Why Do Men Keep Falling for Women's Manipulative Shaming Tactics?

[TheBigQuestion]

BigQuestion: I don't see how the stated goals of the PUA movement is an "intellectual problem" for its critics. I know what the stated goals are. I just have my doubts regarding the efficacy of its methods, particularly for men who are not interested in "prospects" with women in the party scene, drunk off their ass, as opposed to other spheres of life. And while nominally, there is some "variety of ideology" as you put it, ultimately PUA owes its mantra to Ayn Rand, and the idea that every human interaction is a zero sum game; you can't gain anything unless the other party loses, so figuring out "what makes women tick" is essentially trying to figure out how to make women think they are "gaining" while in fact making them "lose". I am not going to argue that treating every interaction as adversarial can never achieve one's goals, depending on what those goals are; but it is a philosophy based on values that are antithetical to having meaningful and truly supportive relationships.

 

Excellent response! But now my question to you is, why do you think that figuring out "what makes women tick" automatically means that they lose something? Although there are some guys out there with a nasty misogynistic streak in them that might think this, I don't think they conceive of "figuring women out" as somehow making them lose something.

[dasein]

Right. SHALLOW dealings. PUA has a lot in common with shallow dealings, like closing a deal with a client where your aim is the money, but not much to deal with deep dealings, like actually building a 20 year friendship with someone you know inside and out.

 

You are confusing social tools with the motives for using them. Or rather, demarcate the slippery slope... when I walk into a ciient's office, smile and shake their hand, say something funny, then launch into a description of their needs for the purpose of encouraging them to engage me further, at what point does that necessarily become some nefarious exercise in manipulation as opposed to a win-win situation? The handshake? No? The smile? No? The assessment of their needs?... where does the necessary bad intent step in? To paraphrase, "guns don't kill people, I kill people."

 

I don't deceive my clients and I don't deceive women, nor friends, nor family. I do manipulate them, though, as they all manipulate me. I got a call from a friend's wife not ten minutes ago cram pack full of manipulation to get me to do something (not just asking, raw, blunt manipulation). Is she a villain? No, she just knows what she wants and how to get people to do it. I love her, and love my friend, who will ALSO be manipulating me in a dozen ways from the first time I see them tomorrow. Have known them for 20 years. Human interactions are not merely downloading information from one another. Assuming otherwise is a gigantic social error, one I was guilty of for almost 15 years of sexual adulthood.

 

I didn't make women the way they are, I didn't decide what they should and should not respond to, successful men generally try to figure out how the world IS and then alter their behavior in light of those given realities to accomplish their goals, rather than deciding the reality they think "should be" and attempting to "talk" that alternate reality into existence.

 

It isn't hypnotism, it isn't strong arming someone into doing something against their will. They do get something out of it as well. That's an unspoken part of this. It's win win. How many women complain of not meeting interesting, exciting men? I saw a respected female poster here complaining about a guy she dated who was all staid and stodgy in a recent thread. Will wager she wouldn't think the same of me or any man who follows what I have posted.

 

Do you want a troubadour underneath your window? Or someone reading you a software manual? Do you want Cyrano in the bushes? or a news anchor? Do you want a man who exhibits a control of sexual power? or some guy giving you the "live long and prosper" sign and talking about logic? Women want to be seduced. They CRAVE it. Why do you think vampires are so popular with women, Twilight, Anne Rice, True Blood? (Oh you think GUYS watch and read that crap?) Their ability to turn into a bat? No, it's the SEDUCTION, the power. You aren't like that? so what? Many, many women are. Oh, yes, they get LOTS out of the deal, make no mistake, I'm not sending them home on an empty stomach.

 

I don't "like" all that other stuff (those books) you mention either, as they are tools for people who want to use others as objects to get what they want, whether it be sex or money or a feeling of worth or whatever. My point is they won't get you to a place of meaningful connection with the universe or another human being ---- nothing will, unless you can release the desire to control others and circumstances, which is the exact opposite of what those resources aim to do.

 

"Meaningful connection with the universe?" Kumbaya much? or is it Hakuna matata? I feel pretty meaningfully connected to the universe by exercising sexual power, women do too. You are hung up on "control," when the actuality is "catalog," "analyze," "predict," and "behave accordingly." There is no "control," other than self-control, neither I nor any of those self-help or PUA sources say as much. What it really boils down to is the scientific method, same way we invent stuff and solve engineering problems. You have misapprehended my posts as some behavioristic twisting of a key on a robot. That was not my intent and believe I even stated as much. The only key twisting is on a man's own robot as part of learning and repeating what women respond to.

 

Believe me... belieeeeeeeeeve me, if women generally responded to a smart, funny friendly, sincere guy "just being himself," if people generally responded to the mere conveyance of information, there would have been no need for me to make the changes I did, the angry virgins would disappear, and the PUA industry (simply the equivalent of the cosmetics industry for women) would have never come into existence.

 

Women used to say to me, "you are sincere," "you are cerebral," it's much more gratifying and fun to hear, even from women in the process of rejecting me, "well, you sure as hell aren't boring!" (lots of the ones who reject come back around a bit down the road, but just like crack, the first hit is free, the rest will cost ya LOL).

[Metis]

Excellent response! But now my question to you is, why do you think that figuring out "what makes women tick" automatically means that they lose something? Although there are some guys out there with a nasty misogynistic streak in them that might think this, I don't think they conceive of "figuring women out" as somehow making them lose something.

 

I don't think "figuring women out" is misogynistic in and of itself, as much as it is naive. Women are different. Sure, we have similarities, but people are much more similar along class and cultural lines, rather than along gender lines: in other words, a female doctor will have much more in common with a male doctor than with, say, a waitress. Failure to appreciate this fact essentially limits men who look to the PUA thing for help to the club scene -- and women who frequent those places are not everyone's cup of tea.

 

Moreover, when I talked about the zero-sum game, I wasn't referring to an attempt to "figure women out" in and of itself, rather than the approach that the PUA crowd seems to take. Just like there is no problem whatsoever in trying to figure out a way to live a good, moral and reasonably enjoyable life, but the Randian philosophy probably isn't the best way to get there.

[Negative Nancy]

Threads like these perpetuate a senseless gender war. There -is- a problem with one partner expecting to be treated like a queen while a man falls at her feet...and she contributes very little or nothing in the way of finances, emotions or other contributions.

 

My brother married a woman like that. He's the one doing all of the housework...on top of working a physically demanding job. Until his wife moved out of her parents' house, her father was taking her car, her sister's car, her mother's car, and his own car to fill them up with gas. She couldn't even get her own gas. I've helped move them out and into new places several times, and every time I'm lucky to see my sister-in-law carrying a single pillow or a single bag. I keep my mouth shut out of respect for my brother, but it really infuriates me. Her sister is just the same. Why the sister even volunteers to help them do anything requiring manual labor is beyond me, as she's the type to just sit there and look pretty.

 

My SIL still blames my brother for their financial trouble, despite knowing from the start that she was the breadwinner and that wasn't likely to change. She quit her job, which meant for sure they were going to lose their house. Yet because he quit his $9/hr. job, she blames all of their financial difficulties on him. Both made absolutely stupid decisions, but it's very infuriating to see that she and her family blame my brother for their financial hardships alone.

 

And that's what's so depressing about it - I'm an average-looking woman and I have things to offer, but those women are picked time and time again by men in their 20s and 30s it seems. They are totally thrilled to have a living doll until they realize that she's only good for staring at. She literally offers little else, if anything else, to the relationship.

 

I guess it was because I was raised in a matriarchal household - my mom did EVERYTHING around the house, paid the bills, worked part-time, etc. - and for the most part my dad just went to work, then came home while my mom acted like his servant.

 

I think I've often made the mistake of 'emasculating' the men I date by trying to do as much as possible to please them...including manual labor. I couldn't get away with being a pretty good-for-nothing. i think in some ways I learned to overcompensate for my perceived lack of beauty by doing as much as possible to convince them to stay with me.

 

But I would never expect a man to pay for every meal nor to act like I'm the very center of his world - that's just scary. But I would expect him to hold down a job and to better himself - and to contribute to our household. I thought my take on my role in a relationship wasn't that unusual, but then again I've met plenty of men who say otherwise.

 

My partner's grandparents loved me because I helped them move some things in their place a few months after my partner and I started dating. Apparently his grandfather approached him and said, "i like that girl. She isn't LAZY like so many of the other ones."

 

And while I hate to say it - when appearance is the primary motivation for so many men, what do you expect to get? I'm not saying that ALL beautiful women are necessarily good-for-nothing dolls who just lie around, but frankly they don't have to work as hard as a less attractive person. They can get away with more by virtue of being beautiful - by the mere fact that so many men covet that trait above everything else (or at least as highly as other traits). How many times have we seen a man around here who's absolutely sick and tired of the girl, but he doesn't want to give her up because he thinks she's hot? Bingo.

 

brilliant post and many valid points and question. curios as to how men are gonna answer this one...

[Taramere]

ultimately PUA owes its mantra to Ayn Rand, and the idea that every human interaction is a zero sum game; you can't gain anything unless the other party loses, so figuring out "what makes women tick" is essentially trying to figure out how to make women think they are "gaining" while in fact making them "lose".

 

I agree. I suspect the "PUA" thing is a big of a Dumbo's magic feather in that it encourages men to at least get out there and speak to women....but the techniques themselves are more likely to create mistrust and even hostility.

 

I was thinking about this today. I had to give a talk to a group of people recently, and I have to confess to really not being very good at that. I used to be positively phobic about public speaking (headaches and vomiting beforehand etc) but I've improved to the level where now I'm just plain old not very good at it.

 

So I read off my bit of paper, feeling uncomfortable and just generally making a bit of a pig's ear of it. You can visualise how you're supposed to do it, and you've seen other people do it well...but actually putting that visualisation into practice is something else. After I'd finished my prepared talk, I asked people for questions. Silence, then a person who obviously felt sorry for me asked a question. I answered. Another question from somebody else - a bit trickier this time, so I had to think on my feet. Suddenly before you know it, the room has come alive and all these people are asking questions, wanting to butt in, give their experiences...and that's fantastic. Exactly what I wanted.

 

I could never get that reaction from people by doing a pre-rehearsed speech or by listening to somebody else telling me "you know Taramere, you should use your hands more or make sure to have eye contact with people or do X, Y and Z". I can only get that reaction by being myself, listening to other people and actually interacting with them as individuals rather than performing in front of an audience. In court, I always preferred the judges who would fire questions at me - even if they were bastards - because it forced me to think on my feet, and I'm more animated and real when I have to do that.

 

I compare men who have difficulty approaching women to my difficulties with public speaking. If somebody gives me step by step detailed guidance on how to deliver a talk to a group of people - right down to the body language I should use - the end result is going to be painful to watch. Same with men who are trying to mimic other men's approaches or follow step by step instructions "remember to touch her arm...sorry instigate kino and drop in a neg and...." etc etc.

 

Do people ever come across naturally when all these instructions are whizzing through their heads as they communicate with another person? Maybe, but I wonder what kind of person that would be. Maybe there's a particular temperament that rehearsed, planned and manipulative approach works well with. I think to connect with people, you have to be genuinely interested in them and to like them. If you disrespect them; see somebody as a "target" to be manipulated...or, as you say, to make that person "lose" while they believe they're gaining, how can you have a normal, natural, enjoyable and spontaneous conversation with them?

[dasein]

The intellectual problem with PUA's and their antecedents (apart from the fact that their claims are unproven and untestable) is that they fail to appreciate the difference between selfishness and pursuing short-term goals. To them, those two things are one and the same.

 

Will do this by analogy. Three fishermen go out and employ exactly the same fishing techniques. One wants a single trophy fish, one wants to catch his limit, and one just wants to get out of the house and outdoors. They are named A, B and C. Tell, me, metis, without knowing more, which is which?

[verhrzn]

Do you want a man who exhibits a control of sexual power? or some guy giving you the "live long and prosper" sign and talking about logic? Women want to be seduced. They CRAVE it. Why do you think vampires are so popular with women, Twilight, Anne Rice, True Blood? (Oh you think GUYS watch and read that crap?) Their ability to turn into a bat? No, it's the SEDUCTION, the power. You aren't like that? so what? Many, many women are. Oh, yes, they get LOTS out of the deal, make no mistake, I'm not sending them home on an empty stomach.

 

Guess I'm one of the weird ones... I LOVE logic discussions (and the "live long and prosper" sign can be great when used appropriately.) Nothing turns me off a guy faster than one who can't have an intellectual, thought-provoking conversation with me.

 

Though I suppose... to each his own. PUA artists seem to get what they want, and I am certainly NOT the type of woman they want. I in turn am turned off by PUA artists, so I'm really only in trouble if the entire male gender morphs into the type of guys that follow Dasein's advice.

 

I'm still saddened by your approach though, and even more destitute that you confirmed the only way an ugly woman can succeed in dating is by "raising your general attractiveness so that you can meet that "first switch" in a majority of guys".... aka, that without being physically attractive, no amount of tricks, tips and manipulation can win a guy's heart. How... depressing all the way around.

[verhrzn]

brilliant post and many valid points and question. curios as to how men are gonna answer this one...

 

The good ones will try to argue that attractiveness is objective, and they FAR prefer "less conventionally attractive" women with a good soul/heart/what have you. The bad ones who think they are good ones will argue that it's simply "evolution" to prefer an attractive mate, and slam the attractive-but-flighty woman in some way (if only those hot chicks would shape up so we could love them for their body AND personality!) without admitting they themselves reinforce the hot woman's bad behavior, and the bad ones who admit they are bad will simply shrug and say," I have standards. No fatties."

[ThsAmericanLife]

This deserves comment, because for the guys the post was meant for, don't let the fact that it's a long post deter you. If you typed out how to do laundry on a home washer/dryer, for example, to a person who had never used detergent or a washer/dryer, the post would be long but the actual doing would be simple. Same with describing a good golf swing to someone with little or no golf experience, the description would seem long but would describe an action that takes about 1 second. The process I describe takes place over an hour or more, so naturally takes longer to describe.

 

Another thing worth mentioning is that the post is not a compilation of seduction "research," but my personal real life experience. I started a serious dating period back in 2001. At first, I had the mediocre success I had always had since HS. I am a fast learner though, and within a year, learned to build attraction quickly in a broad group of women. I had control for the first time in my life. There is a very satisfying feeling when a hot, professional, well-educated woman jumps you in public shortly into a first date. Even more satisfying when you figure out how to duplicate it and most of your dates end in her letting you know very plainly that she is available for sex at your pleasure. Once more, I'm an average guy, average height, decent shape, not rich, not famous.

 

The PUA references and talk about limerence were learned AFTER this, as was other supporting detail. I read a massive amount of books on every topic, and always have. About 1% of it is related to attraction, dating and relationships. When I come across something that explains something I have learned through experience, I bookmark it. I take notes and use stickies on every nonfiction thing I read, even magazine articles, then go back and make computerized notes. If you aren't doing this when you read, in this age of information overload, you are losing lots of knowledge and the resulting wisdom.

 

If I had to distill the long post on seduction, here are some high points.

 

1. Approach your dating life like any other skill, practice it and standardize it. When you find women who fall head over heels for you quickly (on first meeting or soon after), it may be because they are unstable, but it usually is because in addition to their first switch being flipped, finding you attractive enough, you did something or behaved in a certain way, to inspire that "butterfly" "screaming at the Beatles or Elvis" feeling in them, to flip that second switch. If you want success in dating, you have to figure out what you did and how to repeat it.

 

2. Playing into womens' wheelhouse by letting approaches devolve into Q&A sessions, "what do you do," "where do you go to school?" "what do you think about XYZ?" is attraction suicide. In order to get a woman sexually interested reliably and quickly, you must tap into her feelings, you must make an emotional impact on her. Women may not all know what they want in life or from a man, that's natural, but they DO have an agenda and that "list." Just as you try to get in front of the boss instead of the HR dept when getting a new job, with women you must get in front of their emotions, THE BOSS, not the HR dept of their agenda and manipulating men into compliance.

 

3. Attempting to please women, suck up to them, pay crappy compliments, is not reliable, and usually counterproductive. You must develop discernment and discrimination of YOUR OWN, you must let her know that she is on audition every bit as much as you are, even though by making the approach, you are signalling that she already has the job if she wants it. this is TOUGH, the toughest part for men. This is where all the limerence, social value and rarity talk comes in. Not some secret, just adapting your style to truths of basic human nature. The supreme actualization of this is having a woman grab your willy and be able to look at her playfully and say "you can't afford that!" as you move her hand away until YOU choose to let them. You must let them know that they have to earn your continued attention because rest assured, they are evaluating everything you say and do likewise. For goodness sakes it's all over this board from both genders. Once more, learn from what you read.

 

4. Master your sexual desire. When women perceive that you are other than a mere leg humping dog running around, they will literally start to THROW sex at you if you do the things above. This applies to all stages of the relationship. Don't take it every time. They will start to respect you when they see that they can't own you with their sexual power. Turn down sex because you are timid or have a hangup, etc. and they will be gone. Turn down sex from a position of power, because you know you can get it whenever, and they will literally throw it at you. I promise.

 

These things become second nature, ingrained, but sometimes you need training wheels to get the ball rolling, that's what the PUA and other references are for. At the very least, understand the limerence response, it is the key to developing attraction in women.

 

And anyone who has a better plan or methods, please post them, there is likely something I can learn from you. Don't just diss on my experience, post yours.

 

I hear you... however, alot of people (including me) either object to the PUA approach as sexist garbldy-gook or think it is a waste of time is for two reasons.

 

- Meanness: An element of hatred always seems to flow through most PUA tips/books. It feeds into a pretty dysfunctional psychology that implies that women are something to be tricked, used, cajoled, etc for one's own personal gain. Men don't like being treated that way... so I don't really understand how they could justify treating others that way... unless it is for revenge. Not cool.

 

- Waste of time: I have to believe the same ends could be met by learning how to treat the other gender as human beings... For many people, they struggle even forming friendships of any kind... much less relating to the opposite sex. I really believe that one has better 'luck' overall by starting out with basic human relationships with either gender... and going from there. The people (both men and women) who attract the most possible partners amongst a sea of people within their dating pool, usually have no problems making or keeping solid friendships.

 

Personally, I feel that is a much better 'training ground' for many successful endeavors... be it love or career... than any PUA set of tricks.

 

one last thing... you finally clued into the fact that lots of women like sex... good for you. You might be surprised to know that some of those women don't give a crap about you, just like you don't give a crap about them.... You haven't fooled anyone. You just made them believe for a short period that you were a good f*ck and don't have a box of rocks sitting on your shoulders. Big deal.

 

then however many years go by as you've f*d your youth away believing that sex is the end all to be all... and you have noone to share your life with. Seriously.

 

At some point, you will have to have something substantial to back up all that so-called sex appeal if you really want a happy life. Well, most people's idea of a happy life that is.

Edited November 8, 2011 by ThsAmericanLife

[Metis]

Will do this by analogy. Three fishermen go out and employ exactly the same fishing techniques. One wants a single trophy fish, one wants to catch his limit, and one just wants to get out of the house and outdoors. They are named A, B and C. Tell, me, metis, without knowing more, which is which?

 

It's not an analogy that works, Dasein. Dating is not fishing and women are not fish.

 

Do you want a man who exhibits a control of sexual power? or some guy giving you the "live long and prosper" sign and talking about logic? Women want to be seduced. They CRAVE it. Why do you think vampires are so popular with women, Twilight, Anne Rice, True Blood? (Oh you think GUYS watch and read that crap?) Their ability to turn into a bat? No, it's the SEDUCTION, the power. You aren't like that? so what? Many, many women are.

 

Sure, we all want to be seduced. But we find different things seductive. I, for one, am seduced by talk of logic. At the same time, I think Twiling and True Blood are so stupid, that I feel a wave of embarrassment just watching a few minutes of those things. Don't know much about Anne Rice, but I suspect it's in the same vein. I remember a guy chatting me up once (who knows? maybe he was a PUA) who in the middle of an otherwise acceptable conversation began saying some really moronic crap that sounded eerily familiar. After listening to that drivel for a few minutes, I realized he was paraphrasing lines from The English Patient, a movie that I had had to suffer through on another date, and which I found offensive to my intelligence. The guy was just saying how he is "against ownership" when I nearly sprayed my drink in his face and burst out laughing.

 

Oh, sure, I believe what you are saying when you argue that a lot of women DO like that ****. But using it as a pick-up technique has the problem that I pointed out before, it limits men to the kind of women who are enthralled with vampires. I know lots of men who find that really annoying, and I suppose they would like nothing better than to go out with women who AREN'T into that stuff. The PUA technique as you describe it, however, locks them into appealing to women who are not a good match for them; and when they try to cozy up to a woman who is actually more to their liking, using that bull**** will only have the result of turning her off. In other words, PUA has nothing to offer to men who want to connect with women of similar interests and values -- which is one of the reasons why, as I said, it's antithetical to forming meaningful and supportive relationships.

 

Oh, yes, they get LOTS out of the deal, make no mistake, I'm not sending them home on an empty stomach.

Well, that just illustrates my point that "seduction" in the PUA world is just a nasty trick to be played on women.

[dasein]

you confirmed the only way an ugly woman can succeed in dating is by "raising your general attractiveness so that you can meet that "first switch" in a majority of guys".... aka, that without being physically attractive, no amount of tricks, tips and manipulation can win a guy's heart. How... depressing all the way around.

 

First, I didn't make the world we live in. Second, the advice is the exact same for guys. Third, remember that these are generalities we have been discussing, they don't describe everyone, just the broad brush. I don't think I ever said any way was "the only way" in fact I said the opposite.

[dasein]

It's not an analogy that works, Dasein. Dating is not fishing and women are not fish.

 

Then why do people tell each other, "there's more than one fish in the sea?"

 

The analogy is apt. You just got caught wrongly attributing motive based merely on method alone and don't want to fess up. One guy wants a wife, another wants a notch in the bedpost, meeting those vastly different goals may entail the exact same methods.

 

Incidentally, I'm no Randian, but your characterization of her writings is flat wrong, your attribution of them to influencing PUA is absurd, and it's plain that as much as you and others rail on about PUA techniques you very obviously haven't read ANY of it other than soundbites. I think I was quite clear that the steps I described are not PUA techniques, even listed specific PUA stuff as "blunt instruments" and "training wheels," yet you and others keep on reading selectively and tilting at straw men.

[Metis]

Then why do people tell each other, "there's more than one fish in the sea?"

 

Actually, they tell each other "there's plenty of fish in the sea". Which isn't even true of real fish in real seas anymore so, I guess ... overconsumption and poisoning the sea are bad? In any event, "plenty of fish in the sea" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech isn't proof of objective reality.

 

The analogy is apt. You just got caught wrongly attributing motive based merely on method alone and don't want to fess up. One guy wants a wife, another wants a notch in the bedpost, meeting those vastly different goals may entail the exact same methods.

The problem is that the one guy who wants a wife or a girlfriend may not have the same woman in mind that you do. Now, if one guy wants to marry a drunk bimbo and another wants to merely sleep with her, I can see how they may use the same methods. But women ARE different, with different values, different personalities and different interests, and a different approach is needed depending on who you want.

 

A more apt analogy here would be if I needed dating advice for finding the kind of man *I* am interested -- nerdy -- and the "dating guru" advised me to hit exclusively on ... I don't know, hardcore soccer fans. Now, I don't care about sports, and I don't like hardcore soccer fans, but the guru would assure me that, deep down, every man is nothing more than a hardcore soccer fan. Even a man like Harold Bloom is actually, secretly, at heart, just a soccer fan. She would then proceed to teach me "techniques" that are designed exclusively to appeal to hardcore soccer fans' obsession with soccer. Ultimately, such "education" would not help me with a man that I really want; it would be a waste, and moreover, it would distort how I view men who are not hardcore soccer fans, making it MORE difficult for me to relate to them. That's essentially what PUA does for men.

 

Incidentally, I'm no Randian, but your characterization of her writings is flat wrong, your attribution of them to influencing PUA is absurd, and it's plain that as much as you and others rail on about PUA techniques you very obviously haven't read ANY of it other than soundbites. I think I was quite clear that the steps I described are not PUA techniques, even listed specific PUA stuff as "blunt instruments" and "training wheels," yet you and others keep on reading selectively and tilting at straw men.

Well, Dasein, on this we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think my characterization of Rand is accurate, based on having read her "works", including those that are outside of the standard Randian's "canon", but certainly help to illuminate her thinking (if you can call it that). Based on my familiarity with Rand, I see a lot of cross-over between Randian libertarianism and PUA philosophies. Ultimately, it's not a question of specific techniques, but one of values. If you regard the opposite sex, including someone you (hypothetical "you") may want to marry and raise your children as beastly prey and an enemy to be tricked and subjugated, employing your techniques would require first subscribing to that worldview. And I don't see a lot of people doing that.

[dasein]

Actually, they tell each other "there's plenty of fish in the sea".

 

Stopped reading there, pointless.

[snug.bunny]

"Real men treat women special." AGREE

"Real men act like a gentleman." AGREE

"Real men protect women." AGREE

"Real men work hard and provide for their women and children." Insert >provides for his family, himself included, since he's part of the family<

"Real men pick a woman up and drive her around." DISAGREE

"Real men open doors and pull chairs for women." DISAGREE

"Real men carry things for women." DISAGREE

"Real men pay for dates." SLIGHTLY AGREE

"Real men don't let women pay." DISAGREE

"Real men plan dates." A wise man, plans dates.

"Real men ask women out." A wise man, asks women out.

"Real men approach women first." A wise man, approaches women.

"Real men initiate first kiss." DISAGREE

"Real men initiate sex." DISAGREE

"Be a man." Word.

[musemaj11]

The good ones will try to argue that attractiveness is objective, and they FAR prefer "less conventionally attractive" women with a good soul/heart/what have you. The bad ones who think they are good ones will argue that it's simply "evolution" to prefer an attractive mate, and slam the attractive-but-flighty woman in some way (if only those hot chicks would shape up so we could love them for their body AND personality!) without admitting they themselves reinforce the hot woman's bad behavior, and the bad ones who admit they are bad will simply shrug and say," I have standards. No fatties."

Men dont want ugly women the same way women dont want jobless men.

 

Many men do not mind having a financially dependent woman as long as she is attractive while many women do not mind having a physically unattractive man as long as he is financially wealthy.

[fishtaco]

You do NOT gain a woman's attraction by being the man she says she wants. You do that and you'll be her BFF.

 

All that is BS. Only thing that matters, social status. If you can establish, fake or real, elevated social status, that's more than half the game. Then you can choose to be a real man or not, for yourself, NOT for the woman.

 

No matter what it is, fitting this "real man" image or any other BS, if you find yourself bending over backwards to please women, you lost already.

[Metis]

Stopped reading there, pointless.

 

Gee, dasein, I guess my life is over and I'll go suicide myself now.

 

Let me put it in the language you will understand: your status as a human being is too low in my eyes for your non-reading to matter to me.

 

[Metis]

Men dont want ugly women the same way women dont want jobless men.

 

Yet men who believe that whine to no end about attractive women being shallow and not wanting to date jobless men.

 

Many men do not mind having a financially dependent woman as long as she is attractive while many women do not mind having a physically unattractive man as long as he is financially wealthy.

 

Women who are "financially wealthy" have no problem attracting men either.

[soserious1]

Instead of arguing why can't women look at what is said by the OP and perhaps search our memories for times when we've heard these kinds of things said. I know I've heard other women utter phrases about what constitutes a "real man"

 

Why can't we address the complaint of a male OP and come up with ideas for what we as women can do to help eliminate this sexist & unfair thinking about men?

[Woggle]

If a woman says that to me then I will tell her what a real woman is. If she gets offended then she can stop trying to dictate manhood to me. Men like feeling masculine and cared for just like many women like feeling feminine and protected and before anybody denies that look at how many women on this board say just that.

[Metis]

Why can't we address the complaint of a male OP and come up with ideas for what we as women can do to help eliminate this sexist & unfair thinking about men?

 

I would start by dropping the word "real". Any human being with testicles and a penis, but no vagina, is a real man.

[Metis]

Men like feeling masculine and cared for just like many women like feeling feminine and protected and before anybody denies that look at how many women on this board say just that.

 

Protected from what?

[Woggle]

Protected from what?

 

That is a good question. You should ask them.

[betterdeal]

I would start by dropping the word "real". Any human being with testicles and a penis, but no vagina, is a real man.

 

Poor old Lance Armstrong

 

But seriously, soserious1, comes up with an excellent point. When women (or men) choose to be nasty with "real men ... " snide remarks, what's a man to do? Return the insult? Fight? Go off and obsequiously work to conform to the standard set by others?

 

My answer is to laugh at them. To not even comprehend the intended effect and instead wonder what arse about tit thinking led to them believing this crap. Certainly don't accept ownership of it: Their anger is their problem, not mine. Walk a mile in my shoes before you criticize and abuse, and all that.