The really real truth about men and women.

[xim]

After bitterness from this thread (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102353)
I wanted to transmit that energy into a rational 'lesson' to be learned.

This isn't politicly correct, but there is no reason why you should expect reality to fit the man-made ever changing confines of what is PC. It may seem cold and scientific, but thats because I tried to keep it objective. Some of it you will not agree with, and some of it might make you mad.

There are alot of ways in which society teaches men to think about relationships that are not congruent with what women actually respond to. It was fucking with my mind because I couldn't figure out what was going on. Ya i know, blame society, whatever.

There is this big push on equality. I believe that men and women are of equal VALUE, but nothing else about us is equal. Equal doesn't mean identicle. Men and women have different mating strategies hardwired into us in the form of unconcious emotional reactions. These hardwired emotional imperitives were developed because they help us to survive and reproduce, the two factors in being successful in the genepool, and therefore prolific in the population. But men and women naturally fell into 'roles' that were relativly universal among all cultures. This is a survival strategy because men and women are good at different things. Its starting to become appearent to me that the fundamental male energy is to 'do', and the fundamental female energy is to 'feel'. This is expressed esotericly by the ancient elements of fire and water. Its why in a respectable religion there should be priests AND priestesses to express both, not just one or the other as in Christianity or Wicca respectively (and respectfully). As men and women evolved in a codependent relationship, they were a team like the bee and the flower. We developed together, but it's two seperate lines of development in one system, not one line of development 'together'. Think of two strings twisted up, not one string. We were dependent because of our differences, not our similarities. Since men and women have reproductive systems with different operating perameters (a women has 1 egg per month, a man has 50,000 sperm a day), different emotional circuitry was developed by each sex to most effeciently utilize their biology and spread their genes fruitfully. They also developed different emotional survival strategies. I don't think any of this affects us much on the concious level when we are logicly picking who to date, but I think its deeply ingrained in our emotional circuitry. A man has sperm to spare, this is why men tend to be attracted to a young healthy female with a hip to waste ratio that looks least pregnant. (Pregnant women are still beautiful in their own way of course, but not as appealing sexually.) Also, as a women becomes pregnant, she is physicly vulnerable, and if she does not have a strong male to protect her, not only could she lose the baby, but she could die as well. Not good for the survival and reproduction. Therefore women are generally attracted to a strong alpha male, who has a good ability survive to provide for her. In modern times, this emotional reaction is stimulated by status, money and power. These things indicate survival ability. Yes, there are gold digging women who just want to spend a mans money, but in general women are attracted to money (legitimatly) not only to spend it but because it shows that if nothing else, the man can take care of himself. Also because of this, women tend to feel attraction for someone who they percieve to have higher social value than themselves. Why would they want to date 'down'? That would negativly affect their survival ability. The problem is boys grow up and hear women complaining about 'asshole' guys all the time and vow to never be that. In trying to avoid being an asshole they give away all their power in a relationship. They try to please her until it's she's annoyed, then they apologize for being annoying, compliment her, thank her for being nice enough to like him, call her 10 times a day, they never set any boundaries or stand up for themselves, they show that they have no self worth or pride, and the girl loses attraction. It's not her fault, its just not part of her emotional program to feel attraction for the weak dependant beta male. This is why there is the cliche saying the "the asshole gets all the girls". It's true, but not because girls like someone who acts like a dickhead. It's because the badboy behavior communicates independence, strength, non-needyness, confidence, all the things stimulate an emotional reaction of attraction from a female. I keep using the words 'emotional reaction' because I want to iterate that these aren't choices we make, and they aren't always nice, they are just unconcious hardwired responses that, in the majority of time our species has existed, have helped each individual assert his/her genes.

Feminism was a perfectly legitimate movement to get equal pay in the workplace, and suffrage for women. Thats fine. But its effect on the cultural conciousness of the people was to create a kind of role reversal or mix up about masculine and feminine energy. (Both men and women have both yin and yang, but men tend to have more masculine energy and women tend to have more femenine energy. The polarity is what creates the attraction. This is true even with gays/lesbians as the more masculine tends to be attracted to the more femine one, and vice versa. And this I dont think this is linked to homosexuality, as there are masculine and feminine straight guys, and masculine and feminine straight women. Incedentally a masculine female can be attracted to a feminine male. As long as there is that polarity in energy.) The feminist ideology lead to a sort of masculinization of women, followed by another movement partially inclusive to the 'hippy' movement, where men were feminized. Because of this, men and women have all this intellectual conditioning from society which acts contrary to their emotionally hardwired survival and reproductive strategies. In other words, people are confused. Men don't know, "Should I open this door for her? Should I lead? Should I help her fix her bike or will she think I'm calling her a technicly incompetant girl?". People don't know their roles. Women go through similar confusion I think. Its still pretty obvious for a girl how to be attractive. Culture still shows them this. Youth, health, large breasts, wide hips, lipstick and blush that simulate sexual flush, clear skin, being pretty, and being sexually available. I know it's superficial, but were talking about attraction which is a primal emotion and doesn't care if you think it's 'right' or not. Guys however tend to be clueless as to what 'does it' for a girl. Society just doesn't tell us. Too many guys pretty themselves up in ways that are overly feminine because they are trying to project what THEY as men find attractive in women, incorrectly assuming women also find it attractive in men.

Primitive man's best reproductive strategy was to persue sex directly and promiscuously (50,000 sperm (the majority of which are actually warrior sperm designed to fight other males sperm in the uterus)). Primitive womans best reproductive strategy is to find a strong male to stick around at least long enough to help her through her pregnancy and hopefully take care of offspring. This was a big clue to me when I kept wondering about the games women play. Male reproductive game is usually as deep as a puddle of spilled beer and as obvious as "hey baby lets do it". Female game is a collection of very odd behaviours. What is she trying to accomplish? Men are trying to get sex...women are trying to....fight sex? No thats not right. And it hit me...DUH. Girl game is about getting a male and keeping him around long enough to fall in love with her and feel 'pairbonded' to her. Girls are told by their moms, and learn with experience that if she 'gives it up' and gives sex immediatly, the male mating game is over, and many men will lose interest. In the same sense, if a guy 'gives it up' and falls in love too easily, the girl feels like she didn't have to earn it and maybe he doesn't have as much value as she thought he did. She wants to be true to herself, and how can she beleive that is what she is doing if she didn't have to earn his affection. It is the exact corralary to womens 'dont put out too early' rule. Once a guy falls in love, the girls game is over, and her interest goes right down the drain. This is a huge realization for me. I think some girls don't even really realize this is why they are playing hard to get and whatever, for many it happens on an emotional subconcious level. Also in a womans games are tests to see where her boundaries are. She will push and push and if he isn't man enough to put his foot down and show her some boundaries, she will walk all over him trying to find them. How is she supposed to beleive he could protect her in a bad situation if he cant even stand up to her? Then she will lose attraction and dump him for being a pussy. She will feel like she's on a pedistal and probably feel bad for being a bitch, and not know why she feels the way she does. "He lets me treat him so badly" He is unaware that she just wants him to be a man and stand up for himself. She doesn't know why she doesn't like him, he was so nice. She might even feel stupid for 'ruining it'.
[no conclusion]

[BigBen]

"Holy-Post, Batman!"


"Yes, Robin, I am afraid what we have here is a person who takes Darwinism to the extreme. What they fail to realize is that threads like this become extinct, due to their un-readability and lack of discussion."

"What can we do?"

"Learn a lesson, Robin. Learn a valuable lesson here."


Seriously, I don't agree with your biological (that is stretching the word quite a bit) argument.

Social darwinism has been used to keep the women's liberation movement down for a century. I simply disagree with your argument.

There has been a religious movement surrounding your ideology (what was that called again? Oh yeah, the Promise Keepers. What a stroke of Marketing that was), supporting the return to traditional gender roles in society and at home in particular. I think that is harmful to young men and women, and should be actively fought at every turn.

[NotAnAlias]

It might pay to do some real research on feminism.

[Toaster126]

It might pay to have an opening post that facilitates discussion rather than eye strain.

[Martel]

I don't think the OP was trying to advocate a return to traditional gender roles, I think he was just attempting to elaborate on what he perceives as some of the un-/subconscious underpinnings of male and female social interaction and the ways in which society confuses people into not really understanding their own motives and desires.

Personally, I agree with a lot of that, but people like Freud have been trying to tease apart people's complicated unconscious sexual motivations for a long time and haven't gotten much of anywhere.

[Impetuous1]

Wow, you really are bitter. I'm really sorry you've been dicked around by immature girls who like to play mind games. You sound really young. When I was younger, I could have written a bitter post about how guys were always going after the blond, stupid girly girls who were just teases. Then, when those girls weren't around I suddenly existed for them. When there I was, smart, witty, goofy, etc, willing to put out. But, then I got over it and realized that guys who completely ignored me because I didn't fit their ideal sucked and I was better off without them anyway. My advice is this: your negative experience is a lesson. You don't need to give all of yourself for every relationship. Only once you know that you can trust them should you do that. Also, never under any circumstances allow yourself to be walked all over. You have a will of your own. Use it. Relationships are about reciprocation. From the thread you linked from, it sounds like she wasn't that into you from the beginning and just enjoys manipulating you and all males in general. Now you know the signs. Avoid these types of girls.

Also, maybe I'm the exception rather than the rule, but I am currently living with a male who makes significantly less than I do. I don't have a problem with it. Why? Because I think that I should be able to take care of myself. Fortunately, if I'm in "danger", I can call the cops. However, I'm not weak either. I can and have been in fights to defend myself and others. I take pride in my independence and proving people who think I need a man wrong. Having a man, my man around is a pleasure. Oh, and as for our roles. We take turns cooking and cleaning. When we buy furniture that needs to be put together, I do that.

[ASU2003]

I think guys produce millions of sperm a day.

Other than that small error, I think you are on the right path. Your theory is sound, but it needs just a little tweaks here and there.

There has to be a reason why some guys are so much more successful with women than others. It is probably all about making them feel like they are with the right person.

It would make a very interesting TV show to take a high-rolling 'player' and a boring normal guy and have them switch places for a week. And see, is it the personality & looks or is it the material goods and flashy stuff. I know you could give me a million dollar home in Vegas, and I might be able to throw a party, but I have no idea about how to make a woman feel good about being with me.

There is also a difference between women being with a guy to provide and protect her, and to provide half the genes to a baby. Most of the time, they are the same guy. Other times a woman thinks there is something better out there.

The balance of power in a relationship is always an issue. In the past, the guy had most of it, but the woman would use sex as the trump card. Now, women have more power, but they still want confident, powerful guys.

[ASU2003]

Then there is this quote that I just found:

"I heard a great theory once: Too many of us men were raised by our mothers, and not our fathers. Or we were raised in a household where our mothers dominated our fathers. In either case, we learned how to please a mother, not how to [be a man and] attract a lover.

Do yourself a favor, and think for a moment about what it would be like to be an attractive woman in your mid-20s who is approached all the time by "nice" guys who want to take you out and bore you with conversation about the news and weather.

Now ask yourself: "What kind of guy would instantly get my attention and cause me to feel an attraction to him?"'

[xim]

Originally Posted by BigBen

Social darwinism has been used to keep the women's liberation movement down for a century. I simply disagree with your argument.

There has been a religious movement surrounding your ideology (what was that called again? Oh yeah, the Promise Keepers. What a stroke of Marketing that was), supporting the return to traditional gender roles in society and at home in particular. I think that is harmful to young men and women, and should be actively fought at every turn.

My post had nothing to do with social darwinism. Social darwinism is the idea that the people at the top of the social heirarchy got there by being the strongest. It has nothing to do with anything I said, other than some abstractly similar survival of the fittest ideas.
And I can tell that when you say gender roles, you are referring to a man in the coal mine and a woman vacuuming the house. When I say gender roles, I am talking about the seperate ways in which men and women have learned to interact with the world in order to be succesful in it. I am talking about the fundamental energies or states of consciousness each has learned that they are best fit to survive if they maintain.

Perhaps you would like to point to a specific item you dont agree with...

[xim]

Originally Posted by NotAnAlias

It might pay to do some real research on feminism.

I assume you mean modern feminism and not the original rights movements. My ex took a class on womens studies run by the feminist alliance. I read the textbook hoping to find some interesting insights on the relationships between men and women. It was a series of paragraphs of experiments where they had tested the snarled-at possible differences between genders. EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH ended with the phrase: "there was no significant difference found between men and women". They were trying soooo hard to push this idea that men and women are identicle except in their no-no places. They tore apart the book Men are from Mars Women are from Venus for this same reason. I found it interesting when they said it was trash, as after reading it I found so much insight in my relationships through its words.

They want equality, and think that in order to achieve it they must convince everyone that men and women are the same. Why do 95% of men think romance novels are trite gibberish? Why are so few women interested in becoming engineers? How do you account for the completely different balances of hormones men and women carry with them everyday? Why do men approach sex as a mostly physical act, while women see it generally on a much more emotional level?
Why do people take such offense to the implication of men and women being different?

[maleficent]

Originally Posted by xim

I Why do 95% of men think romance novels are trite gibberish? Why are so few women interested in becoming engineers? How do you account for the completely different balances of hormones men and women carry with them everyday? Why do men approach sex as a mostly physical act, while women see it generally on a much more emotional level?

Way to generalize and set some stereotypes there...

Originally Posted by xim

Why do people take such offense to the implication of men and women being different?

People don't take offence to the notion... but I think the more enlightened person will see that PEOPLE are different from each other -- regardless of their gender... To say that the differences exist on a gender level, makes you as bad as the person who says that there are no differences on a gender level... My gender isn't what makes me a romance novel hating engineer who thinks that sex is about emotion and not purely a physical act - though it can be that as well... ME and my life experiences have what makes that so - I was good at math... I learned at an early age to appreciate literature - not the dime store trash passing itself off as a book.

[xim]

Originally Posted by Impetuous1

Wow, you really are bitter. I'm really sorry you've been dicked around by immature girls who like to play mind games. You sound really young. When I was younger, I could have written a bitter post about how guys were always going after the blond, stupid girly girls who were just teases. Then, when those girls weren't around I suddenly existed for them. When there I was, smart, witty, goofy, etc, willing to put out. But, then I got over it and realized that guys who completely ignored me because I didn't fit their ideal sucked and I was better off without them anyway. My advice is this: your negative experience is a lesson. You don't need to give all of yourself for every relationship. Only once you know that you can trust them should you do that. Also, never under any circumstances allow yourself to be walked all over. You have a will of your own. Use it. Relationships are about reciprocation. From the thread you linked from, it sounds like she wasn't that into you from the beginning and just enjoys manipulating you and all males in general. Now you know the signs. Avoid these types of girls.

Also, maybe I'm the exception rather than the rule, but I am currently living with a male who makes significantly less than I do. I don't have a problem with it. Why? Because I think that I should be able to take care of myself. Fortunately, if I'm in "danger", I can call the cops. However, I'm not weak either. I can and have been in fights to defend myself and others. I take pride in my independence and proving people who think I need a man wrong. Having a man, my man around is a pleasure. Oh, and as for our roles. We take turns cooking and cleaning. When we buy furniture that needs to be put together, I do that.

Thanks for your empathy but I am no longer bitter. I WAS bitter because I felt like she was a bitch for actively hurting me. I know she was initially interested in me as she stalked me for two months before we got together. I was bitter because I felt like she lost attraction for me on purpose, to hurt me. Know I realize that that makes no sense. She lost attraction for me because I had no concept of 'upperhand' or even 'balance of power' and showed her no boundaries. I gave her all of my emotions up front. It was not her fault she found my neediness unattractive. Her pulling away, what I had bitterly seen as manipulative mind games, was only her natural emotional response to being overwhelmed by me. Also, she probably gradually lost respect for me when I wouldn't yell back at her in an argument or hold my ground because I wanted to be *nice*.

As for your situation with your husband, I'm happy you are happy. Although I do think your situation is the exception to the rule. But as I said, even in a situation where there is a role reversal, there still is attracting polarity.

[xim]

Originally Posted by maleficent

Way to generalize and set some stereotypes there...


People don't take offence to the notion... but I think the more enlightened person will see that PEOPLE are different from each other -- regardless of their gender... To say that the differences exist on a gender level, makes you as bad as the person who says that there are no differences on a gender level... My gender isn't what makes me a romance novel hating engineer who thinks that sex is about emotion and not purely a physical act - though it can be that as well... ME and my life experiences have what makes that so - I was good at math... I learned at an early age to appreciate literature - not the dime store trash passing itself off as a book.

Can't you see how you've already decided to disagree with me because YOU have stereotyped ME as a mysoginistic maucho woman-hater and you're just looking for things to be offended by? The fact is that I am closer to the liberal long haired hippy stereotype. I am pro womens rights. I just think we would all be happier if we took a realistic look at ourselves.

I completely agree that everyone is different. But you cannot deny that there are trends. No one will perfectly fit the idea of what is 'masculine' or 'feminine'. They would probably be pretty goofy and try-hard if they did. I like decorating my apartment, and enjoying sensual experiences, these I consider the more feminine aspects of my existance. When I'm in a boxing match, or working on my car, I consider these the masculine aspects of my existance.

There is nothing wrong with generalizations OR stereotypes. As long as they are not taken as absolutes. I was very mindful of this when I said '95%', 'few', and 'most of the'. I do not think all women like romance novels. I do not think all men hate them. I think more women like them than men.

Do you not think that having different correlative hormonal balances might make men and feel and react to the world in distinct ways?

[NotAnAlias]

Originally Posted by xim

They want equality, and think that in order to achieve it they must convince everyone that men and women are the same.

Wrong. Very easy assumption to make.

If men and women were the same then women would lose rights - an example being maternity leave.

I suggest you read some feminist philosophers such as Simone De Beauvoir. Cavarero (forget her first name) is also very good. Easy to read, enlightening.

[xim]

Originally Posted by NotAnAlias

Wrong. Very easy assumption to make.

If men and women were the same then women would lose rights - an example being maternity leave.

I suggest you read some feminist philosophers such as Simone De Beauvoir. Cavarero (forget her first name) is also very good. Easy to read, enlightening.

Yeah, there are several of branches of feminism.

Honestly, that post was really more of a rant, I really wasn't taking potshots at the intent of feminism. My beef is more with the unplanned effects it has had on the cultural conciousness of our society regarding gender identity. Although granted, there are some angry lesbians who use feminism as an outlet for their manhating, in general they are the ones giving feminism a bad rap.

At the risk of sounding like a troll, I suppose I could sum up my entire post by saying "Being a beta male is the equivalent of being a fat chick, neither is what the others attraction circuits are programmed to respond to" of course, just as there are guys who are into fat chicks, I'm sure there are women who are into beta males.

This is a statement that I intuitively feel would make most feminists foam at the mouth with anger, even though it is proven by experience time and time again. If I am wrong and there is a branch of feminism that actually examines the nature of attraction, please tell me about it, I would be psyched to dive into it.

[777]

for Xim!

There's been controvercy here before regarding how a Man should act. Here's one gentileman who even gave lessons:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&page=1&pp=100

True, it seems as if Plan9 was trying to plant each and everyone of his seeds in every possible pot, but he is on to something.

[mokle]

I don't have time to post right now, just wanted to say 'good post' to you, xim.

[Ustwo]

Xim you figured them out (mostly).

I think you need to work a bit on the falls in love part. Women are as weak to that as males are, but never let them take it for granted early in a relationship.

I'm sure agreeing with you mostly won't earn me any female TFP friends (heh) but I figured this out when I was 20, changed my sex life and relationships almost overnight. In a month or so of this I found a girl who I married, and we are both quite happy.

You might want to read 'The Red Queen' it looks at sex from a evolutionary standpoint. Here is a brief summary. I've been meaning to read this book myself.

Chapter 6: Polygamy and the Nature of Men

We are designed for a system of monogamy plagued by adultery. Polygamy flourishes where it is allowed [is this contradictory?]. 3/4 of tribal cultures are polygamous. Powerful men have always had more than one mate, though usually only one legitimate wife who produces the heirs. Males are usually the seducer, women the seduced (exception: jacana, phalarope).

Homosexual promiscuity: Homosexuals are generally more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Male homosexuals are acting out male tendencies unfettered by the pressure of women toward monogamy. Lesbians are rarely promiscuous.

Harems and wealth. There is a polygyny threshold in which a suitably advantaged male attracts more than one mate, even in humans. It applies to humans regarding cattlemen of Kenya. Although first wives resent the new arrivals, the subsequent wives are receiving companionship, job sharing, and comfort (even career enhancement due to decreased responsibility). The mating system chosen is influenced by the distribution and population density of females.

Hunter gatherers... Sexual division of labor. Men seek power and building or dominating male-male coalitions. Men can always increase their reproductive success by philandering. Equitable sharing of hunted food is reciprocal altruism.

Chimps rise to alpha male status with cunning and coalitions as well as physical prowess. Coalitions in species can be based on reciprocity or relatedness.

Emperors have large harems. The more polygamous societies have male inheritance.

Laura Betzig posited via historical review that power in cultures is used for sexual success. Young virgins are recruited and guarded. Emperors become breeding machines with "onerous" duties. There is always one legitimate queen with legitimate heirs.

Slaves have been equated to concubines in Rome, etc. Many women were "employed" in castles and monasteries (in "gynoeciums" [women's apartments]).

For males, violence is rewarded by greater reproduction. Christians equated sex and sin prob. because of the trouble it leads to. Of Pitcairn survivors, many women but only 1 man survived due to sexual competition. Monogamy reduces murderous competition.

Chimps exhibit intergroup violence, killing the males of nearby groups and taking over the females. So do the Yanomamo's of Venezuela--they fight over women (this was disbelieved initially by anthropologists). The Iliad is a war over women. Armies are motivated over rape, as in Serbia. Democracy and the abolition of despotic power breeds monogamy.
Chapter 7: Monogamy and the Nature of Women

Polygamy is infrequent in hunter gatherers (exceptions: PNW Indians and Australian aborigines). Marriage is a child rearing institution. Women are not interested in overt polygamy but are often unfaithful. The Herod effect: Sarah Hrdy. Sperm competition theory. Female chimps have steady mates but sneak out to mate with a top male. Infanticide by a male mate halts maternal milk production and prepares them for new pregnancy. Female chimps mate with many males to share paternity and prevent infanticide. Human stepchildren are 65x more likely to die than children living with their parents [can this be true?]. Promiscuity and peacefulness of bonobos (pygmy chimps)--mating is so frequent it rarely leads to aggression.

Women seek monogamous marriages, lesbians are not promiscuous. Women are sometimes unfaithful. Species in which males have bigger testicles have more female polygamy [is this cause or effect?]. This allows more effective sperm competition. Man's are medium sized, with unusually low sperm/gram tissue. For birds, many of the chicks are not the ostensible father's--the fathers are cuckolded. Testicles are largest in polyandrous birds. Birds with large testicles tend to live in colonies where the females have ample opportunity for adultery.

A female with a mediocre husband having with good territory should have an affair with a genetically superior husband (the Emma Bovary strategy). Attractive males make inattentive fathers.

The amount of sperm retention in the vagina depends on orgasm. Faithful women and ardent lovers have high sperm retention (high fertility) orgasms compared to unfaithful women with their spouses (Baker and Bellis). Men and rats who have been away ejaculate more than ones who have been with the female all day (to overcome competition from other sperm).

Male birds behave in constant terror of infidelity of their females and mate frequently to compete (e.g., goshawks). Men keep an eye on their wives by proxy, gossip--for which language is required.

Human females have concealed ovulation, forcing males to mate regularly, exhibit continual sexual interest. This helps to prevent infanticide--neither the husband nor the lover knows if he is the father. Women use perpetual sexual availability to seduce philanderers in exchange for gifts.

Males may hold 2 territories, each with a committed mate. Men deceive their wives, not their lovers.

Jealousy is deep seated in men, a human universal. The absence of jealousy in a husband is worrisome to a wife. Couples who exhibit occasional jealousy are more likely to stay together. Men are less accepting of infidelity in their wives--there is also a legal double standard [really?].

Courtly love is about passing wealth to sons so they can be successful adulterers, cuckolding heiresses. Jousting impressed the ladies [and facilitated these relationships?] Tristan... The Church became obsessed with sex to prevent lords from siring legitimate heirs [can this be true?]. In the American South, the effort was to keep the wealth in the family. Incest laws are in part an effort for rulers to prevent wealth concentration in other families (and are not always followed by the rulers).

Men want to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs, and to acquire wealth to buy other men's wives who will bear bastards. Wealth and power are a means to women which lead to genetic eternity. Women want a husband who will provide care and food for her children, and a lover who will give them first-class genes.

(note this summary is VERY basic, more like someones class notes)

[xim]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Xim you figured them out (mostly).

I think you need to work a bit on the falls in love part. Women are as weak to that as males are, but never let them take it for granted early in a relationship.

I'm sure agreeing with you mostly won't earn me any female TFP friends (heh) but I figured this out when I was 20, changed my sex life and relationships almost overnight. In a month or so of this I found a girl who I married, and we are both quite happy.

You might want to read 'The Red Queen' it looks at sex from a evolutionary standpoint. Here is a brief summary. I've been meaning to read this book myself.

(-SUMMARY-)

(note this summary is VERY basic, more like someones class notes)

Interesting, this book is on my amazon.com wish list but I had never actually gotten it. Those seem to be pretty good notes, seem like they hit every point in the book densly. The Spark Notes to The Red Queen.

Oh yeah, I should clarify this. I didn't mean to imply that women don't fall in love. Of course they do. I was just pointing out that since a mans interest is mostly sexual early-on, it's a beneficial strategy for a female seeking a relationship to try to capture a mans emotions before he gets sex. For women, 'winning his heart' is the active process. But on the flipside, women want to win a man who has high standards (because most men don't). She wants someone who likes her for who she is and not someone who has such low self esteem they would fall in love with anyone who showed them attention. This is why she feels like she should have to work for his love at least a little. If he is trying too hard to make her happy and put her on a pedistal before he's even learned anything about her and had a reasonable ability to use some descretion, she will probably start doubting that hes such a great catch. It's a beta male filter. I would call this a 'test' of womens. One of the ways in which they make sure they have found a worthy, high status man. But not as if its anything thought out conciously, there's no need. The optimal strategy for finding the best fit mate is already programmed into our emotions.

[Mantus]

Xim,

Hightly recomend The Red Queen. Great book.

Your argument reminds me of one made in The Rebel Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter

Be cautious of your facts and the conclusions you draw. We are a very flexible species and while certain rules apply consistantly their manifestations and execution can vary based on individuals and cultures. This is because we respond to our metal environment rather then what's really out there.

It's nice to see the animal underneath the social veil but never attempt to discard it for we cannot function without it. Also don't expect many to agree with you. Most people omit animal nature from their ego. It's not part of their identity and they won't take kindly to having their Shadow shown to them.

I've found the best way to avoid pitfalls is to ask myself "how do I apply this information?" This tends to put everything into perspective.

[cellophanedeity]

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you, but I have a question:

How does this knowledge change things, if it does at all? What was it you were planning to accomplish with this?

And hey, what about us bi folk? Where would we fit in?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you, but I have a question:

How does this knowledge change things, if it does at all? What was it you were planning to accomplish with this?

It does change how you act in a relationship early on. I've posted this before, but what it means is you should not be 'the nice guy' early on, make the girl work for your affection instead of being obvioiusly head over heals in love.

And hey, what about us bi folk? Where would we fit in?

Hehehe I could write an essay on the value of bisexuality (in females of course) but I know where I think they fit in

[match000]

Xim, your realization in your OP is basically that you realized how to make women attracted.

Once I understood what you had said in your OP, I got a handle on flirting and how to talk to girls.

In a sense, you could summarize how to handle them as: 'do the opposite that they want you to do.' Obviously, some judgment calls, but if you are with girls and they say something or ask you to do something, don't just bend over and do it: you'd be like their little puppet on a string..

[xim]

Originally Posted by Mantus

I've found the best way to avoid pitfalls is to ask myself "how do I apply this information?" This tends to put everything into perspective.

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you, but I have a question:

How does this knowledge change things, if it does at all? What was it you were planning to accomplish with this?

Well, even if I had no specific direction of application, a better grasp of what's going on can never hurt. But I do have a few.
1. Bettering my understanding of the nature of attraction. (for obvious reasons)
2. Protecting myself from being so defensless to being hurt later in life.
3. The actual thinking and writing of this has helped me to recycle my bitterness into something useful.

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

And hey, what about us bi folk? Where would we fit in?

Well in general, I would call bisexuality and homosexuality a form of sexual deviation. I don't mean that like the hateful preacher next door means it, with all the negative connotations and such. I only mean that statisticly you are not the norm. Because you are 'not the norm' I would say you have a lower probability of 'fitting the pattern' in other ways as well.

But in general I would hypothesize that you have primarily a feminine or masculine energy to you, and that you generally are attracted to the opposite of that in either males or females. If you have found yourself in a relationship where there was no polarity, it probably didn't work out.

[Gaspard]

Originally Posted by maleficent

Way to generalize and set some stereotypes there...


People don't take offence to the notion... but I think the more enlightened person will see that PEOPLE are different from each other -- regardless of their gender... To say that the differences exist on a gender level, makes you as bad as the person who says that there are no differences on a gender level... My gender isn't what makes me a romance novel hating engineer who thinks that sex is about emotion and not purely a physical act - though it can be that as well... ME and my life experiences have what makes that so - I was good at math... I learned at an early age to appreciate literature - not the dime store trash passing itself off as a book.

Much of what we take for knowledge in this world, is based on generalization. Large portions of scientific discovery are based on generalizations. Generalizations do not exclude the possibility of exceptions, but they can indicate accurate tendencies. Obviously there is good and bad generalization, but anyone who does not believe that our gender underpins a lot of our behaviour, despite variations, does not know as much as they think. Not only is it blatantly obvious, but it has been proven time and time again by science, across the entire animal kingdom.