bad girl

[kaigou]

Bad Boy/Girl, definition: Someone that the rest of the world thinks is a Bad Boy is just someone who could frankly care less what the rest of the world thinks of him.

Pursuant to the two previous posts linked, the following are random observations triggered by the comment: "You are sensitive. But you are not a Sensitive Guy. Sensitive Guys (TM) use their sensitivity to get you into bed, and it's all crap because they're going to do more whining than you in the morning anyway."

An incomplete list of Bad traits. Feel free to add your own. A Bad Boy/Girl:

1. Doesn't worry about whether you'll respect her in the morning. If you don't now, she's aware of it and probably doesn't care. She respects herself. Your respect is icing on the cake.
   
   
2. Doesn't cry, 'call me!' Bad Boys do the calling...or don't.
   
   
3. Is emotionally independent. Your support is appreciated, but not critical. There will be no superglued body parts for a Bad Girl.
   
   
4. Doesn't take shit.
   
   
5. Never asks, "will he or won't he" but "what do I want and how do I get it?"
   
   
6. Respects you enough to not treat you like a delicate flower that might be trampled, and expects the same.
   
   
7. Plays games only with consenting partners who also know when it's a game. Corrollary: a Bad Girl will call you on games.
   
   
8. Is sexually secure. Bad Boys can wear pink. Bad Girls can wear men's suits. Neither care what you assume.
   
   
9. Isn't threatened by affection, but does it because he wants it, not because there's an audience or because it's expected.

Classic Bad Boy line, from Last Picture Show.

Bobby: You a virgin?
Jacy: I guess I am.
Bobby: Too bad.
Jacy: I don't wanna be, though.
Bobby: I don't blame ya. Come see me when you're not.

EDIT: --

From 'Surrendered Single', a tip to women on dating:

She relinquishes her checklist of qualities she thinks she requires in a man. Then, she acknowledges that she can be blissfully happy with an imperfect man, and that she will definitely be lonely without one.

I'm not sure whether to gag, or fall over laughing. I'll settle for both. Twits!

Comments

[habibti.livejournal.com]

Never heard of 'Surrendered Single'.

Wanna explain?

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

Oh, dude, let me find a link. Someone on my flist found this book about "The Surrendered Wife," which was explaining how a woman could create "intimacy" in her relationship with her husband by pretty much submitting to him in everyway.

There was a "Surrendered Single" too. It was one of the most offensive pieces of tripe I've ever come across...

Here we go.

This is my friend's review of it. http://www.livejournal.com/users/somnambulicious/29168.html There are links in there. XD

[habibti.livejournal.com]

I really, really, really tried to read the whole rant but I couldn't even stomach the rant because the whole 'surrendered thing' just wanted to make me hurl my breakfast all over the keyboard.

I also googled 'surrendered single' and found that website. My upchuck reflex is being severely challenged again.

I have HUGE issues with the surrendered single thing:

How is femininity compromised by honesty? By being who you are?
Why is being sure of myself and confident in who I am a turn off? To bolster the ego of a guy who's not?
Why do I need to violate my integrity about who I am for a man?
Why is being on my own such a terrible thing?
Why can't people see that respecting others and treating them courteously does not mean being a doormat?

We're just creating a whole bunch of 'beloveds'. (You know, from the Women's Room). We disempower ourselves, make them think they're hot shit and then we'll wake up one day and find them proud and cocksure and insufferable and realise we've created these monsters that we can't live with.

Grrrrr......

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

*pets comfortingly*

Believe me, I know exactly what you are going thought.

[habibti.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

Love the icon.

[okaasan59.livejournal.com]

I just read your friend's post. Wow, that book is scary. I'd seen the title before but falsely assumed it was about a consensual Dominant/submissive relationship.

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

Nope. See, that would make sense.

That is just something else entirely. Pardon me, but I'm not going to stop being a reasonable, critical person just because it makes a man feel threatened.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

*snorts*

Even the consensual D/s relationships I've known wouldn't put up with that crap!

[achiasa.livejournal.com]

There was a copy of that fucking book in my public library. It was like a horribly gory road accident - I had to have a look. I think I lasted all of 3 pages. Ugh. The worst part was that the woman had the gall to try and use ballroom dancing as an analogy, because according to her the man leads and the woman happily submits and does what she's told.

Uh, no. It takes two, honey. And in the best and most successful partnerships, leading is nothing more than a formality. Depending on the specific step, control can pass back and forth between the man and lady according to who is better at the figure. If the man is inexperienced, the lady is effectively leading anyway. At the end of the day, it's a partnership.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

It has the vague feeling of reading those books on "how to be a published writer" and "how to get an agent" and "how-to" all sorts of things, and then you check the credentials and find out the person's never been published or has only had one agent or whatever. It's sort of like having a mechanic who's never looked under the hood of a car, and quite glibly informs you that yes, the radiator fan IS connected to the distributor cap and runs the rear axle guides, of course.

Yeah.

Partnership. I mean, you'd think this would be obvious by now.