meant for someone else, but not for me

Hey, its a mid-week Post!  What say we go easy on the lessons and relax for a spell.  (There will be much to cover, but we’ll get to that in the end of the week Post).

We are always looking for different and (hopefully) interesting ways to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), the thinking is the more varied the context that this thing is presented in, the greater the likelihood that our Readers will be able to apply these principles to their own lives.

So, what is more universal than an Advice Column?  Better yet, an Advice Column that focuses on relationships.  To that end we have asked Ms. AKH to help us out.  She has written a number of Posts that have been quite well received,  one on couples (from a scottian perspective) click here. and she has also written for our newest member of the faculty at Millard Fillmore High (as student teacher) click here.

(There’s the background of our Contributing Downspring, let’s see what Ms. AKH has for us…)

 

WD:  Ms. AKH Welcome!  After your Post on scottian/rogerian couples, we have heard a lot of interest in how the Doctrine can help people work through ‘relationship problems’.  We would like to pose some questions to you and maybe you would consent to be our Advice Columnist (for couples).
Before we start, in your Post on columns, you spoke so glowingly about your relationship with a roger, how are you two doing?

Ms.AKH:  Well, you’ll never believe it.  That rogerian guy I was seeing turned out to be an asshole.  Out of the blue he just stopped calling me. Wouldn’t return my phone calls either or respond to my e-mails trying to find out what happened.  It actually worked out well because I was starting to “not feel it” anymore anyway.  But still, he could’ve had enough balls to respect me and to let me know why.  Went from adoring me to ignoring me. What a typical weak roger.  Such a fucking coward.  Personally I think that we scottian females are too much for a rogerian male to handle.

WD:  Oh.  I see, but what are we to learn about the scottian half of a couple like this (your case)?  I am tempted to think there is a tendency of the scottian female to tire of the routine, hear the call of ‘the hunt’ if you will? Not for nothing, but we have all seen cats bat the little, soon-to-be-dinner mouse around for fun.  As a people (scotts) live for the hunt, perhaps a steady diet of pleasant company gets a little boring?

Ms AKHLove your analogy!  I think it depends on the level of confidence of the roger.  Certainly the scottian females enjoy batting the little mouse around, the mouse easily being a roger.  This can be satisfied in a scottian/rogerian relationship if the roger is strong enough and the scott is not overly predatory.  That being said, not all scottian females are as predatory as let’s say scottian males.  So my conclusion is that if the rogerian male is strong enough to withstand the antics of the scottian female, the relationship could be successful.  Being with a roger would both ground her and give her the upper hand as it were (in her mind) that she needs.      

WD:  We have a more generalized question about couples.  We all agree that the scottian female/rogerian male couple is very easy to identify.  What of the scott/clark couples.  How would we identify such a couple?  And what special characteristics do they have?

Ms. AKH:  From the outside, the scott would appear to be the “stronger” of the two.  In fact, the clark would be perceived as the subordinate one due to his seemingly lack of interest/interaction and subdued nature.  However, don’t be fooled by this.  The cogs are constantly turning.  And though the scott may think of himself/herself as being the “leader of the pack” and therefore superior, it is important to remember that the clark is extremely cerebral and always “on the hunt” mentally.  They are a pair of hunters with the scott being outwardly aggressive while the clark is inwardly insatiable.     

WD:  Since we are on the topic, do you think that a scott/scott couple is very likely?  Would they not eat each other… (not necessarily in the good way)?

Ms AKH:  You’re making me blush!  There are many scott/scott relationships out there which easily spotted, but inevitably unsuccessful. These are the turbulent ones.  Filled with constant battles, this couple would be in constant turmoil fueled by each other’s strong personalities.  For example, the couples who call the police for restraining orders against each other.  But then you have the other scott/scott relationships which are successful.  If both partners have the same life goals, they would be a couple to contend with.  Very ambitious and successful in reaching their ideals.  Just imagine, two hunters against the world.  Kind of a scary proposition. They would no doubt be able to catch their prey quite easily and effectively. It would be child’s play to reach and even surpass the goals that they intend to achieve.  So yes, a scott/scott couple is possible.

WD:  Thank you for these insights.  In keeping with starting a little ‘Advice for the Lovelorn’ column, I would like to pose a specific question and get your input.

(WD):  As a young clark I had a relationship with a scottian female, very ‘exciting’ …(that’s all you get from me, I am a clark, lol) Anyway, long story short.  She dumps me for a roger!  Like no notice, just withdraws and then (him) being a roger, it was all, “hey it’s not our fault it just happened, you need to get on with your life, clark.  Please dont hate me…”  So what could I have done differently?  Is there something in a scottian female/clarklike male that is inherently unstable?

Ms AKH:  Unless you wanted to be someone other than yourself, there really isn’t anything you could’ve done without compromising your integrity.  Your strong point is outwitting others mentally.  I’m not so sure about being inherently unstable.  In this case, I would have to say that the scottian female may have felt threatened and that she wasn’t able to feel she was in control of the relationship.  This would explain leaving you for the roger.  A roger is, afterall, non-confrontational and easy to control. Rogers pretty much go with the flow and are followers.  And this would give the scott the role of “leader of the pack” she so desperately needs.  Being in control without being questioned from a roger.

WD:  Thank you, MS AKH.  I am sure our Readers will have their own questions in the near future, perhaps we should plan on making this a more regualr feature here at the Doctrine.

Well, that was informative and fun!  There is a place, right below for your Comments  or questions.  Don’t be shy.  And no one will call you at home and ask you follow-up questions, so lets get some Reader participation here.

Mr. B, some traveling music? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_M6NkfNFsA
Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Glenn says:

    Nice work, AKH. Female scotts are the bomb!. They’re sexy. predatory, dangerous, alluring and irresistible. I am a moth to their flame. Loved the ZZtop thing too.

  2. Glenn says:

    Nice work, AKH. Female scotts are the bomb!. They’re sexy. predatory, dangerous, alluring and irresistible. I am a moth to their flame. Loved the ZZtop thing too.

  3. AKH says:

    Why thank you Glenn!
    I always enjoy reading your comments. Succinct and to the point with no bullshit. Keep it up. (no, not that…)

  4. AKH says:

    Why thank you Glenn!
    I always enjoy reading your comments. Succinct and to the point with no bullshit. Keep it up. (no, not that…)

  5. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    Ok…enough with the…wait, wait a picture is worth…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZmVm6qv1Lk

    No, no thats not right, does not really express it, I am not, afterall out to be mean… lets try…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stw3osNnEkY

    yeah better…

  6. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    Ok…enough with the…wait, wait a picture is worth…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZmVm6qv1Lk

    No, no thats not right, does not really express it, I am not, afterall out to be mean… lets try…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stw3osNnEkY

    yeah better…