Let's turn the tables...

Posted Sunday, September 9, 2007, at 5:58 PM

The perfect woman?????

OK, I've decided to give the likes of I.B.Truth and Lufer and whatever male specimens may be lurking in the background equal ground and throw this out to them. We menos (and young 'un in the person of Yellow Rose), have had our platform, such as it is, in the form of this blog. So I hereby, in all my Minnie wisdom (limited though it may be), find myself reversing the question of late and asking all you maleisms to tell us if you would be so kind, what qualities might comprise the "perfect woman." (Which, by the way, is NOT an oxymoran like last time).

I will open this question up to our female clientele as well. Since they are the ones in possession of said qualities, or lack of, it seems only fair to call upon them as well.

I.B….Truthful one that you proclaim to be (and you haven't disappointed us so far), we're all awaiting with baited breath, or is it bated breath? Either way, I think there's a cure for that.

Anxiously in waiting…

M o'

Comments

View 34 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on dexterstatesman.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Hahahaha! I'll be willing to bet that this blog sits here like a big toad, waiting for the guys to respond!

Here's what I think they'll say - The perfect woman:

..will slave all day to cook a 7-course meal fit for a king...

..looks good in blue jeans but can dress "to the nine's"

..likes thunderstorms.

..likes public shows of affection.

..likes to walk on the beach.

..is half the guy's age.

(Sound familiar? Well, it should! I got those off men's Match.com profiles! Except for the age business...That was just an observation!)

Okay, guys, let's see whatcha got! Post if you dare!

-- Posted by goat lady on Sun, Sep 9, 2007, at 8:15 PM
How about:

"Likes to fish till dark."

"Likes to scale fish after dark."

"Is able to back a boat trailer in the dark."

And the list goes on!

-- Posted by Noreenmhyslop on Sun, Sep 9, 2007, at 8:56 PM
...willing to trim toenails

...willing to trim ear and/or nose hair

And of course, pull something magnificent out of the oven at a moment's notice.

-- Posted by letseatcake633 on Sun, Sep 9, 2007, at 9:06 PM

Minne O'Pausal's response:
And might that "something magnificent" contain the magic ingredient...vanilla!!??

I.B.....we need you!!! In the name of profoundness, blog away!
Home brewed vanilla, of course.

-- Posted by letseatcake633 on Sun, Sep 9, 2007, at 9:20 PM
I.B. must be deeeeeeeeep in thought.

-- Posted by Noreenmhyslop on Sun, Sep 9, 2007, at 10:49 PM
You might find this surprising. Great looks are OK, Einstein intelligence is OK, extremely rich is OK, but for perfection just let me be the man I am.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Sun, Sep 9, 2007, at 11:26 PM
Minnie, IB is starting to sound a bit profound...perhaps we should give him a reprieve from time outs for a fortnight.

-- Posted by letseatcake633 on Mon, Sep 10, 2007, at 12:57 AM
The perfect woman is one who does her best to fit the description in Proverbs 31. I've met a few like that: my mom, my wife, my sister, my daughter, etc. etc. edtc.!

-- Posted by swift on Mon, Sep 10, 2007, at 11:15 AM
Look good, have a brain, be independent, have a huge sense of humor, be an optimist, and let me be an individual. I've been married for seven years and I believe I have the perfect wife. I'm still working on being the perfect husband.

-- Posted by mobrigade on Mon, Sep 10, 2007, at 1:04 PM
Wow. I'm impressed by your comment mobrigade.

Good one, I.B.

I, for one, am so gratified that such sensible males have found our dear Minnie's blog.

-- Posted by Ducky on Mon, Sep 10, 2007, at 4:49 PM
Well, Mobrigade, I just read Proverbs 31, and I have to admit that it's worth posting four times, so I guess your library computer is much more wise than we give them credit for being!

However, your second answer was even better!

Okay, you pass! I guess I.B. does, too. What do you think, girls?

However, there are still plenty of men out there who deserve the home-brewed vanilla! I cannot but believe that you two are in the minority!

-- Posted by goat lady on Mon, Sep 10, 2007, at 7:45 PM

Minne O'Pausal's response:
I.B. has worked his way, quite nicely I might add, out of time outs for a fortnight, as suggested above. Your brief, but to the point responses were well taken, as were mobrigade's. Nice work.
For those of you heathens out there with no Bibles, you're just going to have to take our word for it. As for mine, it's a Catholic bible, so I had to dust it off! Another subject entirely. We should probably keep our distance from religion and politics on this site, all agree?

m o'
Oops, mobrigade - my mistake. It was swift who posted the Proverbs note, not you.

-- Posted by goat lady on Tue, Sep 11, 2007, at 7:48 AM
And, yes, Minnie - I agree about the distance we need to keep from religion and politics. People tend to get crazy on either topic. We need to work within our commonalities, not our differences.

Still, a sprinkling of one or the other will sometimes spice up a conversation in a non-threatening manner...

-- Posted by goat lady on Tue, Sep 11, 2007, at 8:06 AM
Thanks, and speaking of religion and politics, can anyone tell me where in the Constitution the phrase "seperation of church and state" is found?

-- Posted by mobrigade on Wed, Sep 12, 2007, at 11:36 AM
Mobrigrade, it aint in there! (Did I just use aint?) Actually the phrase was used in a letter exchange between Thomas Jefferson and a Baptist minister. The minister wanted to make sure our nation didn't have a state Christian denomination like European countries did and still do. According to George Washington, in his inaugural address, religion and morality are the pillars of good government. I might add they are the pillars of a good home too. My late grandfather was a minister who believed in and practiced that principle. He kept house and raised the kids while my grandmother, a perfect woman, taught and later became principle in public schools. That's how i was raised- you have to God in the home and raise your kids and help keep house and teach the kids to do the same. That's Love!

-- Posted by swift on Wed, Sep 12, 2007, at 1:16 PM
That was my point, I it is not. I teach history and hate hearing "its a violation of church and state." When talking about Christianity in class.

-- Posted by mobrigade on Wed, Sep 12, 2007, at 8:17 PM
Back in the sixties, I taught in a school where the principal mandated prayer each morning and even checked into the rooms to make sure we were doing it.

He also mandated the length of the girls' skirts, having us parade our classes out into the hall, where he took a yardstick and measured the distance between the skirt and the girls' knees.

I was never comfortable with either practice.

I particularly didn't like that a man was down on his hands and knees measuring girls' legs.

No one dared challenge him on anything, for fear of being attacked as being "un-Christian."

Then, later, after I had moved from the area, I heard that he got into trouble for some of his practices concerning female students.

I'm always concerned when the Bible is used as a weapon to keep people "in line." Therein lies the danger of religion.

-- Posted by goat lady on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 7:45 AM
Yes, goat lady. You are right on target. I don't want anyone telling me what to pray, when to pray, how to pray or whether to pray and I don't want them teaching my kids ANYTHING about religion. That's MY job.

I also remember having to kneel on the floor so someone (in our little southern town it was the home-ec teacher) measure how far our skirt hems were above the floor. As a parent, I'd have been furious about a male principal or teacher doing it.

People must remember our country's history. Many people came here to escape state run religions. I sure don't want any state religion in the US.

There's a fellow in the news this morning who's in trouble for forcing his religious views on others by forcing teenage girls into polygamist marriages. If he ran the government there'd be state authorized rape. I'm sure he feels he is/was operating under a mandate from God, too. Like you said, "therein lies the danger of religion."

-- Posted by Ducky on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 12:56 PM
Let's steer this conversation away from religion and politics again.

-- Posted by Ducky on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 12:57 PM
I think, think the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution is what is being interpreted as requiring separation of church and State. Of course a lot of people interpret the constitution in ways that I am unable to do, but what does that have to do with the perfect woman.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:19 PM
What the first amendment says is that while many countries have made one religion the established church and as such, have supported it with government funds, we shall not ever provide for an established church. I believe it also can be interpreted to mean that no man should judge himself to be above any woman and I think that somewhere in that amendment there is a reference to Minnie, inferring that she should be exhaulted as the Queen of blogs and that phrase about "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"...I believe that refers to Goat Lady, Cake and Minnie meeting in front of the Statesman office occasionally in their boleros and go-go boots.

-- Posted by Noreenmhyslop on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 11:00 PM
That is what the first ammendment insinuates though right? That the government will not establish a church or interfere with the church which boils down to separation of church and State as it has been interpreted. Correct? Is this not what they are using? Or is it something else?

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 9:09 PM
IBT,

Yes, you've interpreted it correctly, so who is interpreting the amendment for their own purposes?? I'm confused!! (not the first time).

-- Posted by Noreenmhyslop on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 9:21 PM
mobrigrade asked the question where separation of church and State were found in the constitution? I was just answering and saying that is where I think it is. I wasn't sure though since I am not a constitutional scholar and am unable to interpret a lot of things that other people can. Not a lawyer.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 12:33 AM
Okay, surely we have some anonymous lawyers out there in Blogger Land! Help us out, here, guys and gals! Or do you shun pro-bono work???

Your task: 1) Figure out the question. 2) Give us your considered opinion.

Does the constitution, in fact, establish the separation of church and state, as we have been led to believe?

-- Posted by goat lady on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 1:02 PM
Mr.Truthy & mobrigade are correct-it does not appear in the constitution,just as right to a fair trial isn't specifically mentioned,nor is right to privacy,but does this mean that these PRINCIPLES do not exist? No, absence of these SPECIFIC words does not mean an absence of these ideas. The principle of a religious liberty exists,even if the exact words are missing,or so say the courts.

-- Posted by Yellow Rose of Essex on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 7:30 PM

Minne O'Pausal's response:
Enter...Attorney at Law, Minnie O'P

I'm sure most of you have attempted to find a solution tot his query online (as have I). This is the closest thing to an answer that I have found:
The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island.[4][5] It was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[6] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference. As he stated:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter[7] that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated 1801-10-07. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme:

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

I believe this is a most appropriate discussion since Monday is designated, "Constitution Day." But then, we're just a most astute crowd.

m o'
Thanks, Minnio O!

We just never know what we'll learn on these blogs, do we? I could have sworn that I'd read the freedom of religion bit in the Constitution.

-- Posted by goat lady on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 7:45 AM
Minnie-you are so exceedingly clever!

Rather than wait for the 2010 census takers,you easily figured out how many real males read your blog by asking them a direct question that required revealing their feelings on a deeply personal level.

Thus,we ended up in a discussion on Constitutional Law(instead of Dr.Phil).

It makes one wonder,what percentage of writers at Hallmark cards are really men? They do okay in the first paragraph,but lose it as the thread gets longer-lol!

-- Posted by Yellow Rose of Essex on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 10:26 AM
OK, YRofE. To get back to the topic at hand. There are obvious deal breakers. No smoking, binge drinking, hallucinogenic drug use or chewing with one's mouth open. But the large majority of habits or idiosyncrasies are negotiable. The key point is you must perceive that your life is better with, than without a person.

If you don't think it is, then stupid things like leaving a toilet seat up or down are used as an excuse to create psycho-dramas that are rarely anything but destructive.

-- Posted by FJGuy on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 4:47 PM
Wow, FJGuy, I think this is perhaps your first contribution on Minnie's blog, (isn't it?) -- and it was a really good one!

That's so logical that it takes all the fun out of griping!

-- Posted by goat lady on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 7:59 PM
But you've gotta admit that Yellow Rose had a really good point -- Haha! Minnie asks men a direct question, and we end up talking about Constitutional Law and Separation of Church and State!! Fuuuuunnnnnny!

Anything to avoid talking about feelings!!

-- Posted by goat lady on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 8:04 PM
Hey, whats wrong with the smokers, binge drinkers, halucinogenic drug users and chewing with the mouth open. That limits the field too much for an old classless hillbilly.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 8:07 PM
You forgot the toothless ones with fishing lures in their caps who live with their mothers and have the combined income of $15,000 on match.com

-- Posted by Noreenmhyslop on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 11:15 PM

Minne O'Pausal's response:
OK, which one of you let that sensible man with good reason in here? We'll now have to assume what the "FJ" is for as we had to for a prior user...Friendly Joe, or Fruit Jelly or Forgetful James or Fidgety Justin or Famous Jewel...hmmmmm. Frank Justice I believe.
Frank James? Fatalistic Juggernaut? Feverish Jamaican? Fuzzy Jelly? Frustrated Jailbird? Frolicking Judge?

-- Posted by goat lady on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 6:05 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register