The topic of the last post was about the proposed legislation in California to make it illegal to spank a child under the age of two years old. If this law were passed it would make California the first state in the nation that regulated how a parent could discipline their children.
The comments I received from this post were really interesting to me. Although they seemed to center more on the value of spanking as a form of discipline rather than whether government should be allowed to dictate how a parent can and should discipline their children. So that brought other questions to my mind.
Such as...Is it the role of government to tell a parent how to raise their child? If we say its ok for them to tell us we cannot spank as a form of discipline then what other rules will this bring about? Will they also tell us where we can educate them, what they wear, what they are allowed to watch on TV and for how long? What about music and dating? Will these things also be deemed necessary to be regulated? And if we consent to all of these things... can we still say we are raising our own children? Or at this point are we allowing government to do it for us? And if we do this....what type of society will we become?
If we are going to take that step down the slippery slope....then what of the abortion issue?
I personally feel that once a sperm and egg are introduced and unite..that we are now dealing with a person. I don't care if at that point the person is just a mass of cells dividing amongst themselves. At that moment, when those two things meet, genetically speaking we are now on the course to creating a full fledged walking, talking, thinking human being.
You see, the problem I have with giving things a name......such as fetus for example, is that it seems to minimize its importance in the big scheme of things. But if you look at it as though it is just another descriptive name in a long list of names during the different stages of development.....such as Infant....Toddler....Child...Teen...Adult. Then you have to realize that you can call it whatever you like, but the end result is still the same. Its still a human.
Just as a caterpillar left alone becomes a butterfly......a tadpole becomes a frog......those few small cells dividing and dividing again, have everything it takes to one day walk...talk....think...and love.
Having said this....Do I want my government delving into this part of my life? Do I want them to have control and say so over my body? Do I want them to be able to tell me how to raise this child if I have one?
HELL NO I DO NOT!
I have a real problem when a government thinks they know what's the best thing for me even better than I do myself. I do not want others to do my thinking for me. I do not want others thinking they are smarter than I am and therefore NEED to do my thinking for me. I suppose the only way I can prevent such a thing from happening to me.....is to indeed think for myself and vote. And by doing so making sure that no one ever has a chance to pass laws that will take away my right to decided what kind of society we have.
I don't like everything in the world around me. I think there are a lot of things that could be said have gone straight to hell. But as bad as we seem to think things are, I do not want ANYONE taking away my rights to speak and think and live freely.
They say that when you loose things like freedoms that you never lose them all at once. That evil is not something that comes and falls on you like a wall. It is the small, insignificant day to day things that we give up because we are too lazy to do them for ourselves. Like parenting our children.
Maybe I am to idealistic in my thinking....but if you think so...maybe you need to be too.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Spank Me...
First of all the title got you curious didn't it? *laughing*
Secondly.... where was this woman when I was a kid?
A California legislator has announced that she hasn't written it yet...BUT she intends to.....soon....very very soon.....[are you on the edge of your seat?] She intends to write a bill that proposes limits on spanking.
She wants California to be the first state in the nation to pass a law making it illegal for parents to spank their children. If the law passes it will make spanking any children under the age of 3 a misdemeanor. With penaties that could include child rearing classes or up to one year of jail time.
Jail time? Are they serious? Just the mention of the bill has sparked heated commentary from legislators as well as parents. One person suggested that they pass a bill making it ok for parents to smack other parents of undisciplined children. *laughing* I think I could actually support that one.
Since the suggestion of the Bill was mentioned publicly, the office of its sponsor has been "inundated" with calls. She stated that most of the calls concerning the bill were negative and against such legislation. She said she found this attitude puzzling because the bill only covers the states youngest most vulnerable children. She further stated that she has to question why our society holds so tightly to physical discipline among the very young. "We're very addicted to violence" she says.
Addicted to violence? And you think the way to curb that addiction is to stop spanking our kids? Really now?
My mom got spanked when she was a kid so far she seems to have managed to stay on this side of the law. Although she has on occasion wanted to put some of the young men I have dated in shallow holes in our back yard....But in all fairness to her...they were asses and she had a point. So does that even count?
I myself got spanked on occasion when I was a kid. My mom never beat me with anything. She used her flat palm of her hand on my soft tushy bottom. As a matter of fact, I think that during my entire childhood I might have received only 5 such spankings.
However..I would like to point out..that I wasn't a stupid child either. My mom was very good at teaching me the concept of "cause and effect". If I "caused" her a problem or embarrassment...the "effect" would be that I would wish I hadn't. I honestly believe that part of what kept me from doing more stupid things as a child was that healthy intimidation she instilled in me.
She made it clear to me early in my life that the word "NO" was not a negotiation tactic on her part. If she said No to me about something.....No is exactly what she meant. It didn't mean maybe...or keep asking until you wear me down. It meant "NO" and if you keep asking me "causing" me grief...the "effect" side of things would come into play.
She never wanted to hear the words..."But so and so's mom lets her do it". She made it quite clear that she was MY mom and SHE was the only person who's authority or opinions I needed to concern myself with. She never allowed me to use my friends for my excuses or alibis. Such as..I'm sorry mom...But Megan was driving I cant help it we were late. She didn't want to hear excuses.....She explained that I was responsible for my own activities and I was well aware of the rules I had to go by. If I knew my ride wasn't going to get me home on time..I had better call her and make other arrangements to get home. She gave me a curfew...and I was allowed to come home early....but late..even 5 minutes late wasn't an option.
If my plans changed when I was out in any way.....I had better give her a phone call with an update. I was never ever to make her worry about me or wonder where I was. These things were not negotiable. EVER!
My mom didn't have to spank me because I knew the rules. I knew the consequences for breaking the rules. And if I had a lapse in memory or judgment..she had this look she gave me that said very clearly "I'm this close to going terminator on you so knock it off". She never had to do it...I never tested it out..never wanted to. I had known the woman all my life and had no doubt it wasn't an empty threat.
Now just so we are clear....I don't think an infant understands or knows what spanking is. A very small child is all about its basic needs...food.....sleep....dry clothing...affection. But if by the age of two you haven't started teaching your child the word NO...then YOU ARE screwing up. I'm not advocating hitting a child with things...I'm not advocating hitting a child with fists or hitting a child in anger or in a manner that could be considered beating them. Lets use simple common sense here.
But I don't think its necessary to legislate to parents what type of discipline they feel is appropriate for their own children. If you think that violence is an issue in society...Then find a way to address violence. Do it in the music you listen to or the games you play or the movies you watch. If you think that people need to be taught how to behave with their kids...then make it a law they have to actually raise them and interact with them if you think you can.
Because I have to tell you...As strict as my mom was with me about some things....I have never had any doubt that she loved me. She told me all the time..she showed me often in many different ways. She has always been there for me, involved in every aspect of my life from the time I was very small up to now. I will admit there have been times when I would have liked to be adopted..she got on ALL my nerves. But I also know that if I need an honest answer or someone to help me up if I fall...day or night...my mom is the one I call.
Secondly.... where was this woman when I was a kid?
A California legislator has announced that she hasn't written it yet...BUT she intends to.....soon....very very soon.....[are you on the edge of your seat?] She intends to write a bill that proposes limits on spanking.
She wants California to be the first state in the nation to pass a law making it illegal for parents to spank their children. If the law passes it will make spanking any children under the age of 3 a misdemeanor. With penaties that could include child rearing classes or up to one year of jail time.
Jail time? Are they serious? Just the mention of the bill has sparked heated commentary from legislators as well as parents. One person suggested that they pass a bill making it ok for parents to smack other parents of undisciplined children. *laughing* I think I could actually support that one.
Since the suggestion of the Bill was mentioned publicly, the office of its sponsor has been "inundated" with calls. She stated that most of the calls concerning the bill were negative and against such legislation. She said she found this attitude puzzling because the bill only covers the states youngest most vulnerable children. She further stated that she has to question why our society holds so tightly to physical discipline among the very young. "We're very addicted to violence" she says.
Addicted to violence? And you think the way to curb that addiction is to stop spanking our kids? Really now?
My mom got spanked when she was a kid so far she seems to have managed to stay on this side of the law. Although she has on occasion wanted to put some of the young men I have dated in shallow holes in our back yard....But in all fairness to her...they were asses and she had a point. So does that even count?
I myself got spanked on occasion when I was a kid. My mom never beat me with anything. She used her flat palm of her hand on my soft tushy bottom. As a matter of fact, I think that during my entire childhood I might have received only 5 such spankings.
However..I would like to point out..that I wasn't a stupid child either. My mom was very good at teaching me the concept of "cause and effect". If I "caused" her a problem or embarrassment...the "effect" would be that I would wish I hadn't. I honestly believe that part of what kept me from doing more stupid things as a child was that healthy intimidation she instilled in me.
She made it clear to me early in my life that the word "NO" was not a negotiation tactic on her part. If she said No to me about something.....No is exactly what she meant. It didn't mean maybe...or keep asking until you wear me down. It meant "NO" and if you keep asking me "causing" me grief...the "effect" side of things would come into play.
She never wanted to hear the words..."But so and so's mom lets her do it". She made it quite clear that she was MY mom and SHE was the only person who's authority or opinions I needed to concern myself with. She never allowed me to use my friends for my excuses or alibis. Such as..I'm sorry mom...But Megan was driving I cant help it we were late. She didn't want to hear excuses.....She explained that I was responsible for my own activities and I was well aware of the rules I had to go by. If I knew my ride wasn't going to get me home on time..I had better call her and make other arrangements to get home. She gave me a curfew...and I was allowed to come home early....but late..even 5 minutes late wasn't an option.
If my plans changed when I was out in any way.....I had better give her a phone call with an update. I was never ever to make her worry about me or wonder where I was. These things were not negotiable. EVER!
My mom didn't have to spank me because I knew the rules. I knew the consequences for breaking the rules. And if I had a lapse in memory or judgment..she had this look she gave me that said very clearly "I'm this close to going terminator on you so knock it off". She never had to do it...I never tested it out..never wanted to. I had known the woman all my life and had no doubt it wasn't an empty threat.
Now just so we are clear....I don't think an infant understands or knows what spanking is. A very small child is all about its basic needs...food.....sleep....dry clothing...affection. But if by the age of two you haven't started teaching your child the word NO...then YOU ARE screwing up. I'm not advocating hitting a child with things...I'm not advocating hitting a child with fists or hitting a child in anger or in a manner that could be considered beating them. Lets use simple common sense here.
But I don't think its necessary to legislate to parents what type of discipline they feel is appropriate for their own children. If you think that violence is an issue in society...Then find a way to address violence. Do it in the music you listen to or the games you play or the movies you watch. If you think that people need to be taught how to behave with their kids...then make it a law they have to actually raise them and interact with them if you think you can.
Because I have to tell you...As strict as my mom was with me about some things....I have never had any doubt that she loved me. She told me all the time..she showed me often in many different ways. She has always been there for me, involved in every aspect of my life from the time I was very small up to now. I will admit there have been times when I would have liked to be adopted..she got on ALL my nerves. But I also know that if I need an honest answer or someone to help me up if I fall...day or night...my mom is the one I call.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
More Brain Candy....
I love reading the weird news. I realize that these articles aren't life changing. They usually don't deal with any real earth shattering issues. Lets face it most of the time its just brain candy. Stuff that you may read and laugh at while shaking your head and muttering under your breath....."What are they thinking"...
Grandma's Fruitcakes~
First there was the grandma who during this past holiday season was put into tears over being questioned about her fruitcakes. Apparently she takes her baking very seriously. So when the clerk at her local Post Office asked her what kind of explosives she had in her packages.... She was embarrassed and humiliated to the point of tears. She was apparently so distraught that upon leaving the post office she tripped and fell, breaking her glasses and chipping a tooth.
OH NO THE HORROR! This traumatic experience prompted Grandma to try and sue the USPS for emotional distress.
I have a grandma...I am as sympathetic as the next person to someone's tender feelings. BUT woman you need to get a grip. It was a question that the Post Office is now required to ask of EVERYONE concerning any packages being mailed through them. The clerk probably knowing what you were mailing asked it in humor..which is why it got a laugh from the other customers who were waiting in line behind you at the Post Office.
I doubt seriously that the clerk in question was trying to be offensive in anyway. Yes maybe he should have been a little more professional when he asked if you had a bomb in your fruitcakes. But if you tripped and fell on your way out the door perhaps you either need to adjust that prescription on those glasses you were wearing or look where you are going. Just a thought.
But to sue because of emotional distress?? PLEASE! In my opinion there was more than one fruitcake in this story.
Littering On The Highway~
Two teenage girls going down the highway......One of the young women (the passenger) decides it would be a good idea to remove her bra and hang it from the antenna of the car she was in. As you might guess the laws of physics kick in here.....Car travels at high rate of speed....Wind pressure on outside of car dislodges poorly attatched undergarment..... Causing said undergarment to go flying.
AWWWW I feel her pain...I loose more underwear that way. [NOT] Apparently the car behind them didn't fair to well when Victorias Secret decided to go flying away. The man driving said he swerved to miss the flying bra....and in doing so caused his vehicle to over turn and flip several times. Resulting in injuries to the driver and his passenger.
That's a very tragic story all right and definitely reckless on the part of the young lady who attempted to fly her bra like a flag.
So then why did the young woman only get charged with littering on the highway? She apparently caused an accident that resulted in injuries didn't she? Hmmmmmm
Could it be because according to the young ladies involved.....the men in question were apparently trying to pull up beside the girls car, encouraging them to flash their naked breasts at them while driving. OH MY! Imagine my surprise.
That's when they lost my sympathy...what about yours?
Court Says Topless Is Ok~
A court upheld a ruling that a woman could indeed protest topless if she wanted to. This ruling struck down a prior arrest of a women who repeatedly ignored laws about women going bare breasted in public.
There is a part of me likes this story...NOT because I'm all that crazy about seeing a woman topless in or out of public. But because its sort of a matter of fairness isn't it?
She protested topless in front of statues which were also topless. The ordinance in question bans public nudity. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if your going to ban something because you feel its inappropriate......then it shouldn't be gender based. For that matter if your going to say that a topless real woman is considered indecent in public.....then shouldn't art depicting a topless woman also be indecent in public? Therefore the topless statues she protested in front of were illegal too. Right or wrong?
I do understand the differences that we as a society place on seeing a topless female vs a topless male. But technically...its the same thing. Its just become socially acceptable for a male to be topless where its taboo for women. I think it stems from that whole child bearing breast feeding thing that gets everyone so antsy...
I'm not in anyway trying to condone or promote women being allowed to do this publicly. In fact, I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't one way or the other. All I am doing is asking some questions here. If your going to have a law.....shouldn't it be a law that does not hinder one group over another? Shouldn't it be fair and represent both sexes equally.
Last time I checked the laws were supposed to be of the people for the people by the people. I think this means men as well as women......doesn't it?
Grandma's Fruitcakes~
First there was the grandma who during this past holiday season was put into tears over being questioned about her fruitcakes. Apparently she takes her baking very seriously. So when the clerk at her local Post Office asked her what kind of explosives she had in her packages.... She was embarrassed and humiliated to the point of tears. She was apparently so distraught that upon leaving the post office she tripped and fell, breaking her glasses and chipping a tooth.
OH NO THE HORROR! This traumatic experience prompted Grandma to try and sue the USPS for emotional distress.
I have a grandma...I am as sympathetic as the next person to someone's tender feelings. BUT woman you need to get a grip. It was a question that the Post Office is now required to ask of EVERYONE concerning any packages being mailed through them. The clerk probably knowing what you were mailing asked it in humor..which is why it got a laugh from the other customers who were waiting in line behind you at the Post Office.
I doubt seriously that the clerk in question was trying to be offensive in anyway. Yes maybe he should have been a little more professional when he asked if you had a bomb in your fruitcakes. But if you tripped and fell on your way out the door perhaps you either need to adjust that prescription on those glasses you were wearing or look where you are going. Just a thought.
But to sue because of emotional distress?? PLEASE! In my opinion there was more than one fruitcake in this story.
Littering On The Highway~
Two teenage girls going down the highway......One of the young women (the passenger) decides it would be a good idea to remove her bra and hang it from the antenna of the car she was in. As you might guess the laws of physics kick in here.....Car travels at high rate of speed....Wind pressure on outside of car dislodges poorly attatched undergarment..... Causing said undergarment to go flying.
AWWWW I feel her pain...I loose more underwear that way. [NOT] Apparently the car behind them didn't fair to well when Victorias Secret decided to go flying away. The man driving said he swerved to miss the flying bra....and in doing so caused his vehicle to over turn and flip several times. Resulting in injuries to the driver and his passenger.
That's a very tragic story all right and definitely reckless on the part of the young lady who attempted to fly her bra like a flag.
So then why did the young woman only get charged with littering on the highway? She apparently caused an accident that resulted in injuries didn't she? Hmmmmmm
Could it be because according to the young ladies involved.....the men in question were apparently trying to pull up beside the girls car, encouraging them to flash their naked breasts at them while driving. OH MY! Imagine my surprise.
That's when they lost my sympathy...what about yours?
Court Says Topless Is Ok~
A court upheld a ruling that a woman could indeed protest topless if she wanted to. This ruling struck down a prior arrest of a women who repeatedly ignored laws about women going bare breasted in public.
There is a part of me likes this story...NOT because I'm all that crazy about seeing a woman topless in or out of public. But because its sort of a matter of fairness isn't it?
She protested topless in front of statues which were also topless. The ordinance in question bans public nudity. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if your going to ban something because you feel its inappropriate......then it shouldn't be gender based. For that matter if your going to say that a topless real woman is considered indecent in public.....then shouldn't art depicting a topless woman also be indecent in public? Therefore the topless statues she protested in front of were illegal too. Right or wrong?
I do understand the differences that we as a society place on seeing a topless female vs a topless male. But technically...its the same thing. Its just become socially acceptable for a male to be topless where its taboo for women. I think it stems from that whole child bearing breast feeding thing that gets everyone so antsy...
I'm not in anyway trying to condone or promote women being allowed to do this publicly. In fact, I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't one way or the other. All I am doing is asking some questions here. If your going to have a law.....shouldn't it be a law that does not hinder one group over another? Shouldn't it be fair and represent both sexes equally.
Last time I checked the laws were supposed to be of the people for the people by the people. I think this means men as well as women......doesn't it?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
I Wonder
I wonder what kind of place the world would be...
If we lived in a world where instead of countries sending their people out to fight their wars, they made their respective leaders do it themselves- in the traditional sense. One on one... face to face... and with bare fists. I wonder- would the bullies of the world still win?
I wonder what kind of place the world would be...
If we lived in a world where a leader was willing to get his own hands dirty. Would that same leader be willing to go out and live in the same conditions that he asks and expects his troops to live in? And if he did... would he still choose to go to war and the fight for his cause when it was he that had to give up his family, his friends and the comforts of his home instead of his nameless, faceless troops? .
I wonder what kind of world we would have...
If we had to take a test before we could marry. What if it simply wasn't enough to just be in love? That we actually had to think about what our lives would be like, once we tied the proverbial knot. And what if we actually had to have a plan and have answers as to how we planned to conduct our lives as a married couple? Would people be so quick to do it then, if they knew they were being going to be graded on their responses?
What if we were made to actually parent our children? What would happen if in order to have a child we actually had to be able to prove that we would always be around to raise it? What if we didn't have the option of leaving that said child with nanny's,family, friends and/or day care more hours in the day than we could actually spend with it ourselves? What if we were forced to go to all the soccer games, help with the homework and each day spend a set amount of time interacting with them?
What then? Would we stop having as many children if we really had to choose between career and family? Would the world be a better place? If our children are the future of our countries and the future of our very planet- would we be better people if we actually had to learn from our children instead of the other way around?
I wonder what kind of world this would be...
IF ONE DAY, ALL OF THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
If we lived in a world where instead of countries sending their people out to fight their wars, they made their respective leaders do it themselves- in the traditional sense. One on one... face to face... and with bare fists. I wonder- would the bullies of the world still win?
I wonder what kind of place the world would be...
If we lived in a world where a leader was willing to get his own hands dirty. Would that same leader be willing to go out and live in the same conditions that he asks and expects his troops to live in? And if he did... would he still choose to go to war and the fight for his cause when it was he that had to give up his family, his friends and the comforts of his home instead of his nameless, faceless troops? .
I wonder what kind of world we would have...
If we had to take a test before we could marry. What if it simply wasn't enough to just be in love? That we actually had to think about what our lives would be like, once we tied the proverbial knot. And what if we actually had to have a plan and have answers as to how we planned to conduct our lives as a married couple? Would people be so quick to do it then, if they knew they were being going to be graded on their responses?
What if we were made to actually parent our children? What would happen if in order to have a child we actually had to be able to prove that we would always be around to raise it? What if we didn't have the option of leaving that said child with nanny's,family, friends and/or day care more hours in the day than we could actually spend with it ourselves? What if we were forced to go to all the soccer games, help with the homework and each day spend a set amount of time interacting with them?
What then? Would we stop having as many children if we really had to choose between career and family? Would the world be a better place? If our children are the future of our countries and the future of our very planet- would we be better people if we actually had to learn from our children instead of the other way around?
I wonder what kind of world this would be...
IF ONE DAY, ALL OF THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Monday, January 01, 2007
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
WARNING: There is a predator on the loose that poses a serious threat to society.
THE BUNNY BOILER
The Bunny Boiler [bun-nee - boil r] (noun): Referring to a predatory, self-centered, self-absorbed and sometimes seemingly insane type of female. It can also be referred to by its lesser known name Femalious Carnivorous which is of Latin origin.
It has been my experience that the Bunny Boiler type of female is often very attractive. She will appear perfumed, polished and perfectly clothed. Her personality will be charming and flirtatious drawing not only the male of the species to her, but female as well. Although it should be noted that the attraction of male vs. females will be for opposite reasons.
Males will be attracted to her as a possible romantic-love interest..While the female will be drawn to her because of her strong yet intimidating personality. Females in her company will hope to also be seen as strong and even popular themselves through association. All in all the Bunny Boiler is an adept predator who can change her personality or appearance to blend in to her current surroundings to ensure optimal hunting success.
SIGNS TO LOOK FOR:
A woman who starts making wedding plans or naming your future children after only a few dates. A woman who is not only overly interested in your social status and how much money you make, but also the net worth of immediate family members, such as parents or grandparents as well. A woman who is so completely self-absorbed and self-centered to the point that she truly believes the world and its inhabitants were all put there for her exclusive amusement and servitude. (See reference: Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. )
NOTE: The Bunny Boiler should not to be confused with the more commonly seen "Damsel in Distress". The Damsel may display similar traits to the Bunny Boiler, but is overall non-threatening and relatively harmless.
From my own personal experiences with the Bunny Boiler type of female I have noticed another thing about their habits. They have the ability to cleverly disguise themselves as "girl" friends. I unfortunately had to find this out the hard way- after I realized they were much more interested in the guy I was currently dating rather than in my friendship.
Which brings me to my next tell-tale sign to look out for: Loyalty.
Most Bunny Boilers have no loyalty. They do not and cannot grasp the concept of loyalty to a friend. Nor can they be totally loyal to the men they date. This is largely due to the simple fact that most Bunny Boilers are very focused on their needs and wants above all else. Just so long as the people they surround themselves with fulfill the basic need of utter servitude and adoration of them.....the Bunny Boiler is content to keep them in her circle.
However, should the unsuspecting friend or love interest no longer provide this service to the said Bunny Boiler, she will be all too quick and happy to move on and simply replace them. This is because, to the Bunny Boiler, friends as well as love-interests are easily replaced and interchangeable.
I used to believe that Bunny Boilers were a product of their upbringing... that they were simply females who had been given everything they ever wanted all their lives. Who had been so pampered and spoiled to the point that as they grew up they maintained that "princess" type mentality- and expected and often demanded others to continue to see and treat them as such.
After getting the chance to observe the interaction between men and women in romantic relationships, I have come to the conclusion there are in actual fact two types of Bunny Boilers:
-those created by nature and
- those who were created by contact with the player/womanizer type of male. [the male equivalent of the Bunny Boiler]
I have observed that this type of Bunny Boiler thinking usually occurs in females that are either unwilling to stand up for themselves or who lack enough inner confidence to realize they are being treated poorly. As the romantic relationship ends these females are sometimes left twisted and turned inside out by men of this type.
So much so, it leaves the female in question completely disillusioned and often jaded when it comes to her next romantic interest. The end result is that the innocent suffer after the female adopts the classic "Do unto others before they are able to do unto you" attitude. Changing the once "nice girl" into the more preditory and selfish Bunny Boiler.
There does not seem to be any cure to the Bunny Boiler and her charms. There is no vaccine to make you immune to her. Those who choose to ignore all the signs and symptoms of a Bunny Boiler female and become involved with her anyway usually do so at their own peril. It is rare that an individual can get away unscathed after immediate contact.
She is the human equivalent to Tic-Tac-Toe...the only way to win.....is not to play her game.
THE BUNNY BOILER
The Bunny Boiler [bun-nee - boil r] (noun): Referring to a predatory, self-centered, self-absorbed and sometimes seemingly insane type of female. It can also be referred to by its lesser known name Femalious Carnivorous which is of Latin origin.
It has been my experience that the Bunny Boiler type of female is often very attractive. She will appear perfumed, polished and perfectly clothed. Her personality will be charming and flirtatious drawing not only the male of the species to her, but female as well. Although it should be noted that the attraction of male vs. females will be for opposite reasons.
Males will be attracted to her as a possible romantic-love interest..While the female will be drawn to her because of her strong yet intimidating personality. Females in her company will hope to also be seen as strong and even popular themselves through association. All in all the Bunny Boiler is an adept predator who can change her personality or appearance to blend in to her current surroundings to ensure optimal hunting success.
SIGNS TO LOOK FOR:
A woman who starts making wedding plans or naming your future children after only a few dates. A woman who is not only overly interested in your social status and how much money you make, but also the net worth of immediate family members, such as parents or grandparents as well. A woman who is so completely self-absorbed and self-centered to the point that she truly believes the world and its inhabitants were all put there for her exclusive amusement and servitude. (See reference: Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. )
NOTE: The Bunny Boiler should not to be confused with the more commonly seen "Damsel in Distress". The Damsel may display similar traits to the Bunny Boiler, but is overall non-threatening and relatively harmless.
From my own personal experiences with the Bunny Boiler type of female I have noticed another thing about their habits. They have the ability to cleverly disguise themselves as "girl" friends. I unfortunately had to find this out the hard way- after I realized they were much more interested in the guy I was currently dating rather than in my friendship.
Which brings me to my next tell-tale sign to look out for: Loyalty.
Most Bunny Boilers have no loyalty. They do not and cannot grasp the concept of loyalty to a friend. Nor can they be totally loyal to the men they date. This is largely due to the simple fact that most Bunny Boilers are very focused on their needs and wants above all else. Just so long as the people they surround themselves with fulfill the basic need of utter servitude and adoration of them.....the Bunny Boiler is content to keep them in her circle.
However, should the unsuspecting friend or love interest no longer provide this service to the said Bunny Boiler, she will be all too quick and happy to move on and simply replace them. This is because, to the Bunny Boiler, friends as well as love-interests are easily replaced and interchangeable.
I used to believe that Bunny Boilers were a product of their upbringing... that they were simply females who had been given everything they ever wanted all their lives. Who had been so pampered and spoiled to the point that as they grew up they maintained that "princess" type mentality- and expected and often demanded others to continue to see and treat them as such.
After getting the chance to observe the interaction between men and women in romantic relationships, I have come to the conclusion there are in actual fact two types of Bunny Boilers:
-those created by nature and
- those who were created by contact with the player/womanizer type of male. [the male equivalent of the Bunny Boiler]
I have observed that this type of Bunny Boiler thinking usually occurs in females that are either unwilling to stand up for themselves or who lack enough inner confidence to realize they are being treated poorly. As the romantic relationship ends these females are sometimes left twisted and turned inside out by men of this type.
So much so, it leaves the female in question completely disillusioned and often jaded when it comes to her next romantic interest. The end result is that the innocent suffer after the female adopts the classic "Do unto others before they are able to do unto you" attitude. Changing the once "nice girl" into the more preditory and selfish Bunny Boiler.
There does not seem to be any cure to the Bunny Boiler and her charms. There is no vaccine to make you immune to her. Those who choose to ignore all the signs and symptoms of a Bunny Boiler female and become involved with her anyway usually do so at their own peril. It is rare that an individual can get away unscathed after immediate contact.
She is the human equivalent to Tic-Tac-Toe...the only way to win.....is not to play her game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)