# Passive Men...WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?



## The Hungry One (Jan 26, 2011)

justjessie said:


> How is wanting a guy to come on strongly if he is interested a question of equality? I'm not asking him to take away my right to vote.


 I probably misread your tone in your OP, but "See, if a man really desires you OR if he is falling in love with you, he HAS to come on strong. _It’s part of how nature works_" seemed like a forceful declaration that

1. A man's role is the pursuer.
2. A woman's role is to be pursued. 
3. That is the "natural" way and the right way. 

I can understand if it is your preference for a man to be that way, but I would prefer if you did not state your preference as an unshakable fact. Because then you would (unintentionally) wander into sexist territory.

That is my opinion. I am, of course, an oversensitive INFP. Ignore me.


----------



## Kormoran (Mar 15, 2012)

The biggest fear people have is rejection. And when someone experiences rejection more than once, it tends to hurt their pride and confidence.

Repeating the same action again and again anticipating a different outcome than previous ones is either relentlessness or insanity. The official definition, I believe, is insanity.

You see, the trouble is that when you've got a face like a Bavarian bandsman, being assertive will make you look pathetic, as a previous poster pointed out. So in the end, our "passivity" is, I think, for many, merely resignation.

And of course, relationships aren't worth more than the exciting affair these days, so I don't blame men for not seeing the point anymore.


----------



## Coldspot (Nov 7, 2011)

QrivaN said:


> I can't talk for all the guys, but here's how "the hunt" works for me.
> I find a girl I'm interested in. I make some moves. If she seems uninterested, I leave her alone because she's not interested. The problem with that is that I can't tell if they're truly uninterested or playing hard to get. In either case, I give up because I'm not trying to waste her time.


It works similar to me. In my cases though, both of the (only) women I've been interested in were already involved with someone else. Hunting is fine and good, but when you're prey is already caught by someone else, taking it becomes theft.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

If I didn't approach the woman, she wasn't worth enough effort for me to try. If it really bothers you that much that you should rant on an anonymous internet forum, I suppose making the approach would have been better suited as your responsibility.


----------



## Issmene (Jun 8, 2012)

If you like a guy or just want sex, you can also be the active one. Why would that be a bad thing? Why can't men be passive if they want to and women be active if they want to. I don't get it. Btw, it's not in nature (read the Delusion of Gender by Cordelia Fine, whatever is said to be natural is often projected from culture etc.) and even if it was, can't we think further than that? We got past that point a looooooooong time ago.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

ever since I was a very young girl (and a very romantic daydreamer), I always dreamt of meeting a guy, giving him flowers, gifts, and whathaveyou.
I always dreamt of proposing to him in a very relaxed, everyday situation, like while grocery shopping, or tending to the yard outside.
as I've gotten older, I've grown to appreciate being given the gift of being surprised by expressions of love, and have at times found myself being spoiled by the lack of expectation from me to show my own. but when it comes down to it, it's very natural for me. giving and recieving in shared amounts is great fun.
all of my daydreams about love almost always consisted of me being the pursuer, and though I'm not as bold as a 3 year old me imagined my future self to be, it's still something I was born with--so don't give me that "nature intended men to be the pursuer" bullshit, because nature clearly intended me to exist as I am; a shy, sensitive, and pursuing woman.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Issmene said:


> If you like a guy or just want sex, you can also be the active one. Why would that be a bad thing? Why can't men be passive if they want to and women be active if they want to. I don't get it. Btw, it's not in nature (read the Delusion of Gender by Cordelia Fine, whatever is said to be natural is often projected from culture etc.) and even if it was, can't we think further than that? We got past that point a looooooooong time ago.


You weren't talking to me, but I'll check out the book simply because I enjoy reading, human behavior is one of my interests, and I welcome an opportunity to read a book I haven't read yet.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

@justjessie

You didn't reply to my original advances.
Are you playing hard to get?
Daddy-likey


----------



## Darkestblue (Apr 19, 2010)

What's stopping you from being assertive, OP? Times are a-changin'. Men were never meant to be the assertive "hunters", just like women were never meant to be regarded as lower than men.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

*I think like attracts like, naturally.*

Im an assertive female, and sometimes people assume that only submissive men are attracted to me; but it's the opposite. I have trouble making the first move because most of the time they're already approaching me, and in my face. 
*
With that said, if you want a certain type of man, with certain qualities, try developing these traits yourself.*

So many times people have these fantasies about being the ugly out-of-shape guy with a hot chick, or *the little ol good girl that attracts the bad boy*; those things only happen on TV, and in unstable relationships.

_*People get along best with individuals that have similar personalities, life principals, and lifestyles.*_

*I have no problem with attracting aggressive men. So that means the problem (If there is one at all) is with you, your flawed perception of men, and the women you associate with.*

*Being a female myself, I think it's disgraceful when another female tries to tell men how they should act and react to get HER OWN attention. I'm not you, and I would appreciate it if you didnt speak in such broad terms, as if you are representing the masses.

*


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

TWN said:


> *I think like attracts like, naturally.*
> 
> Im an assertive female, and sometimes people assume that only submissive men are attracted to me; but it's the opposite. I have trouble making the first move because most of the time they're already approaching me, and in my face.
> *
> ...


I'm talking about how men have become more passive and women more active in dating process and my frustration with my observations of passivity in relationships when it comes to the males role. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to act. And I know I don't represent the masses. I wanted this post to strike some discussion not controversy.


----------



## sean2724 (Mar 24, 2012)

I find the harder I try the more I fail. I'm not going with something that doesnt produce results. 

I'm far more often rejected for being too interested. I'm starting to wonder if girls have some inferiority complex that precludes them from staying with someone who likes them. And the more engaged you are the more likely you are to get stuck with some dismissive label. So why bother? Especially when the less interested you behave the more you succeed, the easier it is. When you dont want them they're all over you. Women are literally insane. Every guy here could tell you a story about a girl he was really into, and how him being into her wrecked it. 

On top of all that, I want someone who wants me. I am not a character in your life. I'm a person too with my own desires. Why would I chase a girl who doesnt appear to want me? My wires arent crossed. I know what's good for me. 

If anything, girls need to learn how to flirt.


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

Darkestblue said:


> What's stopping you from being assertive, OP? Times are a-changin'. Men were never meant to be the assertive "hunters", just like women were never meant to be regarded as lower than men.


why because I express my want for a man to strightfoward when perusing me am I enemy of equality?


----------



## sean2724 (Mar 24, 2012)

changos said:


> I can only comment on something I've seen very often:
> 
> Men don't behave like men anymore, they don't dress like men, don't talk like men, etc. This was discussed on another forum (in spanish) and suddenly all the popular guys (with women) are not so manly.
> 
> ...


hallelujah!


----------



## Darkestblue (Apr 19, 2010)

justjessie said:


> why because I express my want for a man to strightfoward when perusing me am I enemy of equality?


You're making it sound as if all men should do the pursuing. I'm just telling you why that isn't so.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

@justjessie

Every time you ignore my posts, I feel a fire igniting in my loins.
*Plays a sexy love song on my acoustic guitar*


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

justjessie said:


> I'm talking about how men have become more passive and women more active in dating process and my frustration with my observations of passivity in relationships when it comes to the males role. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to act. And I know I don't represent the masses. I wanted this post to strike some discussion not controversy.



Im curious as to why you think men being more passive is a bad thing. Why does it frustrate you?

It seems, from my point of view, that you are making the argument that today's man is somehow less manly because he does not act as aggressive as men have been in the past.

Personally I think this frustration is a reaction to the deconstruction of widely accepted gender roles. 

The reality is men are more passive because they do not yield the most control, unlike, say, 100 years ago when women couldn't vote. Men being less sure of themselves is completely natural, considering the circumstances, seeing that more and more households are being headed by women; women are also making more money, and making their own choices in life.

You cannot just walk up to any self respecting woman, offer her a safe home, and knock her up. It doesnt work that way anymore, and I believe men are starting to get the bright idea to only approach women that show interesting in them, instead of overstepping and risking embarrassment and being a social outcast.

It would be wise to look internally before claiming that the problem lies with men, or today's men.

If you want discussion, ask for opinions. Dont throw yours at people, and wait for people to come agree with you, or disagree.

Thats what happened with the "I hate gays, trans, and queer people" thread. It backfired.

We're all intellects here, all you need to do is give us SOMETHING to work with and we will gladly take the bait. 

^_^


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

Coldspot said:


> It works similar to me. In my cases though, both of the (only) women I've been interested in were already involved with someone else. Hunting is fine and good, but when you're prey is already caught by someone else, taking it becomes theft.



Like stealing someone else's slave is theft?

Women are not objects that can be owned.


----------



## Shadowlight (Dec 12, 2012)

I like passive/submissive men. If I had a choice, I would choose a submissive male I could control at home as well as in the bedroom as opposed to an over-bearing jerk who would get into frequent power struggles with me.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

NT the DC said:


> @_justjessie_
> 
> Every time you ignore my posts, I feel a fire igniting in my loins.
> *Plays a sexy love song on my acoustic guitar*


 @justjessie 
This fella botherin' you, hun? Jus' say the word an' us assertive men will have a word with him.

*hard stare* @NT the DC


----------



## sean2724 (Mar 24, 2012)

TWN said:


> Like stealing someone else's slave is theft?
> 
> Women are not objects that can be owned.


*a·nal·o·gy*

[_uh_-nal-_uh_-jee] Show IPA
*noun, **plural **a·nal·o·gies.**1.*a similarity between like features of two things, on which acomparison may be based: _the analogy between the heart and apump . _


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> @_justjessie_
> This fella botherin' you, hun? Jus' say the word an' us assertive men will have a word with him.
> 
> *hard stare* @_NT the DC_


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

NT the DC said:


> @_justjessie_
> 
> Every time you ignore my posts, I feel a fire igniting in my loins.
> *Plays a sexy love song on my acoustic guitar*


everytime I ignore your posts, I forget about you.


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

Conclusion said:


> @_justjessie_
> This fella botherin' you, hun? Jus' say the word an' us assertive men will have a word with him.
> 
> *hard stare* @_NT the DC_


so...charming?


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

justjessie said:


> so...charming?


*tips baseball cap*

Jus' bein' assertive, little lady.



NT the DC said:


>


*finishes beer, sets bottle aside*

*stands*

*tightens fingerless gloves*


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Conclusion said:


> *tightens fingerless gloves*



HahGay.com | Hah Gaaaaaaaaay!


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

justjessie said:


> everytime I ignore your posts, I forget about you.


Imma make you love me.


----------



## Coldspot (Nov 7, 2011)

TWN said:


> Like stealing someone else's slave is theft?
> 
> Women are not objects that can be owned.


I agree, I was only using the terms in regards to hunting. When a woman wins over a man that was in a relationship already, is it not thought that she stole him from the other woman? It works vice versa too.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

Coldspot said:


> I agree, I was only using the terms in regards to hunting. When a woman wins over a man that was in a relationship already, is it not thought that she stole him from the other woman? It works vice versa too.


I understand your intent, but I still have different views.

People make conscious choices to either honor a commitment, or an agreement, or not.

If a man or woman decided to break up with one person to pursue/be pursued by another, that individual is not stealing them away.

But that is only how I see it.


----------



## unINFalliPle (Jul 8, 2012)

Suppose men would be more assertive. Wouldn't they be more assertive to every woman? I don't know you all that well but I must come on to you very strongly. Oh, that didn't work. I will come on to the next one very strongly now. I just realized how dirty that sounded. 

It seems a little misplaced, creepy, or like he's crazy if he just comes on to you strongly. Why are you so special that he has to make such an effort? It's not like we're an entirely different, majestic species. It just doesn't seem natural. 

He can be clear with his intentions and his desire to be with you without beating around the bush. That I'm for. That's tricky though because you can't say things that would seem inappropriate or desperate. It's so stupid. 

If anything there seems to be too much pressure on the guy doing things and the girl should initiate more. It's not a power thing though. They should just both be true to how they feel.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> HahGay.com | Hah Gaaaaaaaaay!


*dead silence*

...

*DANCE NUMBER*

♪ WHAT MAKES A MAN IS IT THE POWER IN HIS HANDS? ♪
♪ IS IT HIS QUEST FOR GLORY? ♪
♪ GIVE IT ALL YOU GOT, TO FIGHT TO THE TOP, ♪
♪ SO WE CAN KNOW YOUR STORY! ♪


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

justjessie said:


> A man has to come on strong to form a bond with you – regardless of whether or not he is in love with you.



* *












This is not me. For legal purposes this is not an actual proposal.


----------



## Azure Bass (Sep 6, 2010)

Conclusion said:


> *dead silence*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Now you're just drawing out the derail. that's against the forum rules you know.


Testosterone levels have been steadily decreasing in men; at least in America*. Along with that, regular less than normal hours of sleep have correlated to lower levels of testosterone as well**. That factor may heavily contribute to the trend you originally started this topic on OP. 

*:source
**: source


----------



## Elaine (Sep 1, 2012)

It's mostly women's fault really. Men mostly just want sex, except when they find that super special someone (and that super special someone usually looks like a super model. Since there are so few super models, it's rare that men run into someone they want to pursue). Since women hand out sex on the first date, or definitely by the second or third date, why should men bother to do anything more. Sex was all they wanted in the first place.

Women don't feel like settling down with somebody if the person doesn't pursue them seriously. And men don't feel like settling down with somebody when they can get sex wherever they go. All you have to do is wait until they are almost old and bald and fat, and the chance of them getting women to have sex with them is basically 0 already, then they might decide to pursue someone.

There is a minority of men who actually wants to have kids while they are relatively young. But those are in the minority these days because the society's standards have changed. It's cool now to just be single, have fun, play video games, and not worry about anything.

I predict that in the distant future, it will become very common for people who want to have kids to just do it by themselves because the state will encourage it since so few people are pairing up. And we may not need sperm donors either, since women's eggs contain all the necessary ingredients to make babies. You can just fuse 2 eggs in the lab. Maybe women will start forming households with their best friends.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

@_justjessie_

I agree with some of your points. 

Yes, I think too many guys are pussies nowadays. Whether they're less assertive than in the past, I can't be sure because I didn't live back then. But that's irrelevant. I see too many scared guys. I was one of them.

Back when I was a chode who didn't know how to talk to girls, I wished they would approach me. However it was unrealistic thinking that something would come from nothing. Then I decided to improve my skills with women and started going out about 4 days a week specifically to talk to and meet women to improve my confidence, flirting, conversation skills, etc.

Now I'm pretty assertive and walk up to most women and say something direct along the lines of, "Hey, you're cute. I'm G, who are you?" (or something less forward depending on the situation) and I like it. I like being dominant and confident like that. If women had approached me back when I was a pussy, I probably wouldn't have become stronger and more confident so I'm happy they aren't extremely assertive. Most women seem to not like extreme forwardness, so I follow up with something casual/normal or maybe even boring just to not put pressure on her. Some girls actually get scared and run away. This is pretty funny!

However, I do not "chase." I'm very direct and I'll make my interest clear, but if a girl says no too many times (about 3-4x in a row) I'll stop chasing. I'm not into that bullshit. No time for that. And those girls are usually teases/attention whores who have no intention of pursuing anything.

Also, I do believe women should be a little more assertive. If you see a cute guy, have the balls to go up to say hi and introduce yourself. That's all you have to do. Then allow him to take control. Don't do anymore as you may emasculate him or teach him that even though he doesn't take action, women will still come to him.

P.S. Sounds like you might really like ENTJs!


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

I'm going to make probably what is going to be an unpopular opinion. I think there are several factors that cause men to appear to be more passive. First of all, I have found the older a man gets the less "aggressive" he is in the "hunt". I suspect that is due in part because between the teen years and early to maybe even late twenties men are primarily stimulated mostly, if not purely, by physical attraction alone. I think as a man matures and ages takes more than just the physical appearance of a woman to engage the "hunter" in him.

And, to be quite honest .... well sex is just that sex after a certain age and there's no need to jump through hoops for it. It's readily available for the most part. Why am I saying this? Because in my opinion that's what physical attraction is mostly connected to for most men. Not all but most.

So, I guess in this day and time especially if you are let's say 30 and up....a woman needs to possess something that sets her apart that a man finds desirable enough to chase/hunt. We're in the digital age where men and women alike have access to meeting more people and a wider variety of people. And, it seems that women tend to outnumber men so let's face it there is a little supply and demand that factors into this equation as well.

As far as expecting men to be the aggressor...I don't know if I agree with that stance nor do I agree if they appear to be passive it's because women have made them lazy. As Marshall Sylver said in his book "Passion, Power, Profit" we are going to serve in one or two roles...trainer and/or trainee. Where am I going with this? We train people how to treat us and/or interact with us. And, I believe it is really contingent upon that one factor...us. I don't think how a man treats a woman is contingent upon what other women let him get away with and/or "making him lazy". 

I think it is contingent upon the woman he is interacting with at the time. I personally don't care about a man chasing me as much as I care about there being some level of equality in initiation. I don't like scales to be unbalanced...I will initiate but it will not be 100% of the time and that goes across the board with both males and females alike. But by the same token...I think when a man equates positive feelings to communicating and/or interacting with a woman...then he will definitely initiate/hunt/chase as he is going to want feel that good feeling over and over again.

On a separate note...another unpopular opinion...I think women have lost the art of seduction and being feminine. Why chase/hunt someone who emits masculine energy when they can hang out with their buddies and experience that energy? I find way too many women including my damn self :laughing: have lost our feminine essence and I personally think it is that very essence that creates the scent that awakens a man to want to chase/hunt. Just my 2 cents. If you don't like, feel free throw it in the wastebasket. :wink:


TL;DR ....Bottom line If you want a man to chase/hunt you then ensure you have something worth chasing/hunting.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Elaine said:


> It's mostly women's fault really. Men mostly just want sex


False. I've actually studied the subject and have studies and journal articles in my personal library. It's a stereotype, which is problematic for some men, because society expects them to always want sex, and therefore they can never _not_ want sex at any time, because it would cause their masculinity and sexuality will be questioned. Thus men experience unwanted sexual activity. They internalize society's standards regarding male sexuality, which dictate "that a man should always make a sexual advance, otherwise the woman might think that he is homosexual or that she lacks sex appeal," and that " 'real men' would never refuse a woman's sexual advances." They might also engage in unwanted sex due to the pressure for men to be sexually experienced. One study showed that while women experience more unwanted sexual activity (e.g., kissing, being fondled, etc.), men were "more likely than women to experience unwanted sexual intercourse." Due to the aforementioned reasons. Men also fake orgasm as well, not just women. I can attest to it because I've done it.

This is why stereotypes annoy me. There are undoubtedly men who exist who only want sex, but you get women who hold them up to represent Man as a whole: "*Men* mostly just want sex," instead of "_some_ men mostly just want sex," which would be a perfectly reasonable statement to make.



Elaine said:


> except when they find that super special someone (and that super special someone usually looks like a super model. Since there are so few super models, it's rare that men run into someone they want to pursue). Since women hand out sex on the first date, or definitely by the second or third date, why should men bother to do anything more. Sex was all they wanted in the first place.


Most generalizations based on stereotypes. Yawn.



Elaine said:


> Women don't feel like settling down with somebody if the person doesn't pursue them seriously. And men don't feel like settling down with somebody when they can get sex wherever they go. All you have to do is wait until they are almost old and bald and fat, and the chance of them getting women to have sex with them is basically 0 already, then they might decide to pursue someone.


I suspect many such statements are made from frustration or some other underlying personal reason, because they certainly aren't based on actual facts.

My response would be exactly the same if it was reversed and someone said "All women ________," and, in fact, I've actually done that very same thing before, as well as post relevant facts. I'm against stereotypes, generalizations and inaccuracies in general, and couldn't care less who the subject of them is.


----------



## daydr3am (Oct 20, 2010)

I agree with you. Guys of this generation don't seem to be very aggressive with their pursue of women. I see too many early 20s men complaining about nonsense like "friend zones" and being "forever alone" when they don't even bother asking women out on dates. From my observation, it seems like they are too scared to ask someone out, so they sit back and watch the women they'd like to date date other men who DID have the balls to ask them out, and then bitch about it on the internet. 

I'm a bit old-fashioned and traditional, so I like to be pursued. This does not mean I do nothing, as I do my fair share of initiating as well, and on the rare occasion, ask men out. I just prefer the male to take more action in the beginning.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 1, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> Thus men experience unwanted sexual activity. They internalize society's standards regarding male sexuality, which dictate "that a man should always make a sexual advance, otherwise the woman might think that he is homosexual or that she lacks sex appeal," and that " 'real men' would never refuse a woman's sexual advances." They might also engage in unwanted sex due to the pressure for men to be sexually experienced. One study showed that while women experience more unwanted sexual activity (e.g., kissing, being fondled, etc.), men were "more likely than women to experience unwanted sexual intercourse." Due to the aforementioned reasons. Men also fake orgasm as well, not just women. I can attest to it because I've done it.
> 
> This is why stereotypes annoy me. There are undoubtedly men who exist who only want sex, but you get women who hold them up to represent Man as a whole: "*Men* mostly just want sex," instead of "_some_ men mostly just want sex," which would be a perfectly reasonable statement to make.


So what you are saying is that all these men are being forced to have sex by aggressive women. Really? And they will never turn it down no matter what? Huh. That is a very interesting interpretation for sure. 

I think the reason you think that way is because you are in the minority. And "most" just means > 50.1%. While "minority" just means < 49.9%. INTJs are not known for being in the majority on anything usually.


----------



## gammagon (Aug 8, 2012)

I don't _expect _to strut by and a women fall to her knees... That would be pathetic imo. 
I would never do it myself either as a man. Life is just easier without any unnecessary sacrifices. 
And lastly, I honestly hate this world. It's shitty and only getting shittier. If I were to actually produce a child and they be similar to myself I imagine it would be torture for them. 
I have no desire to create one either, as cute as a child is I feel I am not fit as a parent and the world or any woman is not suitable for my offspring.

I hope I don't get pooped on for my opinions.


----------



## Hunger (Jul 21, 2011)

HonestAndTrue said:


> Or, it requires it more than ever. Not out of want, but out of need. Without gender, we cease to be human. Which is why there are so many sad hurting souls in the world today. And especially on here they are a plenty.
> 
> Courageous words you speak.


It saddens me deeply that you are one of the few people left who still hold this view. We are a dying breed it would seem. People don't respect & believe in gender anymore, even if they tell others they do.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

It never ceases to amuse me to find people on here upset and indignant over someone's opinion or observations.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

justjessie said:


> There is something I would like to address. Listen up men. And women. Because this is at least in my experience becoming increasingly frustrating for women. Passive men. Men have become a lot more passive in this era. Maybe it's just me being sexually frustrated, in fact I know I am, but just because that is a fact does not mean I'm going to pursue YOU. See, if a man really desires you OR if he is falling in love with you, he HAS to come on strong. It’s part of how nature works. You're not going to secure a mate or pass on your genes otherwise. Not saying I don't want a career or to be able to support myself, but come ON. I want to see some men put some effort in it. Not just strut by and expect a woman to fall to their knees.
> A man has to come on strong to form a bond with you – regardless of whether or not he is in love with you. On a primal level, this helps him to secure you as a mate, and it leads, hopefully, to procreation and babies.
> You and I wouldn’t be here right now, if our male ancestors didn’t make their moves and pursue females strongly.


There are active women who prefer passive men.

I think you should realize that your personal preferences don't work for the 7 billion other people out there. If you like a more active guy to pursue you, fine, but don't take this as a global metric all guys should aspire to. Find the ones who meet your needs and let others find theirs.

Even jungian typologies point this out. In socionics there is something called erotic styles that outline that some types prefer an aggressive approach and women of these types aren't going to sit around waiting for the man to take initiative.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

HonestAndTrue said:


> @_n2freedom_
> 
> I agree. A seductive feminine woman is like a carrot on a stick. I can't help but to chase/hunt. But it's not easy to find the feminine woman. Usually the feminine woman remains inside but displayed to the world is a masculine woman. And personally, masculine women I have no interest in. So to get to the feminine woman you must ignore the masculine woman that is being projected, take a steel chair and smash it against the one-way mirror shell of hers, before you can get to the feminine woman. Why? Why can't women just be feminine? Does it attract too many guys? Probably. Like a shark sensing blood in the water. Is society forcing women to be men? No doubt.
> 
> The real question is, do women want to be women, or would they prefer to be men? If a woman prefers to be a man, you may be eliminating yourself from the men you are looking for.


I personally don't think women want to be men. I think many factors over the years have shifted the landscape. Operating in feminine energy is not encouraged in both men and women. I think both sexes need both energies. I was going to type out a response as to why I think it is but I think this excerpt from an article captures the essence of what I was going to share:


> *A Word About Women Today …*
> *The truth is that many women do not know how to embrace their femininity.* Particularly in contemporary culture women are conditioned and pressured to do, be and have it all.
> 
> _They have to have the successful career, raise a family, keep harmony in all their relationships and they are suppose to do this with an energized smile on their face. If they fail at any one of these they have failed as a woman._
> ...


----------



## Kormoran (Mar 15, 2012)

justjessie said:


> everytime I ignore your posts, I forget about you.


The irony...


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I agree with OP's notions but she seems to have forgotten that many men also feel continuously put on show for their looks and never feel 'good enough.' If someone is passive its because they have judged the likelihood of the response to be a rejection, and perhaps an embarrassing one at that.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

@_justjessie_, we are all attracted to different qualities, and you have a right to your opinion. I too like a confident man. I second the recommendation to check out the ENTJ, except I'm serious...I snagged one, and I'm keeping him forever!!! :tongue:

I do agree with another poster that similar demeanors attract; I'm not a passive woman.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

I just want to say that there are many types who are also assertive. ESTP as another example, can be very assertive from what I've seen. I'm just personally biased towards ENTJ


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Fuck it. It's all about music and dancing anyway.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Just because OP said men need to be more assertive, does not mean she's promoting old double standards or traditional values. People need to stop reading into things and coming up with random conclusions on this forum. 

I think if a man is too scared to go after what he wants, he's weak. But, I believe women should also be confident enough to go after what they want and not be passive. In short, I think all of humanity needs to step it up. Not a specific gender. Life is too short to watch it pass by without taking what you want from it.

And whomever said that some women prefer passive men hasn't been out in the real world. I have never once met a woman who told me, "So I was going on a date with Sean. And I asked him what he wanted to do, and he said 'I don't know.' I suggested coffee and he kind shrugged and said 'sure.' Oh my god his indecisiveness was so hot, I just wanted to get naked right then and there." 

Even speaking to really assertive women like ENTJs, they aren't afraid to make the moves but even they have said they'd like a guy who can take control and order food for them or plan a date, etc.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Enfpleasantly said:


> I just want to say that there are many types who are also assertive. ESTP as another example, can be very assertive from what I've seen. I'm just personally biased towards ENTJ


Yeah, I've read that SP guys are usually the best with women.


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

cyamitide said:


> There are active women who prefer passive men.
> 
> I think you should realize that your personal preferences don't work for the 7 billion other people out there. If you like a more active guy to pursue you, fine, but don't take this as a global metric all guys should aspire to. Find the ones who meet your needs and let others find theirs.
> 
> Even jungian typologies point this out. In socionics there is something called erotic styles that outline that some types prefer an aggressive approach and women of these types aren't going to sit around waiting for the man to take initiative.


I think sexuality is a lot less black and white than that. I like and am perfectly willing to be the first one to say Hi to a more passive, sensitive, shy, whatever you want to call it, guy I find attractive. If they don't like it, well they don't even know me so what the hell do I care at the end of the day? Friendship comes first and with friendship I think it's necessary when someone is on the shy side to I feel them out and try a different approach...back off, start friendly conversation, be non threatening. Match the persons need for connection by offering the more sensitive parts of yourself. THIS IS ME TALKING BY THE WAY NOT SAYING ANY HAS TO DO THIS. I do have a strong masculine side when it comes to some area of my life but I am a woman and enjoy being pursued. So when that shy guy asked for my number the first thing I did was gush to my girlfriend about it. And i'm not sure I want aggressive. I'd like assertive. There is a difference


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

Enfpleasantly said:


> @_justjessie_, we are all attracted to different qualities, and you have a right to your opinion. I too like a confident man. I second the recommendation to check out the ENTJ, except I'm serious...I snagged one, and I'm keeping him forever!!! :tongue:
> 
> I do agree with another poster that similar demeanors attract; I'm not a passive woman.


Currently interested/slash/ involved with an ENTP...I'm an INFJ. I don't know a lot about personality type compatibility though


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

n2freedom said:


> I personally don't think women want to be men. I think many factors over the years have shifted the landscape. Operating in feminine energy is not encouraged in both men and women. I think both sexes need both energies. I was going to type out a response as to why I think it is but I think this excerpt from an article captures the essence of what I was going to share:


Nail. Head. Hit. Been trying to say similar in other places. This says it clearly though.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

justjessie said:


> I think sexuality is a lot less black and white than that. I like and am perfectly willing to be the first one to say Hi to a more passive, sensitive, shy, whatever you want to call it, guy I find attractive. If they don't like it, well they don't even know me so what the hell do I care at the end of the day? Friendship comes first and with friendship I think it's necessary when someone is on the shy side to I feel them out and try a different approach...back off, start friendly conversation, be non threatening. Match the persons need for connection by offering the more sensitive parts of yourself. THIS IS ME TALKING BY THE WAY NOT SAYING ANY HAS TO DO THIS. I do have a strong masculine side when it comes to some area of my life but I am a woman and enjoy being pursued. So when that shy guy asked for my number the first thing I did was gush to my girlfriend about it. And i'm not sure I want aggressive. I'd like assertive. There is a difference


So.... what is your number?  ...


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

justjessie said:


> I think it just takes away men's initiative to put effort in the pursuit. Women used to know that the way men are built makes them thrive on the challenge of pursuit.


Honestly this just sounds like sexist nonsense (both misogynistic and misandric). I think there are certain women and men who are naturally inclined to "pursue", just as there are certain women and men who are naturally inclined to be "pursued". And there are even some women and men who can be both the pursuer and the pursued. But to suggest that people adhere to guidelines that makes it mandatory that men are always the chaser, whilst women are always the chased, sounds like superficial essentialism rearing its ugly head yet again. And not only that, but such essentialism also implies that one's manhood is dependent upon whether he chases a potential partner or not. And so men who naturally lack this aggression can never be considered real men (which is bullshit). And that's pretty much the tone I've gotten from the OP.

I also take issue with the fact that you make it seem like women are pieces of meat, that are unable to establish relationships without the guiding help of a man. And I find this to be very disgusting. It also places women on a pedestal as though they are some _prize _to be won for the man who makes it to the finish line first. The problem with this ideology is that women lose the autonomous control to establish their own relationships, which creates a power imbalance. It causes women to become 'objects' to be possessed by men, as though they were trophies, and it also constructs manhood and womanhood in rigid (and childish) ways in which men and women who don't fit these social constructions are now open to ridicule and baseless accusations of not being "_real men_" & "_real women_".


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

justjessie said:


> How is wanting a guy to come on strongly if he is interested a question of equality? I'm not asking him to take away my right to vote.


You're expecting (without asking) all guys to be the only ones initiating things. 

Part of the change from it being socially accepted for men to play grab-ass with whoever they wanted (you know, the right for women to make their own decisions) is that men respect that women have free will. The default position of anyone we pursue is "no". 

That said, since your default interest level is assumed to be 0, you need to do something to initiate things. Guys with respect for women and their free will usually won't just hit on someone they've never spoken to before. 

Part of the idea of equality is equal responsibility. One of the most attractive qualities for me in a woman is self-determination. I want someone who will at least come up and talk to me and not expect me to just drop to my knees when she walks by. 
You're expecting men to do the same thing that you think men shouldn't expect you to do. 

""Not just strut by and expect a woman to fall to their knees." is just the same as "Not just strut by and expect a man to fall to their knees."

Of course people have to invest in each other, but something (and I'll do a little dance when it's something more than an ambiguous smile or brief eye contact) needs to be said by one interested party or the other.

One of the things I hate more than anything is this sense that women are entitled to be pursued, but then only want to be pursued by people they're interested in without taking action.
A new expectation has been created - the expectation that it's not socially acceptable to just hit on anyone who you find attractive because women have the right to be left alone and are not just targets for men to take pot-shots at.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Villainous said:


> And whomever said that some women prefer passive men hasn't been out in the real world. I have never once met a woman who told me, "So I was going on a date with Sean. And I asked him what he wanted to do, and he said 'I don't know.' I suggested coffee and he kind shrugged and said 'sure.' Oh my god his indecisiveness was so hot, I just wanted to get naked right then and there."


If I had more time I might use this as an excuse to talk about my own history. 

Short version: "more things in heaven and earth..."

EDIT: @Villainous, I'd expand on that if I could, but I think it'd take a lot of thought and energy to adequately do so, and I got other stuff to do today. (Introversion has its drawbacks.) To be fair, I did have a bit of the indecision and lack of initiative you're referring to, and my ex found that pretty annoying -- and for those following along at home I would suggest that's something y'all work on. 

Rather, what appealed to her were the things that came with it. There is a place in the world after all for us indefatigably sincere goofballs.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

justjessie said:


> There is something I would like to address. Listen up men. And women. Because this is at least in my experience becoming increasingly frustrating for women. Passive men. Men have become a lot more passive in this era. Maybe it's just me being sexually frustrated, in fact I know I am, but just because that is a fact does not mean I'm going to pursue YOU. See, if a man really desires you OR if he is falling in love with you, he HAS to come on strong. It’s part of how nature works. You're not going to secure a mate or pass on your genes otherwise. Not saying I don't want a career or to be able to support myself, but come ON. I want to see some men put some effort in it. Not just strut by and expect a woman to fall to their knees.
> A man has to come on strong to form a bond with you – regardless of whether or not he is in love with you. On a primal level, this helps him to secure you as a mate, and it leads, hopefully, to procreation and babies.
> You and I wouldn’t be here right now, if our male ancestors didn’t make their moves and pursue females strongly.


Although I do appreciate the thought, it's nothing but your personal vent because *you* are frustrated.

I'll give you a tip! Work towards your own satisfaction and don't lay it in other people's hand. Projecting your frustration onto passive-men isn't gonna help you, nor is it gonna help passive men. In fact, they may even be passive for a reason! "I don't care" is strong in quite a lot of people these days.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> If I had more time I might use this as an excuse to talk about my own history.
> 
> Short version: "more things in heaven and earth..."


?


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

NT the DC said:


> Imma make you love me.





iamawolf said:


> So.... what is your number?  ...


Silly passive men! :laughing:

@_justjessie_ 


* *


----------



## illow (Dec 23, 2012)

I dont really mind the chase provided that im receiving enough cues to keep me reared up...some women are into a lot of games, other are pretty much straight forward with how they feel..it depends of you enjoy the thrill of emotional volatility...but its quite difficult when a woman makes it clear that she totally expects to be pursued then she dont know what to actually do when the right moment arises...its kinda typical for the man to become confused at that point..its really just a silly mind game from their perspective ..so the chaser really has to stand his ground and be persistent in his approach whilst the chased has the responsibility of keeping things interesting...

Idk, im just sayin dou...i doubt it means anything to an observant mind when confronted by unnecessary obstacle just to keep the chase more intriguing..women seem to like being pursued so i dont mind playing along...but given that im as numb as they come i really dont think that i would be embarrassed in any sort of way by rejection or silly behavior...infact i mostly think its funny when a woman plays hard to get when im pretty sure that we're both going through a sorta similar experience...understanding the chaser motives could be kept ambiguous...but reading too much into things can really make the mind go nuts....probably where your frustration stems from...in any case...i think you're tryna imply that men need to be more assertive but that just the type of men u knew....lets not generalize...

Im jus sayin dou.....


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

HonestAndTrue said:


> Silly passive men! :laughing:
> 
> @_justjessie_
> 
> ...


Yes yes!!! YESSSSSSSSS










*swerve.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

I forgot to mention - coming on strong is often characterized as "creepy", "clingy", or "desperate" these days by many women. Do you know how much harder that makes it to hit on people without being expected to beat around the bush?
Even being polite and direct with an "are you single?" or "are you available/seeing anyone?" will often get you labeled as any of the above. We can't magically tell when you're single, and a lot of people lie that they're taken to avoid being honest with people.

It's a crapshoot, and the rules keep changing day to day and person to person and even with the same person in different environs. It's really not worth it to come on strong and then be ostracized for it, so we hang back until we can see some hint of a sign that our advances will be welcomed. If we got more than hints, you can bet we'd be all over you if we were interested.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

To add to this, as a guy I'm supposed to pursue women. In fact, I started out wanting to emulate John F. Kennedy's conquests of women, being something of a player. I could only take that as far as nowhere, because I don't drive. I think in the dating guidelines if we go by the OP's definition, it's the men that are supposed to drive the lady home, pick her up to go out for a date, etc., etc., and it's kind of hard to do that when you don't have a car. So, the traditional dating role guidelines, would not work out for me. I think I'd actually do better if it was the woman taking on the men's role of pursuing. 



KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Honestly this just sounds like sexist nonsense (both misogynistic and misandric). I think there are certain women and men who are naturally inclined to "pursue", just as there are certain women and men who are naturally inclined to be "pursued". And there are even some women and men who can be both the pursuer and the pursued. But to suggest that people adhere to guidelines that makes it mandatory that men are always the chaser, whilst women are always the chased, sounds like superficial essentialism rearing its ugly head yet again. And not only that, but such essentialism also implies that one's manhood is dependent upon whether he chases a potential partner or not. And so men who naturally lack this aggression can never be considered real men (which is bullshit). And that's pretty much the tone I've gotten from the OP.
> 
> I also take issue with the fact that you make it seem like women are pieces of meat, that are unable to establish relationships without the guiding help of a man. And I find that very disgusting. It also places women on a pedestal as though they are some _prize _to be won for the man who makes it to the finish line first. The problem with this is that under this ideology, women lose autonomous control to establish their own relationships, which creates a power imbalance. It causes women to become 'objects' to be possessed by men, as though they were trophies, and it also constructs manhood and womanhood in rigid (and childish) ways in which men and women who don't fit these social constructions are now open to ridicule and baseless accusations of not being "_real men_" & "_real women_".


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Brian1 said:


> To add to this, as a guy I'm supposed to pursue women. In fact, I started out wanting to emulate John F. Kennedy's conquests of women, being something of a player. I could only take that as far as nowhere, because I don't drive. I think in the dating guidelines if we go by the OP's definition, it's the men that are supposed to drive the lady home, pick her up to go out for a date, etc., etc., and it's kind of hard to do that when you don't have a car. So, the traditional dating role guidelines, would not work out for me. I think I'd actually do better if it was the woman taking on the men's role of pursuing.


Well I don't really agree with anyone being a "player". I think people should be upfront with their intentions. There's no shame in wanting casual sex, and there's no shame in turning it down. However, yes, by the OP's definition men would probably be doing the driving, paying, etc. I don't believe that it's one gender's responsibility to do everything. Especially since "doing everything" comes with a price. Like the ideology that propagates the "I bought you dinner and a movie, so you owe me sex" mentality. That is where these bullshit gender roles lead people to. So I'd prefer if we just did away with them completely, and let every individual do what is according to their _personal_ nature (as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights).


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

iamawolf said:


> Yes yes!!! YESSSSSSSSS
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have no clue what's going on here. This I am mostly happy about.


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

justjessie said:


> I have no clue what's going on here. This I am mostly happy about.


Still no call. :sad: Is this what women feel like? :frustrating: Why? :crying: Don't they know I'm waiting by the phone? :angry:

So much for being a strong man, it doesn't work. Passive man it is.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Dear pathetic and unattractive female:

Sucks for you, because I pick up "passive" men who are hot as hell and amazing people all the time. Maybe our natural evolution has decided to exclude people like you who are too cowardly to accept responsibility for their own sex life.


----------



## HonestAndTrue (Oct 25, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> 50s gender stereotypes.


Still no call. The 50s you say. Maybe Johnny Mathis can do some magic?


----------



## Elaine (Sep 1, 2012)

devoid said:


> Dear pathetic and unattractive female:
> 
> Sucks for you, because I pick up "passive" men who are hot as hell and amazing people all the time. Maybe our natural evolution has decided to exclude people like you who are too cowardly to accept responsibility for their own sex life.


I really don't think it's an accomplishment to get men to have sex with a woman. 75% of the men on college campuses say they would sleep with whoever that wants to sleep with them right now. Getting men to sleep with a woman has never been the bar to climb. I am sure most women can sleep with someone tonight if they really wanted to. It's finding a worthy guy that is hard. And I hardly think picking up passive men to have sex with them is really something for the woman to brag about. It's the passive guy who gets to brag in that case, "Dude, I sat around and did nothing, and these chicks are just throwing themselves at me! Score!!!"


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

I don't have to do jack shit. I'll go my way how I want to. Period. And I don't at all expect anyone to fall on their knees before me.

If a girl likes me, she has to like me for who I AM and not for who I try to, have to or am expected to be. If I can't be accepted for ME, than keep on walking and good luck.

I'm not in on the gene race. I want to connect, not impress.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Elaine said:


> I really don't think it's an accomplishment to get men to have sex with a woman. 75% of the men on college campuses say they would sleep with whoever that wants to sleep with them right now. Getting men to sleep with a woman has never been the bar to climb. I am sure most women can sleep with someone tonight if they really wanted to. It's finding a worthy guy that is hard. And I hardly think picking up passive men to have sex with them is really something for the woman to brag about. It's the passive guy who gets to brag in that case, "Dude, I sat around and did nothing, and these chicks are just throwing themselves at me! Score!!!"


I have only had sex with one person. I said pick up. Also, why should it matter what the men think of it? If I sit around and do nothing and men are throwing themselves at me, I'd probably say that too. Is there something wrong with being attractive and having people approach you, or is that only if you're a man? Is it okay for men to brag about picking up women? What you're saying just makes absolutely no sense to me, and I still see no problem involved outside of your perspective.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

devoid said:


> Dear pathetic and unattractive female:
> 
> Sucks for you, because I pick up "passive" men who are hot as hell and amazing people all the time. Maybe our natural evolution has decided to exclude people like you who are too cowardly to accept responsibility for their own sex life.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 1, 2012)

Oh, there is nothing wrong with who picking up whom. What I was addressing is your statement that "Maybe our natural evolution has decided to exclude people like you who are too cowardly to accept responsibility for their own sex life."



devoid said:


> Dear pathetic and unattractive female:
> 
> Sucks for you, because I pick up "passive" men who are hot as hell and amazing people all the time. Maybe our natural evolution has decided to exclude people like you who are too cowardly to accept responsibility for their own sex life.


I don't think the OP was talking about sex. While I don't really know what the OP was referring to exactly, but in general, women are looking for good life partners. While a woman is relatively young, it's really not difficult for her to find sex partners. It's finding a partner who actually cares about her and wants to spend his life with her that is difficult. Picking up a man to hang out with, or have sex with, or go to a club with ... those are not difficult things. It's finding a man who loves you for who you are, thinks you are incredible, wants to spend his life taking care of you, that's the difficult task. It's not because you can't take care of yourself (or either person in the relationship being incapable in anyway), but because it's a sincere deeply felt love, just like you would want to take care of someone you really love also.

If you want to know how much some men are willing to have sex with just about anything that moves, just think of the Hugh Grant scandal, when he cheated on his wife, super model Elizabeth Hurley, to have sex with a relatively ugly and diseased looking hooker. I know without any doubt that most people on this forum are more attractive than that hooker, I promise.


----------



## Malkovich (Feb 18, 2010)

This thread is ridiculous. Can we all just accept that age old "different strokes for different folks" and let people be as (un)sociable and (un)assertive as they wish? (as long as they're not crossing the line into harassing people who said no)

To expect people to change their own preferred behavior to make _your _dating life easier... it's beyond self-centered and ridiculous.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

@KINGoftheAMAZONS @Brian1

OP is just saying men should be more assertive, not that they should court women and spend all their time and money on her. People need to stop reading into things so much.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Villainous said:


> @_KINGoftheAMAZONS_ @_Brian1_
> 
> OP is just saying men should be more assertive, not that they should court women and spend all their time and money on her. People need to stop reading into things so much.


That's not whats happening here, people are superimposing their own opinions over the op.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

android654 said:


> That's not whats happening here, people are superimposing their own opinions over the op.


Yeah superimposing is a better word for it


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

devoid said:


> Dear pathetic and unattractive female:
> 
> Sucks for you, because I pick up "passive" men who are hot as hell and amazing people all the time. Maybe our natural evolution has decided to exclude people like you who are too cowardly to accept responsibility for their own sex life.


Firstly,
Thanks for calling me pathetic and unattractive. Secondly, you haven't read all my posts because I've shared my experience in picking up passive men. Whoopdeedoo good for you. I started a conversation on the subject of men who are too cowardly to take responsibility for their own sex life maybe hoping to encourage and break through those fears standing in their way. Yeah I came on a little strong but is encouraging a guy to go after a girl if he finds her attractive a sexist thing to do? If so, my deepest regrets.


----------



## Traum (Jan 3, 2012)

I think that is a preference. Actually, I know it is.

If you want a strong man, as was mentioned, go look for an EXTJ. Any TJ, really. Espcially ESTJ, I think.

Of course, in most cases, he probably has used and trained that strength to and by conquering other women, but if you're fine with that, go ahead.

(not all ESTJs or any personality types are strong/'players,' just saying)

I am an INFP and I am happy with my wonderful, passive INFP boyfriend. We have an incredibly strong bond. If he were to get all 'strong' or dominant, I would be totally turned off, even scared. That is my preference. I hate dominance and anger and aggression and all that.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Eh... This was very educational from a type perspective.

Personally I see some of the dilemmas presented here.
Pursuing is kinda a stretch in my view.
I don't really pursue any more, as every female I meet should make up her own damn mind if she likes me or not.
People who use the word pursue fail to spot the body language cues that say hey this girl likes you.
After that it is basically just a matter of saying hey I like you too, in with your own body language.

Still not every girl is capable of making up their own damn mind.

Girls who want to be pursued and have that as their main criteria I stay far away from.
Cause they will leave with *the next guy that tries that much harder.*
It is called encouraging competition...
I think there has been written much about such behaviour by people who study people for a living, so I won't go into it.


----------



## sean2724 (Mar 24, 2012)

You Sir Name said:


> Actually saying that *all *women are "literally insane" is a pretty good indicator for how attractive your mind and personality must be
> Ya might wanna work on that before assuming that it's all women being insane that is the cause for your rejection (hint: it's not)


You making a snap judgement about me, based on a single forum post paints a good indicator of how attractive your mind and personality must be. Spiteful much?  Take your own advice.


----------



## Shield of Light (Aug 28, 2010)




----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Traum said:


> I think that is a preference. Actually, I know it is.
> 
> If you want a strong man, as was mentioned, go look for an EXTJ. Any TJ, really. Espcially ESTJ, I think.
> 
> ...


If there's anything that I know about women is that they don't know what they want and what they say they like isn't actually what they respond too. I bet if we were in bed and I took control, you'd love it 

P.S. Dominance is not the same as anger or aggression. It's a positive quality whereas anger and aggression have negative connotations.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

sean2724 said:


> You making a snap judgement about me, based on a single forum post paints a good indicator of how attractive your mind and personality must be. Spiteful much?  Take your own advice.


Except for that I have a boyfriend.


----------



## Traum (Jan 3, 2012)

Villainous said:


> If there's anything that I know about women is that they don't know what they want and what they say they like isn't actually what they respond too. I bet if we were in bed and I took control, you'd love it


Well how creepy. There is only one guy ever getting in a bed with me and it is not you. I do know what I like, in a relationship both sexually and non-sexually, and it is not overpowering; it is teamwork and cooperation, not one person dominating the other.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Villainous said:


> If there's anything that I know about women is that they don't know what they want and what they say they like isn't actually what they respond too. I bet if we were in bed and I took control, you'd love it
> 
> P.S. Dominance is not the same as anger or aggression. It's a positive quality whereas anger and aggression have negative connotations.


Of all the personality types to tell that they don't know something about themselves, INFP is the last type I would choose to fuck with.
And you're wrong. Dominance is a negative thing, if you ask me, because it's an assumption of power with no invitation, and that is a theft from the other person. Specifically, I mean "taking" control. It's not a positive quality, unless you want to be dominated, and not all people who want it at any given point in time want it all the time.
Also, quit being creepy.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Traum said:


> Well how creepy. There is only one guy ever getting in a bed with me and it is not you. I do know what I like, in a relationship both sexually and non-sexually, and it is not overpowering; it is teamwork and cooperation, not one person dominating the other.


HahGay.com | Hah Gaaaaaaaaay!


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Seriously, are you 12? You're calling her response gay? You're ridiculous and disrespectful.

Her response is much more of a BURN to the dude calling her out than anything, and it's always hot when a woman actually knows what she wants.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

William I am said:


> Seriously, are you 12? You're calling her response gay? You're ridiculous and disrespectful.
> 
> Her response is much more of a BURN to the dude calling her out than anything, and it's always hot when a woman actually knows what she wants.


HahGay.com | Hah Gaaaaaaaaay!


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Nope, sorry. Not available. Good luck in your search though. You'll find a man for you eventually.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

William I am said:


> Nope, sorry. Not available. Good luck in your search though. You'll find a man for you eventually.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

SlowPoke68 said:


> I don't usually pursue women. I don't need to. Of the guys I know, most of them don't need to, either. Our secret? We're breathing, in generally good health, have jobs and outside interests. It doesn't take much.


This ^


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

justjessie said:


> There is something I would like to address. Listen up men. And women. Because this is at least in my experience becoming increasingly frustrating for women. Passive men. Men have become a lot more passive in this era. Maybe it's just me being sexually frustrated, in fact I know I am, but just because that is a fact does not mean I'm going to pursue YOU. See, if a man really desires you OR if he is falling in love with you, he HAS to come on strong. It’s part of how nature works. You're not going to secure a mate or pass on your genes otherwise. Not saying I don't want a career or to be able to support myself, but come ON. I want to see some men put some effort in it. Not just strut by and expect a woman to fall to their knees.
> A man has to come on strong to form a bond with you – regardless of whether or not he is in love with you. On a primal level, this helps him to secure you as a mate, and it leads, hopefully, to procreation and babies.
> You and I wouldn’t be here right now, if our male ancestors didn’t make their moves and pursue females strongly.


So basically you're saying you want a strong man to sweep you off your feet and _take you _the way Rhett Butler did Scarlett O'Hara in: "Gone with the Wind"?


----------



## Traum (Jan 3, 2012)

Goodness, I have stepped into the wrong thread...

Thanks, William.

Also yes, taking control is what I meant to be negative. Some passive people prefer their partner to take the lead, and that's fine if it's invited.

And which part of that is gay? Nothing is gay about my preference for a passive partner. People informed about personality should understand thai it's not someone's gender or sexual preference, but their cognitive preferences that influence decisions like these.


----------



## Traum (Jan 3, 2012)

SlowPoke68 said:


> I don't usually pursue women. I don't need to. Of the guys I know, most of them don't need to, either. Our secret? We're breathing, in generally good health, have jobs and outside interests. It doesn't take much.
> 
> Women just generally lead the charge in such matters--so that's what you are competing against. Another of life's ironies.
> 
> The guys I know who do pursue women are usually trying to date beyond their station. I'm in my mid-40's and guys my age who go after 19-year-olds depress me. They will make fools of themselves trying to date a teenager when they could be enjoying more attention from women in their 30's-50's (who have their own careers, are better organized, and better in bed) all while not needing to lift a finger.





All in Twilight said:


> This ^



I also find this interesting. I do agree that being heavily _persued _is kind of scary to some, but at the same time, it takes a bit more than being alive to have a girl, no?

As far as a guy winning a girl, for me it just involved observing guys and deciding which one I liked, and by some miracle, he liked me too, and after much time observing and becoming friends, we just mutually kind of got together without one really persuing the other, haha..

The point though, was that he did more than breathe, I mean, I did have standards. He's kind and moral and intelligent, he doesn't do anything that would make me not want him (things like drinking or smoking or having sex with all sorts of women (in fact I was his first girlfriend)), and as I mentioned, he's passive and polite.


So, I like the concept of not being actively persued, but I don't have a problem with (and I would personally kind of expect) a guy trying to be good and to better himself for his own good and for the good of his partner/potential partner.

Gosh, I feel so bossy. :bored: I'm not trying to dictate anything here, just having a discussion.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Traum said:


> I also find this interesting. I do agree that being heavily _persued _is kind of scary to some, but at the same time, it takes a bit more than being alive to have a girl, no?


I think you are young.



Traum said:


> As far as a guy winning a girl, for me it just involved observing guys and deciding which one I liked, and by some miracle, he liked me too, and after much time observing and becoming friends, we just mutually kind of got together without one really persuing the other, haha..


So you made the first move?



Traum said:


> The point though, was that he did more than breathe, I mean, I did have standards. He's kind and moral and intelligent, he doesn't do anything that would make me not want him (things like drinking or smoking or having sex with all sorts of women (in fact I was his first girlfriend)), and as I mentioned, he's passive and polite.


That's my point. I and most of my cohort are passive and polite. We aren't remarkable in most ways. We don't need to make the first move. We don't need to do much of anything beyond be ourselves and pickup the check on dates. We don't even need to bring up sex. Girls do all of that. What you said about "not doing anything to make you not want him" is exactly what I mean and points up mating as a loser's game for men. The way to win is to not do anything to lose.




Traum said:


> So, I like the concept of not being actively persued, but I don't have a problem with (and I would personally kind of expect) a guy trying to be good and to better himself for his own good and for the good of his partner/potential partner.
> 
> Gosh, I feel so bossy. :bored: I'm not trying to dictate anything here, just having a discussion.


"Why don't you actively pursue me? I don't understand why you aren't doing anything. It can't possibly be because I am doing all of the work for you, is it?"


----------



## KC (May 5, 2011)

Hah, this thread is hilarious... 

Here's my 0.02

Passive Mode - Oh come on, would you be a man or something. When are you going to ask me out. My goodness, this guy is like taking forever so I'm just going to friendzone him and like, whatever. 

Assertive Mode - You asked me out!!! ZOMGWTFBBQ!!! Dude, you're coming on to me way too strongly. I hardly know you man. *awkward silence*



=.= really?


----------



## Traum (Jan 3, 2012)

SlowPoke68 said:


> I think you are young.


So?




> So you made the first move?


No. it was so incredibly gradual, that I don't think either of us made the first move. If I had to say.... I guess it would be him, because he was the one who first indirectly directly said anything about us dating (rather passively, but he did it).




> That's my point. I and most of my cohort are passive and polite. We aren't remarkable in most ways. We don't need to make the first move. We don't need to do much of anything beyond be ourselves and pickup the check on dates. We don't even need to bring up sex. Girls do all of that. What you said about "not doing anything to make you not want him" is exactly what I mean and points up mating as a loser's game for men. The way to win is to not do anything to lose.


Yep, yep. I was agreeing with that; I don't know why you think you're arguing with me.



> "Why don't you actively pursue me? I don't understand why you aren't doing anything. It can't possibly be because I am doing all of the work for you, is it?"


Well, some girls may do all the work. I've seen it. They hang all over just about any guy with a pulse. You even said it. I don't like that kind of person very much. I mean I don't dislike anyone really, but I don't like that behavior. I am not like that, though, and some girls aren't.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I haven't noticed this problem, there's plenty of assertive, even aggressive, young men out there - some of them as young as eighteen, having no qualms coming on to older women in their twenties or thirties. 

Now, what I have noticed as a trend is that there are a lot of young men who don't expect to put much effort in and think they should get laid just because they want sex, but that's not due to being passive, but due to being a self-absorbed person with a sense of entitlement, and you can just shine those dudes on, don't give them any, don't get involved with them, don't waste your time or self-respect on some douchebag who wishes he was a pimp, with a stable of bitches who support him financially and give him sex on demand. Yeah, those men exist, and then there are their nerdy counterparts who cry about NOT being those dudes, and then read PUA and try that, and then they're just as worthless. Ignore all of them.

If you want a relationship, only have sex with men who give you time, attention and make an investment in you first. That's just a given though, but unfortunately one that needs to be re-stated to a lot of young women who weren't necessarily raised to expect that, being taught that rushing into sex is okay...and yeah, typically, no it's not if you're actually looking to keep that guy as your boyfriend. Typically if a guy wants a girlfriend, he'll get to know you first, and be interested in something besides your body, though of course it's normal that he likes your body _too _but not _exclusively. 
_
If you're saying you want casual sex with sexually aggressive men, then there are no lack of them, I assure you, but you may be in some upper middle class ivory tower social prison, and you're probably going to have to date men of different cultural or socioeconomc backgrounds to encounter these more sexually aggressive men.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Irrelevant text


Welcome back.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

L said:


> Welcome back.


It wasn't irrelevant.

In a way, albeit quite warped, it stated what everyone else said: "Take care of your own damn business and stop crying".

Granted, gotta do a tad of reading between the lines and filter out the slightly bitter attitude.

Well, if you labeled it relevant solely because you wanted to say 'welcome back' on the first occasion possible, might as well ignore this post.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Erbse said:


> It wasn't irrelevant.
> 
> In a way, albeit quite warped, it stated what everyone else said: "Take care of your own damn business and stop crying".
> 
> ...


I just wanted her attention and didn't feel like mentioning her, so I quoted her. Therefore, the text she had was irrelevant to my wanting to say 'welcome back'.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

justjessie said:


> the thrill of the chase is gone.


you mean when women mess with men, tease them then when opportunities for sex appear they withhold ? oh yeah, it's not manipulation or extortion, but thrilling instead

F that


----------



## IcarusDreams (Apr 23, 2011)

Men are not "built to chase", because they are individuals first and foremost (not just "men"), and therefore choose to chase or not to at all. In short, it's a stereotype-that most men do it doesn't men that all men must do it-and similarly for women (it's totally OK for a lady to initiate, and she won't be any less of a woman for it.) It's OK for the OP to prefer whatever she wants, of course-she should just not be surprised that not all men will pursue just to "be a man."


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

I bloody wouldn't like the chase that's for sure.
(The only chase I like is the quiz show on the telly! XD)

I'd much prefer it if those feelings are just laid out on the table.
(then we could have fun doodling on them! XD)


----------



## musicalpyramid (Feb 2, 2009)

justjessie said:


> There is something I would like to address. Listen up men. And women. Because this is at least in my experience becoming increasingly frustrating for women. Passive men. Men have become a lot more passive in this era. Maybe it's just me being sexually frustrated, in fact I know I am, but just because that is a fact does not mean I'm going to pursue YOU. See, if a man really desires you OR if he is falling in love with you, he HAS to come on strong. It’s part of how nature works. You're not going to secure a mate or pass on your genes otherwise. Not saying I don't want a career or to be able to support myself, but come ON. I want to see some men put some effort in it. Not just strut by and expect a woman to fall to their knees.
> A man has to come on strong to form a bond with you – regardless of whether or not he is in love with you. On a primal level, this helps him to secure you as a mate, and it leads, hopefully, to procreation and babies.
> You and I wouldn’t be here right now, if our male ancestors didn’t make their moves and pursue females strongly.


Ok, so I havnt bothered to read all the posts since your first one, sorry I dont tend to, but I did have some thoughts about your question.

I am not especially social or especially confident - I can hold my own, and for short periods can come across quite extroverted, but it is not my scene. If I like a girl enough then I will make an effort, do what i can to form a connection, build a bond. However I avoid coming on strong, it is not somthing I am comfortable with. However I will generaly, shockingly for an INFJ, look for more subtle but none the less very deep and meaningful ways to show that I am nuts about someone.

Perhaps the issue with some other responders is your use of the phrase ''come on strong'' - it perhaps implies an alpha-male, dominant and therefore cocky arrogant form of behaviour. This is the type of behaviour men have been told for long enough not to exibit. It is hard sometimes to work out from the various messages in society what form of male behaviour socially acceptable. I knew as soon as I read your posts that some men would reply straight away with a reply along the lines of ''tough luck sweetheart if you wanted real men you should have lived in the 50s, because you've got equality now and this means no opening doors for women, paying for dinner or being direct, taking a lead and being assertive, because you've got equality now''. I wouldnt quite put it that way myself but i have some sympathy with it. Its another can of worms to work out modern gender roles, but frankly I just dont see why in this day and age the bulk of the expectation to initiate a straight relationship should lie with the male? 

In fact one aspect of being a man that i DONT like is the expectation that i should always be initiating romantic contact with a female, this idea that girls should wait expecting me to do the work getting things started, that this is how the game has to be played. i will make an effort, sure, make it as clear as i can that i am serious, but for me and my socially awkward introverted personality it is is a challenge in itself and one I do only because I recognise that, as someone who dosnt want to be single, I have little choice.

So my question back to you would be - "what exactly do you mean by 'come on strong'". Does is require words? Dramatic gestures? Consistency? Commitment? To me the phrase sounds equivalent to acting like a swaggering tool. But I have a feeling thats not what you mean by the phrase. Do you mean the guy must make an effort to show the girl that he is serious and put the time and effort into that? Cos if it is I'm in total agreement with you, so long of course as the girl reciprocates and shows she is serious too.


----------



## Nixu (Jun 2, 2010)

justjessie said:


> Because this is at least in my experience becoming increasingly frustrating for women. Passive men. Men have become a lot more passive in this era.


Perhaps men, finally after thousands of years, got frustrated of passive women.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Cheveyo said:


>


I have a great sense of humor. I don't put up with people shitting all over people for how they are biologically driven to be.
Respect for your fellow human: Get some.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

William I am said:


> I have a great sense of humor. I don't put up with people shitting all over people for how they are biologically driven to be.
> Respect for your fellow human: Get some.




You don't respect your fellow human, you've only managed to convince yourself that you do. If you actually respect other people, you wouldn't act so condescending simply because a joke doesn't match your own sense of humor.


I've also got a feeling that, had my response not been aimed at a female member of this forum, you would not have mounted your white horse Sir Knight.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Cheveyo said:


> You don't respect your fellow human, you've only managed to convince yourself that you do. If you actually respect other people, you wouldn't act so condescending simply because a joke doesn't match your own sense of humor.
> 
> 
> I've also got a feeling that, had my response not been aimed at a female member of this forum, you would not have mounted your white horse Sir Knight.


I'm not being condescending and you don't know me from adam, so you have no authority to tell me about who I do and don't respect. I will tell you that I don't respect peoples' right to make jokes in a way that furthers social stigma that damages people - each and every one of whom is a part of our society.
People shouldn't make jokes about rape and they shouldn't call something gay to demean it. I don't even remember who it was you bothered about it in the first place, only that you called it gay, and that's not ok.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

William I am said:


> I'm not being condescending and you don't know me from adam, so you have no authority to tell me about who I do and don't respect. I will tell you that I don't respect peoples' right to make jokes in a way that furthers social stigma that damages people - each and every one of whom is a part of our society.
> People shouldn't make jokes about rape and they shouldn't call something gay to demean it. I don't even remember who it was you bothered about it in the first place, only that you called it gay, and that's not ok.



You really should watch the show "Community".


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I haven't noticed this problem, there's plenty of assertive, even aggressive, young men out there - some of them as young as eighteen, having no qualms coming on to older women in their twenties or thirties.
> 
> Now, what I have noticed as a trend is that there are a lot of young men who don't expect to put much effort in and think they should get laid just because they want sex, but that's not due to being passive, but due to being a self-absorbed person with a sense of entitlement, and you can just shine those dudes on, don't give them any, don't get involved with them, don't waste your time or self-respect on some douchebag who wishes he was a pimp, with a stable of bitches who support him financially and give him sex on demand. Yeah, those men exist, and then there are their nerdy counterparts who cry about NOT being those dudes, and then read PUA and try that, and then they're just as worthless. Ignore all of them.
> 
> ...


 I've hung out with some pretty nasty shallow dudes before, they talk about women in an objectifying way etc. and are general douchebags but they are quite far from what you call "entitled" to sex. I mean where are you meeting these guys and what exactly do you mean by "entitled".


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Any guy who wants sex that a woman doesn't find attractive = "entitled to have sex"

His big sin is in being unattractive, not so much about any legitimate entitlements.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

View attachment 60179


----------



## 2GiveMyHeart2 (Jan 2, 2012)

There was a forum thread that was a totally awesome called the Demise of Guys. Lots of men and women invested in some deep, critical thinking, which I think could explain what the OP is truly trying to say.


----------



## bel (Dec 2, 2012)

2GiveMyHeart2 said:


> There was a forum thread that was a totally awesome called the Demise of Guys. Lots of men and women invested in some deep, critical thinking, which I think could explain what the OP is truly trying to say.


I wasn't here, but I know the article and Tedtalk to which you allude. Some of the points like the overdiagnosis of ADD and ADHD in the school system are serious gender issues. Likewise, the characterizations of men within media are valid gender concerns.

However, if the discussions were anything like elsewhere on the internet, they honestly sound like one big circlejerk, rather than "deep, critical thinking." As I pointed out to one user earlier, porn has existed in a variety of public and private ways across time. Though he called me a "smartass troll" and argued internet porn is somehow inherently different from all other porn ever, the fact that porn has existed across time and space indicates that men and women were thinking about sex and/or "passively" viewing sexual art for pleasure without engaging in sex itself.

Furthermore, Zambardo mentions Weber, which seems like a pretty valuable point, but in no way mentions secularization in relation to the _Protestant_ work ethic and merely only tacks on the problematic economy at the end of his article (Rosin writes the changes are economic in origin). This economic point also seemed pretty absent from the online "porn and videogames circlejerk." Student debts, a poor job market, the unstable economy could all serve as more valid reasons for young male difficulties in maintaining stable relationships. Videogame entertainment could just as easily be an overall response to these economic difficulty factors, rather than a cause.

And we could go on about levels of education difference with men and women. Although it's petty, some men are put off with the notion of brides with higher levels education or higher paying jobs. And actually, that's the exact attitude which feeds into the myth that guys are at a demise.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Nixu said:


> Perhaps men, finally after thousands of years, got frustrated of passive women.


Lol, that just reminded me... 

Passive men no longer need to put up with passive women, they have porn.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Bardo said:


> View attachment 60179



I need to set an automated event to pop this up on my PC at 10pm every night. No joke.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Very simple. For those women who prefer men who act like you know men, blame the generation of mothers who now have male offspring in the 15 - 35 year old rage for beating every single male behavioral aspect out of their sons. One cannot expect men to act like males, if a generation of female teachers (I count most of the "male" in the profession here as well), media and pundits/commentators etc have spent the last 20 - 30 years demonizing male behavior.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Brian1 said:


> Okay, let's say, because there's only one guy left to fuck, the over-reliance of the women doing it with the one man left on Earth, results in Penis Fracture, then where would civilization be? One poster I quoeted went for the tired cliche men aren't needed. What I'm proposing is what if we get that Lesbian Utopia, and it's found men are still needed, and there is a man but the man has something wrong in the area needed to keep civilization going? Then the women would die off, there's nothing there to take their place, and that's in for the human species. This is like what happened with the dinosaurs, first the vegetation couldn't grow , that killed off the plant eaters, because there was no plant eaters around, the meat eaters died. However,because mammals were small, they survived and then they bred, so they increased their numbers, and monkeys turned into humans, and that's how you got us to today. It's comical to say men what are they good for,until we envision a scenario where men are needed.


Just because you have sex alot does not mean you will get a penis fracture. Are you trollin? lol


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Premium G said:


> Just because you have sex alot does not mean you will get a penis fracture. Are you trollin? lol


Can't you at least explore the possibility that there may be a situation in breeding where its a Morton's Fork Hobson's choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yes I'm sure in the sex department, you're right, about penis fractures, I'm not arguing that, though, I am using that to entertain a situation in which the participants will be in a double bind, that's all I'm arguing. And no I am not a troll. Maybe if we actually read between the lines, you'd see I'm just offering up a type of paradox?


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

I'm glad to see there's many intelligent people here 

Personally... I have a strong disorder that keeps me from pursuing. How did this happen? Two reasons. First, since I was a child I have been taught that "coming on strong" to women makes them feel objectified, uncomfortable, predated upon, and that guys that do that are lewd and disgusting. This happened from such a young age that it is very deeply ingrained. 
Secondly, I happened to be someone naturally sensitive to such indoctrination. I wanted to make my girlfriend happy. I hated the thought of being seen like that. And I am not naturally outgoing, or super confident around people I don't know well. INTP, it comes with the description. 

If you have a problem with any of this happening on a large societal level as a trend, then you have to accept that feminism did this and that's all to blame, and that, just maybe, you might put a little effort in yourself to compensate. Is it your natural sexual behaviour to be passive and expect to be pursued? Well, don't know if this ever occurred to you, but society is all about curbing instincts for the sake of everyone's benefit. Otherwise rape would be much more common than it is, for example.

Also, if you choose to only respond to males that "come on strong", you have to accept the consequences of that. Who, among males, come on the strongest? Who are the most confident and try the hardest? Players. Sociopaths and narcissists. That's who you're selecting for, by choosing to select for such behaviour. I have no problem with that, but you should probably know what you're letting yourself in for.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Brian1 said:


> Can't you at least explore the possibility that there may be a situation in breeding where its a Morton's Fork Hobson's choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yes I'm sure in the sex department, you're right, about penis fractures, I'm not arguing that, though, I am using that to entertain a situation in which the participants will be in a double bind, that's all I'm arguing. And no I am not a troll. Maybe if we actually read between the lines, you'd see I'm just offering up a type of paradox?


Sure. The thing is, in that light anything is "possible", so I still do not see the point.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

justjessie said:


> On a primal level, this helps him to secure you as a mate, and it leads, hopefully, to procreation and babies.


Hopefully...for whom? :laughing:


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> I'm glad to see there's many intelligent people here
> 
> Personally... I have a strong disorder that keeps me from pursuing. How did this happen? Two reasons. First, since I was a child I have been taught that "coming on strong" to women makes them feel objectified, uncomfortable, predated upon, and that guys that do that are lewd and disgusting. This happened from such a young age that it is very deeply ingrained.
> Secondly, I happened to be someone naturally sensitive to such indoctrination. I wanted to make my girlfriend happy. I hated the thought of being seen like that. And I am not naturally outgoing, or super confident around people I don't know well. INTP, it comes with the description.
> ...


And now you've recognized the root cause of the problem, you can go about fixing it.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Arbite said:


> And now you've recognized the root cause of the problem, you can go about fixing it.


The problem is only conditional. It is only a problem because women insist it be so. Changing myself to suit them could take years of training. Them allowing for my nature would be much easier. But of course they won't do that. Why? Because nice guys aren't sexy. 
Anyway, I choose to search for someone more deserving of my dedication. There are exceptions to the rule. I know of a guy much worse off than me, can't even meet his gf, but she continues to try to get past that issue, for months now. Do I expect that level of tolerance? No, but I need much less than that, and if she cares about me genuinely, she won't be so superficial as to reject me for mere sexual passiveness in terms of initial approaches.


----------



## Codger (Aug 7, 2010)

justjessie said:


> There is something I would like to address. Listen up men. And women. Because this is at least in my experience becoming increasingly frustrating for women. Passive men. Men have become a lot more passive in this era. Maybe it's just me being sexually frustrated, in fact I know I am, but just because that is a fact does not mean I'm going to pursue YOU. See, if a man really desires you OR if he is falling in love with you, he HAS to come on strong. It’s part of how nature works. You're not going to secure a mate or pass on your genes otherwise. Not saying I don't want a career or to be able to support myself, but come ON. I want to see some men put some effort in it. Not just strut by and expect a woman to fall to their knees.
> A man has to come on strong to form a bond with you – regardless of whether or not he is in love with you. On a primal level, this helps him to secure you as a mate, and it leads, hopefully, to procreation and babies.
> You and I wouldn’t be here right now, if our male ancestors didn’t make their moves and pursue females strongly.


As I'm a bit late to the party here, I don't mind waiting in line for sloppy seconds thirds fourths whatevers.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> The problem is only conditional. It is only a problem because women insist it be so. Changing myself to suit them could take years of training. Them allowing for my nature would be much easier. But of course they won't do that. Why? Because nice guys aren't sexy.
> Anyway, I choose to search for someone more deserving of my dedication. There are exceptions to the rule. I know of a guy much worse off than me, can't even meet his gf, but she continues to try to get past that issue, for months now. Do I expect that level of tolerance? No, but I need much less than that, and if she cares about me genuinely, she won't be so superficial as to reject me for mere sexual passiveness in terms of initial approaches.


Right. I like how passivity has been deemed unnatural and a preposterous trait for a man to take on.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

OP could have stopped at, "I like non-passive men. Some girls like passive men. Neither are wrong, get over it." By saying passive men are wrong also implies unpassive females are wrong. If the second is false, you have created a double-standard. Why should females get the choice and not males? 

Personally, I can go either way depending on timing and situation. But I am under the impression that these liberated women should use their new-found power and get off their asses if they want something. They did it for their rights and they can do it again.


----------



## Blickwinkel (May 15, 2012)

justjessie said:


> A man has to come on strong to form a bond with you – regardless of whether or not he is in love with you. On a primal level, this helps him to secure you as a mate, and it leads, hopefully, to procreation and babies.
> You and I wouldn’t be here right now, if our male ancestors didn’t make their moves and pursue females strongly.


My dad was too shy to really make any moves on my mom, so she had to be the one to initiate it. Three kids and 23 years later, they're still together....just saying :3

Times are-a changin


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Blickwinkel said:


> My dad was too shy to really make any moves on my mom, so she had to be the one to initiate it. Three kids and 23 years later, they're still together....just saying :3
> 
> Times are-a changin


Yes... the idea that a man has to come on strong to form a bond is completely nonsensical garbage. Do they not have any male friends? Did they have to come on strong to form a bond, too? 
Truth is, women just often find passivity to be unattractive, and this is how they rationalize it to themselves consciously.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Rachael said:


> I grew up in a household that maintained that men were not equal to women.
> We bear young. You do not.
> On your own, all men, alone with one woman left, would be troublesome for human species survival. One man left in a sea of women and we could continue ad nauseum. If you base the marker at it's highest, actual human survival, you fail. Guess it depends on the parameters for that whole 'equal' thing.
> 
> I had 'funny' parents though...


I don't see why this is really that objectionable. What you said is the very base reason that men are objectified based on their ability to provide and protect and women are objectified based on their sexuality.

Although, survival is 50/50. Women have higher gamete value, yes, but men have evolved to take tougher conditions to ensure the survival of these gametes.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Torai said:


> I don't see why this is really that objectionable. What you said is the very base reason that men are objectified based on their ability to provide and protect and women are objectified based on their sexuality.
> 
> Although, survival is 50/50. Women have higher gamete value, yes, but men have evolved to take tougher conditions to ensure the survival of these gametes.


Yeah... reproduction is a woman's strength. 
To conceptualise a situation in which such ability is crucial, and then compare the two, is only to say that woman are more useful when their strength is crucial than men in the same situation. Bit pointless. I mean, I don't want to get petty but... name something significant women invented? Name some essential service for society that is run even 50% by women? Men are absolutely essential for creating, maintaining, and running society. Growing offspring is the easy part, it happens practically automatically.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> Yeah... reproduction is a woman's strength.
> To conceptualise a situation in which such ability is crucial, and then compare the two, is only to say that woman are more useful when their strength is crucial than men in the same situation. Bit pointless. I mean, I don't want to get petty but... name something significant women invented? Name some essential service for society that is run even 50% by women? Men are absolutely essential for creating, maintaining, and running society. Growing offspring is the easy part, it happens practically automatically.


Basically, men are genetically more diverse in their skills. It's the basic reason for male disposability. You weed out the lesser men, and let the stronger survive. The ones that survive are worthy to pass on their genes. It's more beneficial to the human race for men to have riskier genes and behaviors and women to have more stable genes and behavior, so to speak. Men have the burden of rolling the dice and risking it all, and women have the burden of never being able to play the game.

Not to say that women can't do this, or men can't do that. As someone with a learning disorder, I've been told I can't too often. So, if you can't do something, I would never use circumstances as an excuse. That would be the most crushing thing that someone could do, to say that you can't do something because of what you can't control. I believe that any person, with enough drive and conviction, can develop any ability and break new ground. Pretty much, Rock Lee is an inspiration for everyone, and everyone should strive to be like him.

But the human race has evolved to the point where we can afford to not be so restrictive in the name of efficiency and stop being so insistent with gender roles. I think we should stop objectifying men and women. If a woman wants to be in a man's role or vice versa, we should let them.

I think society should start treating people as individuals rather than as men and women. Seeing people as groups just breaks the ingenuity that people can bring to society.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Torai said:


> Basically, men are more diverse in their skills. It's the basic reason for male disposability. You weed out the lesser men, and let the stronger survive. The ones that survive are worthy to pass on their genes. It's more beneficial to the human race for men to have riskier genes and behaviors and women to have more stable genes and behavior, so to speak. Men have the burden of rolling the dice and risking it all, and women have the burden of never being able to play the game.
> 
> But the human race has evolved to the point where we can afford to not be so restrictive in the name of efficiency and stop being so insistent with gender roles. I think we should stop objectifying men and women. If a woman wants to be in a man's role or vice versa, we should let them.
> 
> I think society should start treating people as individuals rather than as men and women. Seeing people as groups just breaks the ingenuity that people can bring to society.


I would like a system in which sex is anonymous for applying to things. Affirmative action is just another form of discrimination. If someone should get into something, their qualifications should speak for themselves. 

However, it doesn't matter, because society is going down the toilet. Turns out, gender roles were important for a whole load of things we couldn't have foreseen. 

Consider that we adapt our sexual preferences to environment. Who is genetically successful in a society in which monogamy is not enforced? Promiscuous men. What factors bolster their genetic success? Unfaithfulness, immorality, and stupidity. Stupidity because that makes one less likely to use contraception or think ahead. Plenty of guys with kids by half a dozen different women who just did what they wanted at the time, and couldn't conceive of the consequences. So, these guys are now being selected for almost exclusively. That is gradually making kids themselves less able to cooperate productively in society. Worse, men adapt their behaviours to what women find attractive, to find a mate. Men are now all starting to act in immoral, stupid ways. The stable provider is not attractive any more, and more and more men are going to stop being productive, and leech off society. 
What else? Oh, marriage is a sham. The original contract is broken. Marriage was designed initially as a kind of exchange. The man offered the woman his surplus resources and work capacity, the woman offered her reproductive capabilities. The woman owned the mans labour, the man owned his children. Now, women own the children, can take them away at any time, for no reason, and still claim his labour afterwards. That's why men are opting out of marriage now. Basically, everything is becoming inefficient, disorganised, uncooperative. Men are not being as productive, because there is no reason to be. Children are becoming more genetically incapable of contributing, and being raised by single mothers, which furthers the issues of poor motivation and behaviour. 
And there's more than that, but that's enough on it's own. Sometimes, institutions are there for a reason. They worked. Then, we think we know better, we deviate, and things crumble. It's happened before, with other civilisations. Once a civilisation reaches a certain level of prosperity, people think they can start experimenting with new social structures, and eventually everything falls apart. Sad.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> I would like a system in which sex is anonymous for applying to things. Affirmative action is just another form of discrimination. If someone should get into something, their qualifications should speak for themselves.
> 
> However, it doesn't matter, because society is going down the toilet. Turns out, gender roles were important for a whole load of things we couldn't have foreseen.
> 
> ...


I would like to hear a rebuttal to this reasoning. Clearly, a large number of people disagree with this thinking, if they didn't we wouldn't have people questioning the structure and challenging gender roles in the first place. 

What is the post-modern response? Can we invent new gender roles and functions in a way which is stable and self-accommodating? Is this poster exaggerating, or is the sky not really falling? Are people taking this "problem" seriously, or their any proposed methods to push society forward currently being discussed or implemented?

I for one, don't take to lying down and letting the world end so easily, but I don't see why we must have inequality to ensure our survival either.


----------



## J Squirrel (Jun 2, 2012)

I could go through and point out all the flaws in the OP's reasoning.

Alas, I lack the initiative.


----------



## Coldspot (Nov 7, 2011)

J Squirrel said:


> I could go through and point out all the flaws in the OP's reasoning.
> 
> Alas, I lack the initiative.


I see what you did there.

I approve


----------

