salparadise Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 As a crusty old 2nd generation feminist, I really dislike the princessy attitude of women who are quite happy to have the financial benefits of equality, but demand men do all the work in dating. Yup. I've been trying to figure out how best to articulate the paradigm difference. It's certainly not role reversal, it's more nuanced than that. It's also not about men being passive, but it is about women being assertive in a way that says, "hey, I feel competent and alive. I'm feminine and equal in ways that matter and I intend to show you and the world just how attractive that can be." I tell you what though, I'm spoiled. Women with that nuance are so rare. I haven't posted about dating experiences over the past six months, but I'm ready to take a break. Disappointment after disappointment, and not of a mind to compromise. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Bastile Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 Basil69^ There you are. It's natural masculine/feminine polarity. I'm attracted to feminine women. I'm not into feminists, or masculine vibe. Our ideas of equal are different, and you don't have a monopoly on it. People pair off accordingly. It's not even worth worrying about. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 Oh I'll repeat myself but desire to find a man who is assertive/masculine has NOTHING to do with the equality/qualities of the woman, or with finances[i've personally moved around the world, earned a doctorate, worked in various fields in STEM, bought my own house, and fully financially supported 2/3 of my boyfriends (the third one was close to equal).... And nevertheless - I do not plan dates and never will.] No? I think that's exactly it. Passivity. Timorous. Reticent. Demure. Bubbas looking for arm candy. Yea, I know about the evolutionary argument... but there are many facets to that. I want to mix genes with a woman who's capable of a lot more than birthing babies. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 So do I - again organizing dates is ONE task in dating, is not 'men doing all the work'. I've been supporting financially boyfriends - and still letting them do at least one thing - pick and select d*mn dates. How this can be sooooo hard? As a crusty old 2nd generation feminist, I really dislike the princessy attitude of women who are quite happy to have the financial benefits of equality, but demand men do all the work in dating. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 I personally never had to think about being an 'equal', they have to think about that If it funny how some women are even considering that thought - for me it has never been a thing because I'm acutely aware of my value so dudes are the one that has to prove that they are equal to me or at least almost there Jokes aside, it all boils down to compatible morals, ethics and attitude indeed. A p*ssy guy that is too afraid of rejection to ask me out if he's interested is just incompatible with me because of the attitude. I had a guy who was otherwise nice who didn't gain the courage to escalate it to a kiss in 6! dates and afterward acted butthurt that I told him we're platonic friends. That's the type of attitude that I'm running afraid from - scared little boy that doesn't know how to interact with women. Oh, it's exactly about being a 'little wifey'. Bastille summed up perfectly how the man chasing the woman sees her as very much lesser than him. It's all about the man being the boss. This is quite different to when a woman goes in as an equal and remains an equal. Personally, I think it's foolish of a woman to set herself up as a person who doesn't make decisions - but then I place high value on a man who sees me as an equal. I also agree with the guys who say the guy who chases you is a Beta. An Alpha is rare and women will flock to him, giving him the choice of women. Lastly, in answer to the question about which of the 10 men chasing I would choose? I'd give first choice to the guy who has compatible morals, ethics and attitude and with whom I have the best conversation. It matters little to me how many dates he organised and paid for. I'm just not cut out to the kind of woman who isn't on the front foot when it comes to organising. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
No_Go Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 That's the guy you marry, have a couple of kids by, make him go to work and pay all the bills ... and not give him sex for 20-30 years. I laughed to that Are women still 'giving' sex to men?? [And let's stop with the financial crap - it is not what the discussion is about; initiating dates is different than who is the provider, I never initiated one and still has been the main provider in my relationships]. Alpha men is not someone that doesn't give a crap, he is someone who is not afraid to take risks. Like risking rejection. The woman reciprocating in the early stages is basically motherly sayng 'little boy, don't be scared, I like you as well'. I want a man who can exist in insecurity. Not someone who needs to be affirmed. Furthermore, this "sit back and let him do all the work" crap is a beta male test. No alpha has to tolerate that. Because women compete for alphas. They are scheming, strategizing, and putting in work before the alpha even knows she exists. They work hard to attract and keep an alpha from day one. The purpose of finding a guy that will do all the work up front is to find a good beta provider. That's the guy you marry, have a couple of kids by, make him go to work and pay all the bills ... and not give him sex for 20-30 years. While you have an alpha lover on the side who doesn't give a crap about you or what you want. That's the purpose of trying to find a sucker to do all the work up front. And why some don't like the truth being told about it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
salparadise Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 Oh I'll repeat myself but desire to find a man who is assertive/masculine has NOTHING to do with the equality/qualities of the woman, or with finances[i've personally moved around the world, earned a doctorate, worked in various fields in STEM, bought my own house, and fully financially supported 2/3 of my boyfriends (the third one was close to equal).... And nevertheless - I do not plan dates and never will.] We're on parallel tracks and I get the feeling that you're not really considering what I'm saying –– you just read the words and dismiss. It seems like it's important for you to be right, and convince people that you perspective is the correct one. It's actually individual preference rather than a matter of correct/incorrect, however, your preference seem pretty typical of the social style of 19th century England. I know there is some biological inertia there too, but it just seems out of whack for a smart, competent to be feigning demure in the 21st century. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
basil67 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 I think that while we are bickering about the rights and wrongs of this, we're getting away from the OPs issue. The girl he is dating isn't proactive about organising dates and he wishes she was more so. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
SammySammy Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 (edited) That's the guy you marry, have a couple of kids by, make him go to work and pay all the bills ... and not give him sex for 20-30 years. I laughed to that Are women still 'giving' sex to men?? [And let's stop with the financial crap - it is not what the discussion is about; initiating dates is different than who is the provider, I never initiated one and still has been the main provider in my relationships]. Alpha men is not someone that doesn't give a crap, he is someone who is not afraid to take risks. Like risking rejection. The woman reciprocating in the early stages is basically motherly sayng 'little boy, don't be scared, I like you as well'. I want a man who can exist in insecurity. Not someone who needs to be affirmed. Let's not obfuscate the issue. The Alpha/Beta paradigm is essentially the Lover/Provider paradigm. They are one and the same. They are totally about sex and money. The bottom line is this, the woman who chooses an Alpha is by his side and fully present from day one. She is not slacking in any area because she knows another woman would take her spot. The Alpha male is courageous and leads readily, but does not need to make an extensive effort to "prove" he's Alpha after the relationship has started. That is done BEFORE the female chooses him. He gets chosen BECAUSE he is Alpha not because he now has to prove it. Afterwards, they are a team. The person you're agreeing with admits to needing women to be submissive which, in this context, means inferior. Why is that necessary and why the need to make a show of displaying "dominance" early in the relationship? Because he's really not dominant and needs to appear that way by artificially making the woman inferior. Beta females play along because this display shows the guy is an useful idiot, a beta provider. Who has a place and a role in this world and he will be used accordingly. "Wait and let a guy set up all the dates" is a beta game played by betas. Period. Edited July 16, 2017 by MidKnightDreams 2 Link to post Share on other sites
CptInsano Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 As a crusty old 2nd generation feminist, I really dislike the princessy attitude of women who are quite happy to have the financial benefits of equality, but demand men do all the work in dating. This would certainly explain why I dated so many feminists over the years. Yup. I've been trying to figure out how best to articulate the paradigm difference. It's certainly not role reversal, it's more nuanced than that. It's also not about men being passive, but it is about women being assertive in a way that says, "hey, I feel competent and alive. I'm feminine and equal in ways that matter and I intend to show you and the world just how attractive that can be." I tell you what though, I'm spoiled. Women with that nuance are so rare. I haven't posted about dating experiences over the past six months, but I'm ready to take a break. Disappointment after disappointment, and not of a mind to compromise. I don't think they are that rare. All the women I was with fell into that category. I stopped chasing girls in high school after I figured out that the girls who wanted to be chased were not the girls I was interested in. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Bastile Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 I personally never had to think about being an 'equal', they have to think about that If it funny how some women are even considering that thought - for me it has never been a thing because I'm acutely aware of my value so dudes are the one that has to prove that they are equal to me or at least almost there Jokes aside, it all boils down to compatible morals, ethics and attitude indeed. A p*ssy guy that is too afraid of rejection to ask me out if he's interested is just incompatible with me because of the attitude. I had a guy who was otherwise nice who didn't gain the courage to escalate it to a kiss in 6! dates and afterward acted butthurt that I told him we're platonic friends. That's the type of attitude that I'm running afraid from - scared little boy that doesn't know how to interact with women. I want a man who can exist in insecurity. Not someone who needs to be affirmed. And this is an example to how the women should reframe things for their own value. Very good vibe. Men and women are both vulnerable in their own ways, and powerful in their own ways too. It's yin and yang. Let's not obfuscate the issue. The Alpha/Beta paradigm is essentially the Lover/Provider paradigm. They are one and the same. They are totally about sex and money. The bottom line is this, the woman who chooses an Alpha is by his side and fully present from day one. She is not slacking in any area because she knows another woman would take her spot. The Alpha male is courageous and leads readily, but does not need to make an extensive effort to "prove" he's Alpha after the relationship has started. That is done BEFORE the female chooses him. He gets chosen BECAUSE he is Alpha not because he now has to prove it. Afterwards, they are a team. Idealism of passive game. The person you're agreeing with admits to needing women to be submissive which, in this context, means inferior. That's white-knighting on your part. I never said anyone was inferior. Why is that necessary and why the need to make a show of displaying "dominance" early in the relationship? Because he's really not dominant and needs to appear that way by artificially making the woman inferior. Beta females play along because this display shows the guy is an useful idiot, a beta provider. Who has a place and a role in this world and he will be used accordingly. I'm actually laughing at the rudimentary game theory, the lack of real world (infield) correlation. Attractive women have been paying for stuff, making me gifts etc, and without any exclusivity. Go and look up what provider means. Because you aren't making any sense. "Wait and let a guy set up all the dates" is a beta game played by betas. Period. Redefining alpha/beta paradigm to suit yourself, and your ego. Don't believe me? Go read Roissy, Rollo, or anyone else with a lick of credibility on the subject. Men initiate. Men lead. Get over it. Link to post Share on other sites
William Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 Looks like a drive-by so I'll thank everyone for their input and close this pending the return of the thread starter. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts