# Women should admit they're attracted to masculinity.



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant. 

Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive. 

Unfortunately , feminism is trying to kill masculinity and femininity so a lot of people are confused and don't know how what attracts the opposite gender. Women should admit they appreciate masculinity so that men will know what they're supposed to do.

*Edit : I know this is a generalization , but for the *majority* of women it is true.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

You are generalizing very much. Some women like one type, others the other. It's not about feminism, it's just preferences. 
If anything, they are at least more accepted, which is perfectly fine and should happen.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

People are attracted to different things..


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Over generalized and untrue, I don't want a man that yells at me, pushes me around, thinks he can use me, that I'm his property, who wants me to stay in the kitchen, who sees me as his play thing, etc etc


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Over generalized and untrue, I don't want a man that yells at me, pushes me around, thinks he can use me, that I'm his property, who wants me to stay in the kitchen, who sees me as his play thing, etc etc


That's not necessarily what masculinity is about . Being assertive and dominant doesn't mean you're a domineering tyrant or abusive.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> You are generalizing very much. Some women like one type, others the other. It's not about feminism, it's just preferences.
> If anything, they are at least more accepted, which is perfectly fine and should happen.


I am generalizing but for about 80% of women out there that generalization is true.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Mair said:


> That's not necessarily what masculinity is about . Being assertive and dominant doesn't mean you're a domineering tyrant or abusive.


See what I did there, that was just as generalizing as your post, which shows that there are many forms of 'masculinity', and that you can't pin it down as easily as you did, which shows that 'masculinity' isn't what attracts us, but certain personality types that are separate from the word 'masculinity' 

Example: Some/most people might say that having long hair isn't masculine at all, yet men with long hair are seen as more and more attractive these days.

Taste, desire and fashion changes over time, hell back in the 17th-18th century men used to wear wigs and heels and that was very masculine, but make a guy do it now, and they'll kill them in the streets (or at the very minimum give them a stare of death xDDD)


----------



## Koboremi (Sep 8, 2013)

I can beat people for you with my fists.


----------



## Korra (Feb 28, 2015)

I think people should focus less on how to "attract the opposite gender" and focus more on attracting the _individual_ they view attractive :kitteh:

Whatever floats your boats people, and there are a lot of boats, cruise lines, sailboats, canoes, boathouses, etc!


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

I agree to a certain extent.

While your statement is 'generally true' from one perspective, it is also 'generally false' from another.

Masculinity poses a threat* when a female is looking for a long-term provider.

*https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...o-women-prefer-men-masculine-faces-not-always*



> _In other words, women may prefer masculine men generally, but in the long-term men’s extreme masculinity poses problems for women (e.g., a highly masculine man might be more aggressive and more likely to cheat as he is highly desirable to women). When evaluating short-term mates, women care less if he cheats, and so a key prediction is: Women should prefer masculinity in men more in short-term mates than in long-term mates._





> _It should be noted that sometimes women do express preferences for masculine men as long-term mates, particularly when women are shown images of men engaged in direct physical competition, images of weapons, or images depicting items of high monetary value (Little et al., 2013), when women are already mated (Little et al., 2002), when women have reason to believe a highly masculine man will be sexually faithful (Quist et al., 2012), and when women are of high mate value, themselves (perhaps because they can “afford” a highly masculine man as a long-term mate, as they consider themselves valuable enough for him not to consider cheating; see Little et al., 2001; Penton-Voak et al., 2003). _





> _Extremely small sample sizes and the inclusion of a neutral face condition render many of these findings as rather limited in scope and consequence. Even so, among several nations (including the foraging Aka) women preferred more masculine men for short-term mates and less masculine men for long-term mates, whereas men tended to prefer more feminine faces across most samples._


_

Essentially, I think that feminine males are preferred for long-term relationships because they're easier to "tame" than masculine males. They're a "safer bet" in that case.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

There's feminine douchebags and masculine (genuinely) nice guys.

Generalizations lead to nowhere as attraction is unpredictable and most people don't come in extremes.
There might be some recognizable patterns but taste is subjective and there isn't a 'right' way to be masculine. Or a man. Being genuine, honest, principled and intelligent is usually enough.

Not to mention that some women don't give a crap about how manly a guy actually is.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Hotaru said:


> There's feminine douchebags and masculine (genuinely) nice guys.


I agree , but I don't see "feminine douchebags" being successful with women.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Mair said:


> I agree , but I don't see "feminine douchebags" being successful with women.


I do. There's a whole 'dating market' for tortured artists and sensitive, androgynous guys.
It might not be mainstream but it's quite prominent among certain subcultures.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Hotaru said:


> I do. There's a whole 'dating market' for tortured artists and sensitive, androgynous guys.
> It might not be mainstream but it's quite prominent among certain subcultures.


So what does it mean ? Why are women attracted to "douchebags" and not nice guys ? Are women masochists ?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Over generalized and untrue, I don't want a man that yells at me, pushes me around, thinks he can use me, that I'm his property, who wants me to stay in the kitchen, who sees me as his play thing, etc etc


You seem to be equating masculinity with 'mistreatment'.

You seem to be implying that a male cannot be "masculine" unless he "yells at you, pushes you around, thinks he can use you, that you're his property, who wants you to stay in the kitchen, who sees you as his play thing, etc etc.".

Perhaps masculinity is associated with these traits within the society you live in.

Usually, from what I've noticed, masculinity is associated with confidence and protectiveness of one's 'family', as opposed to what you're describing.


----------



## sockratees (Apr 7, 2015)

Feminism is indeed a wrench in the pairing system, and one of the main things it does is destroy the traditional male, yet will leaves the women somewhat intact in situations where it is most convenient for them to remain so, like paying for dates for example and being treated like a fragile "lady", all the while forgetting to treat their counterparts like men. It's a double standard that they fail to see. Make up your minds. Women don't play out the entire role of being "empowered" either, just those bits which.make their lives easier. It's an arbitrary system of privileges they utilize, which they will turn on and off at will, as an excuse to pull out of uncomfortable situations. Then they will blame guys for "not understanding women."


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Why don't you get some dating experience before you start generalizing about dating and gender.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Mair said:


> So what does it mean ? Why are women attracted to "douchebags" and not nice guys ? Are women masochists ?


No, it means that someone's level of masculinity has nothing to do with their morals.

Women are not infallible nor a hivemind, sometimes you can make an error in judgment or fall for the wrong person. Some men hide it particularly well, others prey on the weak and some women are just as bitchy.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

sockratees said:


> Feminism is indeed a wrench in the pairing system, and one of the main things it does is destroy the traditional male, yet will keave the women somewhat intact in situations where it is most convenient for them to remain so, like paying for dates for example and being treated like a fragile "lady", all the while forgetting to treat their counterparts like men. It's a double standard that they fail to see. Make up your minds. Women don't play out the entire role of being "empowered" either, just those bits which.make their lives easier. It's an arbitrary system of privileges they utilize, which they will turn on and off at will, as an excuse to pull out of though situations. Then they will blame guys for "not understanding women."


I think humans should be free to make their own decisions in life. I believe in equal rights. However, I agree there is a double standard , women who want to be treated like ladies , should actually act like ladies.


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

I guess all I can say is that I'm glad not to be in the dating scene anymore :laughing:. Youngsters making this all too complicated...


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

Maybe it's too charged to call anything "masculine" or "feminine". Seems like masculine traits are either bad, good, or indifferent, and nobody has the same definition. Either way I've never dated/evaluated based on gender stereotypes and think it's over-complicating things if you do. If you have a type*, feel free to look for that type, regardless of what -insert outside influence here- says. 

*unless that type is abusive or generally acting like a jerk.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Feminism is trying to kill masculinity and femininity? I've got my own gripes with feminism, but that's a bit silly.


It was an exaggeration but a lot of feminists do try to paint normal masculine behaviors such as assertiveness as toxic .



BlackDog said:


> Positive masculine traits are often said to be confidence and assertiveness, but aren't those just "good" traits?


Yes , but it doesn't matter. The majority of women is attracted to men who are assertive and confident and the majority of men is attracted to women who are caring and nurturing. It doesn't mean men can't be caring or women can't be assertive , it's about what each gender finds attractive. 



BlackDog said:


> Is there anything that can be said to be a masculine personality trait, cross culturally?


 Men and women have differences . Studies show that women tend to be naturally more emotional. That means they're also likely to naturally be more caring and nurturing. Men tend to be more "aggressive". If you go to the kindergarten you'll notice that young boys run around and they are generally more aggressive and energetic than most girls.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Pseudonymity said:


> it depends where you are from cute red panda. i cant take your posts seriously with that avatar lol.


I'm dead serious though!!! *redpandaglare* LOL
Yeah, I agree with that, it does depend on where you are from. Which also makes it generalized to say it's one or the other!


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

What you are saying to me, makes it seem like a woman cannot be complex in her needs for in a male partner. Sure, I like traditional masculine qualities in men, but I also like traditional feminine qualities within them too. But to me, this does not make a man attractive.

The attractive qualities within a man is not achieved by societal masculine and feminine qualities, but by the kind of person that he is.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> I'm dead serious though!!! *redpandaglare* LOL
> Yeah, I agree with that, it does depend on where you are from. Which also makes it generalized to say it's one or the other!


lol I think your avatar is like the only one I see and think that is you. lol.

In Asian countries like Korea, effeminate males seems to be the in thing and it has been this way for a while now. I think though, as girls come into womanhood, it sort of changes.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

firedell said:


> What you are saying to me, makes it seem like a woman cannot be complex in her needs for in a male partner. Sure, I like traditional masculine qualities in men, but I also like traditional feminine qualities within them too. But to me, this does not make a man attractive.
> 
> The attractive qualities within a man is not achieved by societal masculine and feminine qualities, but by the kind of person that he is.


That last sentence should be how it is, but that just doesnt seem to the be the case most of the time. societal ideas of attractiveness is not an easy thing to overcome


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Mair said:


> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> 
> Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive.
> 
> ...


It is a generalisation indeed, but I get what you mean.

Consider this - a person given to traditionally masculine attitudes is more likely to express that if there is a traditionally feminine person ACTIVELY INTERESTED in them. And ... vice versa.

So if you want your man to be more masculine, if you can fathom that his masculinity is a function of your behavior towards him in part, then get busy being feminine around him and with him. Frankly, I think if people focused on the effect they can have on other's behavior they would not wonder where their opposite is out there. You are in many ways a reflection of what you want in a partner along certain valences/vectors. Get busy!

PS The reverse is also true. If you take on the traditional masculine traits many men will take on traditional feminine traits in your presence. So ... it really is a choice. Keep in mind this can change moment to moment. You can be one way at work with strangers and another way at home with your beau. It takes thinking and learning how to be, not fake, but more of who you are with emphasis on the setting. We are all both masculine and feminine. So it is not fake. Be the whole you.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

selena87 said:


> the general disapproval in this thread, is an example of the kind of social pressure / political correctness that makes some women reluctant to admit their attraction to masculinity.


That would be true if Mair had written a thread titled....*I just love masculine men do you?* And then the board were all up in arms over her preferences. But that's not what happened. She presented her preferences as some universal truth about a gender and followed it up by calling out women who don't share her preferences as being in denial. 

No-ones censoring her preferences by shaming her for them. The people here are pointing out that her preferences are not a blanket statement about all women. And that there are some problems with her assertion. Namely that traits can't be concretely defined as masculine or feminine in the first place.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Mair said:


> It was an exaggeration but a lot of feminists do try to paint normal masculine behaviors such as assertiveness as toxic .
> 
> Yes , but it doesn't matter. The majority of women is attracted to men who are assertive and confident and the majority of men is attracted to women who are caring and nurturing. It doesn't mean men can't be caring or women can't be assertive , it's about what each gender finds attractive.


Do you have some kind of statistic that backs this up? Or is it just a feeling you have? Something you have observed? In my experience, men love confident women. 



> Men and women have differences . Studies show that women tend to be naturally more emotional. That means they're also likely to naturally be more caring and nurturing. Men tend to be more "aggressive". If you go to the kindergarten you'll notice that young boys run around and they are generally more aggressive and energetic than most girls.


Of course men and women are different. What does it mean to be more emotional? Emotional intelligence? Or just emotional in general? Several specific studies come to mind that show women seem to exhibit more emotional intelligence, but I am extremely skeptical that they are more emotional in general. I suspect men and women are conditioned to downplay certain emotions and the emotions women are socially "permitted" or encouraged to display fit the stereotypical description of "emotional". Anger is no less an emotion than grief. You just said boys are more aggressive. Why do we assume a girl who cries is being more emotional than a boy who hits?


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Pseudonymity said:


> That last sentence should be how it is, but that just doesnt seem to the be the case most of the time. societal ideas of attractiveness is not an easy thing to overcome


Maybe you haven't met the right people. 

I find when it comes to men, sure as stated in my previous post, I like masculine qualities, but I find most men that I am attracted to, hold what could be considered feminine interests or jobs, simply because their jobs are more "emotional." I'm talking about writers, artists, musicians, and well anything that combines creativity and emotions. 

I find men that do these jobs or have them as interests are much more open, sensitive, and less aggressive. Then again, this is not to say these men don't have masculine qualities. People are too complex.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

firedell said:


> Maybe you haven't met the right people.
> 
> I find when it comes to men, sure as stated in my previous post, I like masculine qualities, but I find most men that I am attracted to, hold what could be considered feminine interests or jobs, simply because their jobs are more "emotional." I'm talking about writers, artists, musicians, and well anything that combines creativity and emotions.
> 
> I find men that do these jobs or have them as interests are much more open, sensitive, and less aggressive. Then again, this is not to say these men don't have masculine qualities. People are too complex.



Ah I see. Well that makes sense, men who are intuitive and in touch with that creative spark. guys who are intuitive, they tend to be more sensitive, more emotionally available, and want to help a lot, in a real way that matters. Most girls want this, it seems, but some like the manly physical guys. 

Anyways, yeah, if this is known as feminine type of jobs, than i can completely understand your other post. art is a more feminine thing, as it is intuitive, and artist, dont see things like everyone else. art is about seeing a different way, so is art in usic, but about hearing and seeing a different. but you are right, people are too complex, not to generalize. but most artist i have known, have been the furthest thing from masculine. I'm an artist, but I am also really physical -- assertive, but sort of comes off as innocent somehow, so its not abrasive assertiveness.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Mair said:


> I am generalizing but for about 80% of women out there that generalization is true.


You re pretty wrong. Just look at the women who are happily in a couple, married, with at least two kids etc. Their man are not the most masculine, they re absolutely adorable, playful, sweet, sensitive and kind dudes. Of course they got some "manly" traits but these aren't their primary qualities.

One example, one of the most happy couples I know : the guy is absolutely sweet, a bit jerkish but never serious, funny and tender. From her words, he's manly only in the bed. And that's more than enough


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I openly admit nothing.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Mair said:


> It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.


I agree with your general premise as a generalization, though I do think that the word "dominant" throws a lot of people for a loop. Being dominant is a kind of power and power is not far from the big C word: Control. And nobody wants a douchebag, controlling partner (maybe a few do in some kind of masochistic haze, but you know what I mean).

I think you've got the right words, for the most part, but their meanings require some explanation:

A) Being assertive (also known as standing up for yourself and others under pressure, especially concerning values)

B) Being confident (also known as being emotionally mature and secure in one's ability to function as a person)

C) Being dominant (also known as being unafraid to make tough decisions when the need arises, and especially when other people present are failing to make a decision when one is needed)

And yes, I'd say you're right that aggressive douchebags usually have these qualities. The confidence may be more bravado than anything else, for the douchebags, but it's there all the same, even if it's a facade.

We can see right off the bat here that the stereotypical "nice guy" has problems fulfilling these. The stereotypical nice guy is usually needy (not emotionally mature or is secure in his ability to function as a person), not good at standing up himself or others, and not good at making tough decisions with other people involved.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

This seems like a post where the OP thought "Why am I so attracted to doucehbags?" 
But instead decided to project personal qualities onto an entire gender by asking "why are women attracted to doucehbags?"


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

As I continue to read this, I have to say that what the OP and others like her are describing is power. It's the desire for someone who seeks power over others through displays of aggression. That is essentially control. I think that is what is being attributed to masculinity here (and also why many women find themselves with abusers). This is a very important distinction from qualities like assertiveness and confidence, which do not have to be power based. 

I feel very sad for those who would seek out a mate (male or female) that is so concerned with power and the sort of social hierarchy that it promotes. Yes, those people frequently can and do make it to the top of that (constructed) system but at what cost to themselves and others? Have you even considered the fact that a person can be caring/nurturing AND also possess qualities that make up a resolute individual?


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> As I continue to read this, I have to say that what the OP and others like her are describing is power. It's the desire for someone who seeks power over others through displays of aggression. That is essentially control. I think that is what is being attributed to masculinity here (and also why many women find themselves with abusers). This is a very important distinction from qualities like assertiveness and confidence, which do not have to be power based.
> 
> I feel very sad for those who would seek out a mate (male or female) that is so concerned with power and the sort of social hierarchy that it promotes. Yes, those people frequently can and do make it to the top of that (constructed) system but at what cost to themselves and others? Have you even considered the fact that a person can be caring/nurturing AND also possess qualities that make up a resolute individual?


Of course someone can be caring and kind and also have masculine qualities. Women are not attracted to "controlling" or "oppressive" men , they're attracted to men who are dominant, confident and comfortable with leadership . Unfortunately a lot of them make mistakes and end up with abusive men instead.


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Mair said:


> _masculine qualities_. Women are not attracted to "controlling" or "oppressive" men , they're attracted to men who are dominant, confident and comfortable with leadership .


Those are not 'masculine' qualities, though, just as the color blue is not inherently male. They are just qualities and those that people would look for regardless of sex. I don't understand your preoccupation with gender expectations and how the qualities you list _must _fit within them in the way you desire. If you ask me, the construct of gender should be discarded altogether as it has the potential to be very divisive and harmful. 

We are male or female by differences in sex. That is difference enough without having to encourage further division.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> Those are not 'masculine' qualities, though, just as the color blue is not inherently male. They are just qualities and those that people would look for regardless of sex. I don't understand your preoccupation with gender expectations and how the qualities you list _must _fit within them in the way you desire. If you ask me, the construct of gender should be discarded altogether as it has the potential to be very divisive and harmful.
> 
> We are male or female by differences in sex. That is difference enough without having to encourage further division.


Man things are as they are. Gender is not a social construct , men and women have brains that are wired differently . Transgender people exist but they're outliers. 

Several studies have shown that men and women on average have different preferences when it comes to choosing a partner ,with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive. Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women also show preference for masculine men with high-quality genes especially during ovulation https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Mair said:


> Man things are as they are. Gender is not a social construct , men and women have brains that are wired differently . Transgender people exist but they're outliers.
> 
> Several studies have shown that men and women on average have different preferences when it comes to choosing a partner ,with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive. Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Women also show preference for masculine men with high-quality genes especially during ovulation https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men


I vehemently disagree that gender is not a social construct. Most scientific research proves men and women's brains are not that different. There are some minor differences, but for the most part, most things that supposedly make men what they are and women what they are, are not wired, which means we can deduce they are social constructs.

Also, the arguements you make stating that women prefer convetionally masculine qualities(at least in some contexts) in men, but doesn't explain _why. _It could very well that these women prefer conventionally "masculine" traits because they've been conditioned by society.


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Mair said:


> Man things are as they are.


Things are as they are largely because we make them that way, as individuals and as a collective. We create the world we live in. What sucks is that there are those out there that are only concerned with maintaining a status quo because it is beneficial to them to live within that power structure, even at the expense of others. 

Mair, I don't think it's any revelation that women would prefer men who are rich, educated, ambitious, and physically attractive. I don't think it's any different where men were to look for the same in women. Security, intelligence, drive, and attraction have no gender. Women, historically speaking, might look to these things more because of patriarchy - they simply didn't have the ability to earn for themselves (as is even mentioned in the wiki you linked). That is changing. You have to be willing to place things in context. You seem to dismiss all social/cultural influence as a product of our biology alone. 

Re masculine: YOU are defining what 'masculine' is here and in fact actively encouraging division. You are not just saying that men and women have differences.. you are suggesting that men SHOULD behave a certain way, which is no different than some of the topics on this forum where guys do the same for women.

It's great that you know what you're looking for. All I can say is that as a dude, I would look for similar traits in women - though $$ is not as critical to me as qualities such as honesty, depth, physical attractiveness, confidence (in who they are and what they value), assertiveness (able to stand up for themselves and others), intelligence, and respect for individuality. I certainly wouldn't _just_ want a woman for looks and youth. In fact, if it were only those two things I would rate them low. 

I hope this gives you something to consider in the future. I want things to change at a faster pace if it promotes freedom. It seems like the two of us couldn't be more diametrically opposed in terms of what we value in society. I see that you're an ESTJ so that probably has something to do with it. I guess I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> Re masculine: YOU are defining what 'masculine' is here and in fact actively encouraging division. You are not just saying that men and women have differences.. you are suggesting that men SHOULD behave a certain way, which is no different than some of the topics on this forum where guys do the same for women.


No , I'm not suggesting men should behave in a certain way, I'm saying they have to be assertive, independent and not needy and whiny if they want to attract MOST (not all) women out there.

Do you think traditional masculinity exists for no reason ? Do you think the average man is not different than the average woman ? Do you seriously think that men and women are generally attracted to the same qualities ?

Studies have shown that the male and the female brain is different and we shouldn't ignore that just because a few people are outliers. Mars Vs Venus – Differences in Male and Female Brains | Brain Blogger




EnigmaticMan said:


> I see that you're an ESTJ so that probably has something to do with it. I guess I'll leave it at that.


 Nice ad hominem and typism.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> 
> Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I won't reiterate the issues with you defining masculinity and femininity since it seems others are doing that...

1) Your examples of masculinity and femininity are not equally set up. The male traits you listed are largely seen as positives. The feminine traits of being "overly" x and y are obviously negatives. If you turned them into their balanced terms, we'd be off on a decent starting point, but that's obviously not a fair breakdown if taken as is.

2) Men (and women) should be themselves and strive to reach the self-confidence and actualization that is independent of another person doting on them. How can they expect a real relationship with someone else if they're desperate for that external validation, and especially from another human being (who also comes with their own set of issues and hangups)?

I'm not confused by what anyone's been telling me, I know what I like and don't like, and that's pretty simple and straightforward. If a woman likes douchebags, let her have them. And if a guy wants to be "feminine" as you put it (because it happens to be in his nature), he also deserves to be appreciated for who he is, though of course self-actualization typically involves balance and temperance.

Feminism didn't kill my attraction, but it did address some actual issues (not what you just described) that tend to be somewhat omnipresent in heterosexual relationships, so maybe the fact that I have some more discernment/standards now might scare some people off. *shrugs*


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Mair said:


> No , I'm not suggesting men should behave in a certain way





> *Women should admit they appreciate masculinity so that men will know what they're supposed to do.*


Do I think traditional masculinity exists for no reason? I think it served to promote a patriarchal power structure. You've referred to aggression in your example with kindergarteners earlier and that is not the same as assertiveness or confidence. Power can be maintained by aggression. 

Do I think that the average man is not different than the average woman? Remove the social influences/pressures to divide in development and those differences would be less pronounced. As they are now, however, yes we are still quite different without an awareness.

Do I seriously think that men and women are generally attracted to the same qualities? Yes, but we _learn_ to seek out those qualities expressed in _different ways_, or those that are considered appropriate based on gender. But if you were to remove the other influences, how those qualities are expressed would be negligible. Get rid of gender (GENDER is social, SEX is biological) and we are much closer that you think.

Great, you found a source that describes a difference between men and women's brains. I studied psychology and this is nothing new. No one doubts that there are differences. What you're avoiding is the impact our environment has on our brains. I'm taking the position that acknowledges some differences based on our biology but realizes that our families, peers, religious institutions, cultural traditions, and even things like the physical environment/climate can shape our being, more so than many of us would give credit for. From what you've written thus far, you do not acknowledge this. 

You're an ESTJ and I an INFP so we're very different personalities and it shows. There's no ad hominem there, only an observation. I think you value obedience. I value freedom.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

Mair said:


> No , I'm not suggesting men should behave in a certain way, I'm saying they have to be assertive, independent and not needy and whiny if they want to attract MOST (not all) women out there.
> 
> Do you think traditional masculinity exists for no reason ? Do you think the average man is not different than the average woman ? Do you seriously think that men and women are generally attracted to the same qualities ?
> 
> ...


The link you reference states that men are usually have stronger visual-spacial thinking and women are better at reading people/ and understanding others. 

It doesn't uphold anything related to traditional masculinity or femininity. All that it tells us is that on average men would have an easier time excelling at architecture, and women would be better at tasks like negotiating.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

I've raised this point on several threads. This traditional masculinity isn't so traditional. It's a 20th Century ideal created and popularised at a time when the new world was rapidly growing and expanding. In the backdrop of new nations, cities and economies being formed, frontier type people are lauded because they can quickly rise in socioeconomic power, something that is incredibly difficult to impossible to do in a stable class based society. 

So confidence, assertiveness, risk tasking, free wheeling and enterprising attitude is a great asset on the frontier where lawlessness, opportunity and great fortunes can be made by the brave and lost just as quickly. That's what gave rise to idea's about traditional masculinity. And when you look at a major culture that idolises it, the US, then you really understand where it comes from. This traditional masculinity isn't so much about men as it is about the legend of a country. 

When you go back further in history and in particular look at long established class based cultures you generally find the acceptable and indeed idealised masculine traits are very different. The fellow typified above is a crass working class person, lacks refinement, education and connections. The idealised man in established society is generally fluent in several languages, plays a musical instrument, writes poerty, is highly fashionable and spends a great deal of his time in gentleman's clubs philosophising. Risk taking and assertiveness aren't needed in this environment because such men have their fortunes inherited and their major function in life is to simply maintain a dynasty, not found one, and be a gentleman...which is typically about travelling for broadening ones horizons and collecting art works. In these kinds of societies the renaissance man is the ideal, not the frontier man. 

History clearly shows where these idea's come from and why they are popular and it's got just about nothing to do with the human genome but about societal evolution and structures. It should not be surprising then that in a stable affluent society history repeats itself and society moves their ideals away from the frontier and into refinement.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Eska said:


> I agree to a certain extent.
> 
> While your statement is 'generally true' from one perspective, it is also 'generally false' from another.
> 
> ...


The manosphere calls that AF/BB.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

sockratees said:


> Feminism is indeed a wrench in the pairing system, and one of the main things it does is destroy the traditional male, yet will leaves the women somewhat intact in situations where it is most convenient for them to remain so, like paying for dates for example and being treated like a fragile "lady", all the while forgetting to treat their counterparts like men. It's a double standard that they fail to see. Make up your minds. Women don't play out the entire role of being "empowered" either, just those bits which.make their lives easier. It's an arbitrary system of privileges they utilize, which they will turn on and off at will, as an excuse to pull out of uncomfortable situations. Then they will blame guys for "not understanding women."


A good example: you don't see feminists clamouring about the under-representation of women on oil rigs or on what Mike Rowe calls "dirty jobs"...
...and where are all the men in HR and teaching elementary school?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Mair said:


> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> 
> Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive.
> 
> Unfortunately , feminism is trying to kill masculinity and femininity so a lot of people are confused and don't know how what attracts the opposite gender. *Women should admit they appreciate masculinity so that men will know what they're supposed to do.*


I bolded that line.

Do you really believe that before feminism men knew what to do? Do you really believe that those very "masculine" guys know what to do?

I saw in your profile you´re 19..... so it's not so strange you don't really know what you´re talking about. And at your age most guys and girls don't really have a clue about what to do. You basically have just started to figure it out. And this isn't something you figure out by having had a bf/gf for a couple of years while still living in the (financial and emotional) comfort of your parents home.

Most guys aren't extremely masculine. Also, Most guys aren't overly sensitive. Most guys are somewhere in the middle. This wasn't any different before feminism.

What is a factor though is that many women in these modern days in most modern societies, have become financially independent. This has changed the roles and the position of women and men in relationships. But it's perfectly possible to be masculine (for men) and feminine (for women) in this new world. It's really not necessary to have a submisive obedient woman in order to be masculine. A guys masculinity does not depend on the submisiveness of his woman.


Also, and this may be a surprise to you, many women will fantasize about those very masculine guys, but for a relationship will prefer an average guy because what most women really want in a relationship is stability and a guy she can trust.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

InSolitude said:


> I've raised this point on several threads. This traditional masculinity isn't so traditional. It's a 20th Century ideal created and popularised at a time when the new world was rapidly growing and expanding. In the backdrop of new nations, cities and economies being formed, frontier type people are lauded because they can quickly rise in socioeconomic power, something that is incredibly difficult to impossible to do in a stable class based society.
> 
> So confidence, assertiveness, risk tasking, free wheeling and enterprising attitude is a great asset on the frontier where lawlessness, opportunity and great fortunes can be made by the brave and lost just as quickly. That's what gave rise to idea's about traditional masculinity. And when you look at a major culture that idolises it, the US, then you really understand where it comes from. This traditional masculinity isn't so much about men as it is about the legend of a country.
> 
> ...


Huh. Notice what happens to the birthrate among the "cultured, sophisticated, educated"...
Throw in treatment of sex merely as a pastime (abortion/contraception/homosexuality)...

and the behaviour becomes self-limiting over time.

You might notice that refined cultures don't last too long before succumbing to internal dissolution, or invasion.
The forest burns to the ground and the cycle starts again.

(While you're at it, look up R-selected vs. k-selected mating strategies. Lotsa food for thought there.)


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

g_w said:


> Huh. Notice what happens to the birthrate among the "cultured, sophisticated, educated"...
> Throw in treatment of sex merely as a pastime (abortion/contraception/homosexuality)...
> 
> and the behaviour becomes self-limiting over time.
> ...


I wasn't debating whether or not these cultures last a long time or whether they are superior. 

I was pointing out, the shift in what society values follows a known cycle tied to the development of the social structure. History has played it out multiple times. And by recognising this cycle and it's affects on shared values we can see that traits described as masculine of feminine depend on the social context and are therefore social constructs. 

Whether or not it's self limiting or part of an end cycle is a whole different debate and far removed from the context of this thread.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Peter said:


> I bolded that line.
> 
> Do you really believe that before feminism men knew what to do? Do you really believe that those very "masculine" guys know what to do?
> 
> ...


You happen to be incorrect about some of this: the *mean* and *median* of "how masculine the average guy was" has shifted; that is, the entire bell curve for men has shifted to be more feminine.

Try reading (for example) books on the island-hopping campaign in World War 2; the men there were in their younger 20s and endured things far, far worse than being denied their parents' healthcare coverage, like Pajama Boy whines about.
Go actually *watch* movies from the 40s, and 50s, before the cultural rot set in.
The sexual roles as played out in public were in fact not only more rigidly defined (narrower bell curve) but there was less overlap between them.

On the other hand, you are correct (and the MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, and the like *agree* with you), that is it is not necessary to have a submissive obedient woman in order to be masculine...but they would argue, that if you are a masculine man, then a woman who does not seek, embrace, and enjoy her femininity, is not worth your time.

As far as a woman preferring an average guy ... there are two factors:
1) what a woman says (e.g. for public consumption, for reputation's sake) vs. what she does
2) what gives a woman vagina tingles, vs. what she wants "long term" 
(a woman telling you what she wants in a man, will tell you her wish list *for a man she is already attracted to*. Which is not the same as what sets her panties aflame-- Mr. Right vs. Mr. Right _NOW_...)


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

InSolitude said:


> I wasn't debating whether or not these cultures last a long time or whether they are superior.
> 
> I was pointing out, the shift in what society values follows a known cycle tied to the development of the social structure. History has played it out multiple times. And by recognising this cycle and it's affects on shared values we can see that traits described as masculine of feminine depend on the social context and are therefore social constructs.
> 
> Whether or not it's self limiting or part of an end cycle is a whole different debate and far removed from the context of this thread.


I've noticed that those who argue that the sexes should be more interchangeable, have an undertone of smug superiority.
But if the behaviour which is recommended, leads to societal suicide, then smugness is not a very good attitude to have over it.
(I'm sure all lemmings think that they are oh-so-up-to-date, 'chic', sophisticated, and all the rest...until the sudden stop at the bottom.)


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

g_w said:


> I've noticed that those who argue that the sexes should be more interchangeable, have an undertone of smug superiority.
> But if the behaviour which is recommended, leads to societal suicide, then smugness is not a very good attitude to have over it.
> (I'm sure all lemmings think that they are oh-so-up-to-date, 'chic', sophisticated, and all the rest...until the sudden stop at the bottom.)


You can see smug superiority if you like. I'm just making a case for gender definitions/norms to be determined to a large degree by social development.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

Yup you're estj alright


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

'I don't wanna call you a liar but if you don't admit that you like what I like you're either not being honest or you're delusional.'


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Just a few things to consider -

Huff Post
The Independent


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Basically, everyone gets love _except_ for boring hybrids...


































"I am hurt;-
A plague o' both your houses!"


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Fredward said:


> 'I don't wanna call you a liar but if you don't admit that you like what I like you're either not being honest or you're delusional.'


I know things about you that your unconscious doesn't let you know Fredward, so many things ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°).
Now look at this Ink blot and tell me whether you see yourself having sex with your mother!


----------



## Gman1 (Mar 3, 2015)

Mair said:


> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> 
> Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive.
> 
> ...


Testosterone (you can actually smell it)
Immune System (physical appearance is a good indicator of this)

Also, the woman needs to be chased. If the guy isn't really that interested, it will never happen. By interested, I don't mean infatuated, but actually 'like'.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Basically, everyone gets love _except_ for boring hybrids..."I am hurt;-
> A plague o' both your houses!"


Well, a lot of people think that the Chevy Volt, Honda Prius, and Nissan Leaf (for example) are underpowered and have limited range; it's not like we're talking Tesla...oh, wait. Not that kind of hybrid? Never mind. :dry:


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

What is wrong with power and aspiring to have power? Why are you all a bunch of weak-kneed cowards?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I am a masculine-brained woman with many feminine physical qualities. Apparently, that confuses people, especially when I go back and forth between being sweet and being assertive. WHIPLASH. But, anyway, I don't really like hypermasculine men even though I prefer dating Army/Air Force type guys. This has more to do with me being interested in men with long-term job stability, though.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

I like being dominant in pretty much every aspect of a relationship, except sex. That's when I want to submit.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Cesspool said:


> I like being dominant in pretty much every aspect of a relationship, except sex. That's when I want to submit.


I prefer that I be the dominant partner in whatever my expertise is, that my partner be dominant in whatever his expertise is, and that we come to an egalitarian conclusion in whatever is not either of our expertise. Other than that, yeah, I prefer being submissive in the bedroom.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Cesspool said:


> I like being dominant in pretty much every aspect of a relationship, except sex. That's when I want to submit.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I prefer being submissive in the bedroom.


I guess we wouldn't work out then.

Or we'd take turns.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Cesspool said:


> I guess we wouldn't work out then.
> 
> Or we'd take turns.


Lala's got you with the wink!


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Cesspool said:


> What is wrong with power and aspiring to have power? Why are you all a bunch of weak-kneed cowards?


I don't need to actually show power to fuck up people at their own game. So to speak, the "power" end game is just boring because it make things way too limited and only revolvin around that notion of "who got the bigger one", that and also, it make things too easy when you actually got it. I fucking hate easy mode, as I hate to show that I'm way more competent than the guy who think that he's the shit.

I like that concept of a rock in a river.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

g_w said:


> You happen to be incorrect about some of this: the *mean* and *median* of "how masculine the average guy was" has shifted; that is, the entire bell curve for men has shifted to be more feminine.
> 
> Try reading (for example) books on the island-hopping campaign in World War 2; the men there were in their younger 20s and endured things far, far worse than being denied their parents' healthcare coverage, like Pajama Boy whines about.
> Go actually *watch* movies from the 40s, and 50s, before the cultural rot set in.
> The sexual roles as played out in public were in fact not only more rigidly defined (narrower bell curve) but there was less overlap between them.


That's all true, but it doesn't make a man less masculine. Also it doesn't make women less feminine. There is more overlap, of course, but that doesn't make men less masculine. It makes them modern, or at least not old fashion.

Is a woman less feminine because she works and makes money too?
Is a man less masculine because he cooks and does house chores?
Is a woman less feminine because she can drive a car?
Is a man less masculine because he accepts a woman at work as his boss?
etc.
etc.

Of Cource Not!

Men still go to war in these modern days. And sure, in some aspects modern wars can be considered less harsh than world war 2. But here too, just because it was harder, does not make them more masculine. Better technology doesn't turn men into women.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

What?!?!?! I read, I think most of this thread, but it just seems silly to me. lol

Anyway, Why are people attracted to douchebags? 
Well, a lot of people put their best foot forward and I'm not so sure that different societies are doing a good job of teaching people about power and control within a relationship. I think some elements of power and control may even be considered "normal" or may seem "normal" if one parent was abusive towards them or the other parent.

Are 80% of women attractive to masculinity (whatever that is)? And someone said that "every body is beautiful" is b.s., so I would like to address some of that in this section (and some in the next) as well:
As others have said, masculinity does not have a very clear definition and some aspects of male gender roles try to encourage men to be more harmful to themselves or others (for instance, telling boys that men don't cry may be teaching them to not deal with their pain in an emotionally healthy way and may tell them that it is not okay/acceptable to express vulnerability because they have something between their legs). That said, there are many healthy, "masculine" men out there who would be a caring, loving partner to someone they love. The question is though, does 80% of women really prefer this over other types of men? I'm not so sure about that. Although I am an agender eevee  I think I have both masculine and feminine traits, and, I rarely ever heard anyone say to me that they would find me more attractive if I was masculine (in hs, there was someone who told me that I had a "tall" voice on the intercom and that they would want to have sex with me, except I'm short, so I suppose I may have gotten that every once in a while, more so when I was just a kid in HS), and S.O. never told me that. In fact, I've been told by a lot of people that I'm charismatic or charming. I could certainly be more masculine and I will joke that I am not masculine enough, but what I think people like and are attracted to (sometimes I am surprised that people are attracted to me and I will be "when did that happen?" and "Why?"  Sometimes I notice, but I think a lot of times I'm just too oblivious, or doubtful, that I get surprised a lot lol) is that I make them laugh and that I care about them. In fact, with people I've been in romantic relationships with, the think I am complimented most on is that I am sweet (silly/crazy is the next thing, I think) and I think that is because people can be attracted to a lot of things, but feeling loved or cared for is an important part of attraction, if not one of the most important parts, imo. Not only that, but I'm a sexually submissive guy and when I cam out to my partners (who were not sexually dominant ... at least not the ones that I was more romantically involved with), they were not turned off at all (a couple were even slightly sexually submissive themselves, but no where near the extent that I was). In fact, I think they started to like it a lot and not because they are dominant (because they were not), but because I deeply desired sex to be like that and I deeply desired them, and it made them feel more desired, and being desired by someone you desire is pretty hott, imo.

Now, I can't actually claim to know what women want, but, last time I checked, women are people and I'm a talking eevee, which is close enough to being a people  and, I know that I'm a whore (in my own mind), I find lots of people attractive for different reasons. There is no, I want the person to be like this. And there is not one perfect person/ideal personality to me (except for the person I am in love with <3, they are perfect for me, but I'm a love crazed eevee and that emotional bond is what makes the person so special to me, even though I love their personality, the emotional bond is what really enhances everything and the deep trust is important as well), although I do seem to like E6s a lot , and I've grown to see beauty in lots of people. Not only that, but there have been woman who I was not initially attracted to (one I thought was physically "ugly" ... I tend not to see people as ugly anymore, or at least not just based off appearance, or maybe not as much, cause I try to keep an open mind and I learned from my mistakes), but after getting to know them more, they physically did not change, but how I saw them drastically changed and then I saw them as incredibly beautiful and sexy. I don't think attraction, at least not physical attract, is this constant thing. In my experiences it is malleable and can change.


You want women to admit this so that (straight/heterosexual) men know how to be:
Um no!! I have a penis *checks* Yes, I have a penis, so I will answer this as my sex, since my sex/biology is male.
I'm not going to change who I am for someone else, especially for someone I don't even know yet. I would rather be true to myself. If I changed my core self so that I could get more dates or last longer in relationships, I doubt I would be happy and the person I would be with would not love me, only the person I was pretending to be. I'd rather be single. Not just that, but I was not placed on earth to please someone else romantically (or maybe biologically speaking that may be the agenda, to procreate, but I think we can define our own agendas and I don't have to change myself in order to be attractive to someone else and if someone requires me to change myself in order to be attracted to me, then there will never be a place for them in my bed). And, I think that is part of why some people say that "every body is beautiful", because it is not about attraction or pleasing someone else, it is about self love and self respect maybe even about teaching people to keep there negative comments to themselves. Sure, there are lots of different body preferences out there (probably enough to cover just about every body) and there may be certain body types that are more desired by certain cultures over others, but that is not the point. I'm known women who were over weight for various reasons (and not all of them ate a lot or lacked exercise ... if fact I think a potential side effect of the pill may be weight gain), and they were fat shamed so much that they internalized that negativity and thought that they did not deserve love and/or that they were unloveable. And I'm sure that problem affects more than just overweight women (probably affects a lot of people who have body image problems, but I suppose could even be extended to self image problems), so the point is to teach everyone to value/love/respect themselves (and before someone says oh they need motivation to lose weight, let me say this 1) it is none of your business. It is their body, not yours and 2) It it is a health issue, I am more inclined to believed that someone who loves/values themselves are more likely to want to takes steps to me health and to take those steps in healthy ways (fyi, I ready somewhere that the "biggest loser" actually had them lose weight in physically and emotionally healthy ways) and 3) Most people are aware of their weight, but since fat is seen as "disgusting" and fat shaming is something that happens often enough, someone, other than a doctor or close family member, feeling the need to point that out may be more damaging to their mental health/self esteem).




ningsta kitty said:


> I openly admit nothing.


Oooooooo mystery. That is attractive :wink:


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Sygma said:


> I don't need to actually show power to fuck up people at their own game. So to speak, the "power" end game is just boring because it make things way too limited and only revolvin around that notion of "who got the bigger one", that and also, it make things too easy when you actually got it. I fucking hate easy mode, as I hate to show that I'm way more competent than the guy who think that he's the shit.
> 
> I like that concept of a rock in a river.


This is all nonsense.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Cesspool said:


> This is all nonsense.


Nope. At work and in competition I've always been more than capable to occupy the 1st place, which I did. But it doesn't _interest_ me to actually be driven because of the "power" or the position, or the status.

I just like "to fight" in order to show that I'm up there and nobody can sit on my branch just yet. I'm always down for a fight. Everything that is around is not relevant.

Sometimes I decline fights because the gap is just too large. It won't even be a good learning experience for them, so its not worth to "compete" because the result will just be a crush. And that is just flat out not interesting. Not enjoyable. Nothing. 

Some call this an arrogant attitude, but I don't. I know what it is to be crushed by something you can't do anything about, or against. Its just rage. And that lead to a few possibilities :

-> beein inspired at gettin better, without losin any kind of respect toward the rules

-> beein power driven and backin off in front of nothing in order to get it and maybe / possibly defeat that person who crushed you in an unecessary way. But even if you do so, what will it be after ? you backed off in front of nothing to gain it. 

You ll most certainly not back off after in front of adversity in order to not lose it. You might also crush those who won't stand a chance just so you can secure your position.

-> beein straight up demolished in your ego, which would be a shame if you got potential but are not there just yet

And I like to show respect for someone who is worthy, by deliverin everything I got if the fight / situation will clearly be something else than one sided.

Power for power is useless. There's nothing more boring / inadapted / unecessary than crushing someone because you can. 

It just show that you simply are not suited for it


----------



## Gman1 (Mar 3, 2015)

In general, I call bullshit to this. 
Women are not attracted to douchebags. They are attracted to people who are well adjusted. 
Same goes for men.

It's not a game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Mair 
to be honest, I don't think your comment even needs to be true of the majority of women, because _women who are prone to end up in abusive relationships_ are almost always attracted to masculinity. 

the broader message to take away is: be honest about what turns you on. the human brain loves to categorize things into "good" and "bad", but the inconvenient truth is that most of us are attracted to one or two traits which are potentially problematic. to use myself as an example, I am attracted to innocence. I like big eyes, small noses, soft skin/hair and overall youthful looking features. naturally, this can present problems, so, whenever I go on a date with someone I meet online, I always make sure to check their ID (because there's youthful and then there's, well, jail lol). being honest with yourself about what you are attracted to allows you to be more objective, make more rational decisions and come up with possible dating alternatives


----------



## WindowLicker (Aug 3, 2010)

If a guy labels himself as a "nice guy" a lot of times hes not. He might be just as aggressive as the masculine guy, but just looking for the right person to direct that towards.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Sygma said:


> Nope. At work and in competition I've always been more than capable to occupy the 1st place, which I did. But it doesn't _interest_ me to actually be driven because of the "power" or the position, or the status.
> 
> I just like "to fight" in order to show that I'm up there and nobody can sit on my branch just yet. I'm always down for a fight. Everything that is around is not relevant.
> 
> ...


Again, all nonsense.


----------



## Nowhere Man (Apr 22, 2012)

Mair said:


> Women should admit they appreciate masculinity *so that men will know what they're supposed to do.*


Fuck that. I don't care what "most women" like. I like being a male that takes on a more feminine/submissive role, and I honestly couldn't change that even if I tried. And what's with this shit about how men are "supposed" to behave? It's not like men should be expected to exude stereotypically masculine qualities just because that's what "most women" want. Imagine how it would sound if you were telling women that they're "supposed" to embody stereotypically feminine qualities because that's what "most men" want.


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

OP is a 19 year old shy girl (her words), she doesn't know what she wants.

Women are attracted to confidence, which comes in the form of many. Sadly most dumb unintelligent obnoxious douchebags have perceived confidence (it's really usually arrogance but most young unexperienced/unaware girls think it's actual confidence). I honestly hope those girls choosing those guys get abused and treated like crap by them, natural selection at work.

It's the same with guys finding girls with a great asses and tits attractive sexually even if they have crappiest personalities and slept with every guy in town.

Such epiphany OP, learn that things like these are not black and white. We're all a grey in between the two.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

agwood said:


> In general, I call bullshit to this.
> Women are not attracted to douchebags. They are attracted to people who are well adjusted.
> Same goes for men.
> 
> It's not a game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.


unfortunately, there are quite a bit of games going on in most of the dating world. maybe you could argue there _shouldn't_ be (and imo, they are indeed the case of the majority of divorces), but "games" are exactly what seduction is all about. saying that all women and men are attracted to "well adjusted people" is far more of an oversimplified blanket statement than anything mentioned in the OP

of course, if by "games", you mean some sort of gimmick-y, Mystery Method bullshit, then yeah, those probably aren't going to get you a whole lot of success.

PS: ESTJ 2? interesting combo :tongue:


----------



## Slagasauras (Jun 26, 2013)

Honestly, I don't really think being a douchebag = masculine, or at least that's what your sentence is phrased as. I've met plenty of guys that are masculine and are not douchebags. 
I say this as someone who has met plenty of masculine men who are not kicking others around or giving them wedgies. 

Again though, a lot of what you said in the original post sounded more directed towards one type of woman and not every woman. Which would be impossible because yeah, everyone has different tastes and perspectives on things.

That's just my idea.


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Vimerge said:


> I honestly hope those girls choosing those guys get abused and treated like crap by them, natural selection at work.


I agreed with much of what you wrote except for _this_. WTH is this? People can learn, grow without being abused.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> unfortunately, there are quite a bit of games going on in most of the dating world. maybe you could argue there _shouldn't_ be (and imo, they are indeed the case of the majority of divorces), but "games" are exactly what seduction is all about.


Seduction doesn't necessitate mind games. You can tempt someone without trying to corrupt them.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> You're an ESTJ and I an INFP so we're very different personalities and it shows. There's no ad hominem there, only an observation. I think you value obedience. I value freedom.


This is actually not true. The ESTJ and the INFP are very similar, they have all the same functions. The opposite of the INFP is the ISTP, as they have all the different functions in the complete opposite order.

The biggest differences between the INFP and the ESTJ comes from the reverse dominant functions; The INFP prefers feeling and represses thinking, which is why they are usually idealists that lack logic (like the ISFP). The ESTJ prefers thinking and suppresses feeling, which is why they can come across as jerks(like the ENTJ). 

When you peel away the exterior of both types, you can see how they are actually very similar people; They both value autonomy, and they both desire freedom and control in their environment. The ESTJ believes this can be achieved through hard work, individual responsibility, and to fight against and dominant things that he/she perceives as being a threat to their values (Like this thread, @Mair is fighting against something that she thinks will change her environment in a way that is counter-productive to her pursuit of happiness). The INFP, however, tries to accomplish these things by retreating into their self and sculpting out their perfect vision. They believe that to be free means to be true to yourself, and they try to remove themselves from situations that make them feel like they are unable to do so (unlike the ESTJ, which actively tries to fight against and dominant such situations).

These videos are helpful:

Either watch the whole video or skip to 13:40 in this one:






INFP:





ESTJ:


----------



## WindowLicker (Aug 3, 2010)

Cesspool said:


> Again, all nonsense.


Its a combat sport with honorable respect towards others who may not be physically ready, but willing to those who are worthy opponents. Does that make sense? Rambos not gonna fight some cocky 16 year old just to prove he can bash his head in.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Vimerge said:


> I honestly hope those girls choosing those guys get abused and treated like crap by them, natural selection at work.


What a nasty thing to say tbh. It figures that this reeks of entitlement.


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> I agreed with much of what you wrote except for _this_. WTH is this? People can learn, grow without being abused.


Whoops, yeah, what I meant to say was so that they can learn and make better choices because of their poor judgement while they're young. And ones that don't learn continue to enter relationships with abusive douchebags is natural selection at work, no sympathy if you're dumb enough to subject yourself to that and fail to learn and grow.



Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> What a nasty thing to say tbh. It figures that this reeks of entitlement.


Read above tbh.


----------



## Nowhere Man (Apr 22, 2012)

Vimerge said:


> OP is a 19 year old shy girl (her words), she doesn't know what she wants.


Oh shit, if I'd known she was just a kid I'd have been less vitriolic in my response. I apologize to the OP.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Vimerge said:


> Whoops, yeah, what I meant to say was so that they can learn and make better choices because of their poor judgement while they're young. And ones that don't learn continue to enter relationships with abusive douchebags is natural selection at work, no sympathy if you're dumb enough to subject yourself to that and fail to learn and grow.


Not all abusive behaviours are obvious in the beginning. You don't know people's relationships history so why are you judging others?

The irony of this from someone who sympathises with Elliot Rodger.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

EnigmaticMan said:


> Seduction doesn't necessitate mind games. You can tempt someone without trying to corrupt them.


you can also play games without trying to corrupt someone. 

also, at the risk of sounding like a feminist, the notion that seduction is a mechanism of "corruption" is rooted in a Puritanical view of sex. seducing someone was seen as getting someone to "sin" or "taking away their innocence". as long as the seducer involved does not have any STDs, both are silly notions imo


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> Not all abusive behaviours are obvious in the beginning. You don't know people's relationships history so why are you judging others?


I think it should be kind of easy to distinguish arrogance from healthy confidence if you're no longer a teenaged girl. Signs of abusive douchebags aren't hard to spot. That's why most smart girls usually don't date them, only the dumb ratchet ones (with most likely daddy issues) such as OP who has a distorted version of healthy masculinity not seeing the bigger picture.

People love to victimize women and blame men but women should be held equally responsible for their choices, they're the enablers who get to say yes or no to relationships.


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Cesspool said:


> This is actually not true. The ESTJ and the INFP are very similar, they have all the same functions. The opposite of the INFP is the ISTP, as they have all the different functions in the complete opposite order.
> 
> The biggest differences between the INFP and the ESTJ comes from the reverse dominant functions; The INFP prefers feeling and represses thinking, which is why they are usually idealists that lack logic (like the ISFP). The ESTJ prefers thinking and suppresses feeling, which is why they can come across as jerks(like the ENTJ).
> 
> When you peel away the exterior of both types, you can see how they are actually very similar people; They both value autonomy, and they both desire freedom and control in their environment. The ESTJ believes this can be achieved through hard work, individual responsibility, and to fight against and dominant things that he/she perceives as being a threat to their values (Like this thread, @Mair is fighting against something that she thinks will change her environment in a way that is counter-productive to her pursuit of happiness). The INFP, however, tries to accomplish these things by retreating into their self and sculpting out their perfect vision. They believe that to be free means to be true to yourself, and they try to remove themselves from situations that make them feel like they are unable to do so (unlike the ESTJ, which actively tries to fight against and dominant such situations).


Thank you for this clarification. Something I took from the ESTJ video: ".. they form conclusions based on objective data and then feel obligated to live according to those logical conclusions. They have a solemn responsibility to do so, so long as the conclusions remain sound." That's great, but what if those conclusions have not been fully explored and they still try to engage in them? An INFP does not lack objectivity, and are certainly not afraid of challenging themselves, if they have developed other functions.


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> The irony of this from someone who sympathises with Elliot Rodger.


You probably don't know shit. Have a look at this in depth analysis of him, any person with a healthy set of brains should be able to (at least a little bit) sympathise with him despite the awful acts of violence:


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

Vimerge said:


> only the dumb ratchet ones (with most likely daddy issues) such as OP who has a distorted version of healthy masculinity


I'm curious, when did the OP said she wants an "abusive douchebag" instead of an "assertive, confident and dominant man" (her words)?


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> "corruption" is rooted in a Puritanical view of sex. seducing someone was seen as getting someone to "sin" or "taking away their innocence". as long as the seducer involved does not have any STDs, both are silly notions imo


I wasn't talking about corruption as it relates to the act of sex. Instead, I was referring to playing games to get what you want without respect to others. Those kind of games.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

EnigmaticMan said:


> I wasn't talking about corruption as it relates to the act of sex.


apologies, that part wasn't really directed at you. I should have specified more clearly



> Instead, I was referring to playing games to get what you want without respect to others. Those kind of games.


I would agree on some level. lying about your age (either because you are a creepy 55 year old trying to pick up a 19 year old or because you are an impulsive 15 year old who wants a "challenge" or "someone who understands them"), deliberately getting people extremely drunk or using negs which border on gaslighting are not practices I look on favorably, but where we draw the line here probably differs a bit.


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

selena87 said:


> I'm curious, when did the OP said she wants an "abusive douchebag" instead of an "assertive, confident and dominant man" (her words)?


I was talking about girls likely to land such relationships and girls like OP fall into that category by the looks of it (not specifically saying she will or she describes said men in those words) because she has an incomplete view/has a thing or two to learn.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Vimerge said:


> You probably don't know shit. Have a look at this in depth analysis of him, any person with a healthy set of brains should be able to (at least a little bit) sympathise with him despite the awful acts of violence:


I don't think anyone should waste any time giving that scumbag more attention, really.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Vimerge said:


> I was talking about girls likely to land such relationships and girls like OP fall into that category by the looks of it (not specifically saying she will or she describes said men in those words) because she has an incomplete view/has a thing or two to learn.


What's wrong with wanting a traditional relationship with a masculine man ? According to my experiences , most women seem to indeed appreciate qualities in men that are considered traditionally masculine.

Nobody said that all men should be like this if they're not comfortable , but a lot of women simply find that kind of thing attractive. 

We have a lot of people saying that women reject the "nice guys" ? Why do you think that happens ?


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

Children Of The Bad Revolution said:


> I don't think anyone should waste any time giving that scumbag more attention, really.


Gladly bathe in your ignorant hatred then for all I care, following the masses' opinion is easy right? Thinking, studying and rationally, objectively analysing is useful - I recommend it. 

He wasn't even a misogynist which feminists love to frame people like him as.


----------



## Force Majeure (Apr 15, 2015)

I posted my comments in quote below.



Mair said:


> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> _
> I have never met a "douchebag" that is assertive, confident and dominant. Most "douchebags" mistake aggressiveness with assertiveness. Their confidence is easily scattered and their dominance is superficial._
> 
> ...


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

So you mean:

1. A lot of women want a confident man, some women mistake scumbag arrogance as confidence
2. OP said she wants a confident man, which is not a domineering tyrant or abusive
3. OP will end up with scumbags????

How does 2 lead to 3 anyway? What is this logic?



Mair said:


> That's not necessarily what masculinity is about . Being assertive and dominant doesn't mean you're a domineering tyrant or abusive.


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

Mair said:


> We have a lot of people saying that women reject the "nice guys" ? Why do you think that happens ?


Because they aren't nice guys, they confuse themselves with spineless guys. Nice is an empty word now, spineless needy insecure men can be seen as "nice" and healthy confident nurturing protective men can also be seen as "nice". Nice doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Vimerge said:


> Because they aren't nice guys, they confuse themselves with spineless guys. Nice is an empty word now, spineless needy insecure men can be seen as "nice" and healthy confident nurturing protective men can also be seen as "nice". Nice doesn't mean anything.


I never said that you can't be nice and also masculine. You're missing the point.


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

Mair said:


> I never said that you can't be nice and also masculine. You're missing the point.


You did use it to illustrate the point that "nice guys" are often rejected i.e. being not masculine, and overly caring and sensitive as you stated in your OP.

But to answer your original question girls date them because of the perceived confidence they exude, it effects the female psyche on a very primal level. Because confidence signals they would be good providers and protectors. Just like a beautiful woman would be a sign of fertility to a man, common knowledge. But if we would all make relationship decisions based on our most visceral impressions of a person then we'd be in trouble. Then again, society is already largely fucked and that's obviously a contributing factor.

Which is why I made the (maybe harsh) point that people shouldn't sympathise with these girls for ending up being abused by douchebags, just as much as a guy shouldn't receive sympathy for being cheated on after going with the girl he selected purely and only for her good looks and nothing else.


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Mair said:


> What's wrong with wanting a traditional relationship with a masculine man ? According to my experiences , most women seem to indeed appreciate qualities in men that are considered traditionally masculine.
> 
> Nobody said that all men should be like this if they're not comfortable , but a lot of women simply find that kind of thing attractive.
> 
> We have a lot of people saying that women reject the "nice guys" ? Why do you think that happens ?


There is nothing wrong with wanting someone who displays confidence, assertiveness, and is physically fit. What is happening here is that there is an unnecessary label being attached to these qualities. These qualities can be expressed in different ways, too. 

Here's my take on the "nice guys" thing.. When we're young, men and women tend to confuse the qualities like those listed above with _aggression_. Some never mature past this and continue to associate those together, but particularly youth and young adults (who I work with on a regular basis) will do this. They are in a period of their life where they are learning to establish themselves and in that process many find that aggression is a way to control aspects of their environment, which also serves as a defense mechanism (girls participate in this as well, of course, in ways that are usually considered more socially appropriate for females). "Nice guys" might not partake in this, or they have other outlets, so they are viewed by their peers as less threatening and of course less powerful. All of this fits within the construct of social hierarchy that is based on power and control but is instead viewed as confidence and assertiveness because, well, younger folks have not yet developed to make that distinction. They usually have not had the experiences necessary to do that. The brain is building it's neural connections and they get 'crossed' often. It doesn't help if they have also experienced trauma/abuse from family growing up.


----------



## Vimerge (Mar 24, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> Here's my take on the "nice guys" thing.. When we're young, men and women tend to confuse the qualities like those listed above with _aggression_. Some never mature past this and continue to associate those together, but particularly youth and young adults (who I work with on a regular basis) will do this. They are in a period of their life where they are learning to establish themselves and in that process many find that aggression is a way to control aspects of their environment, which also serves as a defense mechanism (girls participate in this as well, of course, in ways that are usually considered more socially appropriate for females). "Nice guys" might not partake in this, or they have other outlets, so they are viewed by their peers as less threatening and of course less powerful. All of this fits within the construct of social hierarchy that is based on power and control but is instead viewed as confidence and assertiveness because, well, younger folks have not yet developed to make that distinction. They usually have not had the experiences necessary to do that. The brain is building it's neural connections and they get 'crossed' often. It doesn't help if they have also experienced trauma/abuse from family growing up.


Yes, couple this with the ridicule of masculinity in mainstream media, and staggering amounts of emotionally absent/workaholic mothers causing young boys to cultivate approval-seeking and mistake-hiding (in attempt to gain maternal attention which is so important and required for basic survival for children) behaviours well into their adulthood if they're not recognized and addressed, and you end up with the classic modern day nice guy. Who's passive aggressive, not communicative of their own emotions and needs, incapable of being vulnerable, always trying to look imperfect, seeks validation, and acts outwardly nice for the sake of gaining approval instead of acting with kindness from their hearts for its own sake.

#DroppingKnowledge


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> Thank you for this clarification. Something I took from the ESTJ video: ".. they form conclusions based on objective data and then feel obligated to live according to those logical conclusions. They have a solemn responsibility to do so, so long as the conclusions remain sound." That's great, but what if those conclusions have not been fully explored and they still try to engage in them? An INFP does not lack objectivity, and are certainly not afraid of challenging themselves, if they have developed other functions.


You say that an INFP does not lack objectivity (to be honest in my experience they very much do lack objectivity, but that's beside the point) if their other functions are developed. The ESTJ even more so does not lack objectivity. They will very readily change their course (if we use the boat sailing metaphor) if they find a better place to go or if their ship starts sinking. 

TBH it sounds as if you are trying to put down the ESTJ personality type, trying to make the INFP sound better than the ESTJ.


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

Cesspool said:


> TBH it sounds as if you are trying to put down the ESTJ personality type, trying to make the INFP sound better than the ESTJ.


If I was putting someone down, I would have made that apparent. I do not personally attack people, however, I will challenge them. The ESTJ even more so does not lack objectivity.. well if you're going to live by the rules you want to be sure that those rules are based on what is actually true. That takes some investigation, not just proclaiming something to be so based on your preferences alone which is what this topic has done. ESTJ's that have not done their homework and are still learning a great deal on this subject are no more objective than anyone else, but they are still attempting to assert rules. INFP's will not be so eager to do this unless they know what they're talking about. A blind spot for the INFP that has not developed other functions could be a lack of objectivity, yes, but they will keep to themselves.


----------



## selena87 (Aug 15, 2014)

EnigmaticMan said:


> well if you're going to live by the rules you want to be sure that those rules are based on what is actually true. That takes some investigation, not just proclaiming something to be so based on your preferences alone


What you said about ESTJs not having done their homework reminded me of this article, do you find the following description true?



> Introverted Feeling types also may be somewhat disdainful of people who act quickly on the basis of insufficient information, seeing their own careful, reflective, and restrained approach to problem solving as inherently better.They may be quick to point out the errors made or opportunities missed by people who reach conclusions hastily.


http://personalitycafe.com/infp-articles/76770-recognizing-inferior-function-ifps.html


----------



## Nyanpichu (Jun 5, 2014)

Surreal Snake said:


> Why don't you get some dating experience before you start generalizing about dating and gender.


REEEKKKDD c.c


----------



## EnigmaticMan (Apr 20, 2015)

selena87 said:


> What you said about ESTJs not having done their homework reminded me of this article, do you find the following description true?


I would have no problem with those who act quickly if there is sufficient information and that goes for any type - this is ideal. What I do have a problem with is those who are attempting to try to create or maintain rules/traditions without it. The careful, reflective, and restrained approach is not always better because there are situations, such as in a crisis/emergency, where fast action is needed. But this topic does not fall under that category.


----------



## Nyanpichu (Jun 5, 2014)

not all masculine men are douche-bags and not all douche-bags are masculine men masculinity isn't a social construct it's a biological thingy for lack of a better term that we all have ingrained in us it only becomes a social construct when people put unreal expectations on what masculinity which is imo not attractive at all for example the strong silent type who doesn't express their feelings is an unreal expectation that some people put on others "stop crying man up" masculinity at its core has little to do with being a douchebag


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Cesspool said:


> I like being dominant in pretty much every aspect of a relationship, except sex. That's when I want to submit.


This confirms my wider view of what goes on in the generic guy's head...I think most men want this. But I could be wrong...it's a view formed from books, poetry, newspaper articles, observations and conversations.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Dabbling said:


> This confirms my wider view of what goes on in the generic guy's head...I think most men want this. But I could be wrong...it's a view formed from books, poetry, newspaper articles, observations and conversations.


There is this ^_^ http://krieger.jhu.edu/woodrowwilson/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/03/Kylie-Lipa-Final-paper.pdf
Though extremely small sample for generalizations, so as always, more research must be done to be more confident in it as a theme.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Mair said:


> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> 
> Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive.
> 
> ...


This is mostly true. It is sad that they are often attracted to the jerks of society, because they portray those traits more glaringly. But the more mature women know how to spot those traits in the types of men who are not A-holes or abusers.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Mair said:


> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> 
> Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive.
> 
> ...


Dont forget that many women will not even speak on this subject, so the outspoken and generally sexually available type of woman who speaks out skews the viewpoints whihc men hear in these kinds of conversations.

The other women who speak out are those who have bonded and then it has failed. They blame the other side (their ex) more than themselves and this exerts a societal pressure on men.

Men like to hear women on this topic and then discuss it with other men. But they don't hear from women who have navigated these waters successfully, in general, because of what I have explained, only hurt or morally dubious women speak out. 

That is, as always, just my current opinion and always subject to review. It's *not* a personal indictment of anyone on this thread - I haven't even backread the thread yet. It's more a generalisation from what I've read on the manosphere and elsewhere.


----------



## Voids (May 13, 2015)

Dabbling said:


> Dont forget that many women will not even speak on this subject, so the outspoken and generally sexually available type of woman who speaks out skews the viewpoints whihc men hear in these kinds of conversations.
> 
> The other women who speak out are those who have bonded and then it has failed. They blame the other side (their ex) more than themselves and this exerts a societal pressure on men.
> 
> ...


Quality post. +1


----------



## Lithenai (Jan 26, 2014)

It's another matter that the vocal minority are the ones that appear as the majority because they are so absolutely vocal. You most commonly see this in video game forums but it seeps through every aspect of society and always will. The thread began generalized and vague upon subjects based around the vocal minority. I think a little more digging and research should be done before posting anything so absolutely condemning to a certain section of people. Personally I am interested in the same gender so I cannot weigh in too much on this I suppose, but I am typically the more masculine of the two. By masculine I mean the way I dress, the generality of how I behave, and the mannerisms I have adopted that are all stereotypical of men. Examples being: Physical strength, protecting women, chivalrous moments, so on and so forth. But it is simply behavior I've always sort of held growing up and developed into adulthood. Women do in general seem to be attracted to it, so I'm not entirely complaining. But to each their own, considering I adore things that are typically considered feminine.


----------



## ElliCat (May 4, 2014)

Mair said:


> Why do women date douchebags ? It's not because they like bad people that disrespect them , it's because they usually have masculine qualities . They're assertive , confident and dominant.
> 
> Why do women reject the "nice guys" ? It's not because they hate goodness. It's because a lot of those nice guys appear to be overly sensitive , overly caring or even "submissive". Those qualities are generally feminine and most women do not find them sexually attractive.


I'm sure this has already been said but the problem with attributing character traits to one gender is that the other gender is automatically disqualified from possessing those traits. If a real man is assertive, confident, and dominant, does it mean that real women are meek, insecure, and submissive? If only women can be sensitive and caring, does this mean that men should only be insensitive and indifferent? 

What if someone is confident _and_ caring? Are they masculine or feminine? Or do you believe it's impossible for one person to be both?

I don't buy that. Nor do I buy that your typical "douchebag" is confident. They pretend to be, but they're either narcissistic or, in most cases, overcompensating for their own insecurities. Likewise, guys might date women who adhere to extreme "traditional" feminine roles, but do you really think it's submissiveness/lack of confidence that draws them to these women? If anything I hear the men complaining about how their girlfriends or wives take everything personally, are constantly trying to get compliments out of them, are polite in public but treat them horribly at home... 

Now, if you were to argue that an *attractive individual* is confident, knows their own mind, and can communicate their needs and desires, then I would agree with you 100%. These are the sort of people I'm attracted to, and they are qualities that past and present partners have expected from me. Whether that confident individual is stoic or sensitive (or both!) depends on their personality. 

(... and now I'm going to go read the rest of the topic.)


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Dabbling said:


> This confirms my wider view of what goes on in the generic guy's head...I think most men want this. But I could be wrong...it's a view formed from books, poetry, newspaper articles, observations and conversations.


I agree with you, although I don't think "generic" is quite the right word. "Average" seems more accurate, it doesn't carry the same negative connotations. Am I being pedantic? 

I don't really understand your second part; "it's a view formed from books, poetry, newspaper articles, observations and conversations". Are you saying that your view is formed by these things, or that the fact that most men desire the type of relationship I described is formed by these things? If it's the latter, I disagree; I think most men naturally desire this type of relationship, and that's the reason we express it in those art forms.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Cesspool said:


> I agree with you, although I don't think "generic" is quite the right word. "Average" seems more accurate, it doesn't carry the same negative connotations. Am I being pedantic?
> 
> I don't really understand your second part; "it's a view formed from books, poetry, newspaper articles, observations and conversations". Are you saying that your view is formed by these things, or that the fact that most men desire the type of relationship I described is formed by these things? If it's the latter, I disagree; I think most men naturally desire this type of relationship, and that's the reason we express it in those art forms.


Hmmm. I can accept 'average' instead of 'generic', if you want to be pedantic. 'Average' always strikes me as a vague insult, but if you prefer it, that's fine. 

I was aiming to suggest a view I had formed from my observations of the world in the widest sense, not your latter suggestion. What I intended to *exclude* was any implication that this view was a specific description of my husband, or indeed of my own self; it was in that context that I used 'generic' - as a contrast to 'specific'.

and @Wellsy, I wasn't at all implying BDSM! :shocked:

I was observing that men tend, Romeo-like, to *abandon* or 'submit' themselves to 'love' when it comes their way, in contrast to the way they approach all other activities.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Voids said:


> Quality post. +1


Aw, thanks. :blushed:


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Dabbling said:


> Hmmm. I can accept 'average' instead of 'generic', if you want to be pedantic. 'Average' always strikes me as a vague insult, but if you prefer it, that's fine.
> 
> I was aiming to suggest a view I had formed from my observations of the world in the widest sense, not your latter suggestion. What I intended to *exclude* was any implication that this view was a specific description of my husband, or indeed of my own self; it was in that context that I used 'generic' - as a contrast to 'specific'.


That makes sense. 

To me, "average" always means "within the first standard deviation". Generic is a term used to describe boring music and uninspiring art :tongue: lol


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

I don't think feminism is trying to kill what you call masculinity. It's just trying to name it something else, so that you don't end up mixing up traits that are now called "masculine" with douchebaggery together.

I believe there are men with attractive masculine traits who are not douchebags. Women shouldn't feel like douchebags are the only "masculine" men out there. Neither should men feel that the only feminine women out there for them are dumb bimbos.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

"women should admit they're attracted to confidence and assertiveness.."?

As far as I'm aware, these are some of the first things that most women would admit they are looking for. I don't get it, are there women running around somewhere claiming to be looking for a caring submissive guy?

Women claim to look for a sensitive guy, this is true- but in fact they don't lie. Most high-quality women in my experience (i.e. those who are attractive, wholesome and don't have self-respect issues) are always most attracted to sensitive yet confident guys. It's just that these are rare. At the end of the day, the confident part is more important than the sensitive part, but you can hardly blame any woman for that.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Tridentus said:


> "women should admit they're attracted to confidence and assertiveness.."?
> 
> As far as I'm aware, these are some of the first things that most women would admit they are looking for. I don't get it, are there women running around somewhere claiming to be looking for a caring submissive guy?
> 
> Women claim to look for a sensitive guy, this is true- but in fact they don't lie. Most high-quality women in my experience (i.e. those who are attractive, wholesome and don't have self-respect issues) are always most attracted to sensitive yet confident guys. It's just that these are rare. At the end of the day, the confident part is more important than the sensitive part, but you can hardly blame any woman for that.


Well, most guys have most traits within them anyway. It's the skill with which the woman brings it out of them...

1/ Most men are sensitive to criticism or to being called 'cute' for instance...
2/ Most men are confident of their own abilities until 1/ occurs.

if you want your guy to get more sensitive in an unpleasant way, apply criticism or nagging.
if you want him to get more sensitive in a pleasant way, apply 'cute' and other blandishments.
If you want him to get more confident, apply praise to the parts you want to grow.

This is *slightly* tongue-in-cheek, but there *is* an interplay here. Schroedinger's cat. The presence of the watcher affects the outcome seen. :dry:


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Cesspool said:


> That makes sense.
> 
> To me, "average" always means "within the first standard deviation". Generic is a term used to describe boring music and uninspiring art :tongue: lol


We now understand each other on this point. :happy:


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

AesSidhe said:


> Over generalized and untrue, I don't want a man that yells at me, pushes me around, thinks he can use me, that I'm his property, who wants me to stay in the kitchen, who sees me as his play thing, etc etc


Why are you attributing these things with masculinity? Unless I misunderstood your point.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Deleted snark.
@Sporadic Aura

Why wouldn't those things be attributed to masculinity? I suppose it depends on how masculinity is defined by the speaker, but being physically abused is, throughout human history and still at the present time, something that men do more to women than women to men.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm fine with lack of outward confidence and assertiveness in anyone, as long as they're at least trying to maintain some internally consistent framework, and as long as it doesn't quite cross over into downright personal cowardice. There's being socially unassertive, and then there's allowing yourself to be flung about because you never took a stand for anything in your life. But I apply that personal standard equally towards most people (wouldn't say 'all').


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why are you attributing these things with masculinity? Unless I misunderstood your point.


Not including slavery, women weren't technically owned but their rights were forgone in many respects as to be basically subject to the whims of their husbands for they couldn't own any property and all decisions were decided by fathers and husbands.
Married Women's Property Act 1870 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Women's property rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Women have more presently rights of course, but the underlying mentality plausibly still persists for some. This also relates to the importance of women's financial independence. If women aren't financially independent then they're reliant on someone else to support them which grants leverage over the poorer of the two into dictating how things are done even against one's own wishes. 
Then you have things like marital rape in which it was impossible in the eyes of law for a husband to rape his wife, this is only a relatively recent law, in a sense this is an exemplar of being a husbands property as they're by law in a permanent state of consent to their husbands.

Domestic labor/house hold work as defined by gender roles dictates women do most if not all the work, hence "stay in the kitchen".
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media...ember_17_ AMP_NATSEM_30_Race_against_time.pdf
Forty years of feminism â€“ but women still do most of the housework | Society | The Guardian
To which we have all the classic jokes of "Make me a sandwich" sometimes with humor about domestic violence.

* *















Then for mention of plaything one need only have a basic knowledge of a history in which women's value is reduced only to their sexual utility and physical appeal.

* *














For more indepth examination of how womens bodies have become objects of status, I think John Berger is still relevant.





For insight into the mindset of some people towards women's in a sexual realm, http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/

This of course may be different to what the other poster meant, but I don't think it so distant a theme that similar conclusions wouldn't have been cited by them on associations to gender norms. One might have different ideas of what masculinity is, but this likely would be reflective of the individual rather than prevalent ideals and themes of gender in society.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Metasentient said:


> Deleted snark.
> @Sporadic Aura
> 
> Why wouldn't those things be attributed to masculinity? I suppose it depends on how masculinity is defined by the speaker, but being physically abused is, throughout human history and still at the present time, something that men do more to women than women to men.


Masculine implies traits that are strongly associated with men. It doesn't mean literally "anything that men do more on average than women". If you're implying being abusive is a masculine trait then you're essentially saying being abusive is strongly associated with the idea of maleness. 

Btw, I saw your snarkyness before you deleted it! I've been defensive recently, but not completely without reason I think.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

@Wellsy 

Sorry man, but sometimes you can be too much. I'm not always interested in reading 5+ different links and watching a 30 minute youtube video. I'll probably end up reading the links and watching the video anyways at some point, but unless I really actively engage someone in a debate I might not always be interested in immediately digesting a long post with multiple links to look at.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Sporadic Aura said:


> @_Wellsy_
> 
> Sorry man, but sometimes you can be too much. I'm not always interested in reading 5+ different links and watching a 30 minute youtube video. I'll probably end up reading the links and watching the video anyways at some point, but unless I really actively engage someone in a debate I might not always be interested in immediately digesting a long post with multiple links to look at.


naturally you don't have to go through it all, but it is there if one is interested. 
I don't post them with the expectation that people are motivated to study them intently.
This is why I sometimes go to the effort ot unpack these things for specifics but there's not really specifics here as much as a general history. There could be more significant ways of explaining these themes but I got lazy in searching.

Such resources can also be an avenue for onlookers as well.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Wellsy said:


> naturally you don't have to go through it all, but it is there if one is interested.
> I don't post them with the expectation that people are motivated to study them intently.
> This is why I sometimes go to the effort ot unpack these things for specifics but there's not really specifics here as much as a general history. There could be more significant ways of explaining these themes but I got lazy in searching.
> 
> Such resources can also be an avenue for onlookers as well.


Fair enough.

I did end up reading the post. My main problem with it is that it would seem more appropriate in a discussion about the effect of gender roles or something like that. It seems completely removed from how the vast majority of people would view masculinity or femininity. Especially in the context of traits someone would be attracted to or not. If a masculine trait is "viewing women as toythings" is a feminine trait "being viewed as a toything"? 

And if masculinity is supposed to represent the essence of maleness, I'd be afraid that if you associate negative gender roles in the past with masculinity you'd be creating the image that maleness is inherently abusive. When in reality it was mostly society as a whole that led to the abuse and not individual men or what men are inherently like.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why are you attributing these things with masculinity? Unless I misunderstood your point.


There's a second post after that one, which'll help you understand the point (it's about generalizing stuff and portraying it as factual truth)


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

An assertive and dominant woman might prefer a more sensitive man because they would clash if both of them were dominant.

Also, being assertive and being sensitive are not mutually exclusive. 

However, most self-proclaimed "Nice Guys" are not actually nice people. They are just the whiny version of PUAs. 

I do agree, however, that "masculinity" gets devalued in many spheres of life nowadays ... dating not being one of them.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Mair said:


> I'm sorry but there have been scientific studies that show that men and women do have differences and that gender is not socially constructed . Sure, there are many people who are _outliers_ but here we're talking about the overwhelming majority of men and women. *Most women appear to be attracted to men who are masculine. Most men appear to be attracted to women who are feminine.*


This is probably true. But those types of women and men already admit openly that they are attracted to "masculinity"/ "femininity".
The _outliers_ don't need to admit any such thing, because they are not attracted to it.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Mair said:


> Man things are as they are. Gender is not a social construct , men and women have brains that are wired differently . Transgender people exist but they're outliers.
> 
> Several studies have shown that men and women on average have different preferences when it comes to choosing a partner ,with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive. Hypergamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Women also show preference for masculine men with high-quality genes especially during ovulation https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men


My brain is about equal, leaning towards 'male' and I'm not transsexual. My male INTJ friend is more male (Te) than me when _I've_ got a problem, and I'm more male (Te) than him when _he's_ got a problem. He's not transsexual either.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> An assertive and dominant woman might prefer a more sensitive man because they would clash if both of them were dominant.
> 
> Also, being assertive and being sensitive are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...


I agree and thought I might add something here in case it makes more sense in light of what you just said.

There are ways to be sensitive and assertive at the same time for sure. Also, like it or not the man is a man and has to deal with other men. In this milieu he has to rely on the inner strength he has, his maturity, and the power of his relationship with his woman, to back him up. If he has a dominant woman that is great and if he is confident in his relationship even better. That means that even though his woman is dominant with him, he can be assertive about the quality of his maleness in the context of his relationship. This is TOTALLY undermined in the case of a male whose woman sleeps around if ANY of his friends know it. I suppose its the same in some senses with women in that situation. It's really awkward being in a situation where a non dominant male extols his woman and you know from first hand testimony that she is sleeping around on him.

So, as in many situations in life, the more vulnerable party in a relationship has a strong portion of their confidence and happiness dependent on the less vulnerable party. It may not be ideal and is lessened by maturity in both parties but that is the reality of most relationships.

I do feel like today's culture wrongly assaults masculinity, rather than men who behave badly. Mature masculinity is needed and wonderful. Feminism is in error when it attacks masculinity in general. This can be focused down to the relationship level. If, as a woman, you are constantly attacking masculinity or making feminazi statements at parties and such in front of mutual friends, your male partner is being emasculated and betrayed by you. Imagine the amazing stupidity of such an approach. A woman who denigrates the man she chooses to be in a relationship with. There is some serious self hate there. And it's being broadcast. Dumbfounding really. If you do not like the man you have and you don't need a man, but you want to find the problem, go look in the mirror. 

On the idea of the nice guys being whiney PUAs I agree somewhat. The issue is t he same in reverse. A man can get with a submissive women or a woman with a submissive man. It take years of healing maturity from the dominant partner to heal or allow for a chance for the submissive partner to heal their ingrained and systemically kept lack of confidence. When you start a relationship with a needy or submissive person you should have the understanding that this is the case. I am not saying you have to take it forever and that you are not allowed, in the light of your proper behavior and wise council, to hope that the vulnerable party will grow. But if they do not grow (usual case) be ready to leave the relationship or endure more of the same. It's your call to say WHEN (you've had enough).


----------

