer. Instead, get the info out there. E.g., an approximation to the lesson in the OP is the Erich Fromm remark in his 'The Art of Loving'. I paraphrase: For humans, the fundamental problem in life is doing something effective about feeling alone. This statement is especially true for girls/women. A man who does not appreciate this statement has some modules between his ears powered down. Fromm went on to say that only four solutions have been found, and one of those was "membership in a group". Presto: That's the solution the girls in the OP were working for. Then the father needs to know about two of Fromm's other solutions: One of them is "love of spouse". So, such a girl can be very tempted to get a boyfriend, maybe sooner and more 'intimate' than her father might wish. Another is 'orgiastic' behavior, that is, get drunk on alcohol, high on drugs, have an orgy, and, thus, suppress the pains for a few hours at, of course, some costs in addiction, infection, social rejection, etc. Fathers need to know this, too. From some news stories, apparently some college girls with 'the hookup culture' and 'bar scene' have discovered this solution. This stuff, and more should be taught. If I write the book, then one thing to do with it, maybe good, would be to have some good Hollywood people dramatize parts of the book, that is, illustrate with facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, scowls, tears, etc.

Dewie 12y ago
> That's all just because the father never read 'Girls 101 for Dummies -- Boys', and that's partly because I have not written it yet. I think I'll do without your hateful book, thanks.
- graycat 12y ago
  Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy" For the subject of girls, quite broadly, boys just don't understand, e.g., on points such as in the OP. Then, commonly boyfriends, husbands, and fathers don't understand either. Here is a little of why? There was some recent research that showed that in the crib, girls pay attention to people, faces, eye contact, and tone of voice, and boys pay attention to things, as a joke, maybe to hack the latch on the crib or get to the toy firetruck on the floor. For more, can read how the differences continue in D. Tannen, 'You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation'. Tannen became a famous professor at Georgetown University. Tannen's book is not at all "hateful", and neither is what I would write. And paying attention to Erich Fromm is not at all "hateful". Instead, as I wrote in my post just above, girls are being harmed and hurt now, also in their relationships with boys, and I would hope to help the situation.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    > Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy" But emphasizing the audience - boys - is less common (but the audience would I guess be implied, anyway. But I don't imagine literal boys would pick up a for-dummies book on the opposite sex). It's also become in vogue to regard boys as psychologically and emotionally stunted, compared to girls. The title just seemed to hint toward that trend. > Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy" And yet, women and men seem equally mystified by each other. Women and their higher social/emotional intelligence doesn't seem to fair better than their knuckle-dragging partners. There are plenty of men who cling to unhealthy relationship, plenty of women who do the same, and many of them seem equally irrational in their insistence of clinging to it. No, I'm not someone who is of the opinion that men and women are on average equal, and that any perceived difference is all about "selection bias" or whatever. But some universally "accepted" differences, I find questionable. Like women being emotional and men being rational - though women may be more emotional, men are just as much slaves to their emotions as women. And women's higher social/emotional intelligence doesn't seem to help them in their relations towards men. I guess it's like the misunderstood geniuses - too smart for their contemporaries (partners)?

by graycat 12y ago

Dewie 12y ago

> That's all just because the father never read 'Girls 101 for Dummies -- Boys', and that's partly because I have not written it yet. I think I'll do without your hateful book, thanks.

graycat 12y ago
Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy" For the subject of girls, quite broadly, boys just don't understand, e.g., on points such as in the OP. Then, commonly boyfriends, husbands, and fathers don't understand either. Here is a little of why? There was some recent research that showed that in the crib, girls pay attention to people, faces, eye contact, and tone of voice, and boys pay attention to things, as a joke, maybe to hack the latch on the crib or get to the toy firetruck on the floor. For more, can read how the differences continue in D. Tannen, 'You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation'. Tannen became a famous professor at Georgetown University. Tannen's book is not at all "hateful", and neither is what I would write. And paying attention to Erich Fromm is not at all "hateful". Instead, as I wrote in my post just above, girls are being harmed and hurt now, also in their relationships with boys, and I would hope to help the situation.
- Dewie 12y ago
  > Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy" But emphasizing the audience - boys - is less common (but the audience would I guess be implied, anyway. But I don't imagine literal boys would pick up a for-dummies book on the opposite sex). It's also become in vogue to regard boys as psychologically and emotionally stunted, compared to girls. The title just seemed to hint toward that trend. > Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy" And yet, women and men seem equally mystified by each other. Women and their higher social/emotional intelligence doesn't seem to fair better than their knuckle-dragging partners. There are plenty of men who cling to unhealthy relationship, plenty of women who do the same, and many of them seem equally irrational in their insistence of clinging to it. No, I'm not someone who is of the opinion that men and women are on average equal, and that any perceived difference is all about "selection bias" or whatever. But some universally "accepted" differences, I find questionable. Like women being emotional and men being rational - though women may be more emotional, men are just as much slaves to their emotions as women. And women's higher social/emotional intelligence doesn't seem to help them in their relations towards men. I guess it's like the misunderstood geniuses - too smart for their contemporaries (partners)?