# I thought it was obvious that women like jerks, apparently there's still a debate



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> That's what I consider a healthy comment, you don't take offense, you don't include yourself on any group with negative stuff (context) and it's not denial, you just don't start a war or join one. You simply don't like jerks. Period. Nice


I find it interesting that you picked one of the most non-descript (no offense @Red Panda) comments here and labeled it as "healthy".

This is the kind of crap that very much bothers me. I see men on this forum go into specific detail about what they like, what they don't, and why all the time without sweeping generalizations. 

"Jerk" is *extremely* subjective, and high self esteem is often being open and honest about the exploration of *what* within this (as it's typically classified) is attractive, isn't, why, etc. It shows that a woman knows what she wants outside of just feeling validated that she's a worthy person deserving of being treated or screwed "well" (again, subjective).


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Veggie said:


> I find it interesting that you picked one of the most non-descript (no offense Red Panda) comments here and labeled it as "healthy".
> 
> This is the kind of crap that very much bothers me. I see men on this forum go into specific detail about what they like, what they don't, and why all the time without sweeping generalizations.
> 
> "Jerk" is *extremely* subjective, and high self esteem is often being open and honest about the exploration of *what* within this (as it's typically classified) is attractive, why, etc. It shows that a woman knows what she wants outside of just feeling validated that she's a worthy person deserving of being treated or screwed "well" (again, subjective).


It was his way of showing that he disapproves of women having a strong opinion on the topic. In another thread recently he took a stance where he was presumptuous enough to believe he can tell his female friends how to "fix" themselves so that they can get a man. He clearly has some idea of how women "should" be, in order to cater to men, and outspokenness is not among the acceptable traits. Though he will claim that I am "just making assumptions."


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Promethea said:


> No, actually here they post a million hateful reactions claiming that feminism is cockblocking them. The internet is flooded with _certain kinds_ of men reacting to women, actually. Its why the whole friendzone/betamale issue has become such a dead horse.


from where I'm standing, the amount is different
and I do as Red Panda: if there is a thread about men being idiots, I read, but I don't raise my hand taking offense, instead if I think I'm part of what the poster describes, I ask to try to understand the posture first.



Promethea said:


> *But didn't you suggest that women who say they don't like jerks are lying to themselves?*


Serously? that's a huge distortion of what I said. I said an affirmation, women lie to themselves, but you omitted the rest and it affects the context:

Me: "*women lie to themselves and many times they don't know it, we men do the same, some people do it more often*".​ 
Denial and such defense mechanisms make us all lie to ourselves in diff scales, and some people do it more often than others. I've been tempted to open a thread about it but I still don't find the best words for it. We are convinced of the best version of ourselves, I opened a few threads inviting people to consider/ask if they are part of the problems because many times we are, it takes two to tango. What I mean is that: we are not often aware of the things we do, and we might deny some stuff too but it's not evil, it's denial in diff scales.




Red Panda said:


> Yeah. And most of the times the women/girls that date jerks and let themselves be treated like that usually have serious self esteem issues (at least in my experience), hence why I mentioned self esteem in my first comment. I think wanting respect from the person you're dating is the bare minimum and I wouldn't have it any other way.


Yes, and self respect is also needed.



Cheveyo said:


> You'll end up running into a problem: Jerks don't wear a sign that lets you know they're jerks.
> 
> It goes for both men and women. *They generally wont show their true selves for a while.* In some cases, it'll be so slow that it will be years before you realize it. For the truly manipulative jerks, it'll take even longer and they'll make you think it was your fault.


True, it gets dirty and tricky, lots of books describe the most dangerous cases were the person was in fact "charming".



Falling Leaves said:


> Serious comment on the whole jerk thing - firstly, *that's a highly subjective term.*


VERY TRUE.

*Besides there is more to the topic than the term jerk*. I invite you to consider the following:
There are many scenarios where the woman/man jerk, was in fact a jerk. And past relationships show a trace of bad stuff, their ex can complain, yes. *BUT there are cases where those jerks married someone and this person has no complains*. This is to me, a fascinating topic of discussion, some people say "he/she was very aggressive to me" and the new person now married says "he/she has been nothing but love to me", I believe some people (we all) push some buttons more than other people.

******I will post something about this later...*******




Veggie said:


> I find it interesting that you picked one of the most non-descript (no offense @_Red Panda_) comments here and labeled it as "healthy".
> 
> This is the kind of crap that very much bothers me. I see men on this forum go into specific detail about what they like, what they don't, and why all the time without sweeping generalizations.
> 
> "Jerk" is *extremely* subjective, and high self esteem is often being open and honest about the exploration of *what* within this (as it's typically classified) is attractive, isn't, why, etc. It shows that a woman knows what she wants outside of just feeling validated that she's a worthy person deserving of being treated or screwed "well" (again, subjective).


Yes, as posted above jerk is very subjective.

Red Panda (to my consideration) choose a healthy angle, she is not taking offense, that's what I mean. The internet is filled with topics of discussion that cause some people to take offense while this is not productive, an attack is an attack but reading something you don't feel as part of you and not reacting negatively... it's good I think (also, there is denial too).


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Promethea said:


> It was his way of showing that he disapproves of women having a strong opinion on the topic. In another thread recently he took a stance where he was presumptuous enough to believe he can tell his female friends how to "fix" themselves so that they can get a man. He clearly has some idea of how women "should" be, in order to cater to men, and outspokenness is not among the acceptable traits. Though he will claim that I am "just making assumptions."


That's not true. But anything I say will not help right?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Being subservient to someone isn't attractive as a mate or a friend. I know people like to view themselves as "nice guys" but it's usually a matter of dependency where a guy holds himself back and tries in all of his power to please a girl but to never become attractive himself. It's one sided and it's uncalled for. If a girl doesn't like a guy (as in attracted to or loves) there's no reason for him to try making her the center of his universe, it's really just unbalanced and bound to fail. Also "jerks" aren't always jerks. I know guys who have girlfriends. They may tease their friends, have good bodies and play sports but that doesn't mean they are bad people. The girl likes a guy and the guy likes her back and they are both treating each other well then the guy is no jerk and the girl is no bitch. I know guys who look like jerks but really have a lot of good qualities as friends and I know guys who look nice but are really jerks. It's a matter of prejudice. The guy may even be a jerk to some people but if he's nice to the girl then the girl will think he's nice. By no means do I mean to imply "nice guys" are really jerks, they have good intentions at to themselves but they aren't making themselves attractive.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

changos said:


> That's not true. But anything I say will not help right?


Lol, you really do speak a lot on the topic and that is honestly my overall impression. Granted, your posts aren't as derogatory as a lot of other guys who say these same general things, but I do have to wonder why its such a fixation?


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Falling Leaves said:


> I don't know about you, but when a man calls me 'woman' and demands I make him a turkey sandwich, it gets me SO HOT. Oh god, if I found out he was cheating on me, I would just lose it. I also haven't told anyone about this before, but I have this bedroom fetish - he wears a tank top, gels back his hair and starts saying things like 'swag' or _even makes nasty comments about my appearance_. It drives me wild with desire.


Yuck.

It saddens me how this attitude by men gets rewarded.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Lol, you really do speak a lot on the topic and that is honestly my overall impression. Granted, your posts aren't as derogatory as a lot of other guys who say these same general things, but I do have to wonder why its such a fixation?




Consider, perhaps you have the wrong impression about the way I think?
(I'm being logical, no it doesn't worry me if you have/keep that concept of me, I won't try to convince you other wise)
you seem trying to protect an angle I'm not... even attacking or discussing: too defensive.
Said a lot of neutral and good things and you seem to try to construct a negative posture and you would like others to see me as a opposing force to "women ideology"
and it makes me wonder, why nobody quoted and questioned any of the things you question about what I say here or on the other threads were you quote me building a negative approach
I'm not attacking or offending nobody, but you would like others to believe I do
 
does my post style match something that pushes you to believe I'm attacking you? interested on arguing? stepping on other people ideas? if that would be the case there will be more people quoting and complaining about the same lines, my guess is, it's a negative interpretation from your side, but we would need a third opinion right?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Ori_ said:


> ALL WOMEN LOVE JERKS, before you realize it, and before you can move on. And I'm not saying that because of some personal drama.
> let's put it this way
> There is what women SAY they want, there is what women THINK they want, and then there is what women EMOTIONALLY RESPOND TO, that is.. JERKS
> 
> ...


So, you are essentially saying that you don't trust women to be honest about our desires, or to even know what turns us on. You say that those of us who are in happy relationships with kind, thoughtful men are secretly unsatisfied because you assume such men lack passion. Then you explain that we are biologically programmed to want our children raised by selfish, aggressive men, even though domestic violence and child abuse are bigger concerns than scarcity or external threats. You also assume that women are all sexually submissive, and that jerks are good at sexually satisfying their submissive partners.

Here is the truth:
The women who like dominant men tend to be honest about it, and they tend to be self-aware. The women who don't like dominant men tend to be just as honest about it, and are also self-aware. The women who don't like jerks but end up with them anyhow are sometimes deceived by jerks or falsely imagine that a jerk is really a nice guy underneath his socially useful aggressive facade. Perhaps, she may reason, he has merely been conditioned to behave like a jerk in public in order to avoid ridicule. Perhaps society has harmed him so badly that he conforms, but he's really a softy underneath. The "nice guys" such women get criticized for rejecting are often dishonest and manipulative fakes who are trying to trade favors for control, so when the choice is between jerks and phony "nice guys," the choice is really between overtly aggressive (but possibly actually nice) and covertly passive-aggressive (probably not nice) men. 

Those of us who are in happy relationships with kind, thoughtful men are not deceiving ourselves or lying about our feelings. A good man is a considerate lover who takes his partner's pleasure into account. This means that if his partner is sexually submissive, he will dominate her in bed and make her feel desirable. The big difference is that his passion is fueled by love rather than objectification, so his partner's enthusiastic consent matters to him. 

Meanwhile, the jerk is more likely to be selfish in bed, to focus on his own feelings even to the point of disregarding the partner's desires. He will do what he wants to make himself feel pleasure, and the partner is mostly a tool for him to use in that process. Consent is a mere legal technicality and he may pressure women into sex acts that make them uncomfortable. 

Your assumption that women want to raise children with dangerous, inconsiderate men is based on false beliefs about primitive social structures. Humans have long been cooperative by nature, because altruism confers the greatest evolutionary advantage.

Humans naturally cooperative, altruistic, social


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Whenever I act like a jerk to my gf she gets pretty agitated at me and stops talking to me. But I do it for the quiet time.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

changos said:


> Consider, perhaps you have the wrong impression about the way I think?
> (I'm being logical, no it doesn't worry me if you have/keep that concept of me, I won't try to convince you other wise)
> you seem trying to protect an angle I'm not... even attacking or discussing: too defensive.
> Said a lot of neutral and good things and you seem to try to construct a negative posture and you would like others to see me as a opposing force to "women ideology"
> ...


Your posts on the topic of gender are always from your own subjective and emotional experience, and feelings about gender dynamics. Its never hard logic, and one's own perception of what counts as their "internal logic" can be very illogical. 

As for the rest of what you have said here, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting that third point correctly because of the ambiguity in the wording. 

No, I have absolutely not felt like you're "attacking me" at any time, but I do think that you have some very insulated ideas that don't match reality. _That_ is what gets my attention. 

I suspect that those ideas are probably not getting you the results that you want, but like I said, you have insulated them. 

And as far as my demeanor coming across as more aggressive than you want to deal with, well that is a contrast in our temperaments. It probably doesn't matter what I say to you, its how I say things that are grating because of my intensity in communication style.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Your posts on the topic of gender are always from your own subjective and emotional experience, and feelings about gender dynamics. Its never hard logic, and one's own perception of what counts as their "internal logic" can be very illogical.
> 
> As for the rest of what you have said here, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting that third point correctly because of the ambiguity in the wording.
> 
> ...


I disagree.

I have posted in the past "why?": because I'm a guy, and this explains not only a diff angle, I'm the one who receives the positive/negative traits, it's a matter of angle, that's why it can't be 100% hard logic, even so, you can check my post history the so many times I engage on "both men and women do it", because we are not so different, check this thread as an example (*the text you didn't quote* but you reworded to match your ideas omitting other words I posted, or because that's what you remember and i didn't say, such as the other example where I quoted you, other thread) at the end, you don't refer to the quotes, but rewrite and add words to alter meaning. I believe the quote tool makes it more interesting because avoid people to build cases.

_Attacking?_ "_more aggressive?_" it's not what I see. You don't usually thank or post unless it reinforces the group of ideas that are evident you want to promote, in that way we are different, I read and ask and sometimes I say "I disagree but it's fine, I just don't see it that way", instead, you try to make other people believe your interpretation on things. This is not good, and in those situations with me, nobody followed you, it says it was only your interpretation.

The forum has lots of space to discuss many things, we join and leave many of them, but sometimes it seems you want to protect the castle... while other women are not even complaining and don't find gender issues on what other people said.

This will end nowhere, you have your opinion/style, I got mine, they have theirs, but it's not good to try to bias the discussions. You talk about hard logic as if it was important to adhere to what's been said, but you don't quote, you reword posts and the result doesn't match what people said, example here and the other thread where aggression towards women was never mentioned but you built a whole post about it. And I don't question what you say and I don't assume or discuss, very diff styles, I don't see the point on discussing things I don't mean and didn't say, but yes there is a strong pattern on your post trying to protect women/female-gender *even*... when no other women in the same thread is complaining or taking offense about... nothing. This shows not only an opinion, but a biased view, distortion and also a mission. And from where I'm standing, it's not good, it favors the mind to change words meaning and to see what it's not there.

And as I said before, english is not my first language, I also remind people of that in sensitive topics, and I include "I hope to have explained myself the right way" instead of choosing a style of being so sure of things. At the ends, it's just opinions, facts are a diff matter but that's not on discussion (*except* the fact you try to support your ideas rewriting what other people posted, instead of quoting) its... a very diff thing, and no, this will go nowhere.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> Yes, as posted above jerk is very subjective.
> 
> Red Panda (to my consideration) choose a healthy angle, she is not taking offense, that's what I mean. The internet is filled with topics of discussion that cause some people to take offense while this is not productive, an attack is an attack but reading something you don't feel as part of you and not reacting negatively... it's good I think (also, there is denial too).


Mmm, did not see it that way. I saw "Jerk?! I would never! Also...neither would anyone 'healthy'!" 

Then I saw a lot of posts exploring what "jerk" even meant, specifically in regards to how the OP described it.

If you want to explore this *totally* intellectually, I'll break out the psych books (written by....people! With their own slants and biases at the end of the day). 

I will say though that, yes, there are those who probably have some emotional investment within the topic. I will also say - they are probably the ones with the more worthwhile opinions (think - field study) 

So...I was with a stereotypical "jerk" for almost a decade, if you're interested in a story (which is really ultimately all that we are as far as we know). He did fuck me up a bit. There was some emotional abuse. You know what though? I think a lot of my issues came from *everyone else's opinion* It drove me completely bat shit. I'd have girlfriends act like I deserved better (and later found out that they had hit on him...which I believe bc I'd see them do it to other girl's bf's too), I'd have guy friends act the same (and later admit, uh, yeaaaaa, just really wanted to fuck you), I'd hear it from people who put up with worse. 

Pluses? He wined and dined the poop out of me. Bought me an absolutely gorgeous engagement ring. Was very intimate. Sold his guitar to take me on our first official date.

Minuses? He came from a ballbuster mom and a ton of (also alpha) brothers. Outside of sexy time I might as well have been a fellow frat bro or his little sister. Bad communication. He didn't fulfill familial duties. It's possible I eventually took therapy too seriously, but he didn't take it seriously *at all* He wasn't the father of my future kids.

I'd like to think that's more helpful than "Jerk? Nope!" Your call though.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Veggie said:


> Mmm, did not see it that way. I saw "Jerk?! I would never! Also...neither would anyone 'healthy'!"
> 
> Then I saw a lot of posts exploring what "jerk" even meant, specifically in regards to how the OP described it.


Yes I agree "jerk" is a subjective term, not only varies onscale, intensity, etc, it might also be _something_, _some people_, don't like but others do enjoy. But I guess we all could agree on "jerk" implying mostly an intention, deceiving, lies, mistreating someone, etc. In short someone who won't treat you nicely.




Veggie said:


> I will say though that, yes, there are those who probably have some emotional investment within the topic. I will also say - they are probably the ones with the more worthwhile opinions  (think - field study)


*I mentioned above this topic is difficult to discuss because pushes diff buttons on women and men*. I believe some stories would be better discussed omitting the gender of the nice person and the jerk-person, what I mean is I bet diff people will react differently. I had a relationships with a woman who would fit the "jerk" concept, she wasn't like that (but she comes from a troubled family) I've been wanting to post a thread about this, well, it was interesting when I told people about the way she was behaving... a lot of female friends instantly assumed "_I did something wrong to her first_" and all my anecdotes about her troubled family were ignored, a lot of male friends told me to ignore such behavior, only few told me "_that's not healthy_" and a few friends (psychologists) told me "_you have to get out of there because mostly, people won't believe you_" this includes a dear female psychologists. What I try to say with this is, it is difficult to discuss the topic because some people do have double standards regarding what is being a jerk, or more precisely: what's the limit. Sorry that was too long.




Veggie said:


> So...I was with a stereotypical "jerk" for almost a decade, if you're interested in a story (which is really ultimately all that we are as far as we know). He did fuck me up a bit. There was some emotional abuse. You know what though? I think a lot of my issues came from *everyone else's opinion* It drove me completely bat shit. I'd have girlfriends act like I deserved better (and later found out that they had hit on him...which I believe bc I'd see them do it to other girl's bf's too), I'd have guy friends act the same (and later admit, uh, yeaaaaa, just really wanted to fuck you), I'd hear it from people who put up with worse.


I understand, and yes your story is interesting, sorry to read about it, I mean sorry you have to live that. "*He did fuck me up a bit*" Yes, I understand because... I wasn't the same in the past before having this relationship with that woman, so we all stay over-defensive or unable to believe somethings later. That woman cheated on me and then attacked me saying I never loved her because I was refusing to forgive her and tried to spread the word on me being a jerk and evil. Guess what, her troubled family said "_we know you, you are fucked up_" ha ha, that was a pleasant surprise, I mean in terms of credibility.

There is something I would like to add to the general discussion in the context we are in now... and it's:



Dating a jerk it's damaging in many ways
We didn't see so many jerks in the field before those experiences
it's good, it helps you to stay aware of the red flags
it's negative, when we fall in seeing jerk stuff where is not

dating jerks (if you don't get out of there quick) can make you difficult to love (I know that for sure)
dating jerks (negative experiences I mean) might leave you too focused on jerk-alerts-ohhh-everything-sucks than just seeing the nice things around. This means we walk in the country (fields) enjoying the view, not just talking about the crap/feces all the animals left behind.

And the worst thing... dating a jerk can make us victims, but also jerks. I opened a thread about DETOX but I believe I didn't explain things the right way, sometimes people are a bit of-jerks as a consequence of dating jerks. The thing is as I posted on other threads we can also be part of the problem due to being hurt, defensive, etc. Not saying you are, I know I was.



Veggie said:


> Pluses? He wined and dined the poop out of me. Bought me an absolutely gorgeous engagement ring. Was very intimate. Sold his guitar to take me on our first official date.
> 
> Minuses? He came from a ballbuster mom and a ton of (also alpha) brothers. Outside of sexy time I might as well have been a fellow frat bro or his little sister. Bad communication. He didn't fulfill familial duties. It's possible I eventually took therapy too seriously, but he didn't take it seriously *at all* He wasn't the father of my future kids.


That's the problem, the ups and downs, lots of abusers match that picture of doing very nice things but also hurting a lot.

*Ironically, experience helps*.
After dating a jerk we become more aware
But young people who never dated a jerk are often more positive and while they can talk and post opinions, won't be talking about jerks for 4 hours or trying to put up a team of jerk-haters. That's why it's important to get out of there quickly.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

changos said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I have posted in the past "why?": because I'm a guy, and this explains not only a diff angle, I'm the one who receives the positive/negative traits, it's a matter of angle, that's why it can't be 100% hard logic, even so, you can check my post history the so many times I engage on "both men and women do it", because we are not so different, check this thread as an example (*the text you didn't quote* but you reworded to match your ideas omitting other words I posted, or because that's what you remember and i didn't say, such as the other example where I quoted you, other thread) at the end, you don't refer to the quotes, but rewrite and add words to alter meaning. I believe the quote tool makes it more interesting because avoid people to build cases.
> 
> ...


You claim its because you are a guy, yet most of the "guys" on this forum can bring themselves to talk about something other than gender issues. I asked why you are so fixated on it. If you don't want to answer, I'm certainly not going to force you to -- but no, "I'm a guy" is in no way an answer to that question. 

The bit about me being the only female on the entire forum to respond to misogynistic threads is a lie.

The part about me having attacked you is a lie, and ironic, considering you just spent an hour writing an entire essay to attempt to get this personal with me, when _my_ previous post to you was extremely _neutral_.

Yes, I thank posts that I agree with - and sure, I think that I'm often right, or I wouldn't bother saying anything. I am not a weak-minded flimsy person who changes my opinion every time I hear a different perspective. I do not consider that a fault. I don't care if you do.

Then you just play the "I know you are but what am I game." Not interested in that pettiness. 

I also find it ironic that you say its such an awful thing that I try to change people's views, when you were talking about trying to change actual people; your female friends, to make them "acceptable" females.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Ok, last post directed to you



Promethea said:


> *You claim its because you are a guy, yet most of the "guys" on this forum can bring themselves to talk about something other than gender issues. I asked why you are so fixated on it. If you don't want to answer, I'm certainly not going to force you to -- but no, "I'm a guy" is in no way an answer to that question.
> *I ask about the things I want to understand, and I have curiosity in several matters, as a guy, I'm old enough to have opinions, but there are as many opinions as people, so I like to know more opinions. I didn't see a direct question, that's why I didn't answer.
> 
> * The bit about me being the only female on the entire forum to respond to misogynistic threads is a lie.*
> ...


You are very fixated on the gender things with a negative approach, me? it will be your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I will not answer anymore because this will end nowhere, and it all started with you pointing fingers directly at me, I didn't see anyone following or sharing your view. Well, have a nice day.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

changos said:


> Ok, last post directed to you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand by what I said before, though you ignored it: some viewpoints are very insulated (out of touch with reality), and when those insulated views run deep and complex _it catches my attention_. 

Sure, I am also outspoken on the issue of gender, and I don't mind sharing my personal reason why:
I grew up in the south, where misogyny was often the norm (despised it), then I was a sociology major with a focus on media and gender. So, I am quite equipped to point out how ignorant it is to think of women as second-class citizens.

I don't typically see the point in ripping a person's post apart to respond line by line. In come cases, there are parts that are too ridiculous to respond to, so for their sake I will ignore it and try to make sense of it despite that. Responding to every instance of inaccuracy and absurdity would often take more time/energy than I have, and its a waste. Besides, the piece by piece responses take away from the general point of the post. 

You are correct about one thing though, I will grant you that - the "waste of time" part. I'm done, too. 

Peace.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

First off, what I think a "jerk" is may be quite different from what others perceive one as. 

And I noticed the bit where you talk about trading off passion for a nice guy in a convenient relationship. That's assuming that everyone wants "passion" and romance, and all that stuff. 

Then there was my ex husband and the guy I dated right afterwards who seemed like "nice guys" by the conventional sense (I guess). My ex husband was extremely abusive. Then the guy afterward would demonize me because he couldn't get his way, or I didn't see things his way. With both these guys, I couldn't have a reasonable argument with them for anything. It got really frustrating.

I couldn't help but see these holes in your argument that women like jerks. Without a firm foundation for this assertion, the whole thing crumbles...


----------



## Ori_ (Dec 23, 2013)

Just came back from work, I'm quite satisfied with the answers, even if it looks like just 3-4 users directly faced the topic of discussion and discussed my points with neutrality, the others just judged my arrogance and the perceived me, involving morals and their own emotions, anyway, the debates were quite interesting, and, by posting such a topic I couldn't have expected things to go much differently.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

changos said:


> That's why it's important to get out of there quickly.


I guess. I'm feeling a bit butt hurt lately because people are ultimately just people, this magical Prince Charming I was supposed to hold out for doesn't seem to exist and/or be interested, and I don't want to settle down with someone I'm not attracted to or intrigued by just to prove that I respect myself or something. Lame. Thankfully, it's 2014, and I have the option to just be single. If I *had* to choose between the aforementioned or another emotionally abusive relationship again though? I might still choose the latter. There, I said it. I kind of appreciate that I'm not as sensitive anymore due to the whole experience too. I feel more attuned to harsher realities.










...lol.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

@_Caged Within_

okay, studies on symmetry etc show that certain factors are statistically more attractive, they do not do a good job explaining the range of human attraction.

You keep using the word "most", "most", "most", over and over again. Where are you getting it from?

edit to add two things:
1. some of your statements are the equivalent of "most men prefer 0.7 hip-waist ratios" i.e. true, but not of great importance to a person's dating situation. Yet others are probably statistically true, yet might not be individually helpful-- "girls love roses", for example, might be true of a broad cross-section of girls, but if a guy has the best intellectual and emotional chemistry with the types of girls who find roses silly... then it might be a better idea for him to cling to his non-rose-giving ways, get passed over by the rose-loving masses.
however, most of your statements don't even get that far and seem to just be very over-broad generalizations. 

2. frankly, I see a strong Se bias in terms of what you're projecting that women find attractive. Sorry to got there, but we _are_ on PerC...


edit #2:

it is also important to distinguish between men's ideal and women's.
this comes up in discussion of objectification in comic books, where some people will say "well look at male superheroes they're objectified also".
It is true that male superheroes have ridiculously exaggerated muscles. It is also true that this does _not_ match the amount of muscle studies show women preferring. Instead, it appears to tie into what men want about themselves.
I'm still not sure where you're getting all your statements about adventurous risk-taking from, so I can't comment with certainty till I see some well-done studies, but it's highly possible the glorification of adventurous risk-taking is coming from guy ideals being projected, not actual girl ones.
(Again, I'm sure there are plenty of women who find this stuff appealing, I'm just skeptical that they qualify as a "most" in any significant way above the ones who find it neutral or unappealing)


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> okay, studies on symmetry etc show that certain factors are statistically more attractive, they do not do a good job explaining the range of human attraction.


Though attraction varies from person to person, certain traits are looked positively upon, across the planet. 



Pelopra said:


> You keep using the word "most", "most", "most", over and over again. Where are you getting it from?


Studies that I came across which touched upon the subject. 



Pelopra said:


> . some of your statements are the equivalent of "most men prefer 0.7 hip-waist ratios" i.e. true, but not of great importance to a person's dating situation. Yet others are probably statistically true, yet might not be individually helpful-- "girls love roses", for example, might be true of a broad cross-section of girls, but if a guy has the best intellectual and emotional chemistry with the types of girls who find roses silly... then it might be a better idea for him to cling to his non-rose-giving ways, get passed over by the rose-loving masses.


I never said that one sort of person is a fit for everyone. I just stated what most women are into. If a person doesn't find herself fitting with most women, then that's fine. 



Pelopra said:


> frankly, I see a strong Se bias in terms of what you're projecting that women find attractive. Sorry to got there, but we _are_ on PerC...


People assume all sorts of things about me, when they don't even know me. No need to be sorry. It's just human nature's way to be. 



Pelopra said:


> it is also important to distinguish between men's ideal and women's.


Yes. Men and women tend to be very different, so it's understandable why they'd want different things in a partner. 



Pelopra said:


> this comes up in discussion of objectification in comic books, where some people will say "well look at male superheroes they're objectified also".
> It is true that male superheroes have ridiculously exaggerated muscles. It is also true that this does _not_ match the amount of muscle studies show women preferring. Instead, it appears to tie into what men want about themselves.


Yes. Though most women prefer muscles, they like toned, lean muscles over large ones. If you had two men, and one was built like Thor and the other built like Spider-Man, most women would prefer the man built like Spider-Man. 



Pelopra said:


> I'm still not sure where you're getting all your statements about adventurous risk-taking from, so I can't comment with certainty till I see some well-done studies, but it's highly possible the glorification of adventurous risk-taking is coming from guy ideals being projected, not actual girl ones.
> (Again, I'm sure there are plenty of women who find this stuff appealing, I'm just skeptical that they qualify as a "most" in any significant way above the ones who find it neutral or unappealing)


I'll try to look them up for you.

EDIT:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22582900

http://www.pipubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-Dark-Triad-Personality-1.pdf

http://academic.udayton.edu/CatherineLutz/Do Nice Guys Finish Last.pdf


----------



## Hidden from Sight (Jan 3, 2014)

This would normally be the last forum I'd venture into, but...

Don't let silly little social rules and stereotypes control your life.


----------



## OkWhat (Feb 28, 2014)

I used to be a jerk and say stuff like, "Woman, you better be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen cooking my dinner!" but as I have matured and grown up, I eventually realized, damn, all these kids are expensive! So now I just leave out the pregnant part. :kitteh:


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Cheveyo said:


> He's a tumblr feminist.


I wonder if he realises that every tumblr feminist he's ever spoken to thinks he's just a rape-bomb waiting to happen.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

Lol, I don't even know where this idea comes from.. whenever I see guys say this they always come across as people protecting their ego from the fact that they are inexperienced, insecure or unassertive.

Assertiveness and having the confidence to go after what you want is the only difference. I used to experiment with different personnas when I was an immature teenager- and what I found was that being an assertive jerk can get you girls, but the best girls come along when you are _truly_ confident in who you are.

Having an inner iron-cast belief in yourself without having to prove anything to anyone will make you attractive- which is why sometimes being a "jerk" overlaps, because jerks avoid the "inconvenience" of caring what people think about them. However, it's when that belief comes _naturally_ that the best girls will come.. and that almost _requires_ you to have a benevolent side to you, because when you are your best self you are also naturally benevolent.

Girls go for jerks a lot because guys of natural confidence are relatively rare, and are usually already taken, so they fall for the other guys who show that self-belief.

Trying to be a jerk to get women will do nothing for you, because women will sense that you are putting it on out of manipulation. either that, or you will attract women who turn out to be not as good as the ones you could have gotten by just being yourself and working on becoming the best version of yourself you can be. But that's just too much hard work for most people.


----------



## Effy (Feb 23, 2014)

Ori_ said:


> Women are beautiful creatures, they just love jerks, it's not right or wrong, it's just how it is.
> 
> ALL WOMEN LOVE JERKS, before you realize it, and before you can move on. And I'm not saying that because of some personal drama.
> let's put it this way
> ...


I am so tired of the false equivalency this "nice guy v.s. jerk" mentality is based on. Confident - or to use the redpill/PUA term, 'alpha' - men are not necessarily 'jerks'. It's entirely possible for a guy to be assertive and attractive and not be a complete douchebag.

And also, like... the world isn't divided into two black and white categories of obnoxious muscle men who are sexual dynamos and passive balding sweethearts who'll only screw on Sundays with the lights turned off.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> You'll end up running into a problem: Jerks don't wear a sign that lets you know they're jerks.
> 
> It goes for both men and women. They generally wont show their true selves for a while. In some cases, it'll be so slow that it will be years before you realize it. For the truly manipulative jerks, it'll take even longer and they'll make you think it was your fault.


Yeah I have had a problem with that a couple of times. The fact of the matter is some "nice" guys actually make it work for them in some horrible manipulative way. Beware Mr Romance. If he seems too good to be true, he probably is. Just like the "hot chick" who washed off her make up and removed her wig, the sexually successful "nice guy" may drop the Ricky Nelson candy and flowers act when he gets what he wants.

That word nice is so loaded. It can describe anything from a genuinely kind person to a scheming smiling Casanova to an angry narcissistic nerd who has mistaken passivity or lack of bravado for kindness in some warped parallel universe.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

fourtines said:


> angry narcissistic nerd who has mistaken passivity or lack of bravado for kindness in some warped parallel universe.


Lul'd. SO MANY of them.. just so many.


----------



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

The trick is in being a cool, decent guy who's also aggressive enough.

If your calibration is imbalanced, and someone thinks "oh he's cool and decent therefore not aggressive" or "oh he's making moves too quick therefore not respectable"

you can either bring out the other side as proof, or decide she's not worth it.

Haven't found a better way to go about it yet.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

GYX_Kid said:


> The trick is in being a cool, decent guy who's also aggressive enough.
> 
> If your calibration is imbalanced, and someone thinks "oh he's cool and decent therefore not aggressive" or "oh he's making moves too quick therefore not respectable"
> 
> ...


----------



## Nyctophilia (Mar 13, 2014)

...yeah how about no.


----------



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

@Cheveyo

Do you mean to tell me I'm naive?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

As a man, you cannot and should not ever speak for women.


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

The other day someone told me that the guy I'm crushing on is an angel. Too bad my chances of being with him is close to none. Back to the real world of jerks.


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

Women like dominance because it is a natural need for a masculine role in their life. They like to be protected and have someone make the decisions, or "take charge". They easily surrender their free will if guys initiate. Women just don't want equality, they want relationships in which men lead.

Now jerks are just morons on the opposite end of the moron spectrum from the so called "nice guys".
Nice guys employ ass kissing to get women and have no boundaries or a sense of self respect. They are sleazy liars, passive, so not attractive beyond what they can do for a selfish woman using them.

Jerks on the other hand know there is something about dominance that works. But unlike smart men, they don't understand what exactly and are under the impression that women like being treated like shit. They employ the attractive aspect of masculinity (ability to lead a woman), but don't quite understand what that is, so they just display this "leadership" by acting like selfish brats. They use women and hurt them. They don't know how to lead and care for a woman at the same time.
Women are initially attracted because it's a part of their nature, but when the retard (jerk) starts acting like a little brat, women get scared and run.

So no, women don't like jerks. They like dominant men. There is a difference.
And knowing this difference, jerks seem sad. I just see them as morons, so I can't be attracted to them at all myself. They may as well be walking around in diapers.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

GYX_Kid said:


> @_Cheveyo_
> 
> Do you mean to tell me I'm naive?


----------



## ChaosEpsilon (Apr 1, 2014)

Girls like jerks because when they were growing up and a boy was mean to her, her parents would say "oh, it's just because he likes you!" And so they grow up believing that crap


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

No, we don't like jerks, but being "nice" to someone doesn't entitle you to jack squat from them.

Thought this was pertinent:


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

The entitlement in this is RIFE.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

marked174 said:


> This is the other generalization. I'm sure many women do not value "dominant, high-testosterone men" the same way that you do. You can't speak for all of them.
> 
> Also, I think it's pretty offensive for you to call the men you don't like "pathetic" just because they are "low testosterone".
> 
> ...


You completely misread and misinterpreted what I said. I hope you re-read it, because I'm not going to take you seriously until you stop putting words in my mouth.

I did not say *all* women love dominant men. Sociologically, the vast majority of women prefer dominant, high-testosterone men and find them more attractive. So once again, stop arguing things I did not say. Also, I didn't even remotely imply that low-testosterone men are pathetic. I implied that men who say women only like jerks are pathetic. Now go preach men's rights to someone who isn't already an active supporter of it and calm the fuck down. This is what I get for sticking up for people, goddamn.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

marked174 said:


> I agree, and I don't believe "all" women like jerks. I do think that many immature girls do, however.
> 
> I also think that it is a problem that will go largely un-addressed because our society does not like to criticize women's values (the oppossite is not true for men, we are constantly told to re-evaluate our values because beauty is only skin deep, and so-forth). I think this lack of criticism is downright harmful to women, and is extremely sexist. Unfortunately, society proclaims that the opposite is true, and that if you criticize a woman or her values in any way that you are thereby being sexist.


Women are never criticized? Really? Try being called a bitch, slut, skank, freak, weirdo, nutcase or psycho for being sexually independent - this coming from both genders. Women get criticized for their choices by their friends, family, boyfriends, by the media, by every damn commercial, by angry feminists, by churches, by teachers. It sounds to me like you have a big fat case of "I like to imagine the other gender lives an easy life so I can hate them." When you assume ANY person has it easy because of their gender, race, orientation, ethnicity, etc. you are being prejudice. Stop it.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

devoid said:


> You completely misread and misinterpreted what I said. I hope you re-read it, because I'm not going to take you seriously until you stop putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I did not say *all* women love dominant men. Sociologically, the vast majority of women prefer dominant, high-testosterone men and find them more attractive. So once again, stop arguing things I did not say. Also, I didn't even remotely imply that low-testosterone men are pathetic. I implied that men who say women only like jerks are pathetic. Now go preach men's rights to someone who isn't already an active supporter of it and calm the fuck down. This is what I get for sticking up for people, goddamn.


Sorry for misinterpreting, but when someone says "men are like this" or "women like that" there is an implied "some" or an implied "all". It can be difficult to make that distinction if it is not provided. 

Take this statement: "I implied that men who say women only like jerks are pathetic". 

I can assume you mean: "I implied that men who say *all* women only like jerks are pathetic". In this case, I agree.

Or... you can mean this: "I implied that men who say *some* women only like jerks are pathetic". In this case I disagree, it's a fact that some girls only like jerks.

See, in the first post I misinterpreted, I assumed you meant *all* women like high-testosterone men, when you meant *some*. But in the quote I just selected, you probably meant *all* instead of *some*, which is the opposite of the one before it.

Our language gets confusing at times.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Lunatic Kijin said:


> Oh, so you know how all women generally behave. That's clearly far more humble and not an arrogant assumption, and your experiences with perhaps 100 or 200 women obviously give you insight on how the other 4,000,000,000 behave. In fact, they give you so much insight that you understand the behavior and working of women even more than a woman herself.
> 
> Yup, after interacting with 200, or 500 at the absolute most, women you have damn good reason to believe you're right about the other billions in the world. Someone give this man a medal.



Closer to 10,000 but sure, whatever. I didn't know we were talking about the world population (even at 53%, that's significantly less than 4 billion), when did that happen?

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Deal with it.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

devoid said:


> Women are never criticized? Really? Try being called a bitch, slut, skank, freak, weirdo, nutcase or psycho for being sexually independent - this coming from both genders. Women get criticized for their choices by their friends, family, boyfriends, by the media, by every damn commercial, by angry feminists, by churches, by teachers. It sounds to me like you have a big fat case of "I like to imagine the other gender lives an easy life so I can hate them." When you assume ANY person has it easy because of their gender, race, orientation, ethnicity, etc. you are being prejudice. Stop it.


I said that women's (general) *values *are not criticized. I never said that they don't get criticized, personally. Also, I'm not sure that those instances should be considered "criticism", it's closer to abuse. When I say criticize, I mean it in the constructive sense of questioning norms. Shaming someone for being open and independent doesn't really do that. Also, as I said, I don't think this lack of criticism (again, of values, not of independence) is doing them any favors. I actually think that it's harmful for them.

Values in this sense is defined as what a person wants. We generally criticize men for valuing beauty, and often suggest that they should value deeper character qualities (a good thing to do, imo). But we don't really do that for the girls, telling them that the most attractive quality (confidence) should also be secondary to valuing deeper character qualities. I think that this is a dis-service.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

marked174 said:


> And that's where you are wrong. Most of the time they aren't frustrated because they aren't seen as a potential partner by the friendzoner, they are frustrated because they aren't seen as a potential partner by anyone.
> 
> And that's not a bad thing. If a guy gets told 30 times "We should just be friends" by different girls, he shouldn't be like "Well, guess I'm just friend material. I don't deserve happiness or fulfillment. I guess I should be content to living alone forever." No. He is well within his rights to say "I have boundaries, and the relationship I am looking for is one that is more than friendship." Saying that in no way, shape, or form is intrusive on a girl's rights or boundaries, neither does it imply that the guy only wants sex, neither does it imply that the guy feel entitled to any woman's time or feelings.
> 
> Now, if he said, "You, Mary Sue, need to have a relationship with me, because I want it and deserve it" is a different story altogether.


I'm not arguing that being rejected (repeatedly, as in this example) isn't frustrating, what I have an issue with is when people feel that women being malicious/stupid/whatever is the reason for their constant rejection and resulting frustration. Thinking this is completely delusional and it reinforces a very harmful stereotype. There are lots of other things that this frustrated individual could do; for example, I have a pretty strong feeling that not blaming women for his unhappiness would make him more desirable, he could also try going for some women who he's more compatible with, or, if he truly believes that women, as a whole, have absolutely no good reason for not liking him, then he could try to identify the source of women's collective bias, and challenge it. Any of these would be far more acceptable than just blaming women.


----------



## Nyctophilia (Mar 13, 2014)

William I am said:


> Closer to 10,000 but sure, whatever. I didn't know we were talking about the world population (even at 53%, that's significantly less than 4 billion), when did that happen?
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Deal with it.


There are about eight billion people in the world. Eight divided by two is four.

Regardless feel free to believe whatever delusions you want.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> I'm not arguing that being rejected (repeatedly, as in this example) isn't frustrating, what I have an issue with is when people feel that women being malicious/stupid/whatever is the reason for their constant rejection and resulting frustration. Thinking this is completely delusional and it reinforces a very harmful stereotype. There are lots of other things that this frustrated individual could do; for example, I have a pretty strong feeling that not blaming women for his unhappiness would make him more desirable, he could also try going for some women who he's more compatible with, or, if he truly believes that women, as a whole, have absolutely no good reason for not liking him, then he could try to identify the source of women's collective bias, and challenge it. Any of these would be far more acceptable than just blaming women.


I agree, but I think that a lot of people oftentimes lump these guys together. It's not always so black and white. Sometimes a guy might be frustrated at the individual woman first, then realize that she has the right to make her choices and that the frustration might be misplaced. He shouldn't be labeled as a "pathetic nice-guy" for two seconds of frustration. Men aren't always perfect, they can be cut some slack.

Even when he was frustrated with her, he wasn't "entitled", he was upset. People get upset, that doesn't make them scumbags. This is especially the case when that guy chooses not to release that frustration directly at the woman, but instead chooses to vent on a forum about it. I just don't see people jumping to judgement as quickly as they do when it comes to this, and that judgment is often accompanied by a lot of false assumptions of motives.

All of that aside, I also don't think that it is strictly wrong to criticize values. Maybe women in our society don't like eating vegetables (nice guys), even though they are good for them. Fine, let them make their case and judge that case on it's merits (are nice guys really vegetables? are they really as good as they claim? etc). But we shouldn't attack the guys for raising the criticism in the first place or presuming their motives (although it might be fair to question them), and I think that is what is happening, sadly.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

marked174 said:


> I agree, but I think that a lot of people oftentimes lump these guys together. It's not always so black and white. Sometimes a guy might be frustrated at the individual woman first, then realize that she has the right to make her choices and that the frustration might be misplaced. He shouldn't be labeled as a "pathetic nice-guy" for two seconds of frustration. Men aren't always perfect, they can be cut some slack.
> 
> Even when he was frustrated with her, he wasn't "entitled", he was upset. People get upset, that doesn't make them scumbags. This is especially the case when that guy chooses not to release that frustration directly at the woman, but instead chooses to vent on a forum about it. I just don't see people jumping to judgement as quickly as they do when it comes to this, and that judgment is often accompanied by a lot of false assumptions of motives.
> 
> All of that aside, I also don't think that it is strictly wrong to criticize values. Maybe women in our society don't like eating vegetables (nice guys), even though they are good for them. Fine, let them make their case and judge that case on it's merits (are nice guys really vegetables? are they really as good as they claim? etc). But we shouldn't attack the guys for raising the criticism in the first place or presuming their motives (although it might be fair to question them), and I think that is what is happening, sadly.


I'm actually against labelling people in general. It's almost always irrelevant and often serves no purpose other than to discredit someone. So if you ever see specific people being called a Nice Guys™, then I agree with you that it's offensive and stupid. However, criticising Nice Guy™ _culture_, even passionately and without any real sensitivity (as I often do), is not a personal attack, even if it happens to offend people who identify with it. It might not be a useful thing to do, but there's still nothing wrong with doing it. 

As for the last part, if you're going to criticise values, it's worth talking about where you think they come from, because if people think you're saying that they're innate, you're going to cop criticism for that (legitimately, I think). So I have nothing against doing it, but I'd advise anyone to be careful. 

Quite amazed that we're actually kinda coming to some agreement. I did not expect that .


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

@Lunatic Kijin 

7,135,000,000 World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@William I am - You're all set in your controversial (?)  opinions and stuff and I'm into it.

Are you....

A jerk?!

:shocked:


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

William I am said:


> @Lunatic Kijin
> 
> 7,135,000,000 World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You know that she'd still have a point, right? (even if it wasn't expressed very well...)

What you've just done is about as meaningful as picking up on a spelling mistake, which, from my perspective, says more about your character than hers.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Veggie said:


> @_William I am_ - You're all set in your controversial (?)  opinions and stuff and I'm into it.
> 
> Are you....
> 
> ...


Lol, not sure if serious, but usually I'm an extremely nice person. When someone gets all holier-than-thou on me, I get annoyed and lose my patience. I don't like being yelled at, and I respond in like kind.
@Mee2 Maybe so, but when someone gets all holier than though, I like to point out when they're flat out wrong. I think ~500 million people is noteworthy.


----------



## Nyctophilia (Mar 13, 2014)

William I am said:


> @Lunatic Kijin
> 
> 7,135,000,000 World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ok then correction, you feel that because of your interaction with 10,000 people you understand how at least 3,500,000,000 people behave. This is clearly so much better.

Also...


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

William I am said:


> @Mee2 Maybe so, but when someone gets all holier than though, I like to point out when they're flat out wrong. I think ~500 million people is noteworthy.


Wouldn't it be better to argue against her actual point instead of picking on trivial inaccuracies? (And yes, in this context, ~500 million people is trivial).

Edit: She beat me to it!


----------



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

Ori_ said:


> After seeing this topic (of women wanting jerks) everywhere in my life, I sometimes ask myself why people still wonder, I just wanted to share my opinion and see what you think of it.
> 
> Please don't hate me for saying that, be aware that if you want to deal with contemplating the truth you have to exclude any morals.
> 
> ...


I don't understand. If, for hypothetical reasons, I take everything said here as true, it's contradictory.

All women love jerks because of the past and what we chose. If there is a clear choice, this implies, through deductive reason determining what must be true from the premise, that there is variability.

If there is variability then, surely, not all women love jerks. Also, some women are entirely asexual. I remember learning somewhere that sex can be used to reproduce. I think there's a possibility that, just maybe, just possibly, looking at the past and imagining simple responses to it does not determine our responses contemporarily as much as simply taking evidence contemporarily, but then, I'm just a silly ol' scientist saying science and stuff.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Lunatic Kijin said:


> Ok then correction, you feel that because of your interaction with 10,000 people you understand how at least 3,500,000,000 people behave. This is clearly so much better.
> 
> Also...





Mee2 said:


> Wouldn't it be better to argue against her actual point instead of picking on trivial inaccuracies? (And yes, in this context, ~500 million people is trivial).
> 
> Edit: She beat me to it!


500 million is 1/14th the population of the world. I hardly think 1 in 14 people is trivial.

But that's all beside the point. Her "point" is a strawman fallacy. Maybe people on the east coast are drastically different from people on the west coast (though I've been through 14 states and lived in 3 for a few months), but I can still make accurate observations of people I encounter -a wildly mixed and varied crowd over the years, I might add. 

Just because it offends your sensibilities doesn't mean it's not true.


----------



## Nyctophilia (Mar 13, 2014)

William I am said:


> 500 million is 1/14th the population of the world. I hardly think 1 in 14 people is trivial.
> 
> But that's all beside the point. Her "point" is a strawman fallacy. Maybe people on the east coast are drastically different from people on the west coast (though I've been through 14 states and lived in 3 for a few months), but I can still make accurate observations of people I encounter -a wildly mixed and varied crowd over the years, I might add.
> 
> Just because it offends your sensibilities doesn't mean it's not true.


How is it a strawman when I'm only replying to exactly to your claims? Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it isn't, and you continue to ignore the point that you're basing how a vast amount of people act on a very select few. That's a very bad basis for an argument.

The irony is not lost on me, I assure you.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Lunatic Kijin said:


> How is it a strawman when I'm only replying to exactly to your claims? Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it isn't, and you continue to ignore the point that you're basing how a vast amount of people act on a very select few. That's a very bad basis for an argument.
> 
> The irony is not lost on me, I assure you.


Yes, because the only way to make accurate observations is to sample an entire population. Oh wait. It's not.

Since we're speaking english and familiar with MBTI, it's a damn good bet we are in either north america or some western european country. To take my obviously localized experiences and say that I'm claiming them to be accurate to everyone else is either simple misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

I doubt you would like it better if I said "By and large, women *in the united states* respond positively to jerks..."
Never did I say every woman in my country, and never did I say every woman on the planet. Those are assumptions you made, which are unreasonable to make.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Oh not, it's that time of year again!

Seriously, when will people learn? I've dated some horribly self-centered jerks but I don't think that all men are jerks (maybe because most of my best friends are men. PLOT TWIST!).
The jerks I dated came with no warning, they seem like nice people who could help me through my hard and/or fragile times and thus become a better and more confident person. BUT GUESS WHAT? Sometime after they started to show their true colours.

First boyfriend - manipulative, compulsive liar, never wanted to meet me, used me as a show off
Second boyfriend - egocentric, had so much confidence he wanted to nullify the little I had (too much confidence is a problem too), couldn't hold different options
Forth boyfriend - again egocentric, thought he was the shit, tried to use me a show off doll I could him to fuck off
The only girlfriend of notice - tumblr feminist, thought I was defender of masculinity (and not in a good way), tried to change my ways constantly, didn't accept my likes and hobbies, we broke up because I BECAME DEPRESSED AND UNSURE BECAUSE MY BEST FRIEND DIED.
Women can be jerks too. What a surprise.
Fifth boyfriend - manipulative lap dog, had no self confidence or self control, wanted me all for himself (I couldn't have a life beyond him and my family), liked to blackmail me using his fragile condition, was envious of every man in my life including the people who we're trying to comfort me of my grief (my now fiancée and a very close friend), surrounded by even bigger jerks

You wanna know why I broke up with my fifth boyfriend?
I travelled to another town to spend sometime with some friends, I had so much fun it was criminal and I fell into the mistake of posting about it online.
On top of constantly never letting me be alone when I want he and his friends jumped to attack me because I dared saying I was having fun in some other city with other people. And afterwards his calls and texts became sometime like 'never leave me alone, always take me with you, fix me, fix me, I need you to fix me, love me'
I came back and broke up. Freedom never left so good.
The ironic thing is that sound so nice when we meet that I wanted to date him, my parents liked him and took them a while to see that I couldn't be in a fast passed relationship with a guy that constantly wants kisses and sex when I need alone time sometimes.

Now my current fiancée gave me warnings.
'I'm a jerk, selfish and stupid. Why do you like me again?'
Turns out he isn't. The cold sometimes arrogant persona he usually has on is just a protection from people you might hurt him. He's like a lion who has been shoot but not killed, he's in so much pain he'll attack at the slightest thing. I tried my best not to shoot any more bullets and unleashed the playful loving and devoted cat inside him. I'm so glad I didn't gave up of him because of such warnings.

Have I friendzone really nice guys? Yeah.
Do I regret it? You have no idea but I can't date or fuck of you. So I keep you as good friends, the people who remind me each day that men aren't all jerks.

So, yeah, I like confident, intelligent and loving men. I like when they let me chose because if you let me chose chances are I'll devote to you my time because I want to, not because it's my obligation. Then I'll not sound like a bitch either.


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

Thanks for the responses, I have to go out for a while (it's mid morning here) but I'll respond when I get back.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

You made a good point, I see men fall for beauty even when she may have a nasty attitude, very shallow or batshitcrazyinsane.

@NK


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

The thing that bothers me about "lists of expectations" is that to myself or a different perspective I can be any of those things. But that doesn't mean it's communicated at all. I like sweet girls. To be honest that could anybody. But do I recognize it in anybody immediately? No. Does it sound like a relatively easy way to be? I think so. I see there's more to choosing a partner than checking off a list of traits without a question, that's why I find them pointless. "My boyfriend is super sweet" so are those other 10 people why'd you choose him? This trait listing thing is worth ignoring obviously there is something much more than a list of expectations. It's behavior, emotion as well. I emotionally connected with this person, that's why I like her not for what she is, but for how she makes me feel or makes me think or how she treats me. Trait checklists are just too broad and useless in my opinion.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

MelanieM said:


> Exactly! That was brilliant! I see that with mostly younger immature men, it's sad when they hit their 30s and still think this way. When I say sad...I mean pathetic (I almost..._almost_ feel sorry for them, but not in the way I would want to help).


I don't think it's pathetic, it's just frustrating. I've had to hurt a couple who don't seem to understand that not every woman is just waiting to be asked for her hand in marriage and to get knocked up. Romance, intrigue, momentum - important stuff (especially if I'm gonna be expected to do all that work!) Maybe some women see vulnerability and (dull) stability as something that a man has "going" for him...but it makes me very uncomfortable if that's what he's...like...leading with. I'm pretty strong and I want a partner. (Aren't we all "jerks" somewhat if we're being honest?) He doesn't have to be Casanova, but he's gotta bring something to the party


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> The thing that bothers me about "lists of expectations" is that to myself or a different perspective I can be any of those things. But that doesn't mean it's communicated at all. I like sweet girls. To be honest that could anybody. But do I recognize it in anybody immediately? No. Does it sound like a relatively easy way to be? I think so. I see there's more to choosing a partner than checking off a list of traits without a question, that's why I find them pointless. "My boyfriend is super sweet" so are those other 10 people why'd you choose him? This trait listing thing is worth ignoring obviously there is something much more than a list of expectations. It's behavior, emotion as well. I emotionally connected with this person, that's why I like him not for what she is, but for how she makes me feel or makes me think or how she treats me. Trait checklists are just too broad and useless in my opinion.


Funny you say this. My last emotional engagement was messy. I was overreacting over stupid shit, then when the person finally was disinterested I was hurt because at the time he didn't directly head on point out I'm crazy. I kinda need that. When I was reflecting about it months ago I got more in tune with my needs which is common after each relationship I think. And, I also since then try to remember that men think different and so saying thank you or I love you or you're so sweet most likely is empty. I make a conscious effort to couple my expression of appreciation WITH my logical reasonings. So, saying how I feel with the behavior (reason) I feel that way. I think this might be better but I've yet to really give a shit about any of the relationships I've had since. I haven't been really emotionally engaged. 

My only challenge now is to figure out how to express when my feelings are hurt without it being a huge ordeal. Like you mentioned ignoring. That hurts but it might not be that big of a deal. Often times I want to say I'm hurt, and I want to understand. And if its pointed out as silly. Then I say sorry and love the person for loving me and not hating me that I'm sensitive. Its so simple in my head but in reality these things never play out simple. Why! Lol! That's frustrating!


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I don't think it's pathetic, it's just frustrating. I've had to hurt a couple who don't seem to understand that not every woman is just waiting to be asked for her hand in marriage and to get knocked up. Romance, intrigue, momentum - important stuff (especially if I'm gonna be expected to do all that work!) Maybe some women see vulnerability and (dull) stability as something that a man has "going" for him...but it makes me very uncomfortable if that's what he's...like...leading with. I'm pretty strong and I want a partner. (Aren't we all "jerks" somewhat if we're being honest?) He doesn't have to be Casanova, but he's gotta bring something to the party


Best Post Ever. So.Fucking.True. 

Maybe even better than the 19 yr old I slapped around.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Not sure if anyone else does this but, dating jerks is prime practice material for getting better with asserting boundaries and at times, they're just so funny because they haven't a clue they're jerks! Lol!


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

NK said:


> Funny you say this. My last emotional engagement was messy. I was overreacting over stupid shit, then when the person finally was disinterested I was hurt because at the time he didn't directly head on point out I'm crazy. I kinda need that. When I was reflecting about it months ago I got more in tune with my needs which is common after each relationship I think. And, I also since then try to remember that men think different and so saying thank you or I love you or you're so sweet most likely is empty. I make a conscious effort to couple my expression of appreciation WITH my logical reasonings. So, saying how I feel with the behavior (reason) I feel that way. I think this might be better but I've yet to really give a shit about any of the relationships I've had since. I haven't been really emotionally engaged.
> 
> My only challenge now is to figure out how to express when my feelings are hurt without it being a huge ordeal. Like you mentioned ignoring. That hurts but it might not be that big of a deal. Often times I want to say I'm hurt, and I want to understand. And if its pointed out as silly. Then I say sorry and love the person for loving me and not hating me that I'm sensitive. Its so simple in my head but in reality these things never play out simple. Why! Lol! That's frustrating!


I'm actually entertaining the idea of a kind of mind-mate experience. I noticed I love discussing things with people and in theory at least that could be an effective relationship. I haven't ventured into the realm of seeking a relationship for reasons that may seemingly invalidate my advice.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

NK said:


> Not sure if anyone else does this but, dating jerks is prime practice material for getting better with asserting boundaries and at times, they're just so funny because they haven't a clue they're jerks! Lol!


Haha! This is so true too. I have guy friends who *think* that they're asses and I'm always reassuring them...no, you're really not. You're funny, or honest...and you would be the first person to rescue a kitten from a fire (although they might not realize this or deny it). It's a lot of the dudes who think themselves gentlemen who have been the d-bags in my experience. The power struggles can be entertaining though, yes, lol.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

There's a lot of overlap between what most people would consider to be a jerk and the the masculine ideal. There really isn't much of a difference between the confident man (masculine ideal) and the overconfident jerk, between the independent man and the self-centred jerk, and I'd probably argue that the masculine ideal of dominance is jerky by definition. This has two effects. The first is that, by encouraging men to be masculine, and encouraging women to like masculine men, society also, to some extent, encourages men to be jerks and women to like jerks. The other effect it has is it makes it very easy for jealous men to see jerkiness in whoever the woman he likes is dating, since they're probably going to display at least some elements of masculinity. 

Basically, simply saying that women like jerks shows a very shallow understanding of what's actually happening.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I'm actually entertaining the idea of a kind of mind-mate experience. I noticed I love discussing things with people and in theory at least that could be an effective relationship.


I have only had 2 "mate" experiences. One was a guy who grew up in similar conditions and had an eery similar past and it was a very weird bond but not at all healthy. I think he was an ESTP. The other was a mind mate feel and I often times wonder why that was since it didn't really work out but, I think it's because they cope with life in the same mind frame I do. So, we tended to "get" each other with no effort however I think when effort was necessary, timing proved to work against us. Life is really sticky for me right now but from that experience I must say, I feel enneagram to be a more appropriate tool for compatibility. I totally have some theories on that. Like, I think sharing gut type important (or maybe I say that because I'm a 1 and 1's and 1's are very compatible), and also certain enneagram types definitely make me feel safer than others. I know this could be shallow or immature. But it's just speculation and theory for now. Lol! That too ... I so struggled with my introvert relationship as we were both introvertedly stuck in our heads! :tongue:


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Haha! This is so true too. I have guy friends who *think* that they're asses and I'm always reassuring them...no, you're really not. You're funny, or honest...and you would be the first person to rescue a kitten from a fire (although they might not realize this or deny it). It's a lot of the dudes who think themselves gentlemen who have been the d-bags in my experience. The power struggles can be entertaining though, yes, lol.


my theory is to stay away from any man who won't admit he can be an asshole. (Not that he is one). That's because assholes have trouble seeing their capacity to even be one for a moment. Everyone's a jerk kinda mentality.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Mee2 - So women would be into bashful, submissive, feminine men (Dramatic interpretation - "OMG, please impregnate me! Please! Any of you could do this, but I choose you Mr. Wallflower, please (potentially) ruin the next nine months of my life (as just the beginning!) because you somehow stand out against the rest of the submissive men, and I just trust you to stick around for literally no objective reason!") if it weren't for "society" telling us to be into testosterone and confidence? (Also - I can be confident - am I masculine?)


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Veggie said:


> @_Mee2_ - So women would be into bashful, submissive, feminine men (Dramatic interpretation - "OMG, please impregnate me! Please! Any of you could do this, but I choose you Mr. Wallflower, please (potentially) ruin the next nine months of my life (as just the beginning!) because you somehow stand out against the rest of the submissive men, and I just trust you to stick around for literally no objective reason!") if it weren't for "society" telling us to be into testosterone and confidence? (Also - I can be confident - am I masculine?)


I think it's all embellished and exaggerated and silly. I kinda think what happens is people grow bored of their own bullshit they start to listen to someone other than their own neuroses. Thus, working With the other as opposed to against them. Of course easier said than done. She has a bit of a point that many people are more attached to externalities which limit their way of being. This is when we kick on some Jefferson Airplane(white rabbit).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

NK said:


> I think it's all embellished and exaggerated and silly. I kinda think what happens is people grow bored of their own bullshit they start to listen to someone other than their own neuroses. Thus, working With the other as opposed to against them. Of course easier said than done. She has a bit of a point that many people are more attached to externalities which limit their way of being. This is when we kick on some Jefferson Airplane(white rabbit).


Wait, what? :tongue:

I can usually follow your train of thought, but I might need some further clarification on this one, haha.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Damn, this thread has gotten far cooler than it began!!!


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Wait, what? :tongue:
> 
> I can usually follow your train of thought, but I might need some further clarification on this one, haha.


Your response to mee2. I understood and agreed with it but I felt it was the emotional logic whereas mee2's post was more matter of fact point blank logic. The truth is much of what's "masculine" is also, "jerk" but over time as we grow we can tell the difference. Like when you have navy blue and baby blue. We see it as one color(blue) but over time with experience we see that a good man can be a jerk if he needs to be (navy blue), and that a jerk can be a good man when he wants to be(manipulation:baby blue, because he's a baby )

sorry. I can be lazy with my articulation when I've too many thoughts in my head at once. :tongue:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

NK said:


> Your response to mee2. I understood and agreed with it but I felt it was the emotional logic whereas mee2's post was more matter of fact point blank logic. The truth is much of what's "masculine" is also, "jerk" but over time as we grow we can tell the difference. Like when you have navy blue and baby blue. We see it as one color(blue) but over time with experience we see that a good man can be a jerk if he needs to be (navy blue), and that a jerk can be a good man when he wants to be(manipulation:baby blue, because he's a baby )
> 
> sorry. I can be lazy with my articulation when I've too many thoughts in my head at once. :tongue:


Mmm, it's not necessarily emotional logic. I'm just making a biological argument as a counter to a sociological one. Also, pointing out that trust isn't a candy cane given to all of god's children by women on default


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

MelanieM said:


> I think women look for stability, men see this as a woman being a golddigger.
> 
> As women get older and see how the world works the list gets shorter and shorter...I just didn't want an asshole, I use to fawn over funny men but I will take a less charismatic, loyal man over Mr. Funtimes any day of the week. I don't like playing stupid games, so if a man acts all hot/cold he is out.
> 
> I think you perceive women to be a bit shallow, I am not condemning you on this because I have seen some fine examples out there. At the core, women just want to be loved, respected and feel safe. At least I do. I can't speak for all women because we are all pretty different.


Hopefully this doesn't start a flame war, but...

I don't think people change that much, and what women end up realising is that one day they can't pull of the charm anymore and the alphas they want to go to bed with are going to be looking for younger, more attractive women to spread their seed with. So the say, 27 or 28 year old woman will go and settle for "second best", someone they consider boring but safe, unlikely to be a threat because he'll be so grateful just to have a woman. 

It's a generalisation, but if forced to make it, I would say the above mentality is accurate for the great majority of Gen Y women in the West, I think FPs might be a bit different but I'm unconvinced about the rest. Women are shallow, and substantially more so than men. I say this because we are honest about what we want in a mate and don't have too many demands. This is not true for women.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> I don't think people change that much, and what women end up realising is that one day they can't pull of the charm anymore and the alphas they want to go to bed with are going to be looking for younger, more attractive women to spread their seed with. So the say, 27 or 28 year old woman will go and settle for "second best", someone they consider boring but safe, unlikely to be a threat because he'll be so grateful just to have a woman.
> 
> It's a generalisation, but if forced to make it, I would say women are shallow, and substantially more so than men. We are honest about what we want and don't have too many demands. Women lie.


I'm sorry you feel that way about women, I used to think all men were basically pigs in my younger years. I didn't understand them at all. Also, it's not that women change as much as they mature and see what is really important.


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

MelanieM said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way about women, I used to think all men were basically pigs in my younger years. I didn't understand them at all. Also, it's not that women change as much as they mature and see what is really important.


Some of the comments from female posters in this thread exemplify the kind of attitude that drives me to make statements like I have.

I better stop because i can feel myself getting angry.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> Women are shallow, and substantially more so than men. I say this because we are honest about what we want in a mate and don't have too many demands. This is not true for women.


I think the problem I have is not that you generalize. It's that your opinion is from the eyes of a young man. Two thirds of the population or more, are not apart of your Gen Y generation. (Or your youthful Gen X). What you'll come to learn is that while your generalizations are plausible for your generations of reference, it is not for the rest of society. All of which come to learn with age, that the "alpha" males of which you speak, are in the movies. They're in the head of the youth. *The minority* of the population. and when reality sets in after you've been married or successful with your younger wife, "alpha" is relative. And no longer applicable because you'll be living in reality. Not in the head of a 26 yr old. Or however old you are. 

Either way ya slice it, if you're above 30. You've way too much PUA and masturbation in your head that's no longer* age appropriate*. Which is to say, psychologically unhealthy points of view but nothing too outrageous. Just maybe some underlying hostility issues, abandonment issues and the run of the mill emotional unavailability. However. It's ok. I'm sure you're what? 25? 26?


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

NK said:


> I think the problem I have is not that you generalize. It's that your opinion is from the eyes of a young man. Two thirds of the population or more, are not apart of your Gen Y generation. (Or your youthful Gen X). What you'll come to learn is that while your generalizations are plausible for your generations of reference, it is not for the rest of society. All of which come to learn with age, that the "alpha" males of which you speak, are in the movies. They're in the head of the youth. The minority of the population and when reality sets in after you've been married or successful with your younger wife, "alpha" is relative. And no longer applicable because you'll be living in reality. Not in the head of a 26 yr old. Or however old you are. Either way ya slice it, if you're above 30. You've way too much PUA and masturbation in your head that's no longer* age appropriate*. Which is to say, psychologically unhealthy points of view but nothing too outrageous. Just maybe some underlying hostility issues, abandonment issues and the run of the mill emotional unavailability. However. It's ok. I'm sure you're what? 25? 26?


To avoid being patronised I won't say how old I am, only that you've overestimated my age a bit (which is kind of flattering). If I had a wife much younger than me she'd still be a schoolgirl.

I'm drawing for the most part on a combination of stuff i've read and my observations at university.


----------



## intp_gurl (Mar 8, 2014)

Women don't like jerks.
A woman who does go out with a jerk is simply looking for a non committed relationship. When she ready for commitment she finds a guy who's ready for that. Jerks are a temporary thing. Usually something younger women or those getting over past relationships get into. No woman wants to be second best or mistreated.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I don't normally care for those who I have perceived as a jerk. In fact, I try to stay away from them if I can help it. 

But that's not to say others won't see my nice guy as a jerk in their eyes.

Basically, this is way too subjective...


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

SouthernSaxon said:


> I don't think people change that much, and what women end up realising is that one day they can't pull of the charm anymore and the alphas they want to go to bed with are going to be looking for younger, more attractive women to spread their seed with. So the say, 27 or 28 year old woman will go and settle for "second best", someone they consider boring but safe, unlikely to be a threat because he'll be so grateful just to have a woman.


You can't lose charm with age :wink: If anything, that just grows. If a woman does, then what she had going for her was never _charm_ in the first place. It's something separate from looks.

Plenty of women in their late twenties/thirties are still single because they're holding out, and would never settle for "boring but safe" (ew) and would just as soon continue to sleep around (not a problem for a lot of women - in fact, I pretty much guarantee that it would be easier for an older woman to pick up a 22 year old than it would be for a man - on average).


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> To avoid being patronised I won't say how old I am, only that you've overestimated my age a bit (which is kind of flattering). If I had a wife much younger than me she'd still be a schoolgirl.
> 
> I'm drawing for the most part on a combination of stuff i've read and my observations at university.


University girls, for the most part, are just girl. Like male students are just boys. Most of them still hasn't grow up that much, from my experience of it.
Still... There are more women out there you know? Sometimes we look shallow to fit in with the rest, so we aren't lonely and friendless. I barely have any female friends because a lot of women my age look shallow, but they're still growing up. Most will grow out it when they grow up.
University students are too connected to their traditions and rules and look like a grown up in their early 20s to be a really good example of mankind (at least here).


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

I am baffled as to the reason why it's men telling women what they like and don't like,
Last time I checked it was a personal choice,
And it wasn't the realm of men to decide how women should act.

This is all sad,
Men just going on and on and on about how they didn't get their due,
Without realizing they're owed nothing....

I didn't realize that men were expecting a cookie for being nice,
And reaching the bare minimum of what a decent human being should be,
Sad sad sad.

I can smell the fedoras on half of the complainers on here.

P.S Men and women can be shallow/deep,
There's not general consensus on the matter


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

SirenOfTheGanges said:


> I am baffled as to the reason why it's men telling women what they like and don't like


Are you equally baffled why people go to psychologists, rather than just figuring themselves out?

Individual perspectives are biased, ESPECIALLY when applied to the self.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> To avoid being patronised I won't say how old I am, only that you've overestimated my age a bit (which is kind of flattering). If I had a wife much younger than me she'd still be a schoolgirl.
> 
> I'm drawing for the most part on a combination of stuff i've read and my observations at university.


I said 26 so as not to offend just in case but, LOLOLOLOL!!!! I'm not patronizing I'm just, LOLOLOLOL!!! *wipes tears from eyes* .. This forum is the best. My tummy hurts from giggles. You're not even old enough to drink yet are you?! Lol!!


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

NK said:


> I said 26 so as not to offend just in case but, LOLOLOLOL!!!! I'm not patronizing I'm just, LOLOLOLOL!!! *wipes tears from eyes* .. This forum is the best. My tummy hurts from giggles. You're not even old enough to drink yet are you?! Lol!!


I was reading his statement and thinking to myself "she totally INFJ'd his age there".  It was pretty obvious from your tone that you perceived him to be early twenties.

In his defense, you did come across as patronizing. That said, your point of generation gaps is quite true, and does matter, as does age (as long as you ignore the STPs  ).

But that also said, I think INFJs might actually regress before progressing in the mate selection department, possibly because the confidence imbibed with the development of Ti (Ni + Ti can be ruthlessly convergent). Expanding the use of Se seems to be a necessary condition for making better choices, when it comes to systems that aren't so easily predicted by Ni (people).


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Are you equally baffled why people go to psychologists, rather than just figuring themselves out?
> 
> Individual perspectives are biased, ESPECIALLY when applied to the self.


I'm not baffled by that,
I'm just baffled by the entitlement that seems to predominate with this type of thread,
Beating a dead horse over and over again.

And yes,
So why can't I have my equally offensive and biased take on this perspective?
You can't argue in favor of individuality with ones opinion,
And then use it as a tool to demean anothers thought :/


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

SirenOfTheGanges said:


> I'm not baffled by that,
> I'm just baffled by the entitlement that seems to predominate with this type of thread,
> Beating a dead horse over and over again.
> 
> ...


I am not stating that you are incorrect in your perspective, but rather that multiple perspectives exist. Those perspectives might seem contradictory, but that's when stepping back a bit is useful, recognize a larger scope.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Veggie said:


> @Mee2 - So women would be into bashful, submissive, feminine men (Dramatic interpretation - "OMG, please impregnate me! Please! Any of you could do this, but I choose you Mr. Wallflower, please (potentially) ruin the next nine months of my life (as just the beginning!) because you somehow stand out against the rest of the submissive men, and I just trust you to stick around for literally no objective reason!") if it weren't for "society" telling us to be into testosterone and confidence? (Also - I can be confident - am I masculine?)


I would never argue that society defines our taste completely, but I'd certainly credit it with much more of an influence than you do. Look at how much the masculine and feminine ideals have shifted over time, or how much they differ in other cultures. But my point would still stand quite well even if society's influence was negligible, so I'm not sure why you chose to criticise it from this angle.


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

SirenOfTheGanges said:


> I'm not baffled by that,
> I'm just baffled by the entitlement that seems to predominate with this type of thread,
> Beating a dead horse over and over again.
> 
> ...


Shut the hell up

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Umiami said:


> Shut the hell up
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


Ohhh noooooo,
What're you going to do to me?
Use violence to put me in my place?

If you can't handle other peoples thoughts on this,
Then you're not big enough to be on this forum


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I am not stating that you are incorrect in your perspective, but rather that multiple perspectives exist. Those perspectives might seem contradictory, but that's when stepping back a bit is useful, recognize a larger scope.


I never once denied the existence of other perspectives,
I just didn't consider them in this case,
As I don't feel that many of them are worth considering,
Due to their approach to the subject at hand.


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

SirenOfTheGanges said:


> Ohhh noooooo,
> What're you going to do to me?
> Use violence to put me in my place?
> 
> ...


no what I do is put u on ignore list nerdlet bye


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Umiami said:


> no what I do is put u on ignore list nerdlet bye


Yes 'Bad Boy',
You're more than welcome to do that 
It'd be saving me time


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> *But my point would still stand quite well *even if society's influence was negligible, so I'm not sure why you chose to criticise it from this angle.


How so? If you take away society's influence, biologically, males are the more aggressive of most species.

I approach it from the angle of pregnancy because that is still a very real reality of heterosexual relationships (and often a leading consideration in approaching and deciding to attempt a monogamous LTR) and it is absolutely maddening to me that women who take into account persistence, confidence and assertion in mate selection are considered somehow archaic or brainwashed by societal institutions. It is absolutely logical to judge for these qualities (not that it's necessarily illogical not to, if the individual has their reasons), and to simply brush such thinking off as indoctrination is equally "a shallow understanding of what's actually happening."

If you want babies? Boom, you can go out and make a bunch of them tonight, and your work is complete. If I do? One and done, for the next year. Yes, I will be selective, and yes, I want some reassurance that the person is capable of a degree of protection, stability and commitment. 



Mee2 said:


> I'd probably argue that the masculine ideal of dominance is jerky by definition.


Why? Is a coward less of a jerk?


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

SirenOfTheGanges said:


> Yes 'Bad Boy',
> You're more than welcome to do that
> It'd be saving me time


But I thought you were supposed to want to have sex with him now? ARGH THIS IS SO CONFUSING!


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Yes. You know, there was an exception to the type I've usually dated. He was extremely smart, sarcastic, off-beat funny - alpha in a more intellectual way (but on the shorter/skinnier side physically). We played delicious mind games with each other. I was still in college when we semi-dated (I think age difference was our main problem), and he would do crap like review essays I'd write, no bars on criticism (it was fun to challenge each other) - but then surprise me by writing really sweet poetry in random places in notebooks that I'd find days later. Effort! Basically, women don't want the equivalent of someone just laying there I think...you know.


...I sort of sense a catch-22 here. Not sure. 

If the thing you desire from a man is _effort_, in the form of displays of affection, in order to be interested in them, but at the same time that effort is incredibly likely to be taken as unwanted, perhaps even stalkerish, and get said men rather humiliated (probably by you, in fact), then, well...what? How is someone supposed to know when they can display that affection?

I don't know about you, but if I'm going to take that effort, I want tangible evidence of results _first_. The physical expectations you have aren't so great that they balance that out, honestly.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

SirenOfTheGanges said:


> I never once denied the existence of other perspectives,
> I just didn't consider them in this case,
> As I don't feel that many of them are worth considering,
> Due to their approach to the subject at hand.


Approach and tone have little to do with merit.

And acknowledging the existence of perspectives has little to do with the understanding of them, both verbatim and when put in context.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> But I thought you were supposed to want to have sex with him now? ARGH THIS IS SO CONFUSING!


*Sigh*,
If only it worked like that xD


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

NK said:


> it only appears like women want more because no offense but, we are more.


Hmmm...and women say that men are entitled?

I think this attitude among women is the biggest reason that marriage is so much less common than 30 years ago. Many women feel like they are essentially doing men a favor just by being with them at all, and I don't know many self-respecting (read: desirable) men who would accede to such an arrangement willingly. This seems to be what's underlying the "laundry list" of traits so many women have for prospective mates. It's a sense that female > male, so men must overcome their intrinsically lower value by bringing more to the partnership. 

Now, I don't think all women feel this way, but this belief does seem to be growing as part of the rise of the entitlement society. Men are guilty of it too.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Umiami said:


> no what I do is put u on ignore list nerdlet bye


JOCK, GO BACK TO THE FOOTBALL FIELD.

(And European football is cooler than American football)


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Veggie said:


> How so? If you take away society's influence, biologically, males are the more aggressive of most species.
> 
> I approach it from the angle of pregnancy because that is still a very real reality of heterosexual relationships (and often a leading consideration in approaching and deciding to attempt a monogamous LTR) and it is absolutely maddening to me that women who take into account persistence, confidence and assertion in mate selection are considered somehow archaic or brainwashed by societal institutions. It is absolutely logical to judge for these qualities (not that it's necessarily illogical not to, if the individual has their reasons), and to simply brush such thinking off as indoctrination is equally "a shallow understanding of what's actually happening."


Well sure, but I find it still a little odd that men are much more _variable_ in what they look for in a mate--you get some who have trophy wives, and you get some that gush over a woman being able to beat them at videogames. But for women? Ability to provide (which the persistence/confidence/assertion thing reflects). _Every time_. 

I mean, maybe biology has something to do with it, sure. But then, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent prescription to acquire _men_--not even attractiveness guarantees it. 



> If you want babies? Boom, you can go out and make a bunch of them tonight, and your work is complete. If I do? One and done, for the next year. Yes, I will be selective, and yes, I want some reassurance that the person is capable of a degree of protection, stability and commitment.


There are a vast number of ways to prevent pregnancy and some of them (just not connecting the two reproductive organs during sex) are in fact _foolproof_. So...



Why? Is a coward less of a jerk?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Elvish Lives said:


> Hmmm...and women say that men are entitled?
> 
> I think this attitude among women is the biggest reason that marriage is so much less common than 30 years ago. Many women feel like they are essentially doing men a favor just by being with them at all, and I don't know many self-respecting (read: desirable) men who would accede to such an arrangement willingly. This seems to be what's underlying the "laundry list" of traits so many women have for prospective mates. It's a sense that female > male, so men must overcome their intrinsically lower value by bringing more to the partnership.
> 
> Now, I don't think all women feel this way, but this belief does seem to be growing as part of the rise of the entitlement society. Men are guilty of it too.


The primary reason for this happening is the disparity in attention a woman receives vs. her statistical "value" (aggregate averaged value among all men), due to the fact that men are much more likely to be content with only sex from a woman. As a result, women, even P women, often perceive themselves at a much higher "value", and will naturally start narrowing options by being more discerning. Of course this inevitably leads to an enormous problem - the only men that are found worthy, are in fact many levels higher in "value", and rarely have interest beyond possible sexual relations. Especially since the men with the highest perceived value have literally infinite options.

As a rubberband affect, a woman might force herself to "overlook things", after being lied to/cheated on/etc, and start considering men who are actually suitable. But ultimately this doesn't work that well in most cases either, because she will still receive the same high attention levels, and unless the guy has a large amount of hidden value (so his general value is underevaluated), or his value is just higher with her in particular because of very high mental compatibility, the woman will likely become disastisfied in time.

Ironically, this state of affairs is actually what leads to male entitlement. Because as a man's "value" decreases, he will have exponentially less opportunities to fulfil his innate biological desire for sex. This is exactly what leads to the male tendency to quantify women in "drunk fuckable" "datable" "marriage material" - the first category contains the women that are much lower "value" and thus he is not interested in dating, the second group aligns similarly in "value" , but usually ignores him/calls him a friend after 2 dates, and the last group will generally just think he is a giant creeper, unless he can quickly show somethimg that woman individually finds to be valuable, to boost him in her eyes.

Disclaimer: sorry about using words like "value", it isn't intended to diminish anyone, but the fact is that there is definitely a loosely defined system being used. It obviously disregards quite alot of individuality - but hey, welcome to dating in the age of the internet.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Veggie said:


> How so? If you take away society's influence, biologically, males are the more aggressive of most species.
> 
> I approach it from the angle of pregnancy because that is still a very real reality of heterosexual relationships (and often a leading consideration in approaching and deciding to attempt a monogamous LTR) and it is absolutely maddening to me that women who take into account persistence, confidence and assertion in mate selection are considered somehow archaic or brainwashed by societal institutions. It is absolutely logical to judge for these qualities (not that it's necessarily illogical not to, if the individual has their reasons), and to simply brush such thinking off as indoctrination is equally "a shallow understanding of what's actually happening."
> 
> If you want babies? Boom, you can go out and make a bunch of them tonight, and your work is complete. If I do? One and done, for the next year. Yes, I will be selective, and yes, I want some reassurance that the person is capable of a degree of protection, stability and commitment.


I'm not trying to say that all masculine men are jerks, only that there's some overlap between what we see as a jerk and the masculine ideal. As a result of this, the more masculine someone is, the easier it is to call him a jerk. Batman, for example (a masculine ideal), has quite a lot in common with your average "jerk". Again, I'm not saying that Batman is a jerk, only that one could see him as one if they wanted to, thanks to the similarities. 

Imagine if the masculine ideal was defined by a different set of traits - a rough opposite, for example. I have a feeling that we'd be having almost exactly the same conversation, except that instead of complaining that women like jerks, men would be complaining that women like losers. Why? Because there's overlap between this new masculine ideal and what we would usually consider a loser. 

Make sense now?



Veggie said:


> Why? Is a coward less of a jerk?


If you're asking whether cowardliness is a more desirable trait, the answer is no, but we wouldn't use the word "jerk" to describe him. Instead, he'd be called a loser (as demonstrated above) or something along those lines.


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

Aya the Whaler said:


> JOCK, GO BACK TO THE FOOTBALL FIELD.
> 
> (And European football is cooler than American football)


ignored


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> The primary reason for this happening is the disparity in attention a woman receives vs. her statistical "value" (aggregate averaged value among all men), due to the fact that men are much more likely to be content with only sex from a woman. As a result, women, even P women, often perceive themselves at a much higher "value", and will naturally start narrowing options by being more discerning. Of course this inevitably leads to an enormous problem - the only men that are found worthy, are in fact many levels higher in "value", and rarely have interest beyond possible sexual relations. Especially since the men with the highest perceived value have literally infinite options.
> 
> As a rubberband affect, a woman might force herself to "overlook things", after being lied to/cheated on/etc, and start considering men who are actually suitable. But ultimately this doesn't work that well in most cases either, because she will still receive the same high attention levels, and unless the guy has a large amount of hidden value (so his general value is underevaluated), or his value is just higher with her in particular because of very high mental compatibility, the woman will likely become disastisfied in time.


Yes, I've see that, the if-I-can't drive-a-BMW-I'd-rather-walk theory of mating. Of course, women support themselves these days so they have the luxury of choice. It seems like a lot of women turn their noses up at the guys who are genuinely interested because they would rather hold out for someone better, though that guy may not be willing to commit to her. Men do this too, but guys eventually come to their senses after they've been alone for a while.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Umiami said:


> ignored


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Elvish Lives said:


> Yes, I've see that, the if-I-can't drive-a-BMW-I'd-rather-walk theory of mating. Of course, women support themselves these days so they have the luxury of choice. It seems like a lot of women turn their noses up at the guys who are genuinely interested because they would rather hold out for someone better, though that guy may not be willing to commit to her. Men do this too, but guys eventually come to their senses after they've been alone for a while.


The "bmw or walk" is only what it appears from a male perspective. From the female perspective, they truly believe that they are just searching for an average everyday mini-van in most cases...and therefore feel entitled to it. It's odd how widespread sociological phenomena can have such a profound impact on individual psychology.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Chained Divinity - I'm not talking accidental pregnancy, I'm talking planning it and then having him bail or behave like a second child himself. I am extremely hesitant to bite that bullet, and if I do it will be because I want a family (at least for a time) more so then just children. 

As far as the humiliation bit - do you know how many times I've been humiliated by dudes? Cheated on, called a slut, whore, bitch, ballbuster? Gas lighted to the point of literally thinking I'm insane? If he isn't willing to risk that he isn't my equal. I'm not interesteId in dudes who always need permission to make decisions either.

As someone who has literally been stalked (strange guy went to prison for a year after breaking into my townhouse and living there while I was out of town) I know the difference between stalking and behavior that annoys me too.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Umiami said:


> no what I do is put u on ignore list nerdlet bye


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> The "bmw or walk" is only what it appears from a male perspective. From the female perspective, they truly believe that they are just searching for an average everyday mini-van in most cases...and therefore feel entitled to it. It's odd how widespread sociological phenomena can have such a profound impact on individual psychology.


Hahaha, yeah, to women I think 95% of us look like used Dodge Caravans with 80k miles on the odometer.


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

@Promethea ignored


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

It's probably also obvious that while these "nice" guys who complain about women liking "jerks" they're also rejecting a woman thinking they can do better. It's a vicious cycle with no end to both genders. Nice guys are guys who don't fish for compliments to be called a "nice" guy people just know they are. There are lots of men who masquerade around as nice guys but they only put on a show until they get what they want they reveal the jerk that they are. That's what usually happens. It's not that women fall for "jerks." It's just that jerks pretend to be nice guys and people sometimes can't tell the difference.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Umiami said:


> @Promethea ignored


Bruh??


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

Everybody, no matter their gender, can fall for someone who might proceed treat them badly in some way or another. When you've fallen for them it's harder to face that truth than it is for those who look at it from the outside. Some women fall for guys who turn out to be abusive, but they do not know that beforehand.

But 'jerk' is a term I can't come to... terms with. I've liked some very different guys, all with good and bad sides. One of them seemed like, and was, an extremely nice guy, but then it turned out he had been dishonest and cowardly, making me believe he wanted something he didn't actually want. He did however apologise for this, and I know that he knows why what he did was wrong. Another broke my heart thoroughly, and for a long while I would have said he had been a jerk to me for reasons too detailed to go into. However, I now see that he didn't really ever lie to me. He has also later apologised for his bad behaviour and been really nice and respectful to me.

Both had their negative sides, and I won't ever pretend that the things they did weren't bad. But it didn't make either of them _bad people _or _jerks_, and there is so much more to both of them than what they did to hurt me. If by 'jerk' you mean guys who'll treat me disrespectfully, then nope, I usually fall for people who I believe will treat me with respect. Sometimes they turn out to hurt me in one way or another, sometimes they turn out to be disrespectful, but I won't fall for guys if my initial impression is that they might act like that.

On the other hand I'd say guys who claim women only fall for this and that are pretty disrespectful towards women. And as disrespect is the main word I would associate with the 'jerks', well... Point being, I'm not likely to fall for jerks.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Umiami said:


> no what I do is put u on ignore list nerdlet bye


Yeah, that's maturity. Anyone whose too smart for you, you ignore.


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Yeah, that's maturity. Anyone whose too smart for you, you ignore.


U included btw it's "who's" not "whose" smart guy

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Umiami said:


> U included btw it's "who's" not "whose" smart guy
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


I'm so honored.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Umiami said:


> U included btw it's "who's" not "whose" smart guy
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


yea "u" tell him


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

Grainy said:


> Everybody, no matter their gender, can fall for someone who might proceed treat them badly in some way or another. When you've fallen for them it's harder to face that truth than it is for those who look at it from the outside. Some women fall for guys who turn out to be abusive, but they do not know that beforehand.
> 
> But 'jerk' is a term I can't come to... terms with. I've liked some very different guys, all with good and bad sides. One of them seemed like, and was, an extremely nice guy, but then it turned out he had been dishonest and cowardly, making me believe he wanted something he didn't actually want. He did however apologise for this, and I know that he knows why what he did was wrong. Another broke my heart thoroughly, and for a long while I would have said he had been a jerk to me for reasons too detailed to go into. However, I now see that he didn't really ever lie to me. He has also later apologised for his bad behaviour and been really nice and respectful to me.
> 
> ...


If I wanted to I could have u in less than 1 minute.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Umiami said:


> If I wanted to I could have u in less than 1 minute.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


   

Not worth it.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

thelostxin said:


> It's probably also obvious that while these "nice" guys who complain about women liking "jerks" they're also rejecting a woman thinking they can do better. It's a vicious cycle with no end to both genders. Nice guys are guys who don't fish for compliments to be called a "nice" guy people just know they are. There are lots of men who masquerade around as nice guys but they only put on a show until they get what they want they reveal the jerk that they are. That's what usually happens. It's not that women fall for "jerks." It's just that jerks pretend to be nice guys and people sometimes can't tell the difference.


Have you ever considered that continual rejection at the hands of women who aren't even "out of his league" might stifle a young fellow's development of confidence? I believe nice-guy-syndrome also originates from value disparity.

Know your type too. I immediately identified you as a probable infp or isfp by what you wrote. IxFP have this uncanny ability to have an overactive jerk-dar, mostly as a result of inferior Te tampering with perception. But that's an entirely different dialogue.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Umiami said:


> If I wanted to I could have u in less than 1 minute.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


Then prove it, Mister Intelligence.


----------



## Grainy (Jul 2, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> Then prove it, Mister Intelligence.


We're having the most amazing sex right now. He's a real prince Charming.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Grainy said:


> We're having the most amazing sex right now. He's a real prince Charming.


If he's like the Fable version of Prince Charming, the sex is great, but not his personality.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Grainy said:


> Everybody, no matter their gender, can fall for someone who might proceed treat them badly in some way or another. When you've fallen for them it's harder to face that truth than it is for those who look at it from the outside. Some women fall for guys who turn out to be abusive, but they do not know that beforehand.
> 
> But 'jerk' is a term I can't come to... terms with. I've liked some very different guys, all with good and bad sides. One of them seemed like, and was, an extremely nice guy, but then it turned out he had been dishonest and cowardly, making me believe he wanted something he didn't actually want. He did however apologise for this, and I know that he knows why what he did was wrong. Another broke my heart thoroughly, and for a long while I would have said he had been a jerk to me for reasons too detailed to go into. However, I now see that he didn't really ever lie to me. He has also later apologised for his bad behaviour and been really nice and respectful to me.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you say, but in my case, they hardly ever apologize to me which is what make them full on jerks to me. Only two people has dever apologize when they knew they were said "jerks."

I don't know what kind of woman purposely wants a jerk, probably someone with very low self-esteem that will take anyone she can get.


----------



## theflame (Apr 12, 2014)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Have you ever considered that continual rejection at the hands of women who aren't even "out of his league" might stifle a young fellow's development of confidence? I believe nice-guy-syndrome also originates from value disparity.
> 
> Know your type too. I immediately identified you as a probable infp or isfp by what you wrote. IxFP have this uncanny ability to have an overactive jerk-dar, mostly as a result of inferior Te tampering with perception. But that's an entirely different dialogue.


It's not a male thing it's a gender thing, it's a people thing. I've had guys who I'm way too good for think they can toy around with me and they've got another thing coming. It's funny whenever the guys I deal with who I actually give a chance who don't deserve chances from me in the first place think they can act a certain way toward me, no, I don't tolerate jerks. In fact, I have a very low tolerance for them and when they immediately show their jerk side I said I'm too old for this disrespect, over and out. 

Jerks are people who don't apologize when they know they've done wrong. I'm pretty sure I know what a jerk is and I'm not over-identifying.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> Hmmm...and women say that men are entitled?
> 
> I think this attitude among women is the biggest reason that marriage is so much less common than 30 years ago. Many women feel like they are essentially doing men a favor just by being with them at all, and I don't know many self-respecting (read: desirable) men who would accede to such an arrangement willingly. This seems to be what's underlying the "laundry list" of traits so many women have for prospective mates. It's a sense that female > male, so men must overcome their intrinsically lower value by bringing more to the partnership.
> 
> Now, I don't think all women feel this way, but this belief does seem to be growing as part of the rise of the entitlement society. Men are guilty of it too.


We are more, as in more emotional (externally obvious). So yes, we are more to handle. Men are simpler in their process of relationship. Don't make my words something they're not. Thank you.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> Hahaha, yeah, to women I think 95% of us look like used Dodge Caravans with 80k miles on the odometer.


And 95% of women look like a piece of ass to men. ... Don't get your panties in a bunch that women generalize etc if you do it to.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

NK said:


> And 95% of women look like a piece of ass to men. ... Don't get your panties in a bunch that women generalize etc if you do it to.


Judging by your posts in this thread, I'd say you should take your own advice about not getting your panties in a bunch.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

NK said:


> We are more, as in more emotional (externally obvious). So yes, we are more to handle. Men are simpler in their process of relationship. Don't make my words something they're not. Thank you.


I don't agree that men are simpler, emotionally or otherwise. And I was quoting your words, nothing more.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> The primary reason for this happening is the disparity in attention a woman receives vs. her statistical "value" (aggregate averaged value among all men), due to the fact that men are much more likely to be content with only sex from a woman. As a result, women, even P women, often perceive themselves at a much higher "value", and will naturally start narrowing options by being more discerning. Of course this inevitably leads to an enormous problem - the only men that are found worthy, are in fact many levels higher in "value", and rarely have interest beyond possible sexual relations. Especially since the men with the highest perceived value have literally infinite options.
> 
> As a rubberband affect, a woman might force herself to "overlook things", after being lied to/cheated on/etc, and start considering men who are actually suitable. But ultimately this doesn't work that well in most cases either, because she will still receive the same high attention levels, and unless the guy has a large amount of hidden value (so his general value is underevaluated), or his value is just higher with her in particular because of very high mental compatibility, the woman will likely become disastisfied in time.
> 
> ...


not meaning to be a pain but honestly, please do that awesome male brevity thing. Simplify it for my female brain. What is it that men want then? Just sex with a person who ego strokes them? I can't do that for someone I'm not caring for. Why is it wrong to see my value as high if I'm (in my opinion) able to help people in a way that's unique. Intense, many don't like that. But for those that do ... Why is it foolish for a woman to see her personality, her character, and gifts to offer this world as valuable if she's past that "fuckable" age? 

I hate how men think in such a way that eats at a woman's self esteem and the only way she can keep and maintain her dignity is to grow cold. I hate that this is then complained about. Men complain women have insecurities , then complain they're not vulnerable for them. Why the hell am I gonna be vulnerable for a jerk face who takes but doesn't give?

you need to reword your post here because I don't think I'm hearing it. Frankly, I've got a plethora of bullshit clogging up the lines from the fuck faces that came before you ... A woman's heart is her value. Why is this hard for men to get. Ya know, it is a privilege to be men. Your worth is quantifiable, whereas in relationship the feminine party is nothing but a feeling you can rationalize away with a mind at rest. That's what rationalization is , right? A mind at rest ... 

Ugh. I'm not mad at you. I'm just irritated by the battle of the sexes and I don't like vagina. It's not fair.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> I don't agree that men are simpler, emotionally or otherwise. And I was quoting your words, nothing more.


Let me guess. You're an NF. Well for the record. You're the minority!!


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> Judging by your posts in this thread, I'd say you should take your own advice about not getting your panties in a bunch.


Hypocrite. I own that I get upset. You try to pass it off as something it's not.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Veggie said:


> So what is committing in a meaningful way, exactly? That's kinda been my argument. Just sticking around? Like a booger on my face? One who has the ability to give me STI's if he's into some weird underground fet life crap ("nice" guys cheat too - maybe not at the strip club...but it happens), one who I have to pick up after if he's a lazy prick, who I have to share my time and resources with, lose my freedom for...blah, blah, blah....I could go on and on.
> 
> I never said anything about a CEO who nails every dancer at a strip club, either. That's a pretty extreme stereotype. (So is the argument that confidence is only a skip away from such a lifestyle).
> 
> ...


I did use hyperbole to make some of my points, but the dichotomy of the exciting alpha lover vs. the lazy, boring schlub is also hyperbolic. As I posted previously, guys fall under more headings than just rich, muscular superhero and fat unemployed loser.

I just get the feeling that there are many women like you who see men as mostly a losing proposition unless they can get a man with the very highest status. Most women aren't going to get that guy in any meaningful way, and by 'meaningful' I mean truly committed (i.e. not cheating). But you're right, you're not compelled to settle for anything. Single is increasingly *the* choice for women under 40.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Veggie said:


> My foot or my *entire* leg? - yea, I'd rather lose just the foot
> 
> Is that really such a strange statement?
> 
> Nope, don't enjoy being cheated on. Excruciatingly painful. The quick kind of pain, though. Not the kind that becomes soul numbing existential death.


I do think it's a strange statement, because I don't personally feel the need to figure out what would hurt me less in two equally devastating scenarios. They both suck, so who cares! I'd rather think of positive scenarios happening instead!


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Chained Divinity said:


> Enh, this actually _sounds_ quite a bit different from the point you made earlier--qualities that mark one as "different from the herd" is not the same thing as "alpha" tendencies or qualities that make you a better _person_.


I don't equate alpha with "better" - I equate it more with autonomy, and as individuality being held in high esteem within that. More likely a leader than a follower.



Chained Divinity said:


> I don't think you can take what attracts people to people and boil it down to "are they at your rank?" and be totally accurate.


Not about "rank" - it's about someone who I'd see as a genuine partner, given who I am and what I value (my experiences, etc).



Chained Divinity said:


> I'm not so sure about your calculus--carrying out a murder, I imagine, takes _confidence_, which is what "Mr. Insecure-O" completely lacks...


LOL, that's why I added the bit about "jealous rage" - nothing first degree about that. Totally lacking in self-control.



Chained Divinity said:


> Do you mean to say that my comment that women I'd encountered didn't seem to focus on any traits a man had but for a small list was only true because the suggestion of otherwise was somehow perceived as insulting?


Yes, women who don't adhere to a very small check-list of what self-empowered, self-respecting women are supposed to be attracted to are often seen as the opposite of those things. Just take a look at this thread and take note of where the thank counts lie, lol.



Chained Divinity said:


> There is actually one rather basic advantage the "loser" has that you're forgetting about, because it's not something as much on your radar, though--power dynamics.
> 
> There are plenty of men and women that either prefer to be the dominant one or (I think) can't stand to have the spotlight taken off them in interactions. Sure, Bruce Wayne'd be awesome, but he would be far less likely to be _theirs_, in entirety. He'd be another person, with his own drives, his own self-confidence, and ultimately an ability to say "no, fuck you" to them that some lesser being wouldn't have. And if one such as him got into your social circle--he'd overshadow you by a long shot.


Oh, nooo, power dynamics are *totally* on my radar  I think I've even said this. There isn't a *dynamic* however in power that's purely fixated (i.e. one person wears the pants). Overshadowing isn't permanent if you've got a bad ass shadow yourself


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> I did use hyperbole to make some of my points, but the dichotomy of the steamy Latin lover vs. the lazy, boring schlub is also hyperbolic. As I posted previously, guys fall under more headings than just rich, muscular superhero and fat unemployed loser.
> 
> I just get the feeling that there are many women like you who see men as mostly a losing proposition unless they can get a man with the very highest status. Most women aren't going to get that guy in any meaningful way, and by 'meaningful' I mean truly committed (i.e. not cheating). But you're right, you're not compelled to settle for anything. Single is increasingly *the* choice for women under 40.


Here is what I got to say about men and status. It's 2014. Women can make their own money.

The sticky part to understand is that how a woman's heart becomes involved with the guy when she respects him. and men with status automatically are respected from the get go, vs. dude on the couch. This respect however could drop in 2 seconds flat depending on the person. 

It's like, if you walked up to a 10, and when she started to speak, it felt like you were talking to a handbag, then she'd be reduced to a 4. This concept applies with how they view your "status".

Only the younger generations are so foolish to not mind the disparity, that and the stupid or terminally ill. disparity meaning never confuse intelligence with education.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

NK said:


> I'm not saying I'd be happy, but that I would be *happier *If I had to choose between the scenarios.


I just don't think that there is a simple dichotomy in men between boring losers and exciting, if promiscuous, alphas. Most guys fall somewhere in between.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> I just don't think that there is a simple dichotomy in men between boring losers and exciting, if promiscuous, alphas. Most guys fall somewhere in between.


I think her initial comment was she would rather he cheat than be boring. For me, boring would be someone I'm not mentally engaged with and how could I be a serious partner with someone I wasn't mentally engaged with? I suppose it's semantics over the meaning of "boring" we're disagreeing about.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Elvish Lives said:


> Most guys fall somewhere in between.


Not really, though.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Not really, though.


Then you neither understand nor appreciate men.


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

Elvish Lives said:


> I just get the feeling that there are many women like you who see men as mostly a losing proposition unless they can get a man with the very highest status. Most women aren't going to get that guy in any meaningful way, and by 'meaningful' I mean truly committed (i.e. not cheating). But you're right, you're not compelled to settle for anything. Single is increasingly *the* choice for women under 40.


This is the rub of it, but what these same women don't (or refuse to) realise is that as their biological value rapidly declines after age 30, very few men will be interested in them for more than casual sex by 40. That there isn't any pressure to find a mate earlier, meaning the standards become unreal, is an ultimately suicidal problem our society suffers from.

Women need to decide what they want, something i've observed they're not always very good at doing.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Elvish Lives said:


> Then you neither understand nor appreciate men.


Quite the contrary. You're the one who has been projecting all kind of silliness (status and what not, which I actually, really, do not care too much about) onto my posts. I'm somewhat liberal in who I give my Bruce Wayne knightings to, lol. I'm a bit of an MRA to a degree, even. 

I'm pretty kind to the dudes who bore me too. I just don't want to ride their hog...so definitely don't want to commit to it for an extended period of time.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

SouthernSaxon said:


> This is the rub of it, but what these same women don't (or refuse to) realise is that as their biological value rapidly declines after age 30, *very few men will be interested in them for more than casual sex by 40*. That there isn't any pressure to find a mate earlier, meaning the standards become unreal, is an ultimately suicidal problem our society suffers from.


Not at all unaware of this. The point has been that some of us DON'T CARE (or are willing to meet the challenge). I'm not going to have a relationship just to have one.


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Not at all unaware of this. The point has been that some of us DON'T CARE (or are willing to meet the challenge). I'm not going to have a relationship just to have one.


I forgot to mention that men in the income bracket you're after can easily attract women of any age. You'll be competing with younger, hotter women. 

Now you see the mistake you've made, I hope...


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

NK said:


> I think her initial comment was she would rather he cheat than be boring. For me, boring would be someone I'm not mentally engaged with and how could I be a serious partner with someone I wasn't mentally engaged with? I suppose it's semantics over the meaning of "boring" we're disagreeing about.


Whether another person is boring or not is also very subjective. And can be influenced by biological attraction.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

NK said:


> The sticky part to understand is that how a woman's heart becomes involved with the guy when she respects him. and men with status automatically are respected from the get go, vs. dude on the couch.


My issue with this is that I think status is among the poorest means by which to choose a mate. Status says nothing about who he is as a person, where he's been, or how he might be compatible with you as a partner. But then, I suppose that's the type 4 in me talking, because I'm inherently skeptical of status when presented as an absolute indicator of merit. I deal with government officials in my job who carry the title "the honorable" who are anything but.

I know that a lot of women want to meet a man who's 'going somewhere' in his life, and I guess that's where the genders part company on this issue. For my part, I don't really care all that much about a woman's relative status. I just want a woman who's into me, though a nice body is a plus ;-)


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

SouthernSaxon said:


> I forgot to mention that men in the income bracket you're after can easily attract women of any age. You'll be competing with younger, hotter women.
> 
> Now you see the mistake you've made, I hope...


Younger does not necessarily equal hotter, first of all  If I made the effort, I could smoke a lot of women younger than me. I frequently get complimented on how young I look for my age.

Second - do you fucking *read* these posts? I have said repeatedly, and when I say repeatedly, I mean that I have f'ing drilled this home like 17,000 times now, that income bracket is not important to me.

People read a sentence, leap to conclusions, make a projection, and disengage.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> *My issue with this is that I think status is among the poorest means by which to choose a mate.* Status says nothing about who he is as a person, where he's been, or how he might be compatible with you as a partner. But then, I suppose that's the type 4 in me talking, because I'm inherently skeptical of status when presented as an absolute indicator of merit. I deal with government officials in my job who carry the title "the honorable" who are anything but.
> 
> I know that a lot of women want to meet a man who's 'going somewhere' in his life, and I guess that's where the genders part company on this issue. For my part, I don't really care all that much about a woman's relative status. I just want a woman who's into me, though a nice body is a plus ;-)



That is why I said, when you listen to the 10 speak, it might not stay the same. But just because you're an enneagram 4 doesn't mean you've tried to get with a 10 (in your eyes). and THAT, is a terrible way to choose a mate. see my point? I'm not trying to argue or anything. you don't have to agree. just I'm not sure you're understanding what I mean.


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Quite the contrary. You're the one who has been projecting all kind of silliness (status and what not, which I actually, really, do not care too much about) onto my posts. I'm somewhat liberal in who I give my Bruce Wayne knightings to, lol. I'm a bit of an MRA to a degree, even.
> 
> I'm pretty kind to the dudes who bore me too. I just don't want to ride their hog...so definitely don't want to commit to it for an extended period of time.


Trying to reduce all men to facile stereotypes is the pinnacle of silliness. There's a spectrum of behavior and personality within men that doesn't lend itself to reductionist thinking.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Elvish Lives said:


> Trying to reduce all men to facile stereotypes is the pinnacle of silliness. There's a spectrum of behavior and personality within men that doesn't lend itself to reductionist thinking.


same could be said of women and the stereotypes and boxes we're lumped into. my latest theory however you might like. I no longer care about how other people pick their mates. because let's think about it. the fact is, if they pick one poorly, would you really want to be with that person anyways? also, they pick someone that suits their needs. sometimes people need what they want, not what they need. that phase of life does exist. there are as many phases of the mind through it's evolution as their is in the spectrum you referred to. True, it sucks, but really ... there's 6 billion people in the earth. If a woman can't tell you're a good guy having a jerk moment, or a jerk having a good guy moment , then that's her problem. and if the guy is gonna be sensitive to every wince she has of his jerk moments, he's gonna make life harder than it has to be. just opinion I suppose. but I think it's not a bad idea to mull on it ...


----------



## Elvish Lives (Nov 29, 2013)

NK said:


> That is why I said, when you listen to the 10 speak, it might not stay the same. But just because you're an enneagram 4 doesn't mean you've tried to get with a 10 (in your eyes). and THAT, is a terrible way to choose a mate. see my point? I'm not trying to argue or anything. you don't have to agree. just I'm not sure you're understanding what I mean.


I understand. I just try to take people as they come when I meet them without being overly judgmental, a sin my younger self engaged in far too often. I've found that's the women I really come to love aren't the ones who knock me out on the street corner.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Elvish Lives said:


> I understand. I just try to take people as they come when I meet them without being overly judgmental, a sin my younger self engaged in far too often. I've found that's the women I really come to love aren't the ones who knock me out on the street corner.


What are you doing on the street corner anyway?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> What are you doing on the street corner anyway?


Hahaha!!!! :laughing: Perfect.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Veggie said:


> Younger does not necessarily equal hotter, first of all  If I made the effort, I could smoke a lot of women younger than me. I frequently get complimented on how young I look for my age.


It's not exactly fair to compare your hotness level to the average female, regardless of age.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Elvish Lives said:


> Trying to reduce all men to facile stereotypes is the pinnacle of silliness. There's a spectrum of behavior and personality within men that doesn't lend itself to reductionist thinking.


Fair enough...I was feeling a bit controversial and obstinate with that last post there 

HOWEVER...people cannot be reduced to stereotypes = true; we can categorize people based on approximation of type = true. (Like this site, lol...also, given what we're working with on this thread here...not the worst premise for an argument, also, since...it's what we've been doing up until this point).


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> It's not exactly fair to compare your hotness level to the average female, regardless of age.


I can't tell if you were trying for ironic humor or if this was a 'man' moment. lol! seriously.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> It's not exactly fair to compare your hotness level to the average female, regardless of age.


Well it's also not fair to act as if this isn't a factor in attraction (no! It's all strictly age related!)

Old and gross:










Young and hot:










(...And no, I'm not comparing myself to Heidi Klum, ha...just making a point, lol).


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

I'd be interested in the views of female INFJs at 50+ (especially if they were very attractive at a young age), and how their perspectives changed. Literally every INFJ I know in the late 20s, early 30s, has the same "independence is my newfound toy" view of life, and it seems to be echoed in the forums too. Seems prompted by a more robust tertiary Ti.

But like most tertiary functions....proficiency is often overestimated by the user.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I'd be interested in the views of female INFJs at 50+ (especially if they were very attractive at a young age), and how their perspectives changed. Literally every INFJ I know in the late 20s, early 30s, has the same "independence is my newfound toy" view of life, and it seems to be echoed in the forums too. Seems prompted by a more robust tertiary Ti.


I think that INFJ's vary a lot and I find that to be directly correlated with enneagram. some are less independent than others. that doesn't mean that independent ones aren't any less idealistic which includes deep meaningful relationships. I think I would suspect that 50+ would be an INFJ with more life experience to draw upon in order to prioritize her life and those relationships within them.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I'd be interested in the views of female INFJs at 50+ (especially if they were very attractive at a young age), and how their perspectives changed. Literally every INFJ I know in the late 20s, early 30s, has the same "independence is my newfound toy" view of life, and it seems to be echoed in the forums too. Seems prompted by tertiary Ti.


What if you feel like you're mentally 78? How does that one work?  If that "newfound toy" was more like a ravenous pitbull which almost threatened to eat your brain space alive and so you were just like...shhh...(and then you gave that dog a bone?...*whispers to self* - "you don't have to commit to it, though")

Edit: I think it's about that time of night where I stop making sense, as a warning.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Veggie said:


> What if you feel like you're mentally 78? How does that one work?  If that "newfound toy" was more like a ravenous pitbull which almost threatened to eat your brain space alive and so you were just like...shhh...(and then you gave that dog a bone?...*whispers to self* - "you don't have to commit to it, though")
> 
> Edit: I think it's about that time of night where I stop making sense, as a warning.


Haha.... don't worry, I've been associating you with that giant bunny head all night.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Haha.... don't worry, I've been associating you with that giant bunny head all night.


Sweet


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Well it's also not fair to act as if this isn't a factor in attraction (no! It's all strictly age related!)
> 
> Old and gross:
> 
> ...


I would bang either so the idea that u have an advantage is not true

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Umiami said:


> I would bang either so the idea that u have an advantage is not true
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


It's also not true that I have a disadvantage then, either


----------



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

wyldstyle said:


> This is seriously a mental f#$k for me. The nice guy who helps people, kids, animals yet also has a dirty mind and can be occasionally insensitive.
> 
> I want to understand that guy more...take him apart and understand how he ticks...


Haha look at some more male ENFPs as a start!


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Umiami said:


> I'm entitled 2 being left da hell alone, however chix always think they are the special exception as in they expect I should wanna walk around a clothes store or go to the park with them n act shocked when I reveal I do not want to. They think they are so special that I should forget I am a man and start going candle shopping with them. Men know and expect that a chick will not share his interests which is why men generally want women to go away.
> 
> Men also generally have the practical skills n core competency to justify their feelings of entitlement while women have no such thing.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk


What in the world qualifies men at large as a group to have the credit alone for competency? This is very sexist. And I am not one for whining about sexism all the time. I am not an outright active feminist of any sort. But you in no way hide the fact that you feel superior as a gender based on having a penis, you feel your more competent. Now lets hypothetically say your more competent how is that grounds for entitlement anyways. 

Theres just no premise for your logic. Its all just statements with nothing of substance in between. 

God I hope your a troll rather then an actual person who thinks like this!


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

SouthernSaxon said:


> This is the rub of it, but what these same women don't (or refuse to) realise is that as their biological value rapidly declines after age 30, very few men will be interested in them for more than casual sex by 40. That there isn't any pressure to find a mate earlier, meaning the standards become unreal, is an ultimately suicidal problem our society suffers from.
> 
> Women need to decide what they want, something i've observed they're not always very good at doing.


I refute this. Being over the age of 30 I haven't really had issue attracting potential mates. For a while I had to fight them off with a stick. I don't actually get into casual affairs. It seemed that some of the men thought I may have been desperate for attention after leaving a relationship. They were wrong. An equal part of them were interested in a relationship too. I think you greatly undervalue women and men for just wanting companionship. There are men who just like women and don't see them as biological ticking time bombs.


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

This ^

I find the older I get the more it happens, not less. They are more respectful now instead of just trying to abduct me or corner me like cavemen. It also seems men in general now are more accepting of intelligence and dominating personalities. I thank pop culture.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I guess that I'm a transsexual then or some shit, cuz I wouldn't mind getting thrown in the wall and fucked.

Second of all OP 99% of human history have been doing nothing but spearing husks of fur, gathering berries, fucking, playing music and occasionally murdering each other for petty reasons. In 99% of our history, we have for the most part have been egalitarian. The only area where it wasn't, was that women were less likely to hunt down game and other big meat piles.

6/10 made me reply OP, average troll. Got me mildly bothered for like 30 seconds.


----------



## Umiami (Apr 9, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Ori_ said:


> Promethea, I understand the fact that you want to speak with the number 1.. but, no he's not on reddit, the leader is my creativity
> 
> Promethea I don't want to convince any "women of the internet finally just say, "sure, I like jerks"" , I wanted to state my opinion and see what you think of it (as I stated at the beginning of my post), and in fact I think your answer is quite interesting! I think our modern image-driven deviated naive limited sexually repressed society doesn't have enough self awareness to define or ""prove"" any of these concepts being right or wrong, it can give people a chance to discuss or challenge their understanding or make jokes, this yes
> 
> ...



Why don't you just walk up to a girl and ask her, why do some women prefer what you think is a jerk,rather than make a big thread about it, in a long rant, that clearly shows your frustration? I'm sure a woman would be touched that you're interested in her opinion about a confusing and complicated subject such as dating, and sex,instead of being angry at the world, that she might take an interest in you. People don't want to date a person in the midst of a pity party.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Take me baby I'm yours! I'll even throw in that I just got back from my nationally juried art reception. My artwork was only 1 of 31 of 178, that entered, that got in. It's confirmed, I'm on my way of being a career artist(I'll be starving indefinitely). Like your Van Gogh quote.

Joking aside, that I'll hook up,but staying on the artist route. I think she raises a good point. I think the reason why women aren't going out with men, is that the men aren't comfortable in their own skin being who they are. They lament a certain type,which I'm coming to believe are the Artisans,because we like sports, and may've even played on as a college or high school student. I know some of these people, they're really nice guys. Anyhow,living in Washington DC, I had heard about the storied artistic Washington, with studios,but, I knew in my heart of hearts that,that was long gone. Washington is really think tanks, government agencies,non-profits, and contractors. And so it can be very overwhelming on making it. So, I thought for a long time, I had to get the education,so I could get the job in those fields,but, that being someone else didn't work out for me. What did work out for me, is being an artist,which is how I define myself,so I took an oil painting class. I'm like the only guy in that class, everyone else is a woman. And I'm not trying to bed them. This allows them to be comfortable around me, and tell me I'm a great artist. Also, moral in here,a lot of times a person tries to plan everything out,and life has different ideas. Just go down the detour, and see where it takes you,you may be pleasantly surprised. 



EccentricSiren said:


> There are a lot of false dichotomies and incorrect assumptions in the whole argument. Like it's either passionate sex with a jerk or vanilla sex with a nice guy. The jerk could be horrible in bed, the nice guy could have the kama sutra memorized.
> And then there's this whole idea that the guy has to be a jerk to be exciting. Or that you know what all women fantasize about. Or that every single woman behaves exactly like the ones in your experience. Or that you know better than the woman in question what she wants. Or that what she says or thinks she wants couldn't possibly be what she really wants.
> The guy I dream about, fantasize about, would totally be with if I could isn't your stereotypical macho man. He isn't a jerk. He comes across as quirky, artsy, awkward, down-to-earth, kind, downright hilarious, and totally comfortable being that way. That's what I emotionally respond to. Even if I'll never meet him or get together with him, he's the sort of guy I want.


----------

