Psychology of the beautiful gyal.

[Spirit]

Cliff Notes:
Become good at something, get some confidence and move to another country if you want an attractive person.




The one day in this forum were I am glad I am an S type. You guys are overthinking this. Some of you want to rebel and think that just because you want to have a certain non style, that women should throw themselves at you. Women that are very attractive and talented do not have to settle for someone that is not confident and has no situational awareness. You know what that leaves, women that are not very attractive that are interested in guys that are confident and that are good at something that is cool. that leaves the rest of the women that are attracted to things confident average guys like.

You are attracted to people that are not attracted to you. If you want those women to be attracted to you, you have to change. If you don't want to change who you are, you need to move to another place/country, where people are attracted to what you offer.

 

[Spirit]

Yes. I see that.

 

[Pizzabeak]

why do they want it so bad? they just want to spend as much as their life as possible catering to values, almost understandably. interaction and talking seem to be valued. the only thing is, it is expected to occur 24/7 at every opportunity as far as i can tell; it stimulates them. supposedly denotes intelligence; etc. if you really care that much, don't give them any more reasons not to like you, initially if anything. life attracts life and they like to see overt participation, to various extents... plus, expect to be interested in foods. for some reason, most girls love eating so expect to be able to invest portions of *resource* into getting that accomplished.

anyone can write a book on most subjects. most "adaptive" factoids seem to hold true. long story short, most people in general just love to see interaction, particularly utilizing language. there's pressure, it'd be cool if i could mind my own business and still get things accomplished. so this brings up the question of the worth of meeting other people's standards and wishes. people even seem to try to set up scenarios so you can have an opportunity to display whatever it is they might be curious about (how "good" you are at social interaction, how "normal" you are), which seems lame

 

[redbaron]

So you're telling me that with dual parenting the lines are blurred, yet with single parenting, the lines are more balanced?

Blurring IS balance. Children raised by both parents end up adopting both masculine and feminine traits. In cultures where this is the case you see women with masculine traits and vice-versa.

The issue is that you see extreme gender disparity as, "balanced" when it actually isn't. Having both parents equally involved in raising a child doesn't create, "alpha" males and subservient females. It creates well-balanced people with both feminine and masculine traits.

 

[Brontosaurie]

how do we know that having traits of the opposite sex is being "well-balanced"? isn't that a bit like saying a bird should also swim to be well-balanced? i'm not ruling out the idea - i just don't think it's derived from rational pragmatic considerations as much as it's born out of a muddled instinct of "equality" which has been applied outside of its functional domains due to some, yet uncharted, aspect of the ongoing enlightenment's impact on cognition.

it is clear that harnessing the socio-economic productive potential of males and females respectively doesn't mean the same thing now as it did in the kind of environment we're genetically adapted to. most importantly, muscular strength, aggression and physical endurance are hardly useful anymore. however, it is not clear that gender-specific evolutionary solutions pertaining to the psyche are entirely without merit in our current world.

looking forward to your reply.

 

[Jennywocky]

how do we know that having traits of the opposite sex is being "well-balanced"? isn't that a bit like saying a bird should also swim to be well-balanced? i'm not excluding the idea - i just don't think it's derived from rational pragmatic considerations as much as it's born out of a muddled instinct of "equality" which has been applied outside of its functional domains due to some, yet uncharted, aspect of the ongoing enlightenment's impact on cognition.

it is clear that harnessing the socio-economic productive potential of males and females respectively doesn't mean the same thing now as it did in the kind of environment we're genetically adapted to. however, it is not clear that gender-specific evolutionary solutions are entirely without use in our current world.

looking forward to your reply.

Well, isn't that a question you might have an opinion on? Is it accurate to compare human men and human women (the same species) to birds and fish (different species) as you have here, or was that a momentary slip of logic in comparing unlike things? Considering there are women who express stronger masculine traits than some men and vice versa, does your comparison seem relevant at all?

I think the latter question you raise is more interesting but it says nothing about whether a significant gender difference is quantifiable across members of each physical gender (aside from the obvious, like women able to become pregnant, etc.) or whether significant "gender-specific evolutionary solutions" even exist in the context people are discussing them in this thread... which for one side seems to boil down to, "Women are just women and men are just men, by god, so let's keep things sacrosanct."

 

[Brontosaurie]

Well, isn't that a question you might have an opinion on?

needless to say, yes it is.

Is it accurate to compare human men and human women (the same species) to birds and fish (different species) as you have here, or was that a momentary slip of logic in comparing unlike things? Considering there are women who express stronger masculine traits than some men and vice versa, does your comparison seem relevant at all?

the logic in my comparison is that there are, in both cases, two different kinds of thing who do different tasks. one flies, the other swims. one simply provides material for fertilization while the other also carries the embryo/foetus. species and sex are biological devices, not logical ones. my slip is of biology and it is deliberate.

there are flying fish and swimming birds. there are fish breathing air and there are some birds who can't fly. there is an overlap, in both cases. i'm not going to deny this, in either. we're talking about abstractions. classes, not instances. niches, not specimens.

I think the latter question you raise is more interesting but it says nothing about whether a significant gender difference is quantifiable across members of each physical gender (aside from the obvious, like women able to become pregnant, etc.) or whether significant "gender-specific evolutionary solutions" even exist in the context people are discussing them in this thread...

it would baffle me if evolution was proven to have failed to imprint some overall differences in mental propensity. pregnancy imposes severe restraint on mobility and thus forces a domestic, nurturing niche. the psychological consequences of this are intuitively obvious. i reckon the feverish denial with which such hypotheses are usually received is in itself a symptom of that masculine cultural ideal which is commonly labeled patriarchy and which in its current stage, commonly mislabeled feminism (which is not to say there's no real or valid feminism mind you) allows females legitimity and respect only insofar as they adhere to masculinity.

 

[Pyropyro]

Generation raised by women refers to increase of children being raised without a father which is approximately 1 out of 3 in the US. Do you really believe a women can teach her son about masculinity better than the kids father can? The studies I've read shows that a male growing up is better off with 2 parents but if it came down to 1 parent, the father would be the better bet. Unless the father possesses absolutely no alpha traits, dual parenting wouldn't make the lines blurred as you say, but balanced. The same thing I'm advocating for when I say take on more alpha traits, return to baseline.

Do males of your culture seek out the guidance of more mature males and treat them as father or mentor figure? That should compensate masculinity issues of being raised with a single parent. The mother isn't necessarily be the one who will teach those principles to the male child.

 

[Affinity]

Do males of your culture seek out the guidance of more mature males and treat them as father or mentor figure? That should compensate masculinity issues of being raised with a single parent. The mother isn't necessarily be the one who will teach those principles to the male child.

I believe males naturally tend to seek guidance from more mature males. You can see this a lot in areas of poverty where males from single parent homes or broken homes tend to join gangs.

 

[Polaris]

"Rheas, that reach sexual maturity between 20 and 24 months of age, can be described as polygynandric in that males are simultaneously polygynous, whereas the females are sequentially polyandrous. Only 5 to 6% of the male population bred successfully each year in the wild. Rheas are ground-nesting birds with females laying eggs for up to 12 different males during the laying season, and males incubating the eggs for a period of around 42 days. Rheas are characterised by high rates of nest desertion (65%) commonly associated with egg predation, orphan eggs laid far away from active nests, and egg stealing between males. In the wild males took care of the chicks for 4 to 6 months, with chick adoption from other broods a common phenomenon."

Source

Wow, the imbalance. Stupid birds need to sort out their gender roles like humans; it's just not....right

 

[TimeAsylums]

Wow, the imbalance. Stupid birds need to sort out their gender roles like humans; it's just not....right

I am fervently disgusted...that is just not the way it should be

 

[Pyropyro]

"Rheas, that reach sexual maturity between 20 and 24 months of age, can be described as polygynandric in that males are simultaneously polygynous, whereas the females are sequentially polyandrous. Only 5 to 6% of the male population bred successfully each year in the wild. Rheas are ground-nesting birds with females laying eggs for up to 12 different males during the laying season, and males incubating the eggs for a period of around 42 days. Rheas are characterised by high rates of nest desertion (65%) commonly associated with egg predation, orphan eggs laid far away from active nests, and egg stealing between males. In the wild males took care of the chicks for 4 to 6 months, with chick adoption from other broods a common phenomenon."

Source

Wow, the imbalance. Stupid birds need to sort out their gender roles like humans; it's just not....right

Forget gender roles! I want to know how Rheas tastes like!

 

[TimeAsylums]

Forget gender roles! I want to know how Rheas tastes like!

The Filipino within

 

[Pyropyro]

The Filipino within

I remembered watching a TV program about Burmese pythons in Florida with my father. He said that their reptile problem would have been solved way earlier if those snakes were here instead.

 

[Affinity]

"Rheas, that reach sexual maturity between 20 and 24 months of age, can be described as polygynandric in that males are simultaneously polygynous, whereas the females are sequentially polyandrous. Only 5 to 6% of the male population bred successfully each year in the wild. Rheas are ground-nesting birds with females laying eggs for up to 12 different males during the laying season, and males incubating the eggs for a period of around 42 days. Rheas are characterised by high rates of nest desertion (65%) commonly associated with egg predation, orphan eggs laid far away from active nests, and egg stealing between males. In the wild males took care of the chicks for 4 to 6 months, with chick adoption from other broods a common phenomenon."

Source

Wow, the imbalance. Stupid birds need to sort out their gender roles like humans; it's just not....right

TIL 94% of male rheas were simply not alpha enough to pass on their genetics.

 

[Cognisant]

The only one of those I've heard from a guy is the "provoking to rape" thing, which unless it's a criticism of the behaviour of teasing drunk guys with the prospect of sex for free drinks & attention it tends to get shot down pretty fast.

Y'know one the whole we like it when women look sexy.

Everything else is something guys either have no reason to say or would never dare say, unless the cheerleader was wearing the nerd glasses and calling herself such then that's pretty transparent and even then it would take a pretty damn bitter guy to raise the issue.

In summary my point is that when it comes to feminism the worst offenders against women are women.

 

[Polaris]

TIL 94% of male rheas were simply not alpha enough to pass on their genetics.

Assumption. There could be several factors playing in. Putting it down to a lack of 'Alpha' is not only unscientific, but also further adds to the assumptions in which you attempt to make some grand statement about what genders should be and should not be. Evolution can take on many directions; that human gender roles should remain in some sort of stasis is your opinion. However, the reality is that gender roles are changing despite what people wish to argue.

 

[Pyropyro]

TIL 94% of male rheas were simply not alpha enough to pass on their genetics.

Ah no. Chances are those polygynandric males are related. Even if they didn't get to directly mate with the female rheas, their genes can still be passed on if the other male is genetically related to them (they're probably brothers). It's like uncles taking care of their nephews/nieces.

It's also a good defensive strategy for the males to protect each other's brood especially if they're prone to predation. This simply strengthens my hypothesis that rheas are tasty.

 

[Affinity]

However, the reality is that gender roles are changing despite what people wish to argue.

We know that gender roles are changing. The question is, will it be for better or for worse?

 

[TimeAsylums]

We know that gender roles are changing. The question is, will it be for better or for worse?

/lol

Women are women, men are men, and equality is bullshit. Women are taking on more masculine traits, men are becoming more feminine and it is just not the way it should be.

According to you, worse.

I'm curious Affinity, what is the way it should be?

 

[Affinity]

/lol



According to you, worse.

I know my stance on it, thank you.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I know my stance on it, thank you.

See edit^

What is the way gender roles "should be?"

Please share, I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing your thoughts on the way it should be

 

[Polaris]

Affinity, I guess we may not live to find out

I'm certainly enjoying the freedom of being able to practice what my father taught me so carefully; changing tires and oil in the car, using tools; repairing faulty electric equipment; developing my understanding for theoretical physics (my father introduced me the Einstein's Theory of Relativity when I was 10); all things I would not have learnt had I grown up with a more 'traditional' father and mother.

Whether this makes me more masculine, I'm not sure. I "murdered" my dolls when I was little and was bored with girl stuff. I'm a tomboy who enjoys the company of men more. My mother is the same. I cannot help being what I am. I still look feminine and I'm 95% heterosexual....I think. But I am open to exploring other territory.

It all depends on what we want to define as 'masculine' and 'feminine'.

We may look masculine or feminine. How we feel inside is a different question; and dependent on what parents and society imprinted on us.

When I fell in love with my current partner, I did not even care what he looked like. I fell in love with his person; not his physical appearance. We encourage each others shadow femininity and masculinity; it is incredibly liberating as I was never comfortable doing this in previous relationships. He is my 'Alpha' for this reason.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The only one of those I've heard from a guy is the "provoking to rape" thing, which unless it's a criticism of the behaviour of teasing drunk guys with the prospect of sex for free drinks & attention it tends to get shot down pretty fast.

Y'know one the whole we like it when women look sexy.

Everything else is something guys either have no reason to say or would never dare say, unless the cheerleader was wearing the nerd glasses and calling herself such then that's pretty transparent and even then it would take a pretty damn bitter guy to raise the issue.

In summary my point is that when it comes to feminism the worst offenders against women are women.

Yeah I think the comic was trying to capture the voice of social attitudes in general, not strictly the directly heard male comments as there is such a thing as indirect/normative conformity. And I would be inclined to agree that much criticism, if not most, comes from the attitudes of other women(which is still possibly related to the male-dominant culture). Specifically, the Middle-Left image I see as being very accurate coming from males for the current generation and especially online.


But, even if we can reliably assume that guys generally enjoy women looking sexy, what guys also don't like is promiscuity when they're the ones being left for another. Those two expectations of women are really contradictory, basically "Be slutty, but only for me ".

 

[Base groove]

How many more times are you going to kick that dead horse in the face?

You have literally made your entire case by repeatedly quoting him, (seriously repeatedly), over and over, altering the format to bold/enlarge the text ...

and think it's in some way logical refutation or productive argumentation?

Because of one thing he said, ...

that's so dumb.

You're not even adding anything, you're just quoting other members and taking their side, and then another post where you've enlarged and bolded "just not the way it should be" ...I mean come on it's time to get over it and see if you can come up with something else.

 

[nanook]

.

I think you are totally feminine.

You prefer the company of men > feminine.
You prefer 'masculine' women > feminine.

Your father has taught you, to be a dream woman, who embraces her opposite, animus.

Similarly, guys like myself were taught by their mothers to be dream providers, who embrace anima.

I only like the company of women. I prefer 'feminine' men (who are the same, embracing anima).

In contrast, women who hang out with women tend to hate men, don't understand men, likewise men who hang out with men, that's just gay , they know physical love, but their souls don't know how to embrace their opposite.

Agape lives for eros, Eros lives for agape.

Men who live for Men understand their purpose in life as being cannon fodder. They join the military, instead of families. Women who life for Women become breeding machines to their families, while being alienated from the men, who have probably been chosen by their parents. Unless they are on a rational level and try to be all business, which often causes them to look up to female role models who have done that before. Read women authored blogs and magazines about career.

At any rate, these people become agents of tradition, instead of being agents of love making.

A gender isolated group is teaching down from elders to the young, thus forming the tradition of how to do things, that are not gender related. How to go to war, how to maintain a household, or dentist's office etc. But they have no clue how genders should relate to each other and constantly evoke gender-wars.

And they take it so far, they make people like you and me feel and think, that we are being wrong at being our own gender, when the opposite is true, when we are actually hypersexual in the sense of embracing the opposite more than most.

You think you are manly, based on their superficial definition of manly, i think i'm unmanly, based on their superficial definition of feminin stuff. It's such a common phenomenon in this culture.

And men who teach ethno-centric (divided against the other gender) "men-proud" or women who teach "female-proud", they are just expressing this pathology of culture invading the psyche to the point, where the psyches natural internal instincts are overwritten.

Gender-isolating Culture is justified to a degree, but there should be a balance between those principles. Extreme cases like you and me may even be too radical.

Perhaps we should have had a better bonding with our own genders way of being independent from the other gender, the asexual mode. I should be able to go hunting with guys (hunting carrots, i'm vegan), on occasion, and be concerned with embracing women on other occasions.

But when these guy groups hunt women or women groups hunt guys, they are taking the asexual mode and mentality into the dating world, which makes the business brutal, insensitive, asexual, on a soul (psyche) level.

But we have issues bringing these two principles together in our minds and identities. I'm pretty sure i have never even read something about this differentiation before. But i don't like to read on gender stuff, because i am confident about the natural gender within me. I don't need any man-group to tell me about it. I'm Django (1966).

 

[Cherry Cola]

Why would people here want use some generalized way of displaying masculinity to get girls anyway? I mean what type of girls do you think that approach will work on?

 

[nanook]

I agree with affinity in that all women act on the same abstract instincts. But they interpret them differently. It doesn't matter how much they dislike a particular stage manifestation of alpha men, say the impulse level macho, or the rational schizoid technocrat, they do respond positively to alpha traits on whatever is their own stage of development. But also to beta provider traits, in a different context. And there will be conflict between those two orientations. They will shame alphas and betas, on different occasion. And all ignore omega, unless they are omega.

So the question is, what stage of girl do you want to impress.

Say a social phobic guy who did never have sex at age 35 (not me) is wondering, whether he should go to a prostitute, to find out about what sex is even like and hoping that it might attune him to the frequency of grown up men, thus allowing him to be more confident with women. But he wonders, will women hate him, when he tells them about his first sexual encounter.

What women respect a man, who stays true to conventional morals and out of prostitution?

And what women respect a man, who allows himself to become 35 years, without conquering an experience that he has been curious about since he was 14?

What women would assume that prostitution is moral or amoral depending on how you actually behave in the act and what women would only judge the general support of the industry, independently from how it went down in this one instance.

The difference is mostly in the stage, not in the type.


impulsive women will respect him, if he does it.
conformist women will totally disrespect him, if he does it.

what's alpha on one stage can be gamma on the next.

rational women have both possibilities and will respect him, if they like him or judge him, if they don't. all is possible, with rationalisation.

pluralist women will test whether he can understand prostitution through the glasses of pluralist values, if not, they hate him.

integral women will investigate his development, at the time of his action, and judge him depending on whether he was acting out his own highest self, at the time, or whether he was regressing.

 

[Variform]

Generation raised by women refers to increase of children being raised without a father which is approximately 1 out of 3 in the US. Do you really believe a women can teach her son about masculinity better than the kids father can? The studies I've read shows that a male growing up is better off with 2 parents but if it came down to 1 parent, the father would be the better bet. Unless the father possesses absolutely no alpha traits, dual parenting wouldn't make the lines blurred as you say, but balanced. The same thing I'm advocating for when I say take on more alpha traits, return to baseline.

My father was there until I was 18. Then he died of cancer. To me he was emotionally distant, somewhat autistic. He did not teach me how to fight because he was a 'social man'. Not a fight in him, except that in bed he would kick around in stress apparently dreaming out his dreams of injustice.

My mother taught me how to fight:'If he does this, you do this...' This is about role models. No wonder women are so scary to me.

It is not a good thing for a child to have a mother like that and a father who is a pussy. I am sure he loved me in some way, but I didn't really feel it.

So my dad was not an alpha. My mother was the alpha. But she was also an incredible overbearing cunt with mommy issues.

I wished I had been spotted by an observant neighbor, who would call child protective services and be placed in foster care. Overall that sucks, but I think it would have been better for me.

But all this I explain because even though I was raised in a dual parent situation, that does not mean it means anything.

In society today there is less and less masculinity. I am not sure about this in other nations, but around here, child psychologists ring the alarm bell. They say that young children, kindergarten, grade school age, are exposed no more to male teachers. There are almost only female teachers.

I guess that means that when two boys fight, they will be taught female ways to resolve issues.

 

[nanook]

not just female. the major issue is the suppression of the impulsive and the rational stages through conformist and pluralistic values. our culture is pluralistic and pluralism does not understand that all former stages are necessary. but yes, it's often pluralistic values as interpreted by female teachers, which is especially problematic for the boys. i wonder if XJ types have a special gravitation towards conformism and pluralism, because these stages are group-mind oriented. *together* *hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs**hugs*

 

[nanook]

on a mediocre structural level (wild west, amish people, church going farmers, etc)

the most unmanly man is a man who doesn't have the guts to stand out in any way from cultural conformism. he wears a tie and you can tell, he does it like a boy on sunday school, not like the men on the cover of a modern women magazine. he may even get to command somebody, but his law would be pleasing to mother or father, he's a servant of law. he defines himself as a tool of culture and tradition, not as a sexual antagnost (bad word choice) of society and to women. he isn't even as cool as clark kent, who has the guts, to stay out of command and be somewhat neutral.

and the most manly man, on a similar structural level, is someone who may get arrested on first sight, because it's obvious that he has no intention of selling himself to society or surrendering to the army. he isn't old yet, so he won't side with tradition. he insists on a gender duality with his environment. and in a western christian type of conformist society, that's not always tolerated very well. (but other cultures are more sane in that regard. american native culture for example - they american native man can shift back and forth between tradition of the elders and manliness, on demand - or so i have learned it from movies)

when he gets old and looses his sexuality, he will side with tradition.

the gender is free from culture, because it masters culture.

gender is very deep in the subject, therefore it does not become the victim of extroverted adaptation.

the free woman has the freedom to protect (agape style) their boys from the military gang, she will attempt to hide them (imagine how manly that would seem to the culturally indoctrinated eye - a woman who breaks the law, omg). the free man has the freedom to break with tradition, in order to advance it and to destroy corruption (eros style).

the fake woman who is defined by culture will sell their boys and the defined man will sell the future.

again, this is how it looks on one level, not on all levels.

 

[Jennywocky]

My father was there until I was 18. Then he died of cancer. To me he was emotionally distant, somewhat autistic. He did not teach me how to fight because he was a 'social man'. Not a fight in him, except that in bed he would kick around in stress apparently dreaming out his dreams of injustice.

My mother taught me how to fight:'If he does this, you do this...' This is about role models. No wonder women are so scary to me.

It is not a good thing for a child to have a mother like that and a father who is a pussy. I am sure he loved me in some way, but I didn't really feel it.

So my dad was not an alpha. My mother was the alpha. But she was also an incredible overbearing cunt with mommy issues.

I wished I had been spotted by an observant neighbor, who would call child protective services and be placed in foster care. Overall that sucks, but I think it would have been better for me.

But all this I explain because even though I was raised in a dual parent situation, that does not mean it means anything.

In society today there is less and less masculinity. I am not sure about this in other nations, but around here, child psychologists ring the alarm bell. They say that young children, kindergarten, grade school age, are exposed no more to male teachers. There are almost only female teachers.

I guess that means that when two boys fight, they will be taught female ways to resolve issues.

If you believe the problem is that you weren't raised to be a man, then fix it. Do you have any plan for "re-behavioralizing" yourself? Or any ideas on how to start? There is little point to continue to complain about essentially still being a child who wasn't raised properly, while one continues to behave like a child without autonomy to fix one's own life, especially as an older adult.

it comes out in a lot of ways: Having child-like expectations for institutions and people and the typical love-hate emotional responses especially when they fail to meet expectations. Being unable to explore and fairly weigh the viewpoints of others, even when they are offered in a reasonable fashion, so they are either shouted down or sidestepped. Alternating between super-reasoned and emotional outburst. These are passive approaches that typically are pursued by the powerless, where you want to avoid an exchange where you don't feel powerful enough to preserve the ego while engaging others. Where's it end? Even if you don't feel like your parents provided you with a good example of how to be a person and a man, you're an adult now anyway and it's up to you to change in ways to make yourself and your life better.

As far as the "boys in school" issues, of course they are going to be taught negotiating strategies rather than kids just allowed to smack each other down in the hallways and creating a violent and unsafe environment. Do they allow you to beat the shit out of each other at work, as adults? No, you're expected to find another way (negotiation, avoidance, whatever). That makes a great deal of sense on many levels, regardless of what gender each strategy might be associated with.

But I agree with the notion that people should not be coddled and that a negotiation approach can be overdone. I think sometimes a brutal smackdown is the only way that people can learn something they need to learn. (I don't want to see kids kill each other. but at the same time I might just give a slap on the wrist in situations where I felt a direct smackdown was required even if socially frowned upon.) And I think in general schooling for a long time was tailored for those who were disciplined, could sit quietly and pay attention for many hours, who could proceed independently through their work. These are traits more favored by girls overall as a group.

I think the quantity of female teachers is simply a reality of the economic system and cultural mindset. On a pure hour/pay breakdown, teaching in young levels of education simply does not pay much here. The three months off (in the US) is also a great deal for a mother raising kids. The culture itself does not socially or financially award teachers, and men typically just gravitate towards professions with more reward (whether financial, social, recognition, or whatever else) unless they truly love the work. What do we want to reward in our culture? What type of environment do we want? It will demand a commitment as a culture.

I guess I'm saying the system is geared towards this, so what it comes down to is that you grow up, figure out what you need, and make the changes in your life that you require. It's the mark of a child to sit stagnant while waiting to be saved or blaming their inadequacies on their parents and keep reacting out of that deeply rooted pool of childish expectation, pain, loss, fear, and whatever else. It's not like select few have to face this; many people do. I know I did. it's a painful thing to feel like you're generally insightful and intelligent... and then to realize you're still acting in the same mindset of powerlessness you possessed as a child. But we're no longer children and now we have power to change.

 

[nanook]

mothers who raise sons who end up like me, hyper male, only relating to women, not to men, are mothers who don't get along with their daughters. the daughters don't embrace their mothers with male eros, so the mothers, who expect that, don't respond very well. they are not attracted to caring for them. because these mothers are very feminine. if there is no masculine father, the daughter will not learn to live her gender with men. but if there is a very masculine father, he can produce a hyper feminine daughter, because her ability to relate to him through agape puts her into resonance with him. she will not care to hang out with girls, because she has blended out her hyper feminine mother in favor of the father. just like the son has blended out the father and doesn't like to bother with other guys. so this is taking gender to the extreme and i wonder if that happens with introverted parents the most. or introverted children. since introversion is heavily guided by deep subjective instinct, which includes gender. perhaps the whole girls with girls culture and guys with guy culture is dependent on extroversion.

 

[nanook]

I haven't been thinking about this very often and these thoughts feel like my first draft. I'm coming to the conclusion that extroversion and introversion have different gender principles, but they are probably equally natural. introverted gender makes man and woman relate to each other, extroversion makes men and women relate to the environment, the one-gender-group-culture is a collective expression of that and it mistakes the opposite gender for a part of the environment, that needs to be slayed like a bunch of trees or collected like status symbols/mushrooms. If an introvert is especially male, for instance, he may still lack extroverted manliness. If a bunch of guys or chicks appear especially masculine or feminine in terms of what that means in culture, in terms of extroverted gender, they may still have a poor ability to relate to the opposite gender, one on one. "women can't be understood and men are pigs"

 

[principle]

Cliff Notes:
Become good at something, get some confidence and move to another country if you want an attractive person.

The one day in this forum were I am glad I am an S type. You guys are overthinking this. Some of you want to rebel and think that just because you want to have a certain non style, that women should throw themselves at you. Women that are very attractive and talented do not have to settle for someone that is not confident and has no situational awareness. You know what that leaves, women that are not very attractive that are interested in guys that are confident and that are good at something that is cool. that leaves the rest of the women that are attracted to things confident average guys like.

You are attracted to people that are not attracted to you. If you want those women to be attracted to you, you have to change. If you don't want to change who you are, you need to move to another place/country, where people are attracted to what you offer.

Wow very well put, I can relate to a lot of this writing.

Coming from an overthinking teen, I think spirit has it spot on. We're trying to rationalize and generalize males and females to an extreme in this thread. This is exactly the same approach I had a couple years back in high school where I'd believe I can strategically find my way to the top of the "female food chain". However the male to female system does not work like this. Because there really is no system

Everyone living in a first world country have a social status and also a personal status, so to speak. This is your intelligence, personality, physical appearance etc. In a society we live in today where we want to constantly "listen to that poosay" men must be the alpha. Generally we are the chasers and women are the choosers. (I've also heard the roles were flipped back then which I can't imagine) Anyways, since we can all agree this is the case, (except for TA cus blah blah) women have the ability to pick the ones they like, but beggars can't be choosers. Now tell me, between a fat poor no confident man and a toned rich confident man which will all women choose, yes, Darwinism at its simplest form.

However, what I also must note is that attraction is really subjective. As intps we are only perceiving the objective notion on what the opposite sex desire. I think we are trying to methodically hunt the prey lol, at least that's what I tried doing o.o But we have the understand everyone is different and like different things, some dislike power, some like shy guys, different fetishes , some are even chubby chasers.

Therefore, the only solution is to better yourself as individual in the way you want others to perceive you (Get the body you want whether it's fat or skinny), make more money, etc. ) be the person You want to be so that You are comfortable in your own skin, because once you love Yourself, you can share your love with others. But remember there certain general social obligations that we must all follow.

Note: this May be some stoopid bs, whatever, tell me what you guys think

 

[Affinity]

My father was there until I was 18. Then he died of cancer. To me he was emotionally distant, somewhat autistic. He did not teach me how to fight because he was a 'social man'. Not a fight in him, except that in bed he would kick around in stress apparently dreaming out his dreams of injustice.

My mother taught me how to fight:'If he does this, you do this...' This is about role models. No wonder women are so scary to me.

It is not a good thing for a child to have a mother like that and a father who is a pussy. I am sure he loved me in some way, but I didn't really feel it.

So my dad was not an alpha. My mother was the alpha. But she was also an incredible overbearing cunt with mommy issues.

I wished I had been spotted by an observant neighbor, who would call child protective services and be placed in foster care. Overall that sucks, but I think it would have been better for me.

But all this I explain because even though I was raised in a dual parent situation, that does not mean it means anything.

In society today there is less and less masculinity. I am not sure about this in other nations, but around here, child psychologists ring the alarm bell. They say that young children, kindergarten, grade school age, are exposed no more to male teachers. There are almost only female teachers.

I guess that means that when two boys fight, they will be taught female ways to resolve issues.

This is what I try to get at as well. Dual parenting is best but it's not good if the man cannot be the authoritative figure in the family. If he is too passive or too beta, the woman has to step in and be more authoritative taking on more alpha roles, which comes off as overbearing to a child. Not only this but she will eventually lose respect for her husband as well. Only one can lead the family unit and in the "traditional" gender roles, the man would make the important decisions and his wife would respect, trust, and support his decision, that whatever he decides will be in the best interest of his family. Anyways, forgot exactly where I was going with this. Just my quick 2 cents.

 

[Variform]

If you believe the problem is that you weren't raised to be a man, then fix it. Do you have any plan for "re-behavioralizing" yourself? Or any ideas on how to start? There is little point to continue to complain about essentially still being a child who wasn't raised properly, while one continues to behave like a child without autonomy to fix one's own life, especially as an older adult.

I am not complaining. I am just stating a fact. I have not forgiven and moved on. I had that planned for this summer, to write a letter to my now dementing mother and brother. Who never left the nest! Let you and nanook analyze that!

What mental attacks cause that to happen?

I don't know what re-behavioralizing means. Can you lift yourself up by your own hair?
I have no tools for it. I have talked to three psychologists since 2001 but it did nothing for me. That is why I think there is an ADD thing going on. I like to change, but I don't know how.

People don't get me. Not really. I am different somehow. Other people can motivate themselves.

good example of how to be a person and a man, you're an adult now anyway and it's up to you to change in ways to make yourself and your life better.

Sorry, I cannot. I don't know how. Maybe I am scared. Now that can be true, but then it is too easy for anyone to say 'then overcome the fear'. But I am afraid to overcome the fear.

My mind is a fractal.

But I agree with the notion that people should not be coddled and that a negotiation approach can be overdone. I think sometimes a brutal smackdown is the only way that people can learn something they need to learn. (I don't want to see kids kill each other.

Irrational fears are rampaging through society.

What do we want to reward in our culture? What type of environment do we want? It will demand a commitment as a culture.

And that isn't happening because people feel powerless. People do not ask 'how to be in the world'. So people allow themselves to be swept by the current. You see this with technology. People accept blindly and critic-less any new gadget thrown at them.

I guess I'm saying the system is geared towards this, so what it comes down to is that you grow up, figure out what you need, and make the changes in your life that you require. It's the mark of a child to sit stagnant while waiting to be saved or blaming their inadequacies on their parents and keep reacting out of that deeply rooted pool of childish expectation, pain, loss, fear, and whatever else. It's not like select few have to face this; many people do. I know I did. it's a painful thing to feel like you're generally insightful and intelligent... and then to realize you're still acting in the same mindset of powerlessness you possessed as a child. But we're no longer children and now we have power to change.

That is all so easy to say. That I am an adult doesn't make me not be a child. I don't know how to be in the world. I don't think I have the tools to change, whether it is fear or something else. What pops up in my head is the line from the film with J. Nicholson. 'What if this is as good as it gets?'

 

[Variform]

mothers who raise sons who end up like me, hyper male, only relating to women, not to men, are mothers who don't get along with their daughters.

....
parents the most. or introverted children. since introversion is heavily guided by deep subjective instinct, which includes gender. perhaps the whole girls with girls culture and guys with guy culture is dependent on extroversion.

Where do you get all that. I never heard anything like this. I don't understand much of it.

 

[Variform]

This is what I try to get at as well. Dual parenting is best but it's not good if the man cannot be the authoritative figure in the family. If he is too passive or too beta, the woman has to step in and be more authoritative taking on more alpha roles, which comes off as overbearing to a child. Not only this but she will eventually lose respect for her husband as well. Only one can lead the family unit and in the "traditional" gender roles, the man would make the important decisions and his wife would respect, trust, and support his decision, that whatever he decides will be in the best interest of his family. Anyways, forgot exactly where I was going with this. Just my quick 2 cents.

One of my earliest memories is my mother standing before my father with a granite ashtray as if she is gonna cave his head in. What I understand of it from what I been told is that she shoved it in his hand, he took it to the car and went for a drive.
I think my mother used to tell this as a story, to family or us, but I remember it.

I also remember how my father once attacked her physically. Now I said he was a withdrawn, social man, not a fight in him, so what the hell did my mother do to provoke him so much. My mom was sitting on the couch and he came out of his chair and grabbed her. And she kicked him off, stood up and pushed him.
We had this little thing on the table, which was a cigarette holder and I picked it up and hammered my father on the back with it, taking my mother's side. But he turned around and walked out the door. My mom made a comment like that bigger or better man had to come to attack her.

So she basically won. I took her side, not understanding that she was so wrong in so many ways for me. I can only imagine how these incidents affected me as a child. I wonder what else I picked up.

I think the general stories and interactions of my mother where she didn't respect him. She would criticize him in front of me and my brother.

For example, she would send him out to buy paint for a wall. And he was color blind. So he got the wrong paint and she would be annoyed with him. She knew he had trouble with colors, why didn't the cunt go herself then?

Or that he had trouble seeing white or yellow cars on the road and wanted to overtake, so my mother would tell stories about how she saved us all because he would just have crashed into those cars.

All these stories and comments about my father made me disrespect him too.

I would always try to provoke him. I would call him asshole and he wouldn't even respond to me. Only once he did and hit me pretty hard where he could.

I think I treated him badly but I blame my mother for setting me up to be like that.

So gender roles in my situation were totally messed up. I grew up scared and not understanding women. Being INTP doesn't help, but most people here found some way of interacting with females. I didn't. So that's why I am middle-aged and have still no real confidence regarding females.

 

[Pyropyro]

This is what I try to get at as well. Dual parenting is best but it's not good if the man cannot be the authoritative figure in the family. If he is too passive or too beta, the woman has to step in and be more authoritative taking on more alpha roles, which comes off as overbearing to a child. Not only this but she will eventually lose respect for her husband as well. Only one can lead the family unit and in the "traditional" gender roles, the man would make the important decisions and his wife would respect, trust, and support his decision, that whatever he decides will be in the best interest of his family. Anyways, forgot exactly where I was going with this. Just my quick 2 cents.

Unfortunately that isn't exactly the case IRL. Have you ever lived with an overbearing alpha father? Have you ever lived with a passive mother?

I'm pretty sure they spawn, in your words, "betas" since they eat their offsprings' wills since somehow their children are merely an extension of their selves rather than individuals.

I still go with balance.

 

[BigApplePi]

So, what can I say? I love beautiful gals, seriously I'm addicted to them and in one way or another they are driving me mad, all of them... because ya know, I want them all, all for me.... But they don't seem to want me so badly.

This looks like a great thread to read, but I haven't yet. I'd better respond now else I might miss the chance.

Beautiful gals are beautiful for one reason: to attract and get as wide a selection as possible. That means you aren't going to get much of a chance because even if you are hot, they still have to check out everyone else. There is a formula though and I recommend you try it. It should work. If you are interested in such a girl and don't mind the competition here I what you are to do: Just walk up to her and walk away. Ignore her. Why will this work? Because she knows she is so attractive it's impossible for that to happen. The only way that could happen is if the person ignoring her is so hot he himself is playing the field just as she is. She will see herself in him.

Gofer it. You will see it works.

 

[Jennywocky]

Unfortunately that isn't exactly the case IRL. Have you ever lived with an overbearing alpha father? Have you ever lived with a passive mother?

I'm pretty sure they spawn, in your words, "betas" since they eat their offsprings' wills since somehow their children are merely an extension of their selves rather than individuals.

I still go with balance.

I agree with you. That's how the experience (vs the theory) usually plays out.

Another contributing factor:
alphas need to tempered by life.
passives need to be drawn out.

When you institutionalize this behavior by assigning those categories by gender -- something we are typically born into and then socialized as from birth -- you don't get the rounding mechanisms that make their alpha/passive behavior endurable or healthy. You basically raise people who wield power without restraint and people who are powerless regardless of opportunity. Extreme example are Ricky's parents in American Beauty, but....

... typically the result is the kids are either subsumed into the model by gender or devoured by the alpha. The only people who I think can be trusted with power are those who had to live without it for a long while, and vice versa.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i take it i won, then

 

[Bock]

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

 

[TimeAsylums]

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

/daed

As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.

//dead

taste the rainbow,
of self-esteem issues

L O L

 

[Polaris]

"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males *aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway."

*strange interpretation...

Possible alternative explanation: many women are able to see beyond the exterior as they also look for things like security/stability/safety. In other words, they are more realistic about their expectations. Thus, they may 'objectively' rate a man as less handsome, but that stands as no hindrance to them otherwise if the man turns out to have other more favourable traits. Men on these sites (if one is to assess by the graphs and the author's interpretations of these) appear to be looking more for exterior gratification and are perhaps not too concerned with the long-term. And there is nothing wrong with that if that is the sole motivation.

Spoiler

I asked a guy out once; he was short, overweight and not very handsome. But he had a quiet self-assured nature, warmth, very funny self-deprecating humour and a very interesting brain, so I fell for him like a cement sack.

 

[The Gopher]

*strange interpretation...

Possible alternative explanation: many women are able to see beyond the exterior as they also look for things like security/stability/safety. In other words, they are more realistic about their expectations. Thus, they may 'objectively' rate a man as less handsome, but that stands as no hindrance to them otherwise if the man turns out to have other more favourable traits. Men on these sites (if one is to assess by the graphs and the author's interpretations of these) appear to be looking more for exterior gratification and are perhaps not too concerned with the long-term. And there is nothing wrong with that if that is the sole motivation.

Spoiler

I asked a guy out once; he was short, overweight and not very handsome. But he had a quiet self-assured nature, warmth, very funny self-deprecating humour and a very interesting brain, so I fell for him like a cement sack.

That's very possible. Realism in mind. However would that mean in general attractive guys don't provide security stability, and safety? I would assume that it would average out however maybe people who are less attractive work harder on those things :P

Also it is interesting that they are realistic about their chances but not realistic in their rating. (taking into account no bell curve) Compared to guys realistic in their rating yet not in chances.

 

[Polaris]

No, I mean women may not go for the attractive guys because there may be, as you said, less effort on their behalf profile wise to emphasize other traits beyond their attractiveness. Their physical attributes get them the profile hits and ratings more easily, just like women. This is largely what I have found on dating sites, so it's just my experience. The highly physically attractive guys often come across more shallow (as do the women); they talk about their sports habits, fishing and their jobs and that they are "easy going" (which could mean anything), whereas I've found the less 'handsome' put more effort into the cerebral, and seem more genuine overall. However, that is just my experience. I really hated the whole dating site thing, because it was so difficult to gauge who were being honest and who were not. I mean, all men cannot possibly be "easygoing"? All women cannot possibly be "fun to be around"? Why are they on a dating site if they are all so perfect?

I did an experiment. I posted the standard profile, got quite a few hits and messages.

Then I posted a very honest profile....result: same amount of hits, zero messages....all I did was in addition to my more positive traits was to state that I'm not the typical caring type, that I can be argumentative and I have many intellectual pursuits. I also posted my MBTI type.....perhaps that was the last nail in the coffin -- 'normal' women aren't supposed to be all these things.

Anyway, by being honest and realistic I now find myself in a relationship that is completely devoid of bullshit. I stopped the dating site thing, settled on being single for the rest of my life -- and bam. Interesting.

Edit: I don't know what you mean about not realistic in their rating. I just thought they were stating a fact, as in; yes this person is not physically attractive (which would nevertheless not be an absolute hindrance to their continued correspondence).

Edit 2: The other problem with the interpreting of the statistics on this site is that there aren't enough parameters for gauging the reasons behind the trends (curves); so we are pretty much left with speculating. As the example I showed above; the author interprets the women's rating of men as overall less favourable as "not good enough for her". He does not actually know what these women are thinking about good enough or not.

This can simply not be evaluated from a statistic on rating of physical attractiveness; one would have to add another statistic which would display how important physical attractiveness is to the decisions on suitability/compatibility.

 

[The Gopher]

Edit: I don't know what you mean about not realistic in their rating. I just thought they were stating a fact, as in; yes this person is not physically attractive (which would nevertheless not be an absolute hindrance to their continued correspondence).

Edit 2: The other problem with the interpreting of the statistics on this site is that there aren't enough parameters for gauging the reasons behind the trends (curves); so we are pretty much left with speculating. As the example I showed above; the author interprets the women's rating of men as overall less favourable as "not good enough for her". He does not actually know what these women are thinking about good enough or not.

This can simply not be evaluated from a statistic on rating of physical attractiveness; one would have to add another statistic which would display how important physical attractiveness is to the decisions on suitability/compatibility.

Well what I was implying in a population of say 100 thousand you could expect a bell curve of average attractiveness and that wasn't shown in the statistics indicating unrealistic rating. That said it may simply indicate that the type of guys that use dating sites are not very attractive.... I wasn't trying to relate it to or speculate as to why they would message them anyway I was simply referring to the fact that the chart of females was perfectly curved where as the chart of males wasn't. Unrelated to the example in the second edit or the authors speculation.

 

[WALKYRIA]

But I have a solution- an economical solution-: Girls are beautiful because they are more or less seldom(same with gold or diamonds); in the same way, girls play hard to get gradually because their beauties are seldom and that they need to exchange their beauties with something worthy. that's why in certain countries, family of girl get a paycheck from their fiancé( dowry) which is proportionate to thei goodlooks( more or lessmoney !)... It's sad to realize that things in the west are roughly the same. Since rich dude gets it all.

Basically if we consider beauty as a bell curve distribution; roughly 10-20 % of girls are beautiful. The rest are ugly. I don't think we can change the bell curve of beauty, but we can try do diminish the number of male births and enhance number of women birth( Which means to kill capitalism since men are traditional the main contributor of capitalism; they work !!) ; so that women are quantitatively>>>> males ; which will make women more needy and men more seldom and thus more valuable. Women will lose value and men will gain value.
That's the only way to re-establish statu-quo.

Anther less extremist way to proceed is to simply frequenting places or social -events where women far outnumber men ( medical school, art school, salsa school, ladies night parties, dance classes..Etc).