Dating Women, as a Man, from a Woman's Perspective

[johan]

LOL, If I could be a woman for a month I'd have so much sex.

 

Then I'd find some guy(s) to buy me stuff.

 

If I had to switch genders, I'd for damn not have any sex. I'd probably play with myself a lot though.

[daphne]

I dont think I can describe the process without breaking some of this site's rules

 

:lmao: I think that's what's refered to on the Borgia's as lechery...

[daphne]

LOL, If I could be a woman for a month I'd have so much sex.

 

Then I'd find some guy(s) to buy me stuff.

 

You'd be surprised at how easy men are that way. For sex, not stuff.

[Mrlonelyone]

Like they say. If you walk in the footsteps of a stranger you learn things you never knew you never knew.*

 

Too many men and women think they know what the other gender thinks. So they won't go for it.

[threebyfate]

The process itself is less of interest than the results. If you're having problems dating, why? Instead of looking for sympathy from the opposite gender, why not work on self so you're appealing to the opposite gender?

[daphne]

Women are hillarious...If theyre arent dating a male model then they act like theyre doign the guy a favor and looks dont matter to them..

 

Hmm. Not a fair stereotype in my opinion. However, as much as I hate admitting this, I wonder if it applies to me. I've dated a few models and I think sometimes I do make unfavorable comparisons, even though I know I want someone who is the package and not a narcissist or a liar. God I sure hope it doesn't come across that way.

[Sanman]

Hmm. Not a fair stereotype in my opinion. However, as much as I hate admitting this, I wonder if it applies to me. I've dated a few models and I think sometimes I do make unfavorable comparisons, even though I know I want someone who is the package and not a narcissist or a liar. God I sure hope it doesn't come across that way.

 

Hard for that to be the case in real life. If you are the total package as a guy, a healthy dose of narcissism comes with it and the last thing you want to d is settle down. Too many women out there competing for your affections. Why do you think Clooney never settled down? Too many options.

[Sanman]

On dates with men I felt physically appraised in a way that I never did by women, and, while this made me more sympathetic to the suspicions women were bringing to their dates with Ned, it had the opposite effect, too. Somehow men's seeming imposition of a superficial standard of beauty felt less intrusive, less harsh, than the character appraisals of women.

 

The women I met wanted a man to be confident. They wanted in many ways to defer to him. I could feel that on many dates, the unspoken desire to be held up and led, whether in conversation or even in physical space, and at times it made me feel quite small in my costume, like a young man must feel when he's just coming of age and he's suddenly expected to carry the world under his arm like a football. And some women did find Ned too small physically to be attractive. They wanted someone, they said, who could pin them to the bed or, as one woman put it, "someone who can drive the bus". Ned was too willowy for that. I began to understand from the inside why Robert Crumb draws his women so big and his diminutive self begging at their heels or riding them around the room.

 

 

Yet as much as these women wanted a take-control man, at the same time they wanted a man who was vulnerable to them, a man who would show his colours and open his doors, someone expressive, intuitive, attuned. This I was in spades, and I always got points for it. But I began to feel very sympathetic toward heterosexual men - the pressure to be a world-bestriding colossus is an immensely heavy burden to bear, and trying to be a sensitive new age guy at the same time is pretty well impossible. Expectation, expectation, expectation was the leitmotif of Ned's dating life.

 

It is an interesting realization that I have come to with women. They often say that they want vulnerability, but what they really mean is that want a man who is emotionally available for them when they need it. Do be truly vulnerable is to allow your partner to shoulder burdens with you and speak of your problems and inadequacy. Yet, that is not what most women want. They don't want the burden of command or to have to be the leader. To see that all you have to do is look that the all of the threads about women who would rather dump a man with a lack of experience (be it dating, sex, or providing for the couple) in key areas rather than shoulder the burden. Certainly, there are the rare few who do choose to shoulder the burden, but I feel that this is rare and should be commended. When I find a woman who truly wants to share the burden and has the character to stand behind those words, I hope I am smart enough to hold on to her.

[vladek]

... I would definitely say I was a bit critical in character evaluation. I wouldn't have realized it either without reading that.

 

I'm not so worried about a guy checking out my butt but I'm not sure how I would feel if he was peering into my soul to see if I had true strength of character. Probably, because that would never happen with a man!

 

:lmao:

 

Oh, it happens. It's why I rarely go out with a woman for more than a couple of dates.

[welikeincrowds]

Oh, it happens. It's why I rarely go out with a woman for more than a couple of dates.

 

You better take that **** to heart daphne, because he registered just to tell you that.

[daphne]

Hard for that to be the case in real life. If you are the total package as a guy, a healthy dose of narcissism comes with it and the last thing you want to d is settle down.

 

I meant a guy who wasn't necessarily uber attractive. One who is reasonably attractive but has more of a well rounded personality.

 

When I find a woman who truly wants to share the burden and has the character to stand behind those words, I hope I am smart enough to hold on to her.

 

You probably won't. Sorry. When a woman's strong enough to be a true partner, the guy tends to see it as not "vulnerable" enough. I think it's a good thing. Not all guys really do, however. I personally don't want a man who'll crack under the weight of carrying it all when I'm completely capable, competent and willing to share the load.

 

You better take that **** to heart daphne, because he registered just to tell you that.

 

[Bj099235]

I'm kind of surprised women aren't doing more chasing. Women are more obsessed with relationships than guys are. Other than "That's how it supposed to be", I think the reason why guys chase way more than women, is sex. Sex is probably the biggest thing about people, and guys are obsessed with it more than women are. So, I guess that's why they chase more.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I just found out about a book that might interest you: Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised As A Man. As you might have guessed, it's journalism by a lesbian who spends a year as a man to better understand gender.

Apparently it was really popular in 2006.

There's an excerpt on the Guardian's website. It includes the part about dating. The parts I'm including are the ones that reminded me most of the pained and lonely men here on LS.

 

I read the excerpts and she did a decent job of understanding the hurdles men face in dating, however she really fails to capture how a man would feel.

 

Rejection doesn't frighten me, nor does it give the other person any sort of power over me. From what I read here the author takes rejection like a teenage boy. I see some guys never get over that period... it's harsh and often leaves lasting scars, but most guys get through it and grow.

 

Being rejected says more about the person doing the rejection than the one who is putting themselves out there.

 

The author does nail one big point. In my dating experiences Ive found most female dating criteria to be asinine and borderline retarded in most cases. I really struggle to find sympathy for women who continually choose bad men. She literally said no to 10 quality men before choosing the one that punches her in the face every day. How am I supposed to feel pity for that?

[Mrlonelyone]

@Untouchable_Fire

 

You know why some women choose that man who punches them in the face every day? It all comes down to their particular idea of gender roles.

 

Their are women out there who think a man isn't a real man or lacks passion etc if he does not beat on them. They saw their parents carry on like that, so they do.

 

These are women who do not simply lack self esteem... they need their own female identity validated by having what they consider a very masculine man. This is not because they are so feminine, but because they aren't secure in their own femininity. I have heard women say this very thing when they thought they were only among girlfriends.

 

Men kind of do the same thing. Some men want a woman to stay barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen.

 

If you think about it the women who constantly choose OBVIOUSLY wrong men over men who would treat them right (because they don't want a man to treat them right) are sympathetic only for how effed up their life would be.

[Untouchable_Fire]

@Untouchable_Fire

You know why some women choose that man who punches them in the face every day? It all comes down to their particular idea of gender roles.

Their are women out there who think a man isn't a real man or lacks passion etc if he does not beat on them. They saw their parents carry on like that, so they do.

These are women who do not simply lack self esteem... they need their own female identity validated by having what they consider a very masculine man. This is not because they are so feminine, but because they aren't secure in their own femininity. I have heard women say this very thing when they thought they were only among girlfriends.

Men kind of do the same thing. Some men want a woman to stay barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen.

If you think about it the women who constantly choose OBVIOUSLY wrong men over men who would treat them right (because they don't want a man to treat them right) are sympathetic only for how effed up their life would be.

 

That may all be true, but I'm really not too concerned with the pathology.

 

My point is that women should be responsible and be held accountable for stupid choices like this. We allow them to do most of the choosing when it comes to mate selection... and as the author for which this thread is based points out... that is a lot of power. However... that power should come with RESPONSIBILITY.

 

Which means if you sleep with anybody... you should be judged harshly by others. If you consistently pick abusive guys... nobody should be forced to pay money to help or shelter you. That is rewarding their abuse of that power.

 

For men those things already exist. I have a friend who routinely has risky sex with random women. Now one is going to have a baby and claims he is the father, despite the fact that it could just as easily be 10 other guys. However, he makes more money than the other 10... so he is the natural choice for support. If it is his... he has no choice but to pay. That's his fault.

 

Women need to face consequences for stupid behavior that match up to the power we allow them to wield.

[dreamingoftigers]

That may all be true, but I'm really not too concerned with the pathology.

 

My point is that women should be responsible and be held accountable for stupid choices like this. We allow them to do most of the choosing when it comes to mate selection... and as the author for which this thread is based points out... that is a lot of power. However... that power should come with RESPONSIBILITY.

 

Which means if you sleep with anybody... you should be judged harshly by others. If you consistently pick abusive guys... nobody should be forced to pay money to help or shelter you. That is rewarding their abuse of that power.

 

For men those things already exist. I have a friend who routinely has risky sex with random women. Now one is going to have a baby and claims he is the father, despite the fact that it could just as easily be 10 other guys. However, he makes more money than the other 10... so he is the natural choice for support. If it is his... he has no choice but to pay. That's his fault.

 

Women need to face consequences for stupid behavior that match up to the power we allow them to wield.

 

Unfortunately I think that many who are in these situations do not rationally or knowingly choose them.

 

In fact, many women who become involved with abusive men are not aware in any way of their abusive tendencies. I have had relationships in the past where men are fairly decent, respectful etc. and I have had relationships where things started off well, fairly decent, respectable etc. and then when he got comfortable the boundaries started slipping. I haven't had physical abuse permeate my relationships until this one however and that has been under extreme circumstances.

 

But my point is this: often people can't see the common denominators when picking a mate, especially those from abusive backgrounds (believe it or not). This is because often those form abusive backgrounds have been abused to the point where the reasoning center of the brain does not apply itself as often to the forming of relationships (when one comes from a randomly abusive background one pretty much cannot apply reason to it and so the brain forms an idiom like: "reason cannot be applied to relationships" thus limiting an abused person's relationship choices.

 

Ever try to reason with someone in an abusive relationship? They have no idea why you are trying to apply your reasoning to an emotional relationship. Often it takes a long time for them to be able to assign responsibility to the other partner as well for the abuse. Something else drilled into their childhood template is that: if you are abused, it is your fault. So often it takes them a very long time to be able to leave a relationship without feeling like they are betraying their partner doubly: first by causing their partner to abuse them and then by abandoning their partner.

 

Furthermore: since reason is taken out of the relationship selection process, the brain relies entirely on the emotional and base instinct impressions of love on the abused person's template to make the decision. That means intensity and security. Abusive relationships often form very quickly before the two parties even know each other very well, it creates both the security and intensity. The brain of an abused individual is craving security and a soft place to fall, they also crave intensity because that "is what love is" to them without the reasoning involved.

 

Often becoming dependent on a partner increases both that false security and amps up the intensity. That's when the abuse starts. Partner A has Partner B dependent on them and therefore Partner A is free to express themselves in any manner that they wish without threat of Partner B walking away. Abusive relationships can be addictive themselves in their intensity.

 

The very real problem for us on the outside is that we may have some skill in choosing that these folks lack due to flawed thinking = thinking disorder =mental health problem.

 

I don't know how comprehensive the US is, but here we have supports for those with clearly impaired judgment and mental health issues. Both the abuser and the abusee have a mental health issue, especially if both are cycling through multiple relationships with it. It is such a severe mental health issue that the two are either addicted to being beaten or to beating someone. That's pretty damn serious. Someone could wind up dead.

 

I think that shelters are the least that can be done for someone in such a screwed up cycle.

 

And overall addressing mental health issues in a reasonable resolving way would actually do better for everyone in society: a) health care costs would radically drop over the long run b) crime would decrease over the long run as well because children exposed to these circumstances and born into them would be fewer c) there would be education as opposed to judgement about such dynamics and those involved in them would know why and how their choices affected them and how to choose better for themselves. d) we as a society would not turn a blind eye to those suffering, which is truly the measure of a good society.

 

As a society I have no problem with personal responsibility. However, I would not expect someone with a severe mental handicap (Angelman's Syndrome for example) to hold to the same responsibilities as I do. Often those with thinking disorders may have the reasoning capacities of a four year old. It may not affect them holding a job at a fast food joint or what have you, but in the areas it does screw them up, I don't expect an adult reasoning from them. I do not think that anyone deserves to be repeatedly beaten or have the threat of death on them with no protection because of that anymore than I believe someone with Angelman's should be beaten because they can't tell anyone.

 

As a woman, I personally am not aware of this great power that I wield or that a male or any male allows me to wield it. Although it is entirely possible that I simply lack that power in my own relationship due to my husband's obsession with other's body parts, thus diminishing my own "reach."

[NXS]

I read this book a couple of years ago and it was interesting, especially the dating section. It reminded me of many of my dates were the women just droned on excessively and expected me to listen to her endless rubbish. It was usually the first and last one for me, there's only so much narcissm I can endure in order to get lucky.

[dreamingoftigers]

I read this book a couple of years ago and it was interesting, especially the dating section. It reminded me of many of my dates were the women just droned on excessively and expected me to listen to her endless rubbish. It was usually the first and last one for me, there's only so much narcissm I can endure in order to get lucky.

 

I have actually read that women are sexually narcissistic.

[Untouchable_Fire]

But my point is this: often people can't see the common denominators when picking a mate, especially those from abusive backgrounds (believe it or not). This is because often those form abusive backgrounds have been abused to the point where the reasoning center of the brain does not apply itself as often to the forming of relationships (when one comes from a randomly abusive background one pretty much cannot apply reason to it and so the brain forms an idiom like: "reason cannot be applied to relationships" thus limiting an abused person's relationship choices.

 

Other societies have solved this problem in the past by allowing families to set up marriages. It exists all over the world, the only reason it is so prevalent here is because we reward and coddle women who do it and focus exclusively on punishing the men.

 

While I agree with much of what your saying.... I believe people are cognizant of their choices, and if it is a big deal then we should put our social emphasis on teaching young women to make smarter choices.

 

To me this is like doing drugs. It's simply a stupid personal choice and we should stop supporting it. Tough love is the only thing that works.

 

Ever try to reason with someone in an abusive relationship? They have no idea why you are trying to apply your reasoning to an emotional relationship. Often it takes a long time for them to be able to assign responsibility to the other partner as well for the abuse. Something else drilled into their childhood template is that: if you are abused, it is your fault. So often it takes them a very long time to be able to leave a relationship without feeling like they are betraying their partner doubly: first by causing their partner to abuse them and then by abandoning their partner.

 

Everyone is different, but a woman has to be completely out of touch with reality to fully blame herself.

 

Also, there are more types of abuse than just physical.

 

Furthermore: since reason is taken out of the relationship selection process, the brain relies entirely on the emotional and base instinct impressions of love on the abused person's template to make the decision. That means intensity and security. Abusive relationships often form very quickly before the two parties even know each other very well, it creates both the security and intensity. The brain of an abused individual is craving security and a soft place to fall, they also crave intensity because that "is what love is" to them without the reasoning involved.

 

So what you are arguing is that some of these women are not mentally capable of being functional adults, so it's our job to fix them?

 

I understand WHY some of those women gravitate towards abusive men. I also understand why those men are abusive.

 

I don't know how comprehensive the US is, but here we have supports for those with clearly impaired judgment and mental health issues. Both the abuser and the abusee have a mental health issue, especially if both are cycling through multiple relationships with it. It is such a severe mental health issue that the two are either addicted to being beaten or to beating someone. That's pretty damn serious. Someone could wind up dead.

I think that shelters are the least that can be done for someone in such a screwed up cycle.

And overall addressing mental health issues in a reasonable resolving way would actually do better for everyone in society: a) health care costs would radically drop over the long run b) crime would decrease over the long run as well because children exposed to these circumstances and born into them would be fewer c) there would be education as opposed to judgement about such dynamics and those involved in them would know why and how their choices affected them and how to choose better for themselves. d) we as a society would not turn a blind eye to those suffering, which is truly the measure of a good society.

 

We as a society turn a blind eye to men who are suffering every day. We couldn't give two squirts of piss. Ever try to find a place for a homeless guy to stay?

 

I used to donate my time helping homeless guys get back on their feet. Finding them jobs, housing... ect. One guy, a veteran, literally cried when I found him a place to stay that wasn't under a bridge... nobody had ever helped or even cared before. Do you know how hard it was to find a place where he could stay AND hold a job?

 

I found it massively frustrating because we have 400 women's shelters with NO restrictions and barely even a rule. Most lay completely empty at all times.

 

Men's shelters number at about 10 including churches, and the rules are so freaking draconian it's impossible to follow them.

 

As a society I have no problem with personal responsibility. However, I would not expect someone with a severe mental handicap (Angelman's Syndrome for example) to hold to the same responsibilities as I do. Often those with thinking disorders may have the reasoning capacities of a four year old. It may not affect them holding a job at a fast food joint or what have you, but in the areas it does screw them up, I don't expect an adult reasoning from them. I do not think that anyone deserves to be repeatedly beaten or have the threat of death on them with no protection because of that anymore than I believe someone with Angelman's should be beaten because they can't tell anyone.

 

I disagree, because this argument would also apply to those people who are dishing out the abuse.

 

We do hold them accountable for their actions... so long as they are male, and no amount of "mental issues" will make me feel bad for them.

[Woggle]

What these women don't get is that a man who beats on a woman is not manly at all unless he is defending himself. Beating up on people smaller and weaker than you are does not make you strong.

 

People say that boys need strong father figures which is true but girls need it just as much. If we don't show girls positive examples of men they tend to grow up thinking abusers and scumbags are how then hating all men after years of this kind of treatment.

[dreamingoftigers]

Other societies have solved this problem in the past by allowing families to set up marriages. It exists all over the world, the only reason it is so prevalent here is because we reward and coddle women who do it and focus exclusively on punishing the men.

 

If I understand this correctly, then abuse has been minimized by having the families pick mates? I have not seen this reflected in cultures around the world. As well, rewarding, coddling etc. are relative terms. If it is a reward to have a bed to sleep in away from abuse as a reward for leaving abusive and threatening situations and trying to break that cycle, I would say that I am okay with that system of rewards for anyone making that effort, gender irrelevant, no matter which way the statistics fall.

 

While I agree with much of what your saying.... I believe people are cognizant of their choices, and if it is a big deal then we should put our social emphasis on teaching young women to make smarter choices.

 

And all abusers as well to turn to other resources when they are triggered to take such actions. Up here they now have a phone line for men to call when they get to the point where they are going to snap. It's a start.

 

To me this is like doing drugs. It's simply a stupid personal choice and we should stop supporting it. Tough love is the only thing that works.

 

Have you effectively dealt with drug addiction? Tough love is half of the equation, the other half is support for those who seek support and wish to end their destructive behaviour. By saying "cease sheltering these women who allow this" you are essentially saying that any addict has one shot at treatment and then he can never, ever go through a program again. The whole idea behind "tough love" is that you pull the unhealthy/enabling supports out so that the addictive experience becomes so destructive and negative that the addict chooses to stop and does what they can to retain healthy support to do so.

 

Without those healthy supports in place, they have nowhere else to go except back to and unhealthy condition, whatever that may be. They may (and often do) switch one unhealthy condition for another. The cycle goes on.....

 

Everyone is different, but a woman has to be completely out of touch with reality to fully blame herself.

 

Also, there are more types of abuse than just physical.

 

I would say that anyone caught in that cycle is at the very least in denial of reality, it doesn't make the thinking pattern any less common though. Schizophrenics can be quite out of touch, and schizophrenia exists.

 

And yes, I chose the physical cycle is a paradigm for the issue. Some people have "foggy lines" surrounding other forms of abuse but most people agree on physicial abuse and boundaries surrounding it.

 

So what you are arguing is that some of these women are not mentally capable of being functional adults, so it's our job to fix them?

 

I understand WHY some of those women gravitate towards abusive men. I also understand why those men are abusive.

 

I think that we who have more capability and the resources to do so as a society should invest in its members so that everyone (including ourselves) benefits. The same with suicidals, we pull them off of bridges and retain them in psych wards until they are okay to be released again (in theory). We as a society have a responsibility to our most damaged members.

 

We as a society turn a blind eye to men who are suffering every day. We couldn't give two squirts of piss. Ever try to find a place for a homeless guy to stay?

 

I call it "my house." I should clarify that I did marry one so I am familiar with the state of homelessness in Canada. It is abysmal how if someone wanted to reintegrate from being homeless (most do not) the struggles are very paramount. Getting ID in itself is a very lengthly process that requires a stable address and here getting a stable address often requires ID and a job, which is tough to get without proper hygiene etc and no ID.

 

It took my husband about six months to get his ID/birth certificate etc. That is way more time then many transient people spend in any one city, much less at one address.

 

There should be a guide for reintegration and a service to assist with that, that is not a blanket service for all types of situations. It should strictly be for those who wish to recover and reintegrate. Hmm.....

 

I used to donate my time helping homeless guys get back on their feet. Finding them jobs, housing... ect. One guy, a veteran, literally cried when I found him a place to stay that wasn't under a bridge... nobody had ever helped or even cared before. Do you know how hard it was to find a place where he could stay AND hold a job?

 

I have a vague idea....

And often they are missing the skills to hold a job because of the different type of socialization you need to survive and be "successful" on the street. It is tough to unwork that conditioning.

 

I found it massively frustrating because we have 400 women's shelters with NO restrictions and barely even a rule. Most lay completely empty at all times.

 

Men's shelters number at about 10 including churches, and the rules are so freaking draconian it's impossible to follow them.

 

I wonder about your area. It would be wise one would think to have the women's shelter's in a given metro area to go "by the numbers" to fill to capacity.

 

Think about it, number all of the shelters 1-410. Fill the spaces from 1,2,3,4,5,6, with women seeking assistance and then reverse fill with the homeless 410,409,408,407 etc.. That way there is a better count on the actual space needed and the resources are better utilized overall. Essentially both types of shelters are providing a similar function: get people out of their present circumstance.

 

I disagree, because this argument would also apply to those people who are dishing out the abuse.

 

I think that they are on opposite ends of the same coin. We as a society have a job to break the cycle. Those that abuse need some serious psychological help as well and that should be supported to help end the behaviour. The difference between them and those that they abuse is that they are doing a criminal act on top of taking part in a vicious cycle.

 

If I leave my door unlocked and someone steals my tv, I might be stupid and out of touch with reality. But that perp is still doing a criminal act. The punishment for my stupidity is losing my tv. Their punishment is going to jail (where I think they should get some serious help for justifying to themselves going in someone's house and stealing a tv).

 

We do hold them accountable for their actions... so long as they are male, and no amount of "mental issues" will make me feel bad for them.

 

I don't need to "feel bad" for anyone to make me want to invest in a better, safer society. My heart does not necessarily go out to anyone on a silver platter, conversely that does not mean that I revile and hate those that do harm either.

 

If we take the "rightness" and "shoulds" out of the equation, I look at investing in other's who's patterns cause suffering as being a better long-term investment for everyone as a whole.

[dreamingoftigers]

What these women don't get is that a man who beats on a woman is not manly at all unless he is defending himself. Beating up on people smaller and weaker than you are does not make you strong.

 

People say that boys need strong father figures which is true but girls need it just as much. If we don't show girls positive examples of men they tend to grow up thinking abusers and scumbags are how then hating all men after years of this kind of treatment.

 

Opposite-gender parents are so crucial to future relational development.

[Woggle]

Opposite-gender parents are so crucial to future relational development.

 

Very true. I can only imagine how different I would be if I had a good mother.

[dreamingoftigers]

Very true. I can only imagine how different I would be if I had a good mother.

 

Let's just say that I can relate and fear greatly for my daughter.

[dispatch3d]

book seems entertaining. As far as talking about differences between men and women, meh I couldn't be bothered. I would bet the best men have it better than anyone else. I would also bet there are more women at the "top" who can potentially have sex with 90% of guys. Yet I would also bet some of these women couldn't keep more than half of them after that. So I guess that part is bitter sweet.

 

At the end of the day, who cares. Whats on Jay Leno tonight?