|
I have often expressed that I hate "players" who use women and leave them feeling horrible.
Let's suppose that in a species where reproduction between males and females involves "courtship" during which time, the guy presents his "fitness" and the female judges...
There are two predominant strategies that the guy can adopt. The first is to become fit so the girls will dig them. The second is to fake fitness, fuck the girl, then run off. The first strategy focuses on rearing a few children successfully. The second strategy involves rearing many children, and hoping that some other "nice" male will come along and raise their children.
So even if we aren't consciously aware of it, there is a species-wide battle of the genes between the "nice" genes and the "exploitive" genes.
Not only that, but badass guys will make nice girls distrust everyone, including nice guys. Badass girls will marry nice guys for their money, and sleep with badass guys.
I hate you. I hate all of you. All you "badboy" guys. all you "bad girl" who are so sweet on the surface. even nice people are ruined by you. including me.
I hate you!!!!!
when you hurt me, I can live on. But every nice person I know has been hurt by you too. They are worse off because of it. you think you are fooling me, but i'm only playing because i want to believe that you are better than that. and i don't know what else i can do. I HATE YOU
 
|
Hah, first time I read that I was thinking "the female judges ... do what?"
This isn't an analysis, more of a rant on the situation. But it's explained quite well by Dawkins in one of his books, I think it was Selfish Gene. Deception arms-race. Also a possible explanation for our "consciences" -- in order to effectively convince the other that we will not deceive, there is an evolutionary pressure for those that have a mechanism that makes it very difficult for us to deceive. Kind of out there, I think, but very appealing.
|
there's the theory... but it happens in real life all the time. that is more distressing than the theory. i hate it.
|
"The only way to win is not to play."
Starcraft is more deserving of your time. Trust me.
Or don't trust me. I never did try the alternative. BUT THAT MEANS I'M UNTAINTED.
|
thats some analysis
im on both sides
i definitely play the field well and use some chicks
but the ones im really interested in are always damaged
guess i have noone to blame but myself?
learn to adapt
|
United States7488 Posts
I hate nice guys because you all ruin the image of masculinity. Women are getting used to and expect your supplicating ways and you make it more difficult for all men to get women. You don't have to be a jerk to get women (and to be honest I don't really like them either, because they create damaged girls, which are more trouble then they could ever be worth). Men just need to not be afraid of exposing their manliness; as long as they can remain in control of that masculinity also.
|
semioldguy got it spot on. You fuckers who are more attractive to women make it harder for everyone else. Stop trying so damn hard so we don't have to either!
No I don't care if I purposefully misinterpreted his argument. The point is that it says what I want it to say.
|
kinda hypocritical coming from someone with the quote "I want women to want me and men to want to be me."
"I hate you. I hate all of you. All you "badboy" guys. all you "bad girl" who are so sweet on the surface. even nice people are ruined by you. including me."
so posting a thread about how much u hate people(god could you use something other than hate, spamming it doesn't emphasis your point anymore than it's already come across) is being nice and fair to "all of them"
anyways,all bias aside
just avoid these kind of people, you'd be amazed at how u can pick apart complete morons and generally smart beings , if u have the mentality of being cautious at least
which brings me to this.. "but badass guys will make nice girls distrust everyone, including nice guys."
That just means u need to put forth the extra effort to show you aren't one of "those" people ; completely practical.
and any girl who looks for ..."he first is to become fit so the girls will dig them. The second is to fake fitness, fuck the girl, then run off."
why should you give a fuck about their superficial tendencies, unless you are victim to the same ailment you seem to be waging war against, i don't see why you can't just de-associate yourself from these people you dreadfully hate.
BTW you aren't going to get any positive feedback from TL with that attitude ( can my assumption give way to credence? )
At least give some background story; so we can know the context, it's pathetically obvious that you're taking it personally, so state your exigency.
|
United States7488 Posts
On July 29 2008 15:24 BottleAbuser wrote:
semioldguy got it spot on. You fuckers who are more attractive to women make it harder for everyone else. Stop trying so damn hard so we don't have to either!
No I don't care if I purposefully misinterpreted his argument. The point is that it says what I want it to say.
Nice guys aren't more attractive to women, but they create more expectations of women for those of us who they are attracted to. And that's what I can't stand.
edit: Nice guys would all have a much easier time if they just treated women like their men friends.
|
Also i took a look at your blogs, actually giving you the benfit of the doubt,"perhaps he posted the story, beforehand,..." I thought, but nope.
Can you be ANYMORE of a fucking hypocrite?, PLEASE, preaching about how you hate badass guys, and how you're a "nice guy", . . . ?
Let's see...
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=71540
Starting a porn business, LOL? That's completely "nice" and well thoughtful of you to abuse woman for your own pleasure and money, Sure, everyone looks at porn, moreso or lesso, whatever, but to start a business "pimp" when you are blatantly arguing against the "players of the game" in the OP is ridiculous
OH. MY . GOD
"I do my share of clubbing and picking up girls. Most of them are one night stands. I have so far been in the habit of getting their number, and then taking a picture with my phone just so I "remember who they are", but really it's kind of like collecting ears in Diablo. Honestly, I have yet to get a dead on 10 yet, but I'd say I'm hovering around the 8s with the occasional 7 or 9 quality girls."
And whatever u were banned for earlier it seems it was done so with good resolve,
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=74839
|
*facepalm*
Okay, okay, I know I know. A more serious take:
I know exactly what's wrong with the OP. It's not what semioldguy pointed out, or what HeavOnEarth is saying. Polyphasic's real problem is that he's not gosu enough. At starcraft. Because if he was, then he'd never have to worry about getting girls. Also what I tell myself whenever I lose a game, esp on ICCUP.
|
i can do both. i just don't like it when girls like me more when i'm being an ass than when i'm being what i think is right.
but ya, i agree with semioldguy. i just hate that i do. har har har
|
On July 29 2008 15:34 Polyphasic wrote:
i can do both. i just don't like it when girls like me more when i'm being an ass than when i'm being what i think is right.
QFT.
|
United States7488 Posts
Maybe it's a problem with what you think is right?
|
On July 29 2008 15:39 semioldguy wrote:
Maybe it's a problem with what you think is right?
if it is, then i'm gonna go through a serious phase of existentialism again.
|
On July 29 2008 15:34 Polyphasic wrote:
i can do both. i just don't like it when girls like me more when i'm being an ass than when i'm being what i think is right.
but ya, i agree with semioldguy. i just hate that i do. har har har
ok first of all, it appears you only ask out the "Badass" girls, that apparently look nice, but have no "soul" if i can go as far to put forth those implifications ; and you actually expect them to respond to "what you think is right" which , TBBH (to be brutality honest) , is in a spiraling twist of fate with spikes and fire and hell bound creatures of the dark eating away at your logic towards this subject matter
secondly, perhaps my assumptions were wrong; and this theory, as you have put forth , applies to EVERY SINGLE FEMALE ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH
then go into your little existentialism crisis and maybe realize that's a load of bull, eventually.
|
Wait. Wait. Wait a minute.
You compared getting phone numbers from women - and taking pictures of them - to "collecting ears in Diablo"?
LOLOLOLOLOL
|
Regarding Semioldguy's comments: I find the idea of an essential or true male nature to be troubling. I don't think there is such a thing. What is considered manly will change with society and social practices. So I really don't agree with the idea of "being a man" as a way to pick up women, as it implies that there is some true male nature and that those who don't embody that nature are somehow less male. There is all kinds of violence in this idea, and not just towards men, but also potentially towards women, since the last several thousand years of human history have largely been characterized by male domination of women, and consequently ideas of masculinity often carry attitudes that are violent in some form towards women.
Manly is that which men do, whether it is being submissive or not.
There is the idea that if we act "manly" we will get better results with women. This too should be critiqued. The idea here is that sleeping with many women is the optimal result. For some, it may be, but I think it may be at least as good for some people to have meaningful romantic relationships with only a few women, or just one woman. It depends on the person. And as far as all this goes, the best way to net the kind of relationship for you is to be who you are (admittedly dangerous wording, but for the sake of discussion, I will use it). In other words, if you are naturally a less dominant type of person, so be it. There are women out there for these types, too.
As to the OP: I reject biological determinism. I agree that biology plays a part in these issues, but lets not overlook arguably much greater role that socialization plays. Our culture tells people what acceptable romantic practices are. IT tells men how to be men and women how to be women. If you don't like what you see, please don't reproduce those behaviors. If the game isn't working for you, don't play the game.
|
|
|
United States7488 Posts
On July 30 2008 04:17 nA.Inky wrote:
Regarding Semioldguy's comments: I find the idea of an essential or true male nature to be troubling. I don't think there is such a thing. What is considered manly will change with society and social practices. So I really don't agree with the idea of "being a man" as a way to pick up women, as it implies that there is some true male nature and that those who don't embody that nature are somehow less male. There is all kinds of violence in this idea, and not just towards men, but also potentially towards women, since the last several thousand years of human history have largely been characterized by male domination of women, and consequently ideas of masculinity often carry attitudes that are violent in some form towards women.
Manly is that which men do, whether it is being submissive or not.
There is the idea that if we act "manly" we will get better results with women. This too should be critiqued. The idea here is that sleeping with many women is the optimal result. For some, it may be, but I think it may be at least as good for some people to have meaningful romantic relationships with only a few women, or just one woman. It depends on the person. And as far as all this goes, the best way to net the kind of relationship for you is to be who you are (admittedly dangerous wording, but for the sake of discussion, I will use it). In other words, if you are naturally a less dominant type of person, so be it. There are women out there for these types, too.
Thanks for completely misinterpreting me.
and masculinity isn't about violence or promiscuity. You can be seeping with masculinity and still exert neither of these qualities.
|
Than what precisely is "masculinity" then?
|
|
|
United States7488 Posts
Strength and boldness, which does not mean or translate to violence. Knowing what you want and going for it; deciciveness.
Being unafraid to show sexuality toward women (but also not letting it take control of you), which doesn't pin you into being either promiscuous or the one women man type. It can be applied to both mindsets.
|
This is how I see it:
First, send out an early scout to gather as much information as you can about your target as early as possible--you wouldn't want to get totally pwned by a proxy 2-gate zeal rush because you went for an early expo. Next (assuming you got the scout into her main) determine if you like her pylons and make sure her probes aren't carrying syphilis. Now you have a strategical decision to make.
Either
1) If you like her base structures, and are confident that you can go into a long macro game with her, go ahead and start expanding. Or
2) If you think that a long, macro game would be too much trouble for what it's worth, you can counter with a quick rush preferably pulling all of you workers to go in for the clusterfuck and hopefully raze all of her pylons. Then get the hell out of there. Or
3) GG, and find another game. Although I normally would at least try my luck with a rush before GGing.
It's pretty simple really. If you don't want to waste time playing a long TvT game with a particular target but generally like playing long, macro games, choose options 2 or 3 and look for the game that allows you to choose option 1. On the other hand, some people would rather be a clit commander, so they end up choosing option 2 over and over again hoping to raze as many pylons as possible in a short amount of time. You might get criticized for how you play, but a win is a win in the end. It just comes down to personal preference.
So to give advice to the OP, make sure you get that scout in and go in to the game knowing which option you prefer.
|
Generally being nice is not a masculine trait, which is why you're not getting the results you want. Women are the ones being nice all the time, which includes complimenting on each other when they subconsciously are competing with each other, but some cases they do have a deep friend relationshpip. Other times could be being nice while rejecting you, instead of saying "No I'm not going with a loser like you" they'd say something like "Oh i can't i'm busy that day".
Women are the ones being "nice" all the time, and if you happen to be a nice guy, you're not pushing any of their buttons, but instead acting like one of the girls. She'll view you as one of her female friends at most.
----
If you can't beat them why not join them? You'll probably think that doesn't fit my character to be a bad boy, and i don't want to manipulate women. The truth is that you're already manipulating women by being nice, you're not like that 24/7, you do act different around hot girls so you can manipulate them anyways by being "nice" anyways. So why not just be a bad boy instead of complaining? just skip the abuse.
|
Oh, I have to chime in again.
There was a study performed, in which the subjects (all women) were played tapes of men answering several personal questions. The recordings of men who made more "feminine" responses were deemed more mentally fit and emotionally stable by the women than the men who made more "masculine" responses.
What does this mean? Be careful in your interpretation  And bear in mind that the experiment itself could have had error also.
|
Because I've been told my whole goddamned life to be myself. I'm a nice person. I confess. Its my overarching personality flaw.
I've also been told for most of my life that to get a girl that being myself is a good way to go. So we find later that that's a bunch of bullshit, and we can't actually be ourselves and get girls.
I'm disillusion and frustrated by this reveloation. Why should I have to be a worse person who isn't myself to get girls?
|
United States7488 Posts
On July 30 2008 08:05 BottleAbuser wrote:Oh, I have to chime in again. There was a study performed, in which the subjects (all women) were played tapes of men answering several personal questions. The recordings of men who made more "feminine" responses were deemed more mentally fit and emotionally stable by the women than the men who made more "masculine" responses. What does this mean? Be careful in your interpretation And bear in mind that the experiment itself could have had error also.
That doesn't say anything about attraction.
And it would make sense that they would say that, because they would like to believe that women are more mentally fit and emotionally stable than men, so they perceieve the more feminie men that way as a way to convince themselves that they are as well.
|
Now, I don't know what made you (Polyphasic) write this entry but I'm actually quite curious about it. I almost completely agree with you here. There is just an assload of totally laughable vapourers out there, but no one seems to see through them. I find women to be especially prone to impression by those windbags and I can't figure out why this is.
However, if you want my advice, it's simple:
1. Convert your anger and frustration into something productive. Everytime I get frustrated about something, I just start to study harder, read more, work out harder and the such. This gives you two advantages: First of all, you can manage your anger and second, your extra motivation puts you even further ahead of your laughable contestants.
2. Show what you've got. Now, I cannot stress that point enough, since there is a huge load of very intelligent, talented and nice people who just haven't got the courage to show their abilities/personalities. As long as you don't show your skills etc. in a while, loudmouths and the such are going to outrun you, since by the time people see through them, they've already done the damage.
3. Expose them, if necessary. Now, this is rather personal and I don't know how you feel about arguments/bashing others and the such. As for me, I'm rather a quiet and thoughtful person, but there is a pain limit, when it comes to bragging in front of me and there have been occasions, where I would completely cut low some guy/girl in front of everybody. I know this isn't quite sporting, but if you just cannot take it anymore, you've got to let it out. Some people just don't deserve better.
Well, hope you're not too frustrated and I'm looking forward to any posts of yours or any further elaboration.
Regards
|
United States7488 Posts
On July 30 2008 08:13 GeneralStan wrote:
Because I've been told my whole goddamned life to be myself. I'm a nice person. I confess. Its my overarching personality flaw.
I've also been told for most of my life that to get a girl that being myself is a good way to go. So we find later that that's a bunch of bullshit, and we can't actually be ourselves and get girls.
I'm disillusion and frustrated by this reveloation. Why should I have to be a worse person who isn't myself to get girls?
"Just be yourself" is one of the worst pieces of advice ever given. It's the response people give when they really don't have any advice for you. If it's a problem that can be solved by being yourself, then there shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.
|
So, this blog is basically about cheating?
I know, it sucks, I know a few of my friends have told me they've cheated on their girlfriends or have fuck buddies or stuff and I just feel really bad, especially when the girl is really innocent looking and is a really nice person.
They don't deserve to be hurt like that. Oh well, nothing matters when there's an O on the line.
EDIT: ;D
|
On July 30 2008 08:46 semioldguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2008 08:13 GeneralStan wrote:
Because I've been told my whole goddamned life to be myself. I'm a nice person. I confess. Its my overarching personality flaw.
I've also been told for most of my life that to get a girl that being myself is a good way to go. So we find later that that's a bunch of bullshit, and we can't actually be ourselves and get girls.
I'm disillusion and frustrated by this reveloation. Why should I have to be a worse person who isn't myself to get girls? "Just be yourself" is one of the worst pieces of advice ever given. It's the response people give when they really don't have any advice for you. If it's a problem that can be solved by being yourself, then there shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.
You can infact be your "new self" your new character that you want to develop that is naturally attractive to women. Why would you want to be yourself when you've had no sucess for the past 20 years anyways?
Again it seems like you're manipulating women this way, but the truth of the matter is that you're manipulating women anyways by being nice and generous. You have the mindset that "I want her, so I'm going to be nice to her" which is already maniplative.
|
No, basically the op has no idea on what attraction is, and is probably a wuss.
His statement that gave me such idea was that "jerks get women" "woman doesnt like nice guys". Basically, you're just not playing the right way. Drop your bloody wuss attitude and grow a man. Woman are attracted to manliness, not wussness.
for more info, read semioldguy's posts of what manliness is, so you dont miss-interpret that.
|
On July 30 2008 10:18 RtS)Night[Mare wrote:
No, basically the op has no idea on what attraction is, and is probably a wuss.
His statement that gave me such idea was that "jerks get women" "woman doesnt like nice guys". Basically, you're just not playing the right way. Drop your bloody wuss attitude and grow a man. Woman are attracted to manliness, not wussness.
for more info, read semioldguy's posts of what manliness is, so you dont miss-interpret that.
Indeed.
;D
Look at me now! Rawr ;3
|
If you think that being nice has anything to do with a girl rejecting you over a "badass" guy you you're nuts. You're probably just some boring dude and your rant sucks, stop blaming it on other people.
Also there's a difference between being nice and being some pussy that gets walked over.
|
On July 30 2008 10:18 RtS)Night[Mare wrote:
No, basically the op has no idea on what attraction is, and is probably a wuss.
His statement that gave me such idea was that "jerks get women" "woman doesnt like nice guys". Basically, you're just not playing the right way. Drop your bloody wuss attitude and grow a man. Woman are attracted to manliness, not wussness.
for more info, read semioldguy's posts of what manliness is, so you dont miss-interpret that.
The wuss approach to meeting women works for those who don't get much attention from men, but for the hot ones, it does not work at all unless you keep chasing her for years on end, and eventually she'll fall for you.
|
On July 30 2008 08:46 semioldguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2008 08:13 GeneralStan wrote:
Because I've been told my whole goddamned life to be myself. I'm a nice person. I confess. Its my overarching personality flaw.
I've also been told for most of my life that to get a girl that being myself is a good way to go. So we find later that that's a bunch of bullshit, and we can't actually be ourselves and get girls.
I'm disillusion and frustrated by this reveloation. Why should I have to be a worse person who isn't myself to get girls? "Just be yourself" is one of the worst pieces of advice ever given. It's the response people give when they really don't have any advice for you. If it's a problem that can be solved by being yourself, then there shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.
it's bad advice for people who are unwilling to give up on things they desire
and what it means is to be honest and think with your own mind, not to do things simply because you are taught so.
|
On July 30 2008 10:17 YanGpaN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2008 08:46 semioldguy wrote:On July 30 2008 08:13 GeneralStan wrote:
Because I've been told my whole goddamned life to be myself. I'm a nice person. I confess. Its my overarching personality flaw.
I've also been told for most of my life that to get a girl that being myself is a good way to go. So we find later that that's a bunch of bullshit, and we can't actually be ourselves and get girls.
I'm disillusion and frustrated by this reveloation. Why should I have to be a worse person who isn't myself to get girls? "Just be yourself" is one of the worst pieces of advice ever given. It's the response people give when they really don't have any advice for you. If it's a problem that can be solved by being yourself, then there shouldn't have been a problem to begin with. Again it seems like you're manipulating women this way, but the truth of the matter is that you're manipulating women anyways by being nice and generous. You have the mindset that "I want her, so I'm going to be nice to her" which is already maniplative.
uh, unless you're actually nice to everyone.
/gasp
|
Listen to travis. The man speaks wisdom. Personal anecdote:
I am always myself. Unshowered, unshaved, bad breath, only cares about games. So when my friend walks in and asks me "wanna get lunch? [Female classmate] and her roommate are coming too," I nod (cuz hunger gets in the way of sustained gaming) and finish my game, and we go to pick them up. My friend has showered and dressed pretty well - I'm still in my slippers and... well, I'm me. Afterwards he informs me that this is a big no-no, and it was extremely rude of me to do this.
WELL, I'M HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS. I STILL GOT MY GAMES.
(No, this post was not meant to be insightful, helpful, or hurtful.)
|
On July 30 2008 10:36 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2008 10:17 YanGpaN wrote:On July 30 2008 08:46 semioldguy wrote:On July 30 2008 08:13 GeneralStan wrote:
Because I've been told my whole goddamned life to be myself. I'm a nice person. I confess. Its my overarching personality flaw.
I've also been told for most of my life that to get a girl that being myself is a good way to go. So we find later that that's a bunch of bullshit, and we can't actually be ourselves and get girls.
I'm disillusion and frustrated by this reveloation. Why should I have to be a worse person who isn't myself to get girls? "Just be yourself" is one of the worst pieces of advice ever given. It's the response people give when they really don't have any advice for you. If it's a problem that can be solved by being yourself, then there shouldn't have been a problem to begin with. Again it seems like you're manipulating women this way, but the truth of the matter is that you're manipulating women anyways by being nice and generous. You have the mindset that "I want her, so I'm going to be nice to her" which is already maniplative. uh, unless you're actually nice to everyone. /gasp
heh thats arguable, even though you may be nice to everyone. When you meet a hot girl you have the mindset of "I'm being nice to her, so she can return it to me sometime". You're not being nice just to be yourself, but you have a purpose of it, and therefore is manipulating.
|
On July 30 2008 10:45 YanGpaN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2008 10:36 travis wrote:On July 30 2008 10:17 YanGpaN wrote:On July 30 2008 08:46 semioldguy wrote:On July 30 2008 08:13 GeneralStan wrote:
Because I've been told my whole goddamned life to be myself. I'm a nice person. I confess. Its my overarching personality flaw.
I've also been told for most of my life that to get a girl that being myself is a good way to go. So we find later that that's a bunch of bullshit, and we can't actually be ourselves and get girls.
I'm disillusion and frustrated by this reveloation. Why should I have to be a worse person who isn't myself to get girls? "Just be yourself" is one of the worst pieces of advice ever given. It's the response people give when they really don't have any advice for you. If it's a problem that can be solved by being yourself, then there shouldn't have been a problem to begin with. Again it seems like you're manipulating women this way, but the truth of the matter is that you're manipulating women anyways by being nice and generous. You have the mindset that "I want her, so I'm going to be nice to her" which is already maniplative. uh, unless you're actually nice to everyone. /gasp heh thats arguable, even though you may be nice to everyone. When you meet a hot girl you have the mindset of "I'm being nice to her, so she can return it to me sometime". You're not being nice just to be yourself, but you have a purpose of it, and therefore is manipulating.
I did a poor job of explaining myself so I am starting over.
I am me - I am devoted to honesty both with myself, and others. I do not like making games out of social interaction. If I have feelings I feel are worth sharing I will share them as honestly as I can. If the girl rejected that I would either continue to try to show her how awesome I am(which is easy if you can invoke fearlessness), or I would move on without regrets.
scheming is for people who don't love theirselves enough to be completely honest
|
To Semioldguy:
I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you. That's not my intention, although I did knowingly use your post on page 1 as an excuse to speak somewhat beyond issues you raised.
At the same time, I feel pretty sure that I didn't completely misinterpret you, because after my post, you go on to speak of masculinity as a fact (boldness, decisive behavior). My point was precisely that this kind of masculinity is not an objective fact of human nature, but something that is socially constructed through practice. Furthermore, I think you have misinterpreted me, because the violence I spoke of was not merely physical violence towards women - in fact, I was not talking about that at all, except perhaps tangentially.
The violence I was speaking of is SYMBOLIC violence. This symbolic violence consists of dismissing certain kinds of men as less manly because they do not exhibit particular traits (boldness and decisiveness, for example). Similar violence is carried out against women when we assert - explicitely or not - that a woman's essence is rooted in her physical appearance. What about women who don't wear "women's" clothes, or have large breasts, etc? What about men who are not bold and decisive? They are not any less a woman or man than you or I.
Furthermore, there is a kind of historical violence at play in your ideas of masculinity. What I mean is that the idea that men are bold and decisive (and the implication is that women are more submissive, emotional, and docile) is something that was forged through thousands of years of social practice! And looking back through the centuries and millennia at these practices, we see great oppression of women. Women were pushed around, told what they could and could not do, and their development relative to men was severely stunted. We essentially blame the victim; we act like it is a woman's fault for being submissive, when all her life she was TAUGHT to be submissive - forced to be submissive - and at the same time we believe that it is our role to be oppressors and dominators and deciders (for a more modern example of this, look at gangsta rap culture, with pimps and bitches and hos.) (Please realize I'm not saying you are oppressive, Semioldguy, I am merely trying to shed light on a history behind this idea of masculinity as boldness and decisiveness). Men who do not play this game of domination are seen as less than men. So the symbolic violence I speak of affects men as well as women, because not all men want to play the game. Why should such a man be seen as less of a man?
Also note that I am not saying men should not be sexual, or that they should not act on their sexuality. That is for each man to decide. My point is not to say precisely what men or women should be or should do, but rather to allow for great diversity and move beyond essentialist notions of sex. If you want to be a player, great. If not, great.
There is an increasing culture of men who study dating and relationships who argue for a return to "real masculinity." While there are bits of truth in the things they say (there are nuggets of truth and goodness in pretty much any philosophy), there is also a lot of mysogyny at work, and it is troubling for me, and obviously to several other people who post here.
My stance, to reiterate, is this: in this culture, it may be that so called "masculine" behaviors will "work" to get women to sleep with you and even be with you in a longer relationship. It may be that the "masculine" approach is even more effective in this regard. BUT, my contention is that such an approach will tend to attract certain kinds of women - not all women. And it may be that the kind of women this approach attracts are not the kind of women you'd want to be close to. And again, there is more to romance than sleeping with a lot of women. If lots of sexual partners is what you want, that's fine. But choosing a different path does not make you any less a man, and I think it can be at least as rewarding to be with a very few women that you can relate to deeply. If you aren't a so called "masculine" man, then you probably won't relate so deeply to a woman who falls for "masculine" men. So again, don't make a greatly contrived effort to change who you are just to appeal to women you wouldn't get along with anyway. Have standards. "Be yourself," and have the patience that this requires. There is someone for everyone.
A lot of people are frustrated with the games played in romance. I am one of them. There is a lot of bullshit. There is a lot of bullshit in modern cultures in general. So you have a choice: you can play the game and get "results," or you can choose not to recreate the bullshit that you despise. I choose the latter option. It means I don't get laid as often as I would prefer, but there is more to life than getting laid (granted, even I sometimes forget this, and am capable of being very sexually frustrated, but it is true - there is so much more).
Incidentally, I don't think that resisting the mainstream notion of masculinity means you have to settle for unattractive women. Granted, I've only been with 3 women in my 25 years on this Earth, and I was a virgin until late in my 22nd year, but 2 of the 3 women I was with were very sexually attractive, and I was very sexually satisfied with them.
Just be patient. If you don't like games, don't play them.
|
About Travis' post just above mine: Kudos to you, man. I am in complete agreement with you.
My approach to a woman I am interested in is to show genuine interest in her, and to try to share the aspects of myself that I prize the most. If they don't care to relate to a fellow such as myself, then why would I fret over that? I wouldn't like them much either, most likely.
|
About BottleAbuser's anecdote on page 2:
This is much my approach! I've mentioned many times on TL.net that I bathe about once a week (partly because I'm not a fan of it, and partly because I want to conserve water), and that I never wear deodorant. I often have a beard and my hair is growing increasingly long and straggly. Surprisingly (to some, not to me), I am now dating a beautiful blonde girl who doesn't care at all about this stuff. She likes me anyway.
Also, in romance, I often try to turn my liabilities into assets via humor. Some women get it and like it, others don't. I'm not worried about the ones who don't.
|
United States22883 Posts
That was a pretty nice post Inky. Just as men are often pressured to be more "manly", women are also conditioned to look for that. In fairness, I'm not sure how much is biological and how much is psychological. The dominant male/submissive female thing didn't start millenia ago, it's been going on for millions of years with many species of animals.
|
|
|
Thank you for the compliment, Jibba. I was being less nuanced than I could have been. Because of what I perceive as an imbalance, I place virtually all emphasis on socialization - behavior shaped by society, not by biology. But what you are saying has truth; we aren't just social creatures, we are also biological creatures. But I see a lot of danger in the way so many people disguise politics as pure biology, so I tend to emphasize the social and political.
So I agree with you; it is both. BUT, I will say that in my own experience and in my general understanding, the kinds of women I want to be with are less interested in a stereotypically masculine man.
Also, even within a purely biologcal or natural framework, I would analyze the human subject as not just the will to fuck and procreate, but also as the will to relate on other levels. In other words, I don't see non-sexual interests as any less biological than the will to fuck. So I say this by way of pointing out that a human being is not a unified being; there can be competing interests within a single person, and so it is not unnatural to or un-biological to place less emphasis on what might be biologically determined sexual behavior. In other words, it is not unnatural to decide not to play the game - it instead reflects a different biological imperative.
Yeah, I agree with you Jibba.
|
On July 30 2008 11:24 nA.Inky wrote:
...I am now dating a beautiful blonde girl...
Pics or it didn't happen.
|
Haha, BottleAbuser  I guess it didn't happen, because sadly I have no pics!
Jibba, again I'll state that I agree with you. But I'd like to add that some cultures are known to be particularly favorable to women, even placing women in positions of power over men. So clearly humans have room to be many different ways. Also, what I understand of bonobos - close relatives of humans and chimps - are that they are female centered.
Just saying this to try to counter the biological argument that says men have to be such and such way because blah blah - and I know you weren't saying that at all, Jibba.
|
United States22883 Posts
Agreed. Totally off topic, but I got a long explanation of the word 'amazon' when I went to Turkey. It's from the greek word amazos meaning "without a breast" because they cut one of their breasts so they could better use bows. D:
|
Haha, Jibba. Sweet Jesus, man!
|
In my stupidity I believe that the word masculinity is an abstract noun. It is interpretated differently by everyone. Although you may say it is 'boldness, or decisiveness', these concrete nouns are your interpretation of the abstract masculinity. Although culture has been a large determinant of what is considered masculine and what is not - it depends on the person. Forgive me if you disagree, reverend sirs and venerable elders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
