do women want drama?

[Cookiesandough]

To me, a relationship with 0 drama is every day you come home, you know what you to expect . You ask them what they want to eat and they say doesn’t matter or something. . Never any conflict at all. There’s never any disagreement because they always agree with you. There’s never any uncertainty because they’re always available for whatever you need, whenever.That’s a 0 drama relationship.. High drama would be craziness, histrionics etc etc . Not into that either. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Cookiesandough

[Woggle]

2 minutes ago, Cookiesandough said:

To me, a relationship with 0 drama is every day you come home, same thing every day. You ask them what they want to eat and they say doesn’t matter or something. . Never any conflict at all. There’s never any disagreement because they always agree with you. There’s never any uncertainty because they’re always available for whatever you need, whenever.That’s a 0 drama relationship.. High drama would be craziness, theatrics, etc etc . Not into that either. 

You can have disagreement without constant drama. It can be done peacefully. I had enough drama to last a lifetime before I was even 21 so I don't need it in a relationship and with the way the world is going now I welcome peace in our home.

[Cookiesandough]

It’s just a difference in how we’re defining it then 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Cookiesandough

[Cookiesandough]

E.g These ‘jerks’ could  just ignoring them to go out with another girl  or something... it’s ‘peaceful’ on their end... but it’s drama for the girl because they aren’t reacting they way they want them to. It’s a challenge 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Cookiesandough

[simpycurious]

1 hour ago, poppyfields said:

I agree, some people simply need more mental stimulation than others and enjoy being challenged. 

No wrong or right, to each his/her own as they say.  

That's really IT.  Everybody has something different that DOES IT FOR THEM.  Someone who can share opinions, someone who is a challenge, someone that you can embrace life with....I could go on and on. 

[littleblackheart]

1 hour ago, Cookiesandough said:

You ask them what they want to eat and they say doesn’t matter or something. . Never any conflict at all. There’s never any disagreement because they always agree with you. 

I would not consider the above a drama-free zone. That's hidden, repressed drama on passive-aggressive mode. 

You can respectfully disagree with someone or tell them what you think straight up without sucking up to them or without creating a conflict.

A little fun spark is nice, but I find drama in all its forms (particularly the passive aggressive kind) to be exhausting.

 

[Azincourt]

2 hours ago, poppyfields said:

You mean like Erik von Markovik ("Mystery") and David DeAngelo? Lol

Who do you like,  Rollo Tomassi, Artison, Ross Jeffries or Roosh V?

Not judging, just asking.  

I've read all of those PUA's dudes back in the early 2000s when I was a teen and realized my grandpa had slept with more women in his youth than all of these guys put together, so why listen to them.

I like Giacomo Girolamo Casanova.

Quote

He has become so famous for his often complicated and elaborate affairs with women that his name is now synonymous with "womanizer". He associated with European royalty, popes, and cardinals, along with luminaries such as Voltaire, Goethe, and Mozart. He spent his last years in the Dux Chateau (Bohemia) as a librarian in Count Waldstein's household, where he also wrote the story of his life.

Quote

For Casanova, as well as his contemporary sybarites of the upper class, love and sex tended to be casual and not endowed with the seriousness characteristic of the Romanticism of the 19th century.[110] Flirtations, bedroom games, and short-term liaisons were common among nobles who married for social connections rather than love.

Dude slept with over 130 women.

Impressive now, even more impressive back in his day considering  that Europe was ruled by the Church back then and casual sex, and especially sleeping with married women was frowned upon severely. Nowadays you're not going to get shot to death/sent to the bastille for sleeping with a married woman, like he was sent to the Bastille for.

He'd probably be able of getting to 300+ sex partners in this day and age.

I also really like Lord Byron. He had a lot of fun, having taken to his bed several of the most beautiful women in his day, and some of the most highly placed too.

Quote

He fled from England after rumors of his numerous affairs surfaced. His partners included aristocrats, actresses, servants, and prostitutes, although he ultimately married his half-sister.

The last part weirds me out tho.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Azincourt

[basil67]

1 hour ago, Cookiesandough said:

To me, a relationship with 0 drama is every day you come home, you know what you to expect . You ask them what they want to eat and they say doesn’t matter or something. . Never any conflict at all. There’s never any disagreement because they always agree with you. There’s never any uncertainty because they’re always available for whatever you need, whenever.That’s a 0 drama relationship.. High drama would be craziness, histrionics etc etc . Not into that either. 

Not at all.  Zero drama is a couple who can solve disagreements respectfully, without them turning into fights.   One can certainly have an opinion and express it without causing drama.

The situation you describe actually creates problems because the one who always agrees puts their partner in the unenviable position of being 100% decision maker.   It's crazy making for the one left running the show on their own.   Honestly, we're talking about deal breaker territory here.

[Cookiesandough]

23 minutes ago, littleblackheart said:

I would not consider the above a drama-free zone. That's hidden, repressed drama on passive-aggressive mode. 

You can respectfully disagree with someone or tell them what you think straight up without sucking up to them or without creating a conflict.

 

 

I get what you’re saying but in the 0 drama example I give it obviously wouldn’t be that way. They would genuinely just agreeing with everything or not have any kind of friction. 

[Cookiesandough]

2 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Not at all.  Zero drama is a couple who can solve disagreements respectfully, without them turning into fights.   One can certainly have an opinion and express it without causing drama.

The situation you describe actually creates problems because the one who always agrees puts their partner in the unenviable position of being 100% decision maker.   It's crazy making for the one left running the show on their own.   Honestly, we're talking about deal breaker territory here.

My definition of drama obviously differs from yours and how a lot of people here  are using it  . I think people automatically associate’drama’ with histrionics, fighting, or *extremely* dramatic behavior. 
 

Oxford defines it as “an exciting, emotional, or unexpected series of events or set of circumstances.”  I believe most people want that in a romantic relationship to greater or lesser degrees. 
 

And my example automatically assumes the other person is okay with there being 0 conflict from the other person. Most people do not like that though,and not just for that reason alone, that’s true. 

[littleblackheart]

11 minutes ago, Cookiesandough said:

I get what you’re saying but in the 0 drama example I give it obviously wouldn’t be that way. They would genuinely just agreeing with everything or not have any kind of friction. 

Fair enough. Tbh, I've never met one couple in real life who have never had any kind of friction at least behind closed doors.

[basil67]

@Cookiesandough for the sake of clarity, I will use 'drama' in the traditional relationship sense, along with how the majority of the posters here are using it. 

Your example doesn't assume that the other person is OK with zero conflict.  Rather, it shows that having no opinion on anything, therefore shifting the burden to the one who's stuck making decisions, creates conflict.   A conflict free relationship involves two people who share the load of the relationship and treat each other and their needs with respect.

[simpycurious]

9 minutes ago, Cookiesandough said:

My definition of drama obviously differs from yours and how a lot of people here  are using it  . I think people automatically associate’drama’ with histrionics, fighting, or *extremely* dramatic behavior. 
 

Oxford defines it as “an exciting, emotional, or unexpected series of events or set of circumstances.”  I believe most people want that in a romantic relationship to greater or lesser degrees. 
 

And my example automatically assumes the other person is okay with there being 0 conflict from the other person. Most people do not like that though,and not just for that reason alone, that’s true. 

I am going to focus on "exciting" in Cookie's post and NOT because I think she is AWESOME but because she is RIGHT.....

I have seen couples disagree for example....he wants to buy here SEVERAL new dresses and she says NO only 2 but he then disagrees and says I INSIST on 4...see that's drama 

[simpycurious]

2 minutes ago, basil67 said:

@Cookiesandough for the sake of clarity, I will use 'drama' in the traditional relationship sense, along with how the majority of the posters here are using it. 

Your example doesn't assume that the other person is OK with zero conflict.  Rather, it shows that having no opinion on anything, therefore shifting the burden to the one who's stuck making decisions, creates conflict.   A conflict free relationship involves two people who share the load of the relationship and treat each other and their needs with respect.

there's a song by Zedd that references Clarity I will post for everyone

[basil67]

3 minutes ago, simpycurious said:

I am going to focus on "exciting" in Cookie's post and NOT because I think she is AWESOME but because she is RIGHT.....

I have seen couples disagree for example....he wants to buy here SEVERAL new dresses and she says NO only 2 but he then disagrees and says I INSIST on 4...see that's drama 

I wouldn't call it drama.  I'd call him a pain in the rear end.

[Cookiesandough]

Nope. Not in my example. If there person felt resentment over having to make decisions, it would not be 0 drama. In my example the  people genuinely  just agree on everything. And no that doesn’t really happen and yes it would be boring. There’s always conflict to some degree. & I like when there is tension in some ways.  Also I notice the threads with the most drama/disagreements/controversy get the most attention and make it to at least five pages. It’s just human nature 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Cookiesandough

[SumGuy]

23 hours ago, Letschill said:

I see women complain all the time about why they are tired of their men they date being jerks. But they keep dating them. Is there something to this? Do women just like to argue with jerks and everything?

Some likely do, and call it excitement, but those I date don’t care for such behavior or drama.  There are much more enjoyable ways to have an exciting relationship.    

[Foxhall]

women generally I suppose like a bit of boldness in their man,

they will appreciate a man who will say he does not want to do something, rather than just saying yes because he thinks he is pleasing her,

they want a man who has his own opinions who can hold his own intellectually,

as muted there if the guy is too passive and never ruffles a feather at all, he becomes insignificant, Johnny is a dull boy and so on,

then on the other hand, perhaps some of the glamorous younger ladies who go for older men, they can be attracted to less drama, they enjoy being able to boss a meek type of man,

 

 

[basil67]

1 hour ago, littleblackheart said:

Fair enough. Tbh, I've never met one couple in real life who have never had any kind of friction at least behind closed doors.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily translate to "drama".  

[simpycurious]

1 hour ago, Cookiesandough said:

Nope. Not in my example. If there person felt resentment over having to make decisions, it would not be 0 drama. In my example the  people genuinely  just agree on everything. And no that doesn’t really happen and yes it would be boring. There’s always conflict to some degree. & I like when there is tension in some ways.  Also I notice the threads with the most drama/disagreements/controversy get the most attention and make it to at least five pages. It’s just human nature 

the reality is that women want to be like Cookie...if not maybe they should 

 

[mark clemson]

"...troubled and tempestuous soul..."     Just saying.

 

 

[basil67]

40 minutes ago, simpycurious said:

the reality is that women want to be like Cookie...if not maybe they should 

 

That is a really bizarre thing to say.

Edited April 8, 2020 by basil67

[Cookiesandough]

57 minutes ago, simpycurious said:

the reality is that women want to be like Cookie...if not maybe they should 

 

Aww. I think the reality is that they all want to be like you! Or at least they should. 

[simpycurious]

I hope 

Just now, Cookiesandough said:

Aww. I think the reality is that they all want to be like you! Or at least they should. 

I hope women don't want to be like me...lol....I apologize if the post sounded WEIRD...I should have explained why in depth.....  I meant it  as a compliment. 

[Cookiesandough]

Lol

Nope, it didn’t.  I understood. 😊 . I can’t say I think as highly of myself but thanks, simpy !

Edited April 8, 2020 by Cookiesandough