Four Types of Women That Drive Men Away

Gerry Manderer

Alright lads,

Just stumbled across this when I was searching for something else.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/166971/_four_types_of_women_that_drive_men.html

Its a little generalised but the more I read it the more it actually makes sense!


And it was written by a female also may I add

Nice to know people's thoughts

thanks

Otis Driftwood

2 things.

1:The rule of thumb in tGC is that before you ask a question or for opinions from other posters is that you have to give your own opinion first.Care to share?

2:I know it goes without saying but I will say it anyway,anyone that posts women bashing rubbish or starts spouting the usual cliched rhetoric will have their posts deleted and will be dealt with accordingly.

Gerry Manderer

nedtheshed wrote: »

2 things.

1:The rule of thumb in tGC is that before you ask a question or for opinions from other posters is that you have to give your own opinion first.Care to share?

2:I know it goes without saying but I will say it anyway,anyone that posts women bashing rubbish or starts spouting the usual cliched rhetoric will have their posts deleted and will be dealt with accordingly.

I thought I just did?

"Its a little generalised but the more I read it the more it actually makes sense"

Otis Driftwood

"Its a little generalised but the more I read it the more it actually makes sense"

Not really an opinion though.Id view an opinion as being something a bit more substantial than simply argeeing.Why do you think it makes sense?

The article is 3 and a half years old and is chock full of stereotypes that are at this stage tiresome,beyond cliched and are dealing in extremes.

If a female behaved in the extremes described all the time no right minded person would put up with it,same if genders were reversed,so to herald "this is what drives men away" as the article does,is kinda redundant as its blatantly obvious that anyone with half a brain wouldnt put up with that crap,ya know?

The above is me responding as a user by the way,I hope you dont think Im having a go or anything as that certainly isnt the case and I apologise if it reads that way.:)

L31mr0d

nedtheshed wrote: »

its blatantly obvious that anyone with half a brain wouldnt put up with that crap,ya know?

Well, the article lacks any depth really, but I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Sure, it might seem obvious, for a man, why he would leave a woman like that. But a woman might not see her personality flaws as the reason that drove him away. I've known a few drama queens over the years (I'm sure we all have), who've been told they where perfect princesses since they first threw their toys out of the cot. They'd start dating a guy, the guy would end the relationship, and the girl would blame their problems on him.

One girl in particular was really good looking, I mean stunning. But it was known in my circle that she was undateable. New people would come along, see she was single, date her and get chewed up by the constant drama. Once they ended the relationship they would then have their names dragged through the mud by her amongst her circle of friends because it was always the guys fault that the relationship failed. These guys would then find that no other girls in our circle wanted to go near them because of the gossip that was spread about them by her.

She was toxic, and was completely oblivious to it. Thing was though, we'd explain all this to the new guys, but they'd completely ignore the advice purely on the grounds that she was stunning. She was as close to a real life Siren that I can imagine.

Wibbs

Well I've gone out with a couple of letter perfect drama queens. More fool me though. They're pretty common. It's a rare man who's not encountered that one to some degree or other. Her description of "There is no in-between for these girls. Things are going great or things are going horribly, and when something goes wrong, look out. In terms of relationships, these types whine, nag, and pester all of the time. There's always something that needs to be said and worked on.". Yep I've gone out with two that fitted that description to the letter. Real extreme. There was always some sort of fire that needed to be put out. Even with all the firefighting there was like she said always something. They were never really happy for long. Maybe not happy, content, yep content. Bloody nightmare that one, but like I said more fool me for putting up with it.

I've known a few Then and Now women too. Who get real lazy in relationships, either emotionally, physically or both. That said I reckon there would be way more blokes like that.

The power trip one? I haven't come across that one too often unless you include the harpy ball breaker types. They're rare enough and I blame the guy as much for going along with it.

Actually with all these generalised "types" of both genders, I blame the partners as much for putting up with that guff. Among my women and men mates? I'd say over the years the two broad types the genders complain about would be "drama queen" for the men and "Then and now" for the women.

Never encountered the ice princess description.

Gerry Manderer

nedtheshed wrote: »

Not really an opinion though.Id view an opinion as being something a bit more substantial than simply argeeing.Why do you think it makes sense?

The article is 3 and a half years old and is chock full of stereotypes that are at this stage tiresome,beyond cliched and are dealing in extremes.

Yeah I've acknowledged that its a little extreme. Obviously nobody ever fits "neatly" into these little stereotypes (it's not good to do so anyway) but it does provide an interesting framework for understanding the way certain women behave. Personally I have known women in all of the categories and gone out with women in two of those categories (one being the drama queen), thats why I found it interesting and relevant to my experiences. I wouldn't consider the fact that it's three years old that relevant, its not exactly scientific research rather a more a general observation of female behaviour

I know people from each of those categories. I do understand that such attitudes can be a turn off, but I think the article's very one sided. Often people have reasons for being as unbalanced as they are.
I'm icy, I know it. It's not something I'm proud of but past relationships have left me weary of people in general. So now I instincively put people through 'screening' in order to figure out who will stick by me. I've often caught myself being particularly nasty and despite the fact that I know I can hurt people's feelings I still do it. It's like a self-defense mechanism.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I know people from each of those categories. I do understand that such attitudes can be a turn off, but I think the article's very one sided. Often people have reasons for being as unbalanced as they are.
I'm icy, I know it. It's not something I'm proud of but past relationships have left me weary of people in general. So now I instincively put people through 'screening' in order to figure out who will stick by me. I've often caught myself being particularly nasty and despite the fact that I know I can hurt people's feelings I still do it. It's like a self-defense mechanism.

I agree 100% there is always a reason(or reasons) for that kind of thing. The icy one I can understand, though I've not personally come across it to any obvious degree. I've come across jaded alright so probably similar.

Of the other descriptions IMHO and IME the drama llama type is as much born as made. Or at least like that from an early age. Having gone through a phase of going out with same(which must spotlight my own issues* ) that was my experience. Now I would be jaded myself about that, so have a hair trigger when it comes to drama. Though funny enough it does depend where it springs from for me. Someone who has actual mental issues and most importantly is seeking to work through that doesn't worry me so much. It's the drama queens that claim they're fine and see no problem that are a no no. I've known women who claimed to be too much work/drama queens and funny enough they were not so bad at all. It was the ones who didnt see a damn thing wrong that were the right PITA.


* I think I went that route cos they were exciting and I felt good helping them. Obviously I had some ego need to be useful and wanted or somesuch. And they were universally big mad roides so somewhere south of my belt was driving too.

Gerry Manderer

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree 100% there is always a reason(or reasons) for that kind of thing. The icy one I can understand, though I've not personally come across it to any obvious degree. I've come across jaded alright so probably similar.

* I think I went that route cos they were exciting and I felt good helping them. Obviously I had some ego need to be useful and wanted or somesuch. And they were universally big mad roides so somewhere south of my belt was driving too.

They mention in the article how men sometimes play a part in encouraging said behaviour. I see it with a lot of my mates too-

"There's a crisis today, tomorrow, and the next day, and the woman is looking for someone to save her. A little trouble makes the man feel important and heroic if he can fix the situation, but too much distress will tire out even the most loyal of men"

Johro

You lost me at 'types of women'. Generalising p!sses me off.

metrovelvet

I think both the icy and the drama are serving the same function. It's like a toddler constantly testing you to see if you will still love them no matter what. I also think it's like a toddler or even a child who gets a thrill out of seeing a 'different self' emerging out of his/her mother, both scary and exhhilirating for them, they find the buttons and push the levers.

I dont say Toddler in the disparaging way that people say 'throwing toys out the pram." It's not meant as a comment to dismiss the feelings or behavior of the person doing it, but it does mean that you are in a situation which makes it harder and harder to relate adult to adult and you can fall into the trap of relating like a parent to this other person, further infantilising them. Very easy to do, and you have to be super aware and super disciplined to know the games and not play them.

ToxicPaddy

L31mr0d wrote: »

...Thing was though, we'd explain all this to the new guys, but they'd completely ignore the advice purely on the grounds that she was stunning...

In fairness any relationship based solely on looks is doomed for failure..

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'd actually day the ''then and now'' is the only one of them that drives men away.

The rest often draw and keep men in.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think both the icy and the drama are serving the same function. It's like a toddler constantly testing you to see if you will still love them no matter what. I also think it's like a toddler or even a child who gets a thrill out of seeing a 'different self' emerging out of his/her mother, both scary and exhhilirating for them, they find the buttons and push the levers.

Yea I'd agree with that. Another trend I've noticed was they had one parent that was very controlling and one that was emotionally absent. Went for the needy men Ive known too. Though with the men it generally comes out differently.

Gerry Manderer wrote:

They mention in the article how men sometimes play a part in encouraging said behaviour. I see it with a lot of my mates too-

Oh I definitely enabled it and no mistake. With one the guy after me was quite the opposite and she wasn't nearly so needy as often. At first anyway. I gather it came out down the line. When I copped on that I was enabling this guff and it was as much my "fault", I defo learned from that.

Wibbs

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd actually day the ''then and now'' is the only one of them that drives men away.

The rest often draw and keep men in.

Yep there's an element of that and no mistake. The needy people make you feel useful, the detached types make you work for it so any positive feedback feels more than it actually is. It so depends on the individual though. EG the "playing hard to get/emotionally detached" kinda woman never did anything for me at all. Switches me off pretty much instantly. On the other hand with a couple of my mates it revs them up.

Though like I said IME the then and now type is more male. IE the person who gets stuck in a rut in the relationship when it gets comfortable and doesnt work at it. Again IME I've heard far more blokes after a relationship goes south coming out with "but we were fine. It's completely out of the blue for me". And a lot of the time IMHO it's because they got lazy in the relationship and didn't spot it loosing steam.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea I'd agree with that. Another trend I've noticed was they had one parent that was very controlling and one that was emotionally absent. Went for the needy men Ive known too. Though with the men it generally comes out differently.

Oh I definitely enabled it and no mistake. With one the guy after me was quite the opposite and she wasn't nearly so needy as often. At first anyway. I gather it came out down the line. When I copped on that I was enabling this guff and it was as much my "fault", I defo learned from that.

A very good book to read is 'Games People Play" by Eric Berne.


If one party acts like a controlling parent they can engender and bring about tantrums and child like behavior from the other party.

Columbia

When you open your mouth in the summer time, can you see your breath as you breathe out? If you can, you need to work on how cold you might be.

Doesn't make any sense at all.

Gerry Manderer

Columbia wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense at all.

It means you're ice cold (i.e. a cold personality) :rolleyes:

P.C.

metrovelvet wrote: »

A very good book to read is 'Games People Play" by Eric Berne.


If one party acts like a controlling parent they can engender and bring about tantrums and child like behavior from the other party.

I hate these games in a relationship.

With me, it is going to be very honest, open and fairly direct - and I expect the same from the girl I am dating.

Gerry Manderer

P.C. wrote: »

I hate these games in a relationship.

With me, it is going to be very honest, open and fairly direct - and I expect the same from the girl I am dating.

I blame Sex and the City for these bullsh1t games that some women play, they see a lot of this crap on t.v shows and celeb magazines etc and seem to think it's how relationships in the real world ought to work.But in reality it just turns men away. Last girl I went out with was like this she thrived on creating dramas every so often just just so she could go and have a crisis meeting with her mates and group hug it out. I got fed up in the end and left her to it

Leelaa22

P.C. wrote: »

I hate these games in a relationship.

With me, it is going to be very honest, open and fairly direct - and I expect the same from the girl I am dating.

You are dead right!! I dont understand why games have to be played in relationships. It is much better to be up front and lay your cards out on the table. Everyone knows where they stand and there is no confusion.
There is nothing wrong with having no drama.

And as for the article I dont know about the 1st 3, but I was a then and now girl in my 1st relationship (unintentionally) and he left lol(so id agree that one is true)
So then I did the opposite I'd start off with the no make up and the no effort then when he doesnt expect it - boom - me+effort = Chrsitmas came early for the BF hahaha
(dont know why I said boom just felt right )

Ectoplasm

Gerry Manderer wrote: »

I blame Sex and the City for these bullsh1t games that some women play, they see a lot of this crap on t.v shows and celeb magazines etc and seem to think it's how relationships in the real world ought to work.But in reality it just turns men away. Last girl I went out with was like this she thrived on creating dramas every so often just just so she could go and have a crisis meeting with her mates and group hug it out. I got fed up in the end and left her to it

Due respect, but head games in relationships were around long before Sex and the City, and women aren't the only ones who play them.

I've no time for game playing myself, I don't like it when it's done to me and I don't think I'd have the patience or dedication to play them myself.

jackthelad321

All i know is I have had a drama queen girlfriend-- who i loved, but eventually her behaviour did get to me, but it didn't drive me away running as I was mad about her and her mood swings were just cries for help. And she was very honest which i liked. It often made people dislike her, because she made lots of scenes, but that was just her way.

The then and now thing is true of almost every relationship, and both genders? Lads get lazy too. I can think of almost everyone i know who has ever been in a relationship who ends up like that, to some extent.

The article is a load of crap but why can't people just post a relaxed answer to it?

TitoPuente

'Head games' in relationships are, in my experience, played by people with backgrounds of abuse and family histories of mental illness. The first thing I'd do is run for the hills. You want an adult for a partner, not a psychologically deranged lunatic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Gerry Manderer wrote: »

I blame Sex and the City for these bullsh1t games that some women play, they see a lot of this crap on t.v shows and celeb magazines etc and seem to think it's how relationships in the real world ought to work.But in reality it just turns men away. Last girl I went out with was like this she thrived on creating dramas every so often just just so she could go and have a crisis meeting with her mates and group hug it out. I got fed up in the end and left her to it

I've seen a few episodes of sex and the city, the girls don't really seem to be game players from epiodes ive watched. The main character the complete opposite from what i could tell.

Even if they did it is far more likely sex and the city would reflect real world characteristics than the other way round. As another poster said game playing was around long before satc.

Though feel free to blame them for women wearing stupid clothes. I'd be with ya on that one.

IrishEyes19

Gerry Manderer wrote: »

I blame Sex and the City for these bullsh1t games that some women play, they see a lot of this crap on t.v shows and celeb magazines etc and seem to think it's how relationships in the real world ought to work.But in reality it just turns men away. Last girl I went out with was like this she thrived on creating dramas every so often just just so she could go and have a crisis meeting with her mates and group hug it out. I got fed up in the end and left her to it

I dont think sex and the city really has anything to do with it. A lot of women myself included in the past can have doubts going into relationships, especially if the last relationship was a disaster or ended badly. Icy Queen, Ive been before merely because being invested in the last relationship turned the relationships sour, so I attempted to play it cool. If anything I think both parties in a relationship these days need to upfront and honest about how they feel and want. But then again its easier said than done. No one likes admitting face to face to their OH that they dont feel the same way anymore. So even though people say they dont play games or say it straight, everyone to a some degree plays games or hides the truth somewhat thats just my opinion of course, :rolleyes:

TitoPuente

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

A lot of women myself included in the past can have doubts going into relationships, especially if the last relationship was a disaster or ended badly. Icy Queen, Ive been before merely because being invested in the last relationship turned the relationships sour, so I attempted to play it cool.

So you treated someone with emotional indifference and apathy, punishing him for your the fact that your previous boyfriend treated you badly. Two wrongs don't make a right. Abusing someone because you were abused is wrong. And make no mistake about it - getting involved in a relationship and remaining emotionally detachted is abuse.

Eve_Dublin

TitoPuente wrote: »

So you treated someone with emotional indifference and apathy, punishing him for your the fact that your previous boyfriend treated you badly. Two wrongs don't make a right. Abusing someone because you were abused is wrong. And make no mistake about it - getting involved in a relationship and remaining emotionally detachted is abuse.

You've obviously had an easy ride then in matters of the heart. Treating someone cool initially is just self-preservation and I think it's totally understandable. It's up to the person in question to put up with it or not. You're not under duress to tolerate it, you're an adult and a lot of people wouldn't and so be it. I think it's plain stupid to wear your heart on your sleeve so early on. It takes me time to thaw out for sure. I'm not an ice queen, I'm friendly and I respect the man in question but I don't give my heart away so easily. Not a chance.I've done it in the (recent and not-so-recent) past with disastrous consequences. You live and you learn and all that and you'd be dumb not to.

Logical Fallacy

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

I dont think sex and the city really has anything to do with it. A lot of women myself included in the past can have doubts going into relationships, especially if the last relationship was a disaster or ended badly. Icy Queen, Ive been before merely because being invested in the last relationship turned the relationships sour, so I attempted to play it cool. If anything I think both parties in a relationship these days need to upfront and honest about how they feel and want. But then again its easier said than done. No one likes admitting face to face to their OH that they dont feel the same way anymore. So even though people say they dont play games or say it straight, everyone to a some degree plays games or hides the truth somewhat thats just my opinion of course, :rolleyes:

To be honest, i would say don't get into a relationship if you are in the kind of place. Not being a dick or a wanker, just mentioning something i had to learn myself. The fact that your brain is making you cautious is normally a good indicator that something is up anyway and you might not be in the best place to start a relationship at all.

A couple of years ago i had that vibe, even though i had met an amazing girl. I didn't dive in, took my time, sorted my head out and eventually we got together, coming up on 3 years now and it's by far the most balanced and harmonious and healthy relationship i have ever had.

Or, maybe all that stuff just happens naturally as you experience more relationships and learn what is write for you and wrong for you and get more comfortable in your own skin?

metrovelvet

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

To be honest, i would say don't get into a relationship if you are in the kind of place. Not being a dick or a wanker, just mentioning something i had to learn myself. The fact that your brain is making you cautious is normally a good indicator that something is up anyway and you might not be in the best place to start a relationship at all.

A couple of years ago i had that vibe, even though i had met an amazing girl. I didn't dive in, took my time, sorted my head out and eventually we got together, coming up on 3 years now and it's by far the most balanced and harmonious and healthy relationship i have ever had.

Or, maybe all that stuff just happens naturally as you experience more relationships and learn what is write for you and wrong for you and get more comfortable in your own skin?

Taking a measured, steady pace is a bit different from blowing north arctic breezes and repeatedly testing boundaries as described in the article.

But all in all its wise never to chase a distancer.