alphamale Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 The most desirable women go for the masculine male. And please remember that masculinity is not necessarily associated with being nice. Masculinity is more assoicated with assertiveness, aggressiveness, decisiveness and confidence and control.
Author SoCalCatman72 Posted August 14, 2006 Author Posted August 14, 2006 Masculinity is more assoicated with assertiveness, aggressiveness, decisiveness and confidence and control. So does being a serial killer.
lindya Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 I have heard that Type A personalities can be very difficult to be in relationships with. I'm not sure type A personalities always have the kind of traits I meant. I see them as being focused on being successful. Being in charge, and having power. I think you can get type B personalities who nonetheless have areas of life that they feel very passionately about. There's just not necessarily the same drive to get to "win". It's more the taking part that they're absorbed in. But I'd never even consider cheating on her. Does that make me unattractive because, for her, there is no risky behavior and no excitement? She doesn't think so. I think people have a picture of the "less nice guy" that includes cheating as part of the equation. My version of less nice isn't about treating others disrespectfully. It's more about someone who doesn't avoid confrontation for the sake of having an easy life and winning popularity contests. I suppose I associate the word "nice" with people who focus on keeping the peace - whatever the negative long term costs might be. Not to suggest that every guy on this board who's ever described himself as nice falls into that category....but I'm just never quite clear about what people mean when they describe themselves in that way. Does nice mean stronger in moral fibre (good)? or does it just mean amiable with an "anything for a quiet life" approach (which is problematic, in my view)? I think opposites can attract, but I don't think they stay together in the long-run all that often. That's the thing. My "less nice" guy wouldn't be my opposite. It's about having a fair amount of independence and space within a relationship. No doubt the tag of "less nice" is misleading and encourages people to think I mean "abusive". I don't. I just know, from experience, that I don't fit well with guys who are overly concerned with being popular people pleasers. Not, at least, in a romantic context. Less nice, to my mind, means being his own guy...even if it means getting rejected by the pack now and again.
alphamale Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 So does being a serial killer. so what?! women kill also albeit at a lower rate.
Outcast Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 lindya, I think you are suffering from the 'nice = doormat' issue in semantics. I think this whole debate would cease to exist if there existed a single definition of 'nice' . However every person adds an individual nuance. And a lot of people nuance 'nice' as 'spineless'.
Kittiecat Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 Masculinity is more assoicated with assertiveness, aggressiveness, decisiveness and confidence and control. Those are definitely the types I go for. Hasn't really worked in my favor. So it must me.
shoedevil Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 I think people have a picture of the "less nice guy" that includes cheating as part of the equation. My version of less nice isn't about treating others disrespectfully. It's more about someone who doesn't avoid confrontation for the sake of having an easy life and winning popularity contests. I suppose I associate the word "nice" with people who focus on keeping the peace - whatever the negative long term costs might be. I'm not a pacifist (maybe an idealist), but if more people in positions of power sought out non-violent methods of conflict resolution, I think the world would be a better place. I minored in history, and to me, the 20th Century was as bloody as it was due to overly aggressive and passionate ideologies and cultures coming into conflict. On a personal level, though, nobody likes being taken advantage of, and I eventually learned to put people who tried in their place (be they men or women). You can have a spine and still be a non-aggressive person. Maybe "defensive male" is a better label; someone who doesn't seek confrontation, but knows how to deal with it when it seeks him out. Less nice, to my mind, means being his own guy...even if it means getting rejected by the pack now and again. So, not the alphamale or betamale? An independent thinker, more than likely... those guys (and girls) are few and far between (maybe 10-15% of the population, just a guess on my part). I rarely encounter people like that anymore. I didn't even meet many of them in college, when everybody was talking about critical thinking and independence. Old habits die hard. Conformity and "lemming" behavior tend to be the norm here in the good old U.S.A. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the norm for male behavior tends to be aggression, arrogance, and limited expression of emotion.
lindya Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 I'm not a pacifist (maybe an idealist), but if more people in positions of power sought out non-violent methods of conflict resolution, I think the world would be a better place. I minored in history, and to me, the 20th Century was as bloody as it was due to overly aggressive and passionate ideologies and cultures coming into conflict. On a personal level, though, nobody likes being taken advantage of, and I eventually learned to put people who tried in their place (be they men or women). You can have a spine and still be a non-aggressive person. Maybe "defensive male" is a better label; someone who doesn't seek confrontation, but knows how to deal with it when it seeks him out. Agreed. Highly aggressive people and their pacifiers equal eachother when it comes to managing conflict badly. One screams and shouts, the other soothes, the conflict dies down (until the next outburst) and both people probably gain a sense of having "won". I think a certain amount of conflict is normal. It can provoke creativity, lateral thinking and a generally dynamic environment. The problems creep in when you have people who thrive on using conflict to threaten and demean others (the others often being classic conflict avoiders). My general rule is that if I can't see potential for someone gaining a new perspective, or positive change arising from a particular conflict, I should walk away from it. Not that I always manage to follow that rule. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the norm for male behavior tends to be aggression, arrogance, and limited expression of emotion. I keep reading about this trend for men to behave "like real men" (whatever that means) as part of a rebellion against feminism. I've read about it in the media and here on Loveshack, but I can't say I've met any militant "masculinists" in real life. Most people seem to be just getting on with doing their own thing and taking whatever craze the media reports on with a hefty pinch of salt. That's not to say there aren't people (men and women) whose self images are highly dependent upon them continuing to be aggressive, arrogant and emotionally disabled.
shoedevil Posted August 14, 2006 Posted August 14, 2006 I keep reading about this trend for men to behave "like real men" (whatever that means) as part of a rebellion against feminism. I've read about it in the media and here on Loveshack, but I can't say I've met any militant "masculinists" in real life. Most people seem to be just getting on with doing their own thing and taking whatever craze the media reports on with a hefty pinch of salt. Rutgers University conducts an annual study of the state of marriage in the U.S.A. One of its recent articles examined men who do not marry, and the upward trend that's been observed. Something like 20-25% of (straight) men aged 25-35 admitted the following in large-scale surveys: - Do not want to marry anytime soon, and do not want children. - Question the value of marriage (due to prevalence of divorce). - Do not trust women to tell the truth about their past relationships. - Think it's o.k. for women to raise children alone. - Prefer fun, freedom, and independence to committed relationships. - Believe single men have better sex lives than married men. - Did not grow up in a two-parent home, or did not have a strong father figure. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2004.pdf That's the best evidence I've seen of a so-called "masculinist" movement. I've seen similar surveys that mirror this sentiment in young men. I wouldn't call it organized rebellion, but rather the effects of sociological change since the 1960's. It's strange that these men reject monogamy and commitment despite all the evidence of social, financial, and physical benefits (for both men and women) that come from a stable relationship.
burning 4 revenge Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 That's not to say there aren't people (men and women) whose self images are highly dependent upon them continuing to be aggressive, arrogant and emotionally disabled. When did you meet Gigi?
lindya Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 When did you meet Gigi? I have lunch with her European counterpart on a regular basis. It keeps me on my toes.
stoopid_guy Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 lindya, I think you are suffering from the 'nice = doormat' issue in semantics. I think this whole debate would cease to exist if there existed a single definition of 'nice' . However every person adds an individual nuance. And a lot of people nuance 'nice' as 'spineless'. That's the root of a lot of the "nice guy" debate. "Nice," to me, is simply how you treat others. "Spineless" is an entirely different dimension. I've known obnoxious jerks who were spineless. For that matter, a lot of men who act "macho" do it to cover the fact that they have no guts. The men I admire most, the men who I'd prefer to have next to me in a sticky situation, are the "speak softly and carry a big stick" types. They're polite, curteous, and gentle whenever they can be, but they don't hesitate to use aggression when the situation calls for it, they don't tolerate bullys, and they will not be "pushed around."
lindya Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 lindya, I think you are suffering from the 'nice = doormat' issue in semantics. I think this whole debate would cease to exist if there existed a single definition of 'nice' . However every person adds an individual nuance. And a lot of people nuance 'nice' as 'spineless'. Perhaps we should start a new watercooler thread about it. Nice: what does it mean? Does it stand for courage, integrity and humanity....or is it just Pooh Bear and friends clinging to a pc monitor?
Ripples Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 nice c.1290, "foolish, stupid, senseless," from O.Fr. nice "silly, foolish," from L. nescius "ignorant," lit. "not-knowing," from ne- "not" + stem of scire "to know." Maybe those guys that claim to be nice are actually telling the truth!
shoedevil Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 Maybe those guys that claim to be nice are actually telling the truth! Maybe those guys still living in the 13th Century... (URL removed by moderator) nice(adj.) 1. Pleasing and agreeable in nature: had a nice time. 2. Having a pleasant or attractive appearance: a nice dress; a nice face. 3. Exhibiting courtesy and politeness: a nice gesture. 4. Of good character and reputation; respectable. 5. Overdelicate or fastidious; fussy. 6. Showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment; subtle: a nice distinction; a nice sense of style. 7. Done with delicacy and skill: a nice bit of craft. Society redefines words over time (just look at "gay"). They're just words, after all. What's the value in labeling other people, or yourself for that matter? I think truly "nice" (as in polite and courteous) men probably act that way without thought of how others perceive their behavior. I've found that good deeds are their own reward.
alphamale Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 Something like 20-25% of (straight) men aged 25-35 admitted the following in large-scale surveys: - Do not want to marry anytime soon, and do not want children. - Question the value of marriage (due to prevalence of divorce). - Do not trust women to tell the truth about their past relationships. - Think it's o.k. for women to raise children alone. - Prefer fun, freedom, and independence to committed relationships. - Believe single men have better sex lives than married men. - Did not grow up in a two-parent home, or did not have a strong father figure. Well SHOEDEVIL...I believe in all the above but I grew up in a stable two-parent home with a very good father figure. What does that say?
shoedevil Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 Well SHOEDEVIL...I believe in all the above but I grew up in a stable two-parent home with a very good father figure. What does that say? Your personal story says nothing, and does not contradict the survey results which showed some common beliefs and backgrounds that tended to show up for this group of men. There are always exceptions, but they do not invalidate the general trend observed. I grew up in a stable, two-parent home with a strong father figure and I don't agree with most of what these men believe. What does that say? Nothing. Statistics apply to large groups of people, not to individuals. Everyone is entitled to his or her own relationship preferences, or lack thereof. You can do your own thing or play follow the leader. However, there are real reasons why 75-80% of (straight) men are happiest in long-term committed, relationships (marriage, for the most part). P.S. - Belief and fact don't always agree. Married men report having more satisfying sex more often than their single counterparts, despite popular perceptions of marriage as a sexual wasteland. People can believe the world is flat, but that doesn't make it true.
Outcast Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 An independent thinker, more than likely... those guys (and girls) are few and far between (maybe 10-15% of the population, just a guess on my part). I rarely encounter people like that anymore. I didn't even meet many of them in college, when everybody was talking about critical thinking and independence. You think it's as high as that? And where the heck are they?
stoopid_guy Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 P.S. - Belief and fact don't always agree. Married men report having more satisfying sex more often than their single counterparts, despite popular perceptions of marriage as a sexual wasteland. People can believe the world is flat, but that doesn't make it true. Actually, I've gotten a more sex since getting married. Now, if my wife found out, I'd be in BIG trouble!!!
alphamale Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 Married men report having more satisfying sex more often than their single counterparts, despite popular perceptions of marriage as a sexual wasteland. So what? Single men may get less sex OVERALL but they're haveing it with different women
Ripples Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 Maybe those guys still living in the 13th Century... (URL removed by moderator) Society redefines words over time (just look at "gay"). They're just words, after all. What's the value in labeling other people, or yourself for that matter? I think truly "nice" (as in polite and courteous) men probably act that way without thought of how others perceive their behavior. I've found that good deeds are their own reward. Errr, it was a joke.
shoedevil Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 So what? Single men may get less sex OVERALL but they're haveing it with different women They get less sex overall, and less satisfying sex in general (by their own admission). Or they're not having sex at all. Lifelong bachelors aren't that common, but nobody's discouraging you from doing whatever you want. However, I've yet to meet a guy who's proud to be sleeping around after his STD tests comes back positive...
alphamale Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 They get less sex overall, and less satisfying sex in general (by their own admission). Or they're not having sex at all. ... Variety is the spice of life as far as i'm concerned. And i think the study you cited is probably flawed. Many of the married people I know are not that happy and some are downright miserable. And the divorce rate in US is like 60%. In my experience there are some unhappily married people who like to put on an act to the world that they are happy. That would explain your figures.
burning 4 revenge Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 Variety is the spice of life as far as i'm concerned. Too much spice and you die alone
alphamale Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 Too much spice and you die alone I disagre b4R...mainly because after the age of fifty there are many more available women than men. The ratio favours men as we age so most dudes won't be alone. Rather, they'll have 100's of lonely females knocking on their doors.
Recommended Posts