A Women wants a Man who's better then her

[that girl]

My friend is a great guy but laid back submissive guy who doesnt like arguments his wife at the time was a controlling loud alpha female if you will..It seemed to be the perfect match..

 

Another friend of ours is this alpha Male sucessful dominate guy,my friends wife would always talk bad about him behind his back saying shes tired of his ego and macho alpha male bs but then months later she hit on him and wanted to sleep with him..

 

She wanted to feel feminine and be put in her place so to speak by this guy and make her feel like a women would be my guess..

 

I think it is more likely that this woman has serious issues than she needed to feel like a woman.

 

I'd imagine the more vulnerable or incapable a male would appear, the less desirable he would be in the context of a protector and provider for our ancestral females who spent a good chunk of their short lives pregnant or caring for the young. Our ancestors struggled to survive back in Africa. The wilds were harsh and unyielding for them and their drive to pass on their genes meant striving to pick the best partner to see this to fruition.

By the same token, a man would be primed by evolution to seek a competent, healthy mate. Gathering food, childbirth and child rearing are not easy tasks. Men have generally invested in pregnancy throughout human history and have generally practice monogamy in one form or another (lifelong, serial monogomy, one wife + mistress, or polygamy with one man one woman being the overwhelmingly most common- they weren't out banging 100s of women).

 

I believe this is why young women are (statistically speaking) more attracted to substantially older men, when compared to the opposite. it has to do with resources and experience, which may often translate into an older man having more power than a younger one.

 

it's the reason why increased money/power is such a powerful substitute for better looks.

In cultures where women can choose their own partners, age differences tend to be small. Furthermore, within the gay community it isn't uncommon for young attractive men to have sugar daddies. The fact that hetero women are more likely to date older than hetero men likely has more to do with culture and the distribution of wealth than evolution.

[BruceLeroy]

When my dad was alive, he liked to think he was billy bad ass ruler of the house and leader of his marriage with my ma. But really, he wasn't home much so she was the one keeping things running. She'd get a raise or promotion? He'd take on more overtime and longer hauls to out do her. What that get him? No relationship with me and a heart attack!

 

You dudes who think you run the show are just suckered. Its not that women want some bossy Alpha guy, just that they find watching you think so much of yerself to be the best free comedy skit around.

[phineas]

It's not "better" its more or less just having your stuff together better than her & not being afraid to let her know what you want from her & that you have no problem jetting if your not getting it.

 

Lets take the woman i'm seeing.

She was very aggressive when pursuing me.

 

I thought once we started dateing she would continue that way.

Nope.

She scaled it back.

I thought she lost interest.

 

nope, she was just backing off to give me room to take the lead.

 

It's a different way for me but if I want to get laid it's the way I gotta go.

[hydorclops]

I like many of the ideas in this thread.

 

I don't think women inherently want leadership. They want good men. Which translates into different things depending on the woman. They need their idea of goodness in order to feel safe, protected, or some version of that.

 

There is plenty of room for equality and interdependence in what women want from men.

[jamesum]

In other news, the sky is blue.

[Cee]

In the past couple of years, people have been telling me that I've become a man. And I take that as a compliment. I am a "man"- my own person who is successful, fulfilled, independent, and confident & only want people in my life that make my life better.

 

It pretty much boils down to one thing: Confidence. Once I got it, my whole life changed. And if any women are wondering how I got confidence, I dumped the boyfriends & then made myself happy. It took a good 5 years of daily effort, but it paid off.

 

And now that I'm happy and confident, I don't really want or need a romantic relationship with a man. I've got plenty of male friends to do stuff with like ball games, BBQs, hanging at bar, etc. And I get a booty call once in awhile to take the edge off.

 

You may call me crazy, but I'm having a blast.

[jamesum]

In the past couple of years, people have been telling me that I've become a man. And I take that as a compliment. I am a "man"- my own person who is successful, fulfilled, independent, and confident & only want people in my life that make my life better.

 

It pretty much boils down to one thing: Confidence. Once I got it, my whole life changed. And if any women are wondering how I got confidence, I dumped the boyfriends & then made myself happy. It took a good 5 years of daily effort, but it paid off.

 

And now that I'm happy and confident, I don't really want or need a romantic relationship with a man. I've got plenty of male friends to do stuff with like ball games, BBQs, hanging at bar, etc. And I get a booty call once in awhile to take the edge off.

 

You may call me crazy, but I'm having a blast.

Welcome to the man's world. Its awesome isnt it?

[eerie_reverie]

This isn't specific to women.

 

I've met so many men who want to be dominated in a relationship. I would say MOST of us would like someone else to make our decisions.

 

I have been the "top" in more than half my relationships.

[MrNate]

Now this is an interesting discussion.

 

I have thought about the idea that there are some cultural norms that are taught to men that go against the grain of what women respond to. I also think this is what leads to frustration among males, when they find out what works is a bit different from what they've been taught to believe. (This is evidenced by the fact that the Disney approach apparently doesn't work huh? My sons will not watch certain disney movies because of this.)

 

And in my opinion, I think this is part of the reason why the whole 'nice guy vs jerk' dilemma is so big. Confusion is our culprit, and naturally, it leads to frustration. We're often left wondering, 'so what is it women respond to'?

 

As far as dominating goes..I'm iffy on that. Leading? Even then, maybe.

 

Kind of makes you wonder where the whole great divide began eh? What do you guys think?

[Knittress]

Have you guys read Sex at Dawn?

 

It disagrees with what a lot of the popular assumptions say about what drives dating behavior. You now, that whole trade-my-v**ina-for-a-sirloin, thing. The premise of the book (and don't discount it based on my inability to summarize, please) is that humans evolved in small close-knit tribes where every single member was needed to keep the group alive. So it wasn't necessary to 'pick the best hunter' because all men hunted for everybody, and since the survival burden and child-minding was shared equally, it wasn't even ALL that necessary for people to care about paternity. Which is why humans tend to be cr*p at monogamy, as they more eloquently put it.

[curlygirl40]

This reminds me of a story.

 

I had e-mailed with a guy a couple of times on match. He asked me to call him so I did. During our second phone he caught me while I was headed to work and he asked some questions about what I do for a living, etc.

 

Then he said 'Hey, I have a great idea for our first date. You can show me how to do that math!'. He was very excited about me telling him about capital gains.

 

I immediately lost any interest in meeting him.

 

Now, I know that in my field of work I have an expertise, and in his field of work (let's just say photography) I have no knowledge at all. He could show me a thing or two about photography.

 

But to suggest that on our first date I teach him math? Really?!

 

Consider the poor math inept guy launched. Before our first meeting.

 

There is something to this I think.

[MrNate]

This reminds me of a story.

 

I had e-mailed with a guy a couple of times on match. He asked me to call him so I did. During our second phone he caught me while I was headed to work and he asked some questions about what I do for a living, etc.

 

Then he said 'Hey, I have a great idea for our first date. You can show me how to do that math!'. He was very excited about me telling him about capital gains.

 

I immediately lost any interest in meeting him.

 

Now, I know that in my field of work I have an expertise, and in his field of work (let's just say photography) I have no knowledge at all. He could show me a thing or two about photography.

 

But to suggest that on our first date I teach him math? Really?!

 

Consider the poor math inept guy launched. Before our first meeting.

 

There is something to this I think.

 

This topic in itself is rather interesting, really.

[curlygirl40]

This topic in itself is rather interesting, really.

 

Yes it's nice to see a topic of discussion on these boards that make all of us deep thinkers think. Keeps the juices flowing.

[that girl]

I have thought about the idea that there are some cultural norms that are taught to men that go against the grain of what women respond to. I also think this is what leads to frustration among males, when they find out what works is a bit different from what they've been taught to believe. (This is evidenced by the fact that the Disney approach apparently doesn't work huh? My sons will not watch certain disney movies because of this.)

 

And in my opinion, I think this is part of the reason why the whole 'nice guy vs jerk' dilemma is so big. Confusion is our culprit, and naturally, it leads to frustration. We're often left wondering, 'so what is it women respond to'?

I think this whole "women like bad boys" thing is more about guys making themselves feel better than any innate female tendency.

 

Some women do like *******s, but some guys like complete bitches so it tends to even out.

 

The guys who lament that they are two nice and that is why women don't like them are usually either:

1- unable to recognize which women are interested

2- have very specific standards and tend to get hung up on girls who aren't interested

(I remember a guy in college complaining that none of the girls were into him. In reality I could have named 3 girls who had a crush on him at one point or another and I wouldn't have turned him down for a date, but he was always hung up on some girl who wasn't interested)

3- are really jerks but think they are good guys

 

I think the confusion comes when a girl tries to let him down easy and says "But you're so nice, I'm sure you'll find someone great!" It is easier to think "I'm just too nice, none of these women appreciate me!" than "I'm kind of a jerk" or "I need to not get fixated on girls who aren't interested."

 

Then he said 'Hey, I have a great idea for our first date. You can show me how to do that math!'. He was very excited about me telling him about capital gains.

 

I immediately lost any interest in meeting him.

 

Now, I know that in my field of work I have an expertise, and in his field of work (let's just say photography) I have no knowledge at all. He could show me a thing or two about photography.

 

But to suggest that on our first date I teach him math? Really?!

 

Consider the poor math inept guy launched. Before our first meeting.

 

There is something to this I think.

See and I would be much more interested in a guy who was super keen to learn about my field than someone who took a first date as an opportunity to teach me about his speciality.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I have thought about the idea that there are some cultural norms that are taught to men that go against the grain of what women respond to. I also think this is what leads to frustration among males, when they find out what works is a bit different from what they've been taught to believe. (This is evidenced by the fact that the Disney approach apparently doesn't work huh? My sons will not watch certain disney movies because of this.)

And in my opinion, I think this is part of the reason why the whole 'nice guy vs jerk' dilemma is so big. Confusion is our culprit, and naturally, it leads to frustration. We're often left wondering, 'so what is it women respond to'?

As far as dominating goes..I'm iffy on that. Leading? Even then, maybe.

Kind of makes you wonder where the whole great divide began eh? What do you guys think?

 

Consider the amount of boys growing up without strong male figures in their lives.

 

Do you think some douchebag stepfather is going to put in the effort to teach a kid how to act as a male should in society? Nope

 

I think over half of the boys out there barely get to see their father, and as that trend continues... the overall quality and emotional health of subsequent generations is going to be a complete failure.

 

My dad played a huge role in my upbringing, as did my mother. I've never been delusional about what I am supposed to do or how I am supposed to be.

[sweetjasmine]

Note: I do agree that on the whole women find men who do not appear overall weak, vulnerable and incapable to be attractive, and IMO that's pretty sensible. Most women also find a protective, and emotionally resilient man attractive--also not so weird.

 

Yes, and the thing is that most of this has nothing to do with gender.

 

How many men will find a weak, vulnerable, incapable woman to be a desirable long-term partner? How many men would prefer a protective, emotionally resilient woman?

 

Healthy people are attracted to those who have a strong sense of self, a spine, their own place in the world, their own opinions. You don't need pop evo psych BS post-hoc ad-hoc rationalizations to explain it. Most people are looking for a partner, not a dependent broken child, so it stands to reason that someone who has their sh-t together is more attractive than someone who doesn't, if you're thinking in the long-term.

 

That is very different from what some posters are postulating, that women en masse want to be led, dominated and bossed around like confused children, find any moment of human weakness to be repellent, are unwilling and incapable of helping and nurturing male partners, and that men who are dominant are objectively better than woman who are not . Give me a break.

 

You don't get it - evolution tells us that women aren't nurturers and that they split at the first sign of weakness or injury. Don't you ever watch the Discovery channel?

[luvnpain]

Interesting POV's here.

 

I think MrNate made a good point about the cultural norms taught to men. I think there are many taught to women as well that are idealistic and false, and we end up with a clashing of sorts in the adult years as one sex or the other tries to make their SO's conform to somesort of false role.

 

The whole idea expressed earlier in the thread about males not feeling that they had a purpose if they are not providing is also interesting to me. I have heard a few guys express this sentiment, and could not understand why they saw their value to a woman in only financial terms. The other things that were mentioned like emotional support and companionship did not seem to register with them as a "real" need to a woman, or pehaps these are needs that those particular met are not willing to meet. The point was made that women could get all those things from friends except sex, but really that's not true. The type if intimacy between me and my SO is not the same as it is with my friends, it's deeper.

 

To each his own. If a man embraces this thought pattern, it wouldn't bother me. I think our paths would not cross for long, as it would be clear that we would not be compatible the moment he exhibited some sort of dominant behavior. Ha. I just cut the phone convos w/ a guy for what I felt was aggressive/dominant tones in his approach. Nah, homey don't play that.

[theBrokenMuse]

Have you guys read Sex at Dawn?

 

It disagrees with what a lot of the popular assumptions say about what drives dating behavior. You now, that whole trade-my-v**ina-for-a-sirloin, thing. The premise of the book (and don't discount it based on my inability to summarize, please) is that humans evolved in small close-knit tribes where every single member was needed to keep the group alive. So it wasn't necessary to 'pick the best hunter' because all men hunted for everybody, and since the survival burden and child-minding was shared equally, it wasn't even ALL that necessary for people to care about paternity. Which is why humans tend to be cr*p at monogamy, as they more eloquently put it.

 

It really depends on what part of our history (what manner of early man) we are discussing here as Homo erectus was the first to show signs of being a hunting/gathering tribe but once it was discovered that sexual dimorphism could have been a factor it left much about their mating habits up in the air. If sexual dimorphism was an actual factor then it's likely they had a mating structure akin to that of the Australopithecus.

[Untouchable_Fire]

It really depends on what part of our history (what manner of early man) we are discussing here as Homo erectus was the first to show signs of being a hunting/gathering tribe but once it was discovered that sexual dimorphism could have been a factor it left much about their mating habits up in the air. If sexual dimorphism was an actual factor then it's likely they had a mating structure akin to that of the Australopithecus.

 

If you think about it the past 4,000 years of evolution are more important than the previous 5,000 years due to the fact that many of those traits which may have been selected for in earlier times where selected against as societies formed and became larger.

 

I've got a lot of training in Evolutionary Biology. Many of the ideas espoused in "Dawn of Sex" are only correct under very specific conditions. It would work most ideally when each member has similar genetic background... ie already related.

 

The idea that our ancestors lived in an ancient version of a free love hippie commune is laughable.

 

Just look at how obsessed ancient peoples were with paternity... and in fact when we test paternity rates for supposedly monogamous couples it is typically 96-98% the father.

 

In fact even in situations where paternity is in doubt... women tend to be nearly 70% accurate when naming the father.

 

I don't buy into the whole idea that we were meant to cheat. Fact is that the primary influencing factor on monogamy is our culture and our society.

 

Some countries as we speak have a very low rate of adultery.

[Woggle]

Consider the amount of boys growing up without strong male figures in their lives.

 

Do you think some douchebag stepfather is going to put in the effort to teach a kid how to act as a male should in society? Nope

 

I think over half of the boys out there barely get to see their father, and as that trend continues... the overall quality and emotional health of subsequent generations is going to be a complete failure.

 

My dad played a huge role in my upbringing, as did my mother. I've never been delusional about what I am supposed to do or how I am supposed to be.

 

I agree. Boys growing up these days have nobody showing them the ropes or teaching them how to be a man. Not saying that women don't love their sons but they do not understand the complexities of manhood so there are certain things that are much better for a boy to be learning from a man. It works the other way around as well. If you had a generation of girls being raised with no mother figure then we would see similiar problems with women. Women are affected by the lack of fathers in families as well. I bet a great deal of women who are incapable of having a healthy relationship with a man never had a good father figure growing up.

[Knittress]

If you think about it the past 4,000 years of evolution are more important than the previous 5,000 years due to the fact that many of those traits which may have been selected for in earlier times where selected against as societies formed and became larger.

 

I've got a lot of training in Evolutionary Biology. Many of the ideas espoused in "Dawn of Sex" are only correct under very specific conditions. It would work most ideally when each member has similar genetic background... ie already related.

 

The idea that our ancestors lived in an ancient version of a free love hippie commune is laughable.

 

Just look at how obsessed ancient peoples were with paternity... and in fact when we test paternity rates for supposedly monogamous couples it is typically 96-98% the father.

 

In fact even in situations where paternity is in doubt... women tend to be nearly 70% accurate when naming the father.

 

I don't buy into the whole idea that we were meant to cheat. Fact is that the primary influencing factor on monogamy is our culture and our society.

 

Some countries as we speak have a very low rate of adultery.

 

I'm not going to be able to argue for a whole book that covers several hundred pages, without a PhD and citations of my own. But part of the argument was that they WERE likely to be all losely inter-related. And it irks me a bit that you call something 'laughable' ... because?

[aerogurl87]

Eh considering the nature of my boyfriend and I's relationship and the somewhat complexity of it, I will not comment on this thread.