# The One Thing Men Want More Than Sex



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

I've been pondering this notion that a lot of nuance in thought and perception has been lost due to the information age not just in sociocultural and political but deeper still into how humanity has started conceptualizing its need for companionship and relationships. Mainly as a side effect of the overburdening of processing such a large amount of information.

Going by this article I found(which I shamelessly borrowed the title from) it brings up some interesting and in my view accurate points which I hope can be discussed.

The full article is here https://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/the-one-thing-men-want-more-than-sex-wcz/

Here are some excerpts


> So, what do men want more than sex? We’ve all heard that *women need to feel loved to have sex, but men need to have sex to feel loved. *Let’s look more deeply at what it is exactly that men are getting when they get sex. Sure, there is the physical pleasure, but there is a deeper need that is being satisfied. I call it the need for a *safe harbor.*





> It takes a lot of time and maturity for men to admit to themselves that they need a safe harbor where they can be nurtured and embraced by a woman. It takes a lot of courage to let his woman know he may want sex, but more important is his need for security, love, and nurture. It requires a level of wisdom to know that allowing ourselves to be as vulnerable as a child may be the manliest thing a man can do.



* *







> The world of men is a world of competition. On the most basic level, males compete with other males for access to the most desirable females. Males make the advances and females decide which males they will accept.





> By the time we become adults, we’ve already been battered and bruised by the world of competition and rejection. We long for that safe harbor where we don’t have to pretend to be something we’re not in order to be chosen. We long for someone who sees us for who we are and wants us anyway, who can hold us and touch, not just our body, but our hearts and souls.





> “Always wanting sex” is part of the male persona we wear to show we’re manly. What we really want is a safe harbor where we can take refuge, relax, and be cared for. In other words, we want the feeling of being nurtured that most of us didn’t get enough of when we were children. But admitting these needs makes us feel like little boys, not big strong men. Better to be manly with our sexual desire and then once we’re inside her body, we can relax, be ourselves, and be infused with love. That’s the hidden desire we have when we have sex.





*So for the men out there do you find this accurate? Or do you feel the need to constantly maintain a rigid manly persona and always be treated as such? 

Does a desire to be emotionally cared for and have one's emotional vulnerabilities accepted and respected by a partner hold a high place in one's desire? Or does the need to be a strong pillar of support and essentially fully embrace a purely manly persona be what you strive for?*

In terms of women in relation to this the article focuses on that as well


> Just as it’s difficult for men to ask to be held, nurtured, and touched; it’s often difficult for women to give that kind of intimacy. There are three main reasons,



* *







> First, women have their own conditioning about men being men. If he doesn’t want sex, they worry that they may not be attractive enough.
> 
> 
> Second, a man wanting to be held and nurtured, triggers feelings that they are dealing with a boy, not a man. I can’t tell you how many clients I have who say things like “It’s like I’ve got three children in the house. There’s our two sons, and then there’s my husband.” Women want a man, but worry they have another little boy.
> ...



* *





Personally I find that the perception that emotional vulnerability being tied to volatility is a faulty one. The most violent men I have had the unfortunate luck of coming across are those that contort their vulnerability to garner favor and simultaneously do not express proper emotion and instead become highly volatile and uncontrolled in their emotion when things do not go their way(not unlike a small child) that then leads to the violence.

But it can be understood why that perception forms as a truly vulnerable man who has the capacity to express themselves emotionally while simultaneously having great control over their emotional self is not dissimilar by initial perception to the more volatile types who have poor character traits overall.








> For a woman, she must also go beyond her own conditioning and be open to a man who is making himself vulnerable in new ways. She must have a great deal of self-love and self-confidence to accept being a safe harbor. She must also have the strength to protect herself, when his shame at being vulnerable turns to anxiety, anger, or depression. It isn’t easy for men and women to take these kinds of risks, but the payoff is a life-time of deepening love and intimacy.


*
For the women do you find this to be true in attraction and relationships? Do you tend to gravitate away from men who showcase emotional vulnerability for fear of having to deal with what is perceived as a childlike manner?

Does a desire to be loved, cared for and supported by a strong and resilient man who is stoic in their manner or at the very least someone who embodies the stereotypical masculine self take precedent?*


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I feel like every [exaggeration] woman out there who's been in a serious relationship knows that this is true. But maybe it's just me, and how I view life. It just seems obvious to me. I'm not a very social person but the men I've known and been closer to seek that vulnerability with me. And this has happened even when not in a relationship, because generally people open up to me.
But yea I think men tend to hide that need between them and mostly express it to their women. They also tend to hide it from themselves as well, depending on the case.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

> *women need to feel loved to have sex, but men need to have sex to feel loved. *


I am a woman.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

I think there's a lot of truth here.

I don't believe I was ever actively coached into repressing feelings or hiding vulnerability - the best I can describe it is as instinctual. It just happened. Male pride is very real.

However, there is a warm comfort that *typically* a woman can offer that is deeply soothing to the soul. We're often painted as patriarchal monsters these days but honestly, its a relationship of equals for most of us I'd wager - certainly in my experience. And it's an equal that coaxes parts of you out that you'd never bare to a friend or a colleague.

It's a trust thing I suppose - we feel more comfortable exposing our emotional throats to a lover than to pretty much anyone else. We're rewarded for it whereas instinct or experience tell us we will be punished for doing so elsewhere.

Think of all the stuff we do for attention, all the songs written (mostly about women), all the paintings - it's pretty clear the high value most of us place on our significant others.

While I don't like to place undue pressure on anyone through idealisation nor suggest anyone should be confined a role they don't want - I will confess that this very soothing and feminine kind of comfort - warm, soft skin - nice smell - gentle voice and genuine concern for me and how I'm doing.. and yes, good sex.. that is all priceless to me. 

It'll turn a terrible day right around, it'll lift a weight from my shoulders or extinguish some anger I've been carrying around all day over something stupid and insignificant.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Crimson Rash said:


> The One Thing Men Want More Than Sex


This is a complex topic, it can grow pages and pages. As we grow old sex becomes easier and easier to get, that doesn't mean we are always having sex (that says something), we start liking some special style of sex, like more direct perhaps, or specific expressions of affection, etc, this means wanting or not, some types of sex might not be welcome, our taste becomes more and more specific, some men start talking in bed, some don't.

As we grow old you start hearing more and more concepts like trust, caring and *loyalty*. Then you see more men become more aware of how unbalanced relationships can be: I hear your problems you don't hear mine, I understand your difficulties you don't understand mine, etc. Sex is good, yes, but sex is not at the top of needs or wants. It's been discussed long enough elsewhere (I haven't seen this type of thread here but anyway) it's been discussed long enough how most women think men always want sex and won't ever reject a woman approaching with free sex, damn, we can reject sex, we can stay away from certain people offering sex, we can even have sex without fully want it.

Besides, the title says "want", but the concept "need" also has a big role here. Many mean in fact walk away from relationships because they don't feel understood, or think the relationship lacks loyalty. Loyalty? I've discussed this term for years with fellow men and women in my region until I got bored, it seems women don't really understand loyalty, instead they hold to "fidelity", while we men understand both, but put more weight on loyalty. In many conversations women even stopped mentioning the term while having the discussion, men on the other side mentioned both concepts, liking or not, but expresses their understanding of both.

The trial of fire is when the man looses his job, vs when the woman does. There you can see a lot of things about loyalty, caring, support, etc. There are men who can have sex with a wooden block, many in fact will tell you openly you can't expect loyalty from a woman because they only care about what they want. I disagree, it's two separate worlds, the men who want a human relationship and the pigs who gave up. At the end of the day, caring, understanding, emotional vulnerability or emotional understanding, security, acceptance, support, etc, are things achieved more and more outside the bed and outside sex.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Crimson Rash said:


> So for the men out there do you find this accurate? Or do you feel the need to constantly maintain a rigid manly persona and always be treated as such?
> 
> Does a desire to be emotionally cared for and have one's emotional vulnerabilities accepted and respected by a partner hold a high place in one's desire? Or does the need to be a strong pillar of support and essentially fully embrace a purely manly persona be what you strive for?


I would agree with the general thesis of the article, not that much with details, but I can believe that the details may be true for the most.

I have never accepted the premises author cites as the starting point. I have not really competed with other man in such a manner. I have never played the manly facade (as I dislike any facade). I do not need woman to care for 'my hurt soul', because I tend to live in harmony with others and the world already. If anything a woman the man loves could have the sharpest dagger to pierce his hearth with.

However I do appreciate a gentle soul anyway, because what I seek is a companionship, mutual understanding and quite frankly a space to employ the gentleness in me. I like when person can be in touch with inner child, because it brings Si-Fe out of me. Usually it is connected with sense of vitality, joy and creativity which is sometimes hard to come by. And also a sense of uncompromising personal ideals without childish attempt to push those on others.

Maybe for some women represent more of a harbor, for some more a lighthouse/bright star if I d'use a naval metaphor.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

Maybe, I don't know.

A little encouragement and rationalisation of my thoughts when they're distorted 9oes a lon9 way. That would definitely 9ive me the feels and appreciation towards a partner. I can't stress enou9h how important that is.


----------



## Mister Bimbo (Sep 11, 2017)

I wish sex and lust wouldn't exist.


----------



## BenjiMac (Aug 7, 2017)

Mister Bimbo said:


> I wish sex and lust wouldn't exist.


It's complex and troublesome at times but to be fair, we wouldn't be here to have this discussion if it didn't.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

changos said:


> This is a complex topic, it can grow pages and pages. As we grow old sex becomes easier and easier to get, that doesn't mean we are always having sex (that says something), we start liking some special style of sex, like more direct perhaps, or specific expressions of affection, etc, this means wanting or not, some types of sex might not be welcome, our taste becomes more and more specific, some men start talking in bed, some don't.
> 
> As we grow old you start hearing more and more concepts like trust, caring and *loyalty*. Then you see more men become more aware of how unbalanced relationships can be: I hear your problems you don't hear mine, I understand your difficulties you don't understand mine, etc. Sex is good, yes, but sex is not at the top of needs or wants. It's been discussed long enough elsewhere (I haven't seen this type of thread here but anyway) it's been discussed long enough how most women think men always want sex and won't ever reject a woman approaching with free sex, damn, we can reject sex, we can stay away from certain people offering sex, we can even have sex without fully want it.
> 
> ...


It is interesting, isn't it?

One of the most common dynamics you see - so much of that it's a comedy trope at this point - is that of the woman constantly "reevaluating the relationship" (reevaluating him) and the man constantly looking to meet her expectations so he can be done with her reevaluating to get his peace and quiet. 

This is something we take for granted but it isn't naturally obvious, there's no real reason he shouldn't be the one to reevaluate their relationship (reevaluating her), in fact if she does this and shit tests to abusive/destructive extents, the simplest reevaluation would show that most other women would be a better prospect for him, making reevaluation a more reasonable choice. But he isn't looking for that, he is looking for a place to rest from the never ending horse race. And yet, at that point she is no longer his safe harbor, she becomes that which he needs safe harbor from.

I don't think this is true for all women, a lack in a self-aware concept for loyalty, I have the freedom to just stick with men if I am ever convinced it is the case, and I choose not too, but I also recognize that it would be the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Tropes said:


> It is interesting, isn't it?
> 
> One of the most common dynamics you see - so much of that it's a comedy trope at this point - is that of the woman constantly "reevaluating the relationship" (reevaluating him) and the man constantly looking to meet her expectations so he can be done with her reevaluating to get his peace and quiet.
> 
> ...


That was an excellent choice of words, nice wording.

There is a thread around here (last year perhaps) approaching a bit of emotional understanding/support towards men. The point is, many men in fact show great appreciation towards mafia films, why? "_I'm there for you, you there for me, just say the day, the place, I'll be there. It doesn't matter if we disagree on some things, it doesn't matter if I punched you in the face last month or you punched my face, it's not like I owe you something but there is honor, loyalty, a word to be kept_". In fact we men can show great respect towards the attitude of enemies among themselves when there is respect, truce, etc. 

It's no surprise things can be different depending culture and region, but it's no surprise women approach relationship from the "me" perspective, all for them, in fact... what the fuck from the start the man has to prove worth of her attention or caring, it's a one sided show most times. What does this has to do with the topic? in most cases men choose their partner and LATER expect loyalty or understanding, in fact many don't expect this AT ALL. To me, a social or cultural trend is something, but doesn't mean it's a rule or that we should give up on human stuff, human... stuff.


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

> For the women do you find this to be true in attraction and relationships?


I feel like some of the things said about men can apply to many women as well. Such as this part:

*"In other words, we want the feeling of being nurtured that most of us didn’t get enough of when we were children. But admitting these needs makes us feel like little boys, not big strong men. Better to be manly with our sexual desire and then once we’re inside her body, we can relax, be ourselves, and be infused with love. That’s the hidden desire we have when we have sex."*

I don't think anyone (male or female) should ever kill their inner child. I for one, regularly embrace mine and it takes vulnerability to expose that side of yourself in a relationship even being a female. Mostly because I'm used to being in control and taking charge. It can be hard for me to let my guard down in that way.

So yeah, I'd say it depends on the individual too but I also recognize that men are socialized differently from women and I wouldn't deny that. I actually related to this part more than the woman's but that's just me:

*"but men need to have sex to feel loved."*

Maybe it's because physical touch is my secondary love language (though that doesn't just apply to sex, obviously). Physical touch makes me feel especially cherished, loved and desired and just grounded in general as I can be very much inside my own head and forget I have a body lol. It makes me feel alive to touch and be touched. I see sex as being a very spiritual experience though when you do it with someone you love.



> Do you tend to gravitate away from men who showcase emotional vulnerability for fear of having to deal with what is perceived as a childlike manner?


When I'm in a bad place myself it is harder for me to handle it for sure so I agree with the article that it takes strength to be able to support someone in that way. But when I'm in a good place, it's just fine. No big deal. Ideally, we take turns. Today you're the strong one and the next day I'm the strong one. I may not always do a great job, but I will work on improving! At least, this is how it works in my marriage.





> Does a desire to be loved, cared for and supported by a strong and resilient man who is stoic in their manner or at the very least someone who embodies the stereotypical masculine self take precedent?


I'd be wary of someone who is stoic all the time (what are they hiding?) not to mention that sounds terribly robotic and boring. Give me intensity and passion. Also, I hate how anger is villified so much. It's just an emotion. It's not inherently bad. Someone who isn't afraid to be emotionally expressive and is actually in tune with their emotions is much preferred over someone who buries them but it comes out passive aggressively in other ways because, we're all human and it will come out eventually in one way or another.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

changos said:


> That was an excellent choice of words, nice wording.
> 
> There is a thread around here (last year perhaps) approaching a bit of emotional understanding/support towards men. The point is, many men in fact show great appreciation towards mafia films, why? "_I'm there for you, you there for me, just say the day, the place, I'll be there. It doesn't matter if we disagree on some things, it doesn't matter if I punched you in the face last month or you punched my face, it's not like I owe you something but there is honor, loyalty, a word to be kept_". In fact we men can show great respect towards the attitude of enemies among themselves when there is respect, truce, etc.
> 
> It's no surprise things can be different depending culture and region, but it's no surprise women approach relationship from the "me" perspective, all for them, in fact... what the fuck from the start the man has to prove worth of her attention or caring, it's a one sided show most times. What does this has to do with the topic? in most cases men choose their partner and LATER expect loyalty or understanding, in fact many don't expect this AT ALL. To me, a social or cultural trend is something, but doesn't mean it's a rule or that we should give up on human stuff, human... stuff.


I feel like what you say directly contradicts the notion that "women don't know what they want" and the fairly common experience of young girls (usually teens) giving all they can to their boyfriends to the point of hurt. On the other hand maybe those bad early experiences become what you see in older women as selfishness. From my memories, teen boys are generally perceived by teen girls as very selfish and wanting nothing but sex, which naturally creates the need to have them prove themselves as not being that.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

changos said:


> That was an excellent choice of words, nice wording.
> 
> There is a thread around here (last year perhaps) approaching a bit of emotional understanding/support towards men. The point is, many men in fact show great appreciation towards mafia films, why? "_I'm there for you, you there for me, just say the day, the place, I'll be there. It doesn't matter if we disagree on some things, it doesn't matter if I punched you in the face last month or you punched my face, it's not like I owe you something but there is honor, loyalty, a word to be kept_". In fact we men can show great respect towards the attitude of enemies among themselves when there is respect, truce, etc.


There is truth in that - the Godfather is very much an idealization of the male inter-group hierarchy. 



changos said:


> It's no surprise things can be different depending culture and region, but it's no surprise women approach relationship from the "me" perspective, all for them, in fact... what the fuck from the start the man has to prove worth of her attention or caring, it's a one sided show most times. What does this has to do with the topic? in most cases men choose their partner and LATER expect loyalty or understanding, in fact many don't expect this AT ALL. To me, a social or cultural trend is something, but doesn't mean it's a rule or that we should give up on human stuff, human... stuff.


I think this is to some extent an extension of modern life, which in itself is positive, but it's has consequences ,and this is a consequence we haven't really learned how to deal this with. In a more natural state, there is an exchange in the infantile aspects of our being - men act as children in looking for safe harbor, women act as children in looking for protection, we both in some ways become the other's parent. When we empowered the state to be main defender from violence, we also empowered the state to be the main defender of women. It did a good job - violence has being reduced over the years by significant amount and most of the people alive today can thank society for doing just that - but we need to learn what it means to us on an instinctive level, and how do we deal with the consequences of that.

My feelings are that MGTOW and sexbots and Japanese anime girlfriends, are not a good answer to that.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

> For the women do you find this to be true in attraction and relationships? Do you tend to gravitate away from men who showcase emotional vulnerability for fear of having to deal with what is perceived as a childlike manner?


Having to feel loved before sex? - yes. I wouldn't unless I wanted a relationship with them. I don't understand one night stands or hooking up with someone you just met. It's quite bizarre that people do this tbh! 

There's nothing wrong with showing emotional vulnerability, because this suggests a more open and communicative relationship. I can see the appeal in a stoic person, but if lack of expression and not knowing what is on his mind would put me off.

A person with a childlike manner doesn't seem attractive. I tend to be interested in people who are older than me for some reason.



> Does a desire to be loved, cared for and supported by a strong and resilient man who is stoic in their manner or at the very least someone who embodies the stereotypical masculine self take precedent?


Yes (because i'm needy ), but I wouldn't want it to be one sided. In relationships I also want to support them in return. Stereo typically masculine - maybe, because this means they will be willing to initiate (which is a typically male thing). I like guys who show confidence and decisiveness, probably because these are traits I'm lacking in.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I feel like what you say directly contradicts the notion that "women don't know what they want" and the fairly common experience of young girls (usually teens) giving all they can to their boyfriends to the point of hurt. On the other hand maybe those bad early experiences become what you see in older women as selfishness. From my memories, teen boys are generally perceived by teen girls as very selfish and wanting nothing but sex, which naturally creates the need to have them prove themselves as not being that.


I'm in a hurry right now, didn't quite get what you mean, I'm confused. Sure have a tendency to believe women are not 100% sure of what they want and I have many reasons to believe so, nobody is 100% sure of what they are doing or want, there are good films about that thing of "careful what you want etc" but this is different, there are many approaches to test it out, regarding women in particular... all it takes is giving them what they want, then you learn a few consequences. Related or not, I opened a thread on another forum ending in some kind of war... are women actually capable of being happy? wow, that was amazing, many in diff countries will protest on anything even if they get it, even some women said that was a good discussion point, and many others came in flames, I remember posting something like "why so mad if you are so happy" and they got even worse.

As for proving yourself worth of a woman, it's well known in diff cultures and countries. I like the tribes that apply the same to both, the wife and husband, that's fair, it's not about just one person. In some regions is only about the woman.

About the centra point of discussion I've been refering to this as chapters in life. Example many friends got the wife they wanted, only to find out they are no good for certain important chapters of life and NOW they know how important loyalty is. There are cases where divorce happened and the woman, helped by the local law, took every thing from home (even not really needing it), the reasons for divorce are not exactly important (is easy to spread the words: the man did something wrong), I had difficulties discussing this but over the years, the same woman who fought it evolved on being a bit more objective (one exGF, one woman I dated and a long time friend, all women, all lawyers-attorneys, now aware women are not always victims, now aware many, most... turn divorce into a punishment game).

In my country regarding getting married there is a saying: you kill yourself with your own hand, meaning you choose your own solution of problem. I believe many men slowly evolve to see beyond beauty, looks, at the end the worst feeling of loneliness if not having a meaningful connection and we all are vulnerable to that. Sorry I'm in a hurry perhaps I didn't use the best words.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

sex drive is a primitive instinct to ensure the survival of the species
modern society plus the constant bombardment of electronic media/ print have made sex easier to obtain
and is used as a consumer tool
the only thing this INTJ xy chromosome wants more than sex is intellectual conversation and books


----------



## Haba Aba Daba Aba (Mar 8, 2015)

'Safe harbor' is not something I seek from a woman nor is it a role I would want to impose on a woman. I would want her to be that for our children but I don't feel like there's anything in me which would want her to be that for _me_.

I don't see it as particularly 'courageous' or 'mature' or 'wise' or 'the manliest thing a man can do' to seek safe harbor from a woman. 

Generally I see that kind of attitude as regressive. Nostalgia for the mother, infantile longing for unconsciousness and self-dissolution, longing to be free of the burdens and difficult tasks of life, etc... I can understand how a man might find himself in that position but I don't see that as a developmental end-point or the height of manliness.

It's totally understandable to me why a woman might be put off by such an attitude. "Let me crawl back up inside your womb and die." I don't think she's mistaken in recognizing such an attitude as belonging to a boy and not to a man.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

Feist's cover of 'Inside and Out' popped into my head while reading this:



> _Too many lovers in one lifetime
> Ain't good for you
> *You treat me like a vision in the night
> Someone there to stand behind you
> ...


There's your "safe harbor," but I don't see the self-confidence. The set-up the author created seems like a repeat of women being the receiver but trying to buff it up by claiming it's a courageous act to be someone's emotional crutch.

I like men that feel comfortable with their emotions enough to display them. That being said, I'm not into coddling men. The line between vulnerability and childishness isn't _that_ thin. Feeling like someone's mother is not sexy, which makes the difference very clear.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Haba Aba Daba Aba said:


> 'Safe harbor' is not something I seek from a woman nor is it a role I would want to impose on a woman. I would want her to be that for our children but I don't feel like there's anything in me which would want her to be that for _me_.
> 
> I don't see it as particularly 'courageous' or 'mature' or 'wise' or 'the manliest thing a man can do' to seek safe harbor from a woman.
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree. Perhaps I'm lost in translation because English is not my first language, and I know "safe harbor" can mean something different to people in specific areas, of what it means to me from a direct translation, why? certain words and phrases have cultural meaning too, so I'm open to this as what could be the key factor on not agreeing.

Manly... I already lost count of the men (friends, family or just people I know) who talk about "manly" attitudes or manliness, but that I can see with my own eyes their families make them eat shit , they treat them like shit!!!. It's difficult not to see the trend, the numbers, the coincidences. I have so... so many stories, testimonials of people I know from close distance, this is so much that me, someone who comes from a military style school and a martial arts background, couldn't help at one point or another to say "_STOP, you are a fucking looser and you keep talking to me about mainly things?_" I mean I now them, and your post reminds me of them (not saying you are one of those cases, just that I take the chance to make something clear).

What? yes, *denial and compensation. *Your wife treats you like shit? sure, _shit I mean noooo she doesn't treat me like shit I'm man, man enough to go on and carry on, not to care about it, we men, real men react to this becoming more manly, more strong, you know_. No, if someone owes you respect is your own family (and I'm not talking about owing as something they have to pay you just because, I mean nobody should disrespect you at your own home).

"_Fuck you"_, is what I started to say already. My uncle is a big preacher of this and my last conversation with him was about giving away his 2 guns because anyway his wife treats him like fucking shit, so much for his fucking talks about being a man, never in my life I've seen him or others in that group behave like a man, it's just words. And I added: it takes a lot of courage to recognize and accept that your family treats you like shit. That's manly, talking about reality and calling things by their name.

Safe harbor? to my perspective, again non English native, is something two persons can do for each other, no shame in it, it's basic stuff, nobody owns nobody anything, but it's loyalty, it's the right thing to do, it's a manly thing to do... because not asking something from your wife... (and leaving it be) that's what someone full of fear does regardless of being a man or a woman, genderless, it's the human thing. I've said this to my uncle and other "_so mother fucking manly guys_" armed with fucking guns and they couldn't do anything else but lower their fucking head.

Again, this is not addressed to you, or that you are this type of person, and I don't know you, but the wording reminded me of people who at the end of the month (not even the end of the day) won't do anything they say to be manly. I know many mean talk about manly things in relationships as the fact of being neglected and not complaining about it, yes that's what they call manly!!!. To them aldready said: you better buy some bullets of I will buy them for you so you can put the gun at your head... otherwise your gun is useless.

*The thing is, words are easy to say as long as people don't know the details of your life*.

As for wanting safe harbor for your children only, that's denying yourself the right to something you you should get too, and in terms of relationships, giving up on something is not a good idea, that's in fact the beginning of a loosing spiral.

As for children... and harbor... damn my uncle talks the same!! then on other conversations he complains about his wife having entirely domination of the children education (he is like 75 years old today), so, he is fine with giving his wife enough space and then complains about the results, complains? no, as soon as you let him know there is something wrong, he changes the subject and says is not an accident, is in fact "_just the way it suppose to be, it's the way I want it to be_".

At the end of those conversations only one thing is clear: he will jump from concept to concept (even if those concepts don't make any sense) only trying to talk about manly things, he is just focused on appearing manly, and he repeats the word again and again, that... to me... that is a regression, to a state of a child that wants to appear as a man, but doesn't act accordingly. Is not just about my uncle, this attitude is well described, well shaped, very clear in many men I know.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> You say that the man [one-sided] has to prove his worth to the woman at the start, but that's only really possible if she knows what she wants and contradicts the notion that women do not know what they want. I'd say that in reality, the "game" at the beginning is *seduction *not actual proving of worth, which is likely why women elevate the bar later on, and come to expect more. They want to weed out those who only care to seduce her. Which comes back to what I mentioned about early adolescent failed romances


I think I know what the issue or misunderstanding is. Anyone can say to know what they want, this could be truth or be an illusion, a fantasy. Many men in certain stage (age) complain about women who dance and party too much, the problem is they were seeking actively women who dance and party too much, so there is a local saying that you might choose what you want/like and end up hating it, because at the end you lacked the maturity to see further. Same with women, sure it happens to both genders, to any gender if we are not careful, that's why so many movies and series about "careful what you wish for". We can't exactly agree that any human saying being sure of what they want... do know what they want.

The previous is common in some stages, chapters, age, but I believe there is more. My sister was heavily influenced by my mother to select her husband, then complained, why? she couldn't differentiate between her own wants and needs and what was being told to do. She knows it, and rarely wants to talk about this. My mother tried to do the same with me, failed, some people I know tried to do the same (choosing based on her parents guidelines), almost 100% of everyone I know will say "NO, bullshit", but it's no secret we are not entirely aware of our parents influences when it comes to choosing a mate (be ig for do, or not do, like the opposite too).

You mentioned a key word: *seduction*. When two people meet they know nothing about each other, in fact no insults or red language intention here but the right term would be: they know shit. All is mutual assumptions, and a lot is wasted on seduction, power struggle and trying to please. Women have the upper hand depending on your region because in some areas you must please her, you must prove worth it, period, no reasons for anything else, worse in latin america where people can go over 38 years old still living with their parents, there you must prove your value to all the family specially the parents.

I believe it takes time, years to get to know ourselves and be a little bit more confident on what we want, in fact, anyone who has a history of 3, 5 relationships pretty sure got the chance of getting what he/she wanted, and perhaps doesn't want it anymore. You also mention early adolescent failed romances, yes, many times we get what we wanted and that's what it failed, we were too young. 


There are plenty of scify films about getting what you want meaning you also get something you don't want, same in life. Many women want a guy with money/power then complain the guy is not home or too focused on work, it happens to both genders, I was mentioning how many men in my area at X chapter of life selected women who dance and party, only to hate this later because they don't stop. What we want involves maturity and consequences in the long term. I always say regarding this kind of situations "depends on your area and culture" because there are some solid aspects on each region. Here, it is very known (and spread) the notion that you don't suppose to give women all they want, even if they insist, is the formula to failure. Sometimes you get off the way and they get them themselves and you get the chance to witness how or why they are still unhappy. I believe we all have the right to want something (that doesn't speak if we trully know what's about or the consequences) but I also think many things we want... is up to us to get them not expecting our wife/husband to provide it.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

Peter said:


> It's not about "security, love, and nurture" for me. If, as an adult man, you want security, love and nurture from your family, then you´re still a child. I want to provide security, love and nurture to my family and in return I want to know they are aware of that I provide that. If I feel like they´re not aware of that or that they don't care or that they believe I suck at doing those things, then I'm extremly unhappy. The easiest way for a wife to hurt her husband is to focus on those things and say he sucks at it.
> 
> But if it's clear they are comfortable in their lives because of me, then I'm happy.
> 
> It's got nothing to do with sex, but the interesting thing is that when your wife feels impressed with you providing security, love and nurture, in what ever form that's important to her,.... your sexlife is just great!


If hypothetically speaking you were injured or taken ill that would prevent you from enacting the very things that define your self worth towards your family. What then?


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> You say that the man [one-sided] has to prove his worth to the woman at the start, but that's only really possible if she knows what she wants and contradicts the notion that women do not know what they want. I'd say that in reality, the "game" at the beginning is seduction not actual proving of worth, which is likely why women elevate the bar later on, and come to expect more. They want to weed out those who only care to seduce her. Which comes back to what I mentioned about early adolescent failed romances


I hate not having the same skills in english as I do in spanish  sorry for this being too long. I agree with you, there is seduction, but we or at least many, fall into thinking we know what we want when we see it,... when we engage we are strangers, we must explore each other. Then this elevation of the bar usually means "if you get A, then go for B, then C" and some people don't stop, as you said: expect more. You used clever words there about leaving outside the ones who only want to seduce her, *YES, but*... I also discovered over the years, wanting or not to seduce her, showing this or not, usually... if you show a sign to a woman (local woman) that you are not going to fall in the game of proving, pleasing... well the game is over. Many people from other countries have married local women, many cases due to local women dreaming about leaving the country (discussed in another thread here). But usually people from other country don't like the ritual and leave because they can sense the game of "let's see how far you get trying to please me", to my personal opinion this is stupid, we waste too much time on useless stuff.

Another thing is "women do not know what they want". I've seen this, in other cases "I think I've seen it" because as you explain one can't be sure unless you stay there for years, but let's mention my sister. My mother was a huge influence on her on how to select a husband. Many things are wrong and my sister herself complained over 15 years about it (not anymore but due to shame), she wasn't aware WHEN it was about her own wants, and when it was a reflection of my mother wants. Same with me, she tried to influence me, I had the chance to break the spell but I do feel some things in the background, as discussed on another thread: many people are not aware of their parents influence or when they become their own parents. Usually, everyone in those cases will say "it's me", well not always true.




Red Panda said:


> I'm not sure of what consequences you are referring to and I think it's very hard for someone outside of a relationship to know who's right and wrong unless they know BOTH sides. You may _think_ you are giving her what she wants but the truth might be different. And of course there are always the cases of women who do indeed don't know what they want or they believe their man should cover their needs 100% when that's not realistic. And then of course the most realistic of all is that the needs change as we change.


Exactly, better words than mine. About consequences is like... an extreme example: that guy who wanted a woman who "believes" then got her into a cult he was in, he left, he commited suicide with the rest of the group (I'm talking the nike sect, believing a spaceship would come etc). Extreme but serves the purpose... some people want a religious person only to hate they don't have weekends for fun, instead always at church. There can be consequences if we don't test ourselves out, mutually.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

@Crimson Rash "For the women do you find this to be true in attraction and relationships? Do you tend to gravitate away from men who showcase emotional vulnerability for fear of having to deal with what is perceived as a childlike manner?

Does a desire to be loved, cared for and supported by a strong and resilient man who is stoic in their manner or at the very least someone who embodies the stereotypical masculine self take precedent?"

I tend to like more emotionally vulnerable men, but then I am kind of the maternal type when it comes to guys personally. I think the article might be right about some guys wanting safe harbor more than sex, but i really think when it comes down to it, most men really are pigs. i say most, not all though. (not saying some women can't be the same in their own ways.) but in any case, it's a nice thought to think some men might value that. I think it would come down to a matter of maturity though. Not calling men who aren't looking for safe harbor immature, but many men just aren't emotional like that; seem almost unemotional at all when it comes to pursuing sex and the women they leave in their wake.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Crimson Rash said:


> Is this type of need in a partner a variant of those who seek partners who have qualities they do not?
> 
> I never understood that concept since if one tries hard enough it is possible to gain those qualities for themselves and then what of the relationship then? If it is built on a need to obtain qualities foreign to oneself or in your case tease out those that you find uncomfortable?


Having keen awareness (re: humanity); and skill(s) revolving around subject-fixation (&) humanoids is an important (skill) to have in the world of professionalism -- my goal is learning to combine "thinking/rationalism/efficiency," with complex understanding of psychology & people skills. I do not see a dichtonomy, but rather my goal is overcoming any 'uncomfortable' (X) because overcoming anything will benefit. By my understanding, such (diverse) skill sets should gain more benefits than utilizing only (one way to do things). 

And what better way to "get better/improve," then putting yourself directly_ in the classroom _(??) What better way to "learn how to be funny," than surrounding yourself with 'funny' humanoids (??) In similar fashion, what better way to "learn subject-fixation," effectively & waste less money than taking lesson(s) that tap into the inner persona fom bottom-up - not just a faux-external floating? _Indeed_, a specimen can 'try hard enough' and gain these qualities themselves, but it is easier & more efficient learning directly from the specimens that know their stuff, not simply spewing correlative data - & I am interested in doing it right the first time; (&) mastering it. I am interested in learning from as many specimen(s) as possible any skill-sets that will improve my quality of life and/or the quality of life of the S.O., by all means necessary. Satisfaction does not entice me; nor self-stagnancy. There is no such thing as such a lifestyle I wish to be stuck in. I see a humanoid (with too many similar qualities) - one that offers me nothing except some temporal "_good times_," boring stagnancy. 

It is not such (capacity) is absent in myself; but rather, I see no innate incenative and/or have a predisposition to (focus) on certain types of stimulus, to do so while realizing the (high-functioning) benefit(s) it serves to have such an alternative way of doing things; which I wish to learn, as well. I do not wish to have another humanoid 'fill in where I lack (X)'. I wish to have everything humanly possible that I can utilize for myself.

Preparation; not so much 'waiting and let's see, & hopefulness'.

_________________

In the case of collapse of (X)-parnter; we will be sufficiently able to perform the unique-skill(s) of the other humanoid without, "oh my goodness! What do I do?", as a parternism / duality, it is a matter of being prepared for the inevitable worst - not building off "_what could be the best,_". (Looking for some 'humanoid that completes' them like a puzzle); instead of building the puzzle itself. 

Should I be incapable of breastfeeding; he should be willing to attach a plastic beast to his chest (&) nurse our offspring by all mean(s) necessary to ensure ultimate survival. Should he be incapable of (X); I should have the skills / sufficient knowledge of (X) to perform in his place to ensure ultimate survival. I do not see such incenative in the '100% hypermasculinized' stereotypical male; that he is willing to submit + adapt when necessary. Without (drive to improve / adopt new skill sets); the specimen is unreliable - and dangerous to rendezvous with. I think that Peter humanoid's response is a sufficient example; I see us being fucked almost everywhere [when things hit the fan]. 



> Or is it based more so on acceptance of that side of you that you find most comforting and that exists as a cornerstone of the relationship itself?


It is not so much a matter of "acceptance/denial/comfortability," only that in such a state, it also offers utility of (goodness) overall to the well-being of the agent themselves, as well as surrounding parties. In a sense, more is gained than lost - (&) I am a sponge for gaining / improvement.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

I don't need love to have sex as a woman, just to feel especially desired. There's a difference between vulnerability and neediness too, and premature vulnerability can feel like neediness (even antisocial)... depending. It's highly situational, but I think reciprocation is key (without feeling pushed for or demanded). Just like men shouldn't be placed in a stoic role as a rule though, women shouldn't be placed in a nurturing role. I would see a dude who thinks this way as sexist. It's not my job to mother humanity as a whole. lol. Sex is sex, but you have to earn my love or I would feel used - like if that were just expected of me along with copious amounts of understanding upfront - and not like I'm seen as a unique and respected person. Rather just "woman" - and like the man is maybe dependent on women to fulfill his needs and isn't more self sufficient in getting them met - which I think is a trait both men and women look for.


----------



## marybluesky (Apr 23, 2012)

Crimson Rash said:


> *
> For the women do you find this to be true in attraction and relationships? *


Yes. Lots of men don't admit it, but are mainly after a calming effect in theirrelationships than any other thing. Honestly I don't appreciate this approach. They want more of a therapist/nurse than a lover, and it is often one-sided: the woman should always be on the giving side while her own emotional needs are neglected. That's why they call their man another child: A child isn't mature, and thus, can't understand and satisfy others' needs. Personally, I hate to become a man's mother. In my opinion this isn't a "weak man" thing: ironically, these men are often the ones who lack the sympathy themselves and use the woman for their comfort without reciprocating what she offers. 


Crimson Rash said:


> *Do you tend to gravitate away from men who showcase emotional vulnerability for fear of having to deal with what is perceived as a childlike manner?*


 In fact I am attracted to men who show their vulnerability, because that makes them humanly, and thus, communicable in my eyes. I can't feel any understanding with the "manly men"- it sounds like dealing with a robot. Scary somehow.
I also have heard and somewhat experienced how men who don't feel manly and powerful enough can be dangerous. Anyway, I'm attracted to these nice guys and can't help it. As I said above I can't start any real relationship with macho men. By the way, I am a pretty masculine girl, with rather equal masculine and feminine parts in my psyche. I show vulnerabilities in relationships that many girls don't: I play no games. I confess my attraction toward the guy if I feel so. I talk openly about my values and personality not fitting into social conventions. I show my fears and anger that risks to push the potential partners away. So I think that if a guy is mature enough, he wouldn't feel bad about showing his weaknesses to me, as I do the same without caution.


Crimson Rash said:


> *Does a desire to be loved, cared for and supported by a strong and resilient man who is stoic in their manner or at the very least someone who embodies the stereotypical masculine self take precedent?*


 I would be gentle and nurturing toward someone who does the same to me. That said, I doubt the stonic men are able to do that. It should be mutual.
PS: I just came to read @Veggie 's post and wanted to add that I neither need love to have sex. It is enough to feel attractive, and have some level of comfort(friendship?) with the guy to be assured that he cares about my needs, too.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

marybluesky said:


> PS: I just came to read @Veggie 's post and wanted to add that I neither need love to have sex. It is enough to feel attractive, and have some level of comfort(friendship?) with the guy *to be assured that he cares about my needs, too.*


Adding to that post too, there are definitely men who need love to have sex. I think these are often the types to need what's (imo) too much nurturing and reassurance upfront. Trust alone isn't enough to make me want someone though, and somehow building to that too quickly before the sexual component is in place (even if that's just intense flirtation - which I think should be lighter in nature) dampers that desire for me that I need. I see it as potential insecurity, which lessens my desire, and I'd question how into _me_ they really are, if they could only feel that desire after I'd essentially validated them (I realize there are also demisexuals who feel like they don't know "me" until they've seen my deep inner emotional world or something, but I don't personally want to stick around for all that, trying to determine what's what... especially if it feels like it's entering platonic or motherly-fatherly territory). 

I want a man who's confident that we have some kind of a connection-mutual desire, that he wants me for me on whatever level (shallow isn't a deal breaker, lol), and that I'd be impressed with his... performance? lol. Not that sex is a performance, but that I wouldn't likely go packing. And that he wouldn't be emotionally damaged if I did. Also, that he wouldn't just assume that I had if the dynamic didn't instantly turn relationship-y (not that it couldn't). 

I don't know if you can relate to any of that too, but I think there's often this assumption that a woman's needs aren't or shouldn't be more sexual in nature. I guess some of that could look a bit like I want stoicism, and in the past I probably have - so I have tried to be more understanding of sensitivity in men lol. But I'm not going to do it at the expense of putting aside my own needs altogether.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Again with the stereotypes. ALL people have the same basic needs and desires. The difference is what society has conditioned us tobelieve about obe another -and it’s bullshit. Men and women need safe haven, both need to feel loved and appreciated, niether one wants nor should be expected to take on the entirety of the others emotional burdan.

* points at enneagram* Do not tell me about men being sad about vulnerability. And do not come to me fir a nutriting shoulder. It aint my thing.

*


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Fumetsu said:


> Again with the stereotypes. ALL people have the same basic needs and desires. The difference is what society has conditioned us tobelieve about obe another -and it’s bullshit. Men and women need safe haven, both need to feel loved and appreciated, niether one wants nor should be expected to take on the entirety of the others emotional burdan.
> 
> * points at enneagram* Do not tell me about men being sad about vulnerability. And do not come to me fir a nutriting shoulder. It aint my thing.
> 
> *


8w7s are compelled to shelter and protect the truly vulnerable unless they're (8w7s) at unhealthy levels.


----------



## marybluesky (Apr 23, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I guess some of that could look a bit like I want stoicism, and in the past I probably have - so I have tried to be more understanding of sensitivity in men lol. But I'm not going to do it at the expense of putting aside my own needs altogether.


The stonic men I don't want in my life are the ones with hyper-masculine masks, by the way. As I understood, the stonicism you describe means somehow non-emotionality, which is OK. I see: that's why I mentioned comfort and a level of friendship- and not love- in my post. The point of sensitivity in a man is that he is more likely to understand and appreciate my needs: a mature sensitivity, not a childish one.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

marybluesky said:


> The stonic men I don't want in my life are the ones with hyper-masculine masks, by the way. As I understood, the stonicism you describe means somehow non-emotionality, which is OK. I see: that's why I mentioned comfort and a level of friendship- and not love- in my post. The point of sensitivity in a man is that he is more likely to understand and appreciate my needs: a mature sensitivity, not a childish one.


Yea, not complete non-emotionality, but someone who's able to handle and deal.

Thooooough, haha, there are definitely the dudes who are too cocky (of course this chick wants me, and of course my performance is gonna blow her socks off and make her mine forever no matter what I do from here onwards) and aren't really stoic at all when push comes to shove. When that validation isn't given beyond the initial experience they lash out, because they assume it... which is more arrogance than confidence. So childishness comes in many forms. lol.

And I gotcha on that last part. I guess my point is that if my needs are more sexual-excitement based at first, "sensitive" isn't necessarily going to fulfill them... unless of course the dude were sensitive to the fact that not all women's needs are emotional (at least in more of a building security sense). And many aren't. They push for emotional vulnerability before she's comfortable with it, or they dump their's on her - possibly both - or they see her as flawed for not being more nurturing and understanding before a relationship has been established... which I think is often a preview of what the relationship is likely to be anyway (maybe a bit disrespectful).


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

I don't know; if my partner and I lived together, I could see how the "safe harbor" thing might actually make more sense. Because we see each other only on the weekend, there's no way that cuddling will not lead to sex, and that goes for both of us. We've missed and longed for each other, so while snuggling, (for me), and grounding, (for her), is pleasurable, it is ultimately but a delicious form of foreplay. Would this occur if we literally slept together each and every night? Doubtful, and that is something I think about as we prepare to intertwine our lives more fully sometime soon. It might actually be very comforting to sometimes just cuddle, vulnerable as the day is long, with no expectations of sex. Safe harbor indeed. (but not on weekends only, lol)


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Wellsy said:


> I don't know if any degree of stoicism is driven by a sense of having to be masculine as much as I just have certain issues in how emotionally expressive and comfortable I am with myself.


I know you probably aren't going to listen, but just in case: The obvious answer to that is in your own post.



Wellsy said:


> A member in an old thread once referred to this scene to capture the sense of a man being vulnerable in a positive way.


You won't be vulnerable as long you think your vulnerability as a man is only legitimate when it's for her, and that has everything to do with how you seem to perceive your role as a man, which is in itself conflated with guilt over an idyllic conception of women's emotional labor, when in reality the legitimacy of your own vulnerability is right there in the mirror:


Wellsy said:


> But when your partner is hurting, it would seem to me that you're naturally driven out of a love for them to help them and try and make them feel better.


You know love should enable that regardless of gender because you know your own love to her enables that. And almost every man does that, how many times has a woman cried on your shoulders again and again before you were open enough to do the same once?
Surely, the times she has had a bad day aren't about you, the times she didn't feel good about herself aren't about you, the times she has had bad dramas in her friendships and family aren't about you, but your loved legitimized you being there for her. In all such ties you provided a *patriarchal safe space* (not the oxymoron you'd think that to be), out of love, and I would bet you didn't think of her any lesser because of that.

And yet that can end, which is exactly when this happens. Whether it's women complaining that their man's vulnerabilities are like taking care of another child, or men complaining that their woman is too emotional for them to handle, that's an immunity that happens just then - when love dies - and often the first indicator of that, because it happens when the affection fades but they are still too lost within their perspective and role within the relationship to experience that, still acting in the ways that they felt motivated too but no longer experiencing the motivation and too far gone to see the other side, thus experiencing the other as a burden. Don't confuse this to the status quo of what the love is for either gender, this is just how it happens to die.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Rereading the OP, I also wanted to say that these are completely valid concerns:



> First, women have their own conditioning about men being men. If he doesn’t want sex, they worry that they may not be attractive enough.


If the man is purely after the "safe harbor" then she becomes this faceless fountain for that love and security. Of course women want to feel attractive to the man. (Not that sex automatically means that the person found you especially attractive. They could be horny, bored, lonely, etc). Still though, it's an important component to the process of establishing and maintaining a sexual-romantic relationship between two individual people, rather than two conceptual entities or something. lol. 



> Second, a man wanting to be held and nurtured, triggers feelings that they are dealing with a boy, not a man. I can’t tell you how many clients I have who say things like “It’s like I’ve got three children in the house. There’s our two sons, and then there’s my husband.” Women want a man, but worry they have another little boy.


This reads to me that women are supposed to uphold their gender role while men maybe don't have to uphold their's (they're stronger if they don't!) - and if one person is both caregiver and provider, they are more or less parenting the other. Ideally both partners would be both in some sense imo.



> Third, women fear men who don’t feel manly. They know that the most violent men are *men who feel weak and powerless*. They’ve often had experiences of men allowing themselves to be gentle and vulnerable, only to have them respond with anger and rage later.


I think this is less about a man feeling "manly" and more about a man maybe not feeling confident - in himself, in her, or both.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Kind of a random thought-tangent, and then I'll stop spamming this thread, lol...

I think it's interesting that there is no female equivalent of the word emasculation. Like one's manhood rests on women and society, whereas for the woman her role should be more inherent or something, or she's simply flawed. Not entirely sure where I'm going with that, but it seems to somehow fit.


----------



## Exquisitor (Sep 15, 2015)

*For the women do you find this to be true in attraction and relationships? Do you tend to gravitate away from men who showcase emotional vulnerability for fear of having to deal with what is perceived as a childlike manner?*

Being honest, I've gotta say some of the biggest turnoffs in my history of dating men has been when they've shown vulnerability and emotional needs too early. When they want to share a home space right away, hold me like I make their life complete, share their sexual insecurities, act silly and childlike... it just strikes me as emotionally unstable for a guy to want all that from me before he even knows me really. Rings deep, instinctual alarm bells. Don't wanna be with that guy.

Now inversely, when we get to know each other slowly and build up trust, enjoy each other's company without needing it at first, then eventually, yeah, I like to be completely emotionally intimate. I want to be someone he can feel completely open and safe with. It starts with confidence, self-respect and mutual signals, though, and in the absence of that a guy will come off as desperate and creepy.

(Slightly biased from seeing my dad go through that extreme neediness, to the point that he put me in an emotional 'mummy' role after he got divorced and his mother died. That was gross, and seeing that kind of emotional need in guys who don't know me very well but want to have sex with me is also gross.)

*Does a desire to be loved, cared for and supported by a strong and resilient man who is stoic in their manner or at the very least someone who embodies the stereotypical masculine self take precedent?*

I just want my partner to have confidence and self-respect. I want us to be able to take care of each other in good balance. I don't need him to be stronger for me than I am for him.

I'll add that I don't buy the 'women need to feel loved to have sex' as a model for all women, so I doubt that 'men need sex to feel loved' universally applies either. I can personally enjoy sex for what it is, although I don't particularly want or need to do it casually.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

someone to care about you when you are sick =l


----------



## xdae (May 14, 2015)

Well, the reasoning is solid... it's true that women need to feel safe to have sex, they want a man that's a fucking *man* not an immature boy. That's pedophilia. It's also true that men want to feel cared for before they make themselves vulnerable.

But such reasoning isn't enough to justify such a statement:


Crimson Rash said:


> *women need to feel loved to have sex, but men need to have sex to feel loved.*


Look at all the hookers, strippers, sugar babies, and prostitutes. They don't _need_ love to have sex, they use sex as a tool/means to reach their $$ goal. Even then, consider all the women who sleep around ie. sorority girls (not all, but many). They don't fuck for love, they fuck cause it feels good. Same applies for guys. 

In actuality, love doesn't lead to sex. It's scientifically proven that sex causes women to fall deeper in love. Women develop 'love/attachment' hormones from sex whereas men develop similar love hormones through time/commitment.

Though this does explain why sex allows men to feel more loved. Their partner feels more committed/caring which leads to the guy becoming more committed as well.

If you're interested about the love hormones, check out this educational tedtalk:


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

changos said:


> As we grow old sex becomes easier and easier to get


Wot. I'm pretty sure unattractive women were easier to get when I was young, even illegally so. I'm quite certain the older I get the less likely attractive women would have sex with me, casually or otherwise.



Tropes said:


> There is truth in that - the Godfather is very much an idealization of the male inter-group hierarchy.


I suppose the reasons I hate most men's bullshit are the same as why I hate those movies. Kinda feel like nuking the city after beating the fat bastard to death and maybe gutting a few specific guido shitbags...:exterminate:


----------



## dlb (Aug 30, 2017)

SilverFalcon said:


> Such translator would be quite priceless.


Fortunately, we're born with all the necessary equipment. We just need to learn to put it together.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Crimson Rash said:


> If hypothetically speaking you were injured or taken ill that would prevent you from enacting the very things that define your self worth towards your family. What then?


What do you think happens when a family no longer gets from you what they need?

The way I see it, it's not about you using your family to define your self-worth. It's you providing what your family needs, and visa versa and from that situation, you, and your wife and children will be happy. Ofcourse there will be bumps in the road. That's normal, but when the basics are good, the bumps in the road won't develop into bigger issues. They get resolved.

"security, love and nurture" are not very well defined concepts. These can mean something different to everyone. In a family, these concepts tend to be aligned between the family members. When that's not the case, things go south. Everyone in the family, even the little children, work towards staying aligned. Parents have to teach their children to learn how to do that of course and if taught well, they'll be able to do that by themselves reasonably quickly.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Crimson Rash said:


> Like how some women look for a man who makes them feel like a woman and anything outside of that is considered unattractive.
> 
> The same can be said for men as well. I've met plenty of men who were weary and downright refused to get into relationships with women who were more "masculine" in manner. Plenty of boys essentially who's fragile ego would break if their pretty princess had some measure of autonomy and didn't just sit there and let their man take care of their every need.
> 
> ...


This is so true; I have a lot of difficulty with some men not being able to handle my assertiveness and independence. Real men want an equal; not someone who will massage their egos 24/7.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Peter said:


> It's not about "security, love, and nurture" for me. If, as an adult man, you want security, love and nurture from your family, then you´re still a child. I want to provide security, love and nurture to my family and in return I want to know they are aware of that I provide that. If I feel like they´re not aware of that or that they don't care or that they believe I suck at doing those things, then I'm extremly unhappy. The easiest way for a wife to hurt her husband is to focus on those things and say he sucks at it.


That's a very short and still perfectly clear way of explaining things out, accurate in my opinion. I agree with your words, and I also believe it's a two way process, like "I take care of you / you take care of me" otherwise is not good, unsustainable, unbalanced. 

In english you have the world "couple" that can be used as pair, two elements, etc, I believe couple can be used to refer to 2 objects of the same nature, we don't say a couple of bear and frog, it's couple of bears, couple of frogs. In spanish we have the word "pareja" to refer to a couple of people on a relationship, but pareja also means both elements have the same amount of "whatever", be it longitue, contents, etc, it also refers to their characteristics. That says a lot to me about equality.


Here inthe thread the term safe harbor was mentioned and I believe on the wrong interpretation. *Perhaps safe cave would be a better term*. If we look at the past in some cartoonish ways, men ran away from wild animals (unless they were hunting them) and ran into the cave for safety, caves were for years safe places to hide/live/procreate. Today you can see many men can run to the cave only to find the bear living inside, waiting with sharp claws to inflict pain or at least torment, and then many men don't want to go back to the cave. Caves were replaces by houses, sex or no sex, we all humans need the concept of home, safe home, safe cave.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Crimson Rash said:


> The One Think Men Want More Than Sex


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

IDontThinkSo said:


>


That's both hilarious and terrifying.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

*More than copulation with a bio-masturbator* men need an _erotic sphere_ where they are mercilessly pampered with wonderful chairs, wonderful drinks, wonderful food, wonderful beds, wonderful massage, wonderful fragrances, wonderful music, wonderful conversation and wonderful silence. _Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest._ Problems are either solved by the wonderful staff or discussed for not more than fifteen minutes – endless problem talk is discouraged in this wonderful spa. The traditional name for a person who creates such a sphere is _perfect housewife_.


----------

