Questioning my motives for attraction. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MEAD · 01-30-2006, 09:14 PM

Recently I've felt like perhaps there's reason to question why I'm attracted to certain types of girls, and why I don't get on with others.

I want, more than anything, to be a protector to the girls I am with. It has drawn me to certain physical traits. I perfer a woman who is skinny and/or short, someone who could be called "frail." Beyond physical traits, I don't seem to jive well with strong, independant women; my instinct is to want to guard them, and they seem to be repelled by that. It's not that I am a big guy. I am tall, but thin. Honestly, physically I doubt I could do well to fight off some kind of attacker. Still I think the idea that I would do anything to keep the woman I love safe (whether that is physically or emotionally) is the most romantic thing there is. Therefore, I look for woman who need the safety and dogged loyalty I would offer.

I am just concerened that I look for a kind of weakness in the women I am interested in. I wonder if that makes my motives wrong and ultimately not the best for the girls I get involved with. Shouldn't I want them to be strong and self-reliant?

Martian · 01-30-2006, 09:45 PM

For every guy out there wanting to protect his girl, there's a girl who wants to be protected.

If she's unable to function without you, it's unhealthy. Beyond that, you're in the clear. Go where your heart goes.

Ustwo · 01-31-2006, 07:40 AM

Are you looking for a weak willed woman to protect or is it really to control and be in charge?

maleficent · 01-31-2006, 07:50 AM

The word need makes me nervous... I'm not sure I want to be needed by anyone... Needing, to me, signifies a weakness, that you are missing something that the needing fulfills... I would prefer to be wanted and would want someone in my life who wants to be with me rather than needs to be with me...

Women don't need protection... Most of us are pretty good at taking care ourselves... However, there are some who just want to have the strong male who could take care fo them if the situation arose.

Why does independence bother you? And i realize you like what you like and it's hard to change... independent women are with you because they want to - -that's a deeper affection and a stronger sense of loyalty than that woman who is with you because she needs you (and can't make it on her own...)

MEAD · 01-31-2006, 09:34 AM

I think its radically against the women in my family. My mom and oldest sister are that way, tall, blonde, confident. Apparently you are supposed to fall for women like mom but for me that just aint the case. I love my mom but dating someone like her would be really weird. I hardly bat an eye to a blonde :P. But what Im not saying is that I really want someone who is messed up, and cant function. I think its more about the affectations of that. I think I get the sense that someone who needs a bit of protecting is immediately more honest of a person. Really strong independant women, seem like they are lying through their teeth all day. I have an inherent distrust of anyone who seems to have it all figured out. I figure that if I am dating them for a while and they dont expose a bit of vulnerability, they dont trust me, and have no faith in me. That is what is unattractive.

Jinn · 01-31-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Shouldn't I want them to be strong and self-reliant?

Why? I'm definitely with you in this boat, and I think it's an entirely natural function of gender roles. I envision a relationship as two puzzle pieces fitting together, not two squares being connected into a rectangle. If you're both strong and independent and basically "the shit.." what do you gain from the relationship? Mal is right in pointing out that it shouldn't be a NEED, but there should be things that you like to do better than she does, and things she likes to do better than you do. If you both hated driving, who would drive when you needed to go somewhere? You'd be fighting over who got to do the thing that neither of you liked. However, what if one of you liked to drive and one of you didnt like to drive? In this case, the liker gets to do exactly what they like, and the not-liker gets to avoid doing something they don't like to do. My girlfriend is probably in the "strong and self-reliant" category, but she also lets me play my "man game" and be the protector, even if its only for show. It's not that she NEEDS me, only that the trait is valued and occasionally used that makes it work.

You've clearly identified yourself as someone who likes to be the Protector (or Guardian? Take a Myer's-Brigg's personality test) and that's entirely fine. Likewise, you're correct in identifying that someone who will fit what you LIKE to do is someone who LIKES to be protected. They can certainly be capable of defending themselves (mentally, physically, etc..) but that doesn't mean they have to like it. What I'm saying is that you don't have to go to physically or mentally frail -- but at least find someone who will value and appreciate the fact that you like to lead/control/protect/however you define it.

Charlatan · 01-31-2006, 09:51 AM

I have no desire to have a partner that needs me to take care of her. I want (and have) as close to an equal relationship as you can get.

While we both rely on each other there is no "need" per se.

We challenge each other to greater heights.

Martian · 01-31-2006, 10:15 AM

The official term that's been skirted around a bit here is codependency. This is what I was getting at in the above post.

It's okay to be in a relationship where there is an interdependency; you rely on your signifigant other to provide you with certain things. Where you start to run into trouble is if you're unable to function without that person (or vice versa). There has to be a certain amount of independence within the relationship; you will be unable to stand together until you can each stand on your own. This is the situation to avoid.

If a girl relies on you to the point where she can't manage her day-to-day life without you, it effectively traps you. What happens when you have to go away on business, or if you have a family affair that you have to attend? What happens when you want or need time to yourself (which everybody does)? What happens when you go to work or school or go out for a guy's night? She has to be able to cope with these sorts of situations and you do too.

However, there are emotional needs that are fulfilled by a partner; if there weren't, we wouldn't get into relationships. You, like a great many guys, have the desire to be 'the man'; that is, you want to fill the traditional masculine role of protector and provider. That's okay; you may find a girl who is happy to have you do that and would prefer to fulfill the more traditional female role of caregiver. This is a healthy relationship, so long as she's able to protect herself when you're not available to do it.

Think of it more as parts to be played. You act like a man, she acts like a woman. If, however, the act becomes reality and she really is unable to get by without you guiding her and protecting her, you're going to have trouble. That sort of a relationship is not healthy and tends not to last.

So basically, it comes down to what I said above. You know what you want. There are girls out there who have complementary desires. Finding one isn't even all that much of a challenge. The pitfall to watch out for is that you have to make sure it is just an act; she has to be able to stand alone as well. As long as you're aware of the fact, you're okay.

MEAD · 01-31-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

The official term that's been skirted around a bit here is codependency. This is what I was getting at in the above post.

It's okay to be in a relationship where there is an interdependency; you rely on your signifigant other to provide you with certain things. Where you start to run into trouble is if you're unable to function without that person (or vice versa). There has to be a certain amount of independence within the relationship; you will be unable to stand together until you can each stand on your own. This is the situation to avoid.

If a girl relies on you to the point where she can't manage her day-to-day life without you, it effectively traps you. What happens when you have to go away on business, or if you have a family affair that you have to attend? What happens when you want or need time to yourself (which everybody does)? What happens when you go to work or school or go out for a guy's night? She has to be able to cope with these sorts of situations and you do too.

However, there are emotional needs that are fulfilled by a partner; if there weren't, we wouldn't get into relationships. You, like a great many guys, have the desire to be 'the man'; that is, you want to fill the traditional masculine role of protector and provider. That's okay; you may find a girl who is happy to have you do that and would prefer to fulfill the more traditional female role of caregiver. This is a healthy relationship, so long as she's able to protect herself when you're not available to do it.

Think of it more as parts to be played. You act like a man, she acts like a woman. If, however, the act becomes reality and she really is unable to get by without you guiding her and protecting her, you're going to have trouble. That sort of a relationship is not healthy and tends not to last.

So basically, it comes down to what I said above. You know what you want. There are girls out there who have complementary desires. Finding one isn't even all that much of a challenge. The pitfall to watch out for is that you have to make sure it is just an act; she has to be able to stand alone as well. As long as you're aware of the fact, you're okay.

Very smart. Thanks.

Jinn · 01-31-2006, 10:54 AM

I've come to realize recently that relationships are one of the very few exceptions to the "think first, then act" paradigm that we learn as children. In nearly everything known to mankind, more benefit is given to those who think about the results before executing the plan to get those results. My theory is that relationships should be processed in the completely opposite order. What you're thinking about here essentially breaks down into a "mating strategy." Word it how you will, that's the essense of trying to figure out what is the most successful way for you to have a relationship. However, due to the nature of humanity, you cannot predict the responses to your strategy with any reliable degree of probability. The only way to know is to try it (empircally) many many times. If it's sucessful, then it's a successful mating strategy. If it isn't, then you need to modify your strategy and try again. I think this is why so many people get stuck in the "Nice Guy/Asshole Guy/Protector" conundrums. Neither you or I can predict how successful it will be on any given person/relationship; the result is ONLY provided by trying it out. If it turns out that you can't find a girl who accepts you being a more masculine figurehead, then its time to either (a) find another girl (b) modify your strategy. I don't mean to dissuade you from discussing, but keep in mind that no amount of "planning" is ever going to guarantee higher levels of success. On the contrary -- relationships that start "randomly" seem to fair much better in the long run.

Poppinjay · 01-31-2006, 12:57 PM

Mead, when I read your posts, my thought was, “wow, my uncle is posting to TFP now.” Except you’re much younger. My uncle has always had this protective deal going on, and is in his third marriage.

This time, it may last because he has the ultimate, a woman who’s been in danger from an ex spouse. All the others were just financial rescues, I need a baby daddy rescues. He gets to be the big, strong republican with a town car and a plan.

As long as that isn’t the thrill for you, the protecting, it may be okay. If it is, you’ll find there are many, many women out there who have a sob story worse than the previous.

Cynthetiq · 01-31-2006, 01:19 PM

nice to see that you are cognitive of your self and your desires.

I thought similarly as well so my solution was to be celibate for 5 years and date as many as I could. My personal issue was that I did not want to look at women as sexual objects and wanted to ensure that I knew how to tell the difference.

little_tippler · 02-02-2006, 06:00 AM

I am a strong woman. Sometimes I don't know it myself, but when it's necessary, I rise to the occasion better than most. However I have no qualms in saying that when I truly love someone, I need them in my life. I can live without them. But they are very precious to me. I am quite independent and capable of handling things on my own, but I like to feel safe with the man I love. I hope I can also offer him that same security. I have no problem with saying I need someone. It doesn't make me weak, it doesn't make me less capable. I hope that any man who loves me needs me also - a special kind of need that nurtures the soul. At the end of the day, we are all alone, of course. But showing your vulnerability should make your partner respect you, and not put you down because they suddenly feel "trapped".

fatmanforprez · 02-02-2006, 10:26 AM

A year ago i would have thought myself in a boat no-wheres near your own. However in the last year I have looked at my choices and discovered that it is not strong women that I like. It is what I call possibly strong women, intelligent and full of personality, but somehow damaged or needy. This isn't only my relationships this is my friends. I was for most of my life the only person I knew who had a stereotypical American upbringing. My friends are strong and usually asshole-ish. However I am there for them whenever they need me, to the point where I look back and I'm cultivating more relationships with more needy people. To the point that I have spent the last year going from crisis to crisis and eventually got tired and cut my self off from the world for 2 weeks of contemplation. I am still there for my needy friends, but I don't run myself into the ground trying to keep up either.

01-30-2006, 09:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
MEAD Insane Location: South Florida	Questioning my motives for attraction. Recently I've felt like perhaps there's reason to question why I'm attracted to certain types of girls, and why I don't get on with others. I want, more than anything, to be a protector to the girls I am with. It has drawn me to certain physical traits. I perfer a woman who is skinny and/or short, someone who could be called "frail." Beyond physical traits, I don't seem to jive well with strong, independant women; my instinct is to want to guard them, and they seem to be repelled by that. It's not that I am a big guy. I am tall, but thin. Honestly, physically I doubt I could do well to fight off some kind of attacker. Still I think the idea that I would do anything to keep the woman I love safe (whether that is physically or emotionally) is the most romantic thing there is. Therefore, I look for woman who need the safety and dogged loyalty I would offer. I am just concerened that I look for a kind of weakness in the women I am interested in. I wonder if that makes my motives wrong and ultimately not the best for the girls I get involved with. Shouldn't I want them to be strong and self-reliant? __________________ Here are some phrases I'd like to be able to say, in all honesty, before I die. "That's it, send out the ninjas!" "So then I had to kill my way to the second floor."

01-30-2006, 09:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	For every guy out there wanting to protect his girl, there's a girl who wants to be protected. If she's unable to function without you, it's unhealthy. Beyond that, you're in the clear. Go where your heart goes. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

01-31-2006, 07:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Are you looking for a weak willed woman to protect or is it really to control and be in charge? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-31-2006, 07:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	The word need makes me nervous... I'm not sure I want to be needed by anyone... Needing, to me, signifies a weakness, that you are missing something that the needing fulfills... I would prefer to be wanted and would want someone in my life who wants to be with me rather than needs to be with me... Women don't need protection... Most of us are pretty good at taking care ourselves... However, there are some who just want to have the strong male who could take care fo them if the situation arose. Why does independence bother you? And i realize you like what you like and it's hard to change... independent women are with you because they want to - -that's a deeper affection and a stronger sense of loyalty than that woman who is with you because she needs you (and can't make it on her own...) __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

01-31-2006, 09:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
MEAD Insane Location: South Florida	I think its radically against the women in my family. My mom and oldest sister are that way, tall, blonde, confident. Apparently you are supposed to fall for women like mom but for me that just aint the case. I love my mom but dating someone like her would be really weird. I hardly bat an eye to a blonde :P. But what Im not saying is that I really want someone who is messed up, and cant function. I think its more about the affectations of that. I think I get the sense that someone who needs a bit of protecting is immediately more honest of a person. Really strong independant women, seem like they are lying through their teeth all day. I have an inherent distrust of anyone who seems to have it all figured out. I figure that if I am dating them for a while and they dont expose a bit of vulnerability, they dont trust me, and have no faith in me. That is what is unattractive. __________________ Here are some phrases I'd like to be able to say, in all honesty, before I die. "That's it, send out the ninjas!" "So then I had to kill my way to the second floor."

01-31-2006, 09:51 AM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I have no desire to have a partner that needs me to take care of her. I want (and have) as close to an equal relationship as you can get. While we both rely on each other there is no "need" per se. We challenge each other to greater heights. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-31-2006, 10:15 AM	#8 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	The official term that's been skirted around a bit here is codependency. This is what I was getting at in the above post. It's okay to be in a relationship where there is an interdependency; you rely on your signifigant other to provide you with certain things. Where you start to run into trouble is if you're unable to function without that person (or vice versa). There has to be a certain amount of independence within the relationship; you will be unable to stand together until you can each stand on your own. This is the situation to avoid. If a girl relies on you to the point where she can't manage her day-to-day life without you, it effectively traps you. What happens when you have to go away on business, or if you have a family affair that you have to attend? What happens when you want or need time to yourself (which everybody does)? What happens when you go to work or school or go out for a guy's night? She has to be able to cope with these sorts of situations and you do too. However, there are emotional needs that are fulfilled by a partner; if there weren't, we wouldn't get into relationships. You, like a great many guys, have the desire to be 'the man'; that is, you want to fill the traditional masculine role of protector and provider. That's okay; you may find a girl who is happy to have you do that and would prefer to fulfill the more traditional female role of caregiver. This is a healthy relationship, so long as she's able to protect herself when you're not available to do it. Think of it more as parts to be played. You act like a man, she acts like a woman. If, however, the act becomes reality and she really is unable to get by without you guiding her and protecting her, you're going to have trouble. That sort of a relationship is not healthy and tends not to last. So basically, it comes down to what I said above. You know what you want. There are girls out there who have complementary desires. Finding one isn't even all that much of a challenge. The pitfall to watch out for is that you have to make sure it is just an act; she has to be able to stand alone as well. As long as you're aware of the fact, you're okay. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

01-31-2006, 10:54 AM	#10 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I've come to realize recently that relationships are one of the very few exceptions to the "think first, then act" paradigm that we learn as children. In nearly everything known to mankind, more benefit is given to those who think about the results before executing the plan to get those results. My theory is that relationships should be processed in the completely opposite order. What you're thinking about here essentially breaks down into a "mating strategy." Word it how you will, that's the essense of trying to figure out what is the most successful way for you to have a relationship. However, due to the nature of humanity, you cannot predict the responses to your strategy with any reliable degree of probability. The only way to know is to try it (empircally) many many times. If it's sucessful, then it's a successful mating strategy. If it isn't, then you need to modify your strategy and try again. I think this is why so many people get stuck in the "Nice Guy/Asshole Guy/Protector" conundrums. Neither you or I can predict how successful it will be on any given person/relationship; the result is ONLY provided by trying it out. If it turns out that you can't find a girl who accepts you being a more masculine figurehead, then its time to either (a) find another girl (b) modify your strategy. I don't mean to dissuade you from discussing, but keep in mind that no amount of "planning" is ever going to guarantee higher levels of success. On the contrary -- relationships that start "randomly" seem to fair much better in the long run. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

01-31-2006, 12:57 PM	#11 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Mead, when I read your posts, my thought was, “wow, my uncle is posting to TFP now.” Except you’re much younger. My uncle has always had this protective deal going on, and is in his third marriage. This time, it may last because he has the ultimate, a woman who’s been in danger from an ex spouse. All the others were just financial rescues, I need a baby daddy rescues. He gets to be the big, strong republican with a town car and a plan. As long as that isn’t the thrill for you, the protecting, it may be okay. If it is, you’ll find there are many, many women out there who have a sob story worse than the previous. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

01-31-2006, 01:19 PM	#12 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	nice to see that you are cognitive of your self and your desires. I thought similarly as well so my solution was to be celibate for 5 years and date as many as I could. My personal issue was that I did not want to look at women as sexual objects and wanted to ensure that I knew how to tell the difference. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

02-02-2006, 06:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
little_tippler Leaning against the -Sun- Super Moderator Location: on the other side	I am a strong woman. Sometimes I don't know it myself, but when it's necessary, I rise to the occasion better than most. However I have no qualms in saying that when I truly love someone, I need them in my life. I can live without them. But they are very precious to me. I am quite independent and capable of handling things on my own, but I like to feel safe with the man I love. I hope I can also offer him that same security. I have no problem with saying I need someone. It doesn't make me weak, it doesn't make me less capable. I hope that any man who loves me needs me also - a special kind of need that nurtures the soul. At the end of the day, we are all alone, of course. But showing your vulnerability should make your partner respect you, and not put you down because they suddenly feel "trapped". __________________ Whether we write or speak or do but look We are ever unapparent. What we are Cannot be transfused into word or book. Our soul from us is infinitely far. However much we give our thoughts the will To be our soul and gesture it abroad, Our hearts are incommunicable still. In what we show ourselves we are ignored. The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged By any skill of thought or trick of seeming. Unto our very selves we are abridged When we would utter to our thought our being. We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams, And each to each other dreams of others' dreams. Fernando Pessoa, 1918

02-02-2006, 10:26 AM	#14 (permalink)
fatmanforprez Tilted	A year ago i would have thought myself in a boat no-wheres near your own. However in the last year I have looked at my choices and discovered that it is not strong women that I like. It is what I call possibly strong women, intelligent and full of personality, but somehow damaged or needy. This isn't only my relationships this is my friends. I was for most of my life the only person I knew who had a stereotypical American upbringing. My friends are strong and usually asshole-ish. However I am there for them whenever they need me, to the point where I look back and I'm cultivating more relationships with more needy people. To the point that I have spent the last year going from crisis to crisis and eventually got tired and cut my self off from the world for 2 weeks of contemplation. I am still there for my needy friends, but I don't run myself into the ground trying to keep up either.