# Women Don't Like Vulnerability In Men?



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> If you weren't married and lived in England, I'd be creepin right now.
> 
> I like you more with each post.


Thanks! I enjoy your posts too.

BTW, Comedian is one of my favourite Characters. He's a total dick but so much fun to watch.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Whippit said:


> I was tying this all back to the OP about emotional vulnerability. To assign emotional vulnerability to femininity as as arbitrary as assigning assertiveness to masculinity.


I would like to hear an argument in favor of that. It would depend on how you define assertiveness in relation to aggression, risk taking and decisiveness though.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I would like to hear an argument in favor of that. It would depend on how you define assertiveness in relation to aggression, risk taking and decisiveness though.


Do you really need an argument? Have you ever met an assertive woman you are attracted to? If so, did you question your sexuality?


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Hey, nice post and interesting read. 

I can relate to this, the way I kind of look at it it, is a man showing his emotions displays femininity. Again, both genders are attracted to their opposites, men are attracted to femininity, and women are attracted to masculinity. The way I kind of relate it is would I still be attracted if she was acting masculine frequently. The answer is - probably not, since I'm attracted to feminity. Same goes for ladies being attracted to masculinity, if the man is more feminie it will not all be that attractive. Except for maybe a lesbian of course.  JK

However, small doses of masculinity can be attractive, and I assume the same with small doses of femininity.


----------



## muffleupagus (May 14, 2013)

Showing vulnerability puts you in the friend zone.

Hardening up makes you feel as if you're dying.

The trick is to be genuinely secure. I can only handle that during a manic phase. It means I only have flings. Relationships aren't even an option.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

monemi said:


> He's a total dick but so much fun to watch.


That pretty much sums the kind of person I am in the sex and relationships sub-forum (check out some of the threads I've started).


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Whippit said:


> Do you really need an argument? Have you ever met an assertive woman you are attracted to? If so, did you question your sexuality?


If lets say that eating Fish and Chips for lunch is more common in London than in New York and eating Pizza for lunch is more common in New York than in London, would it be arbitrary to say that "fish and chips are more of a London lunch" and "Pizza is more of a New York lunch"? To further the analogy, if a Londoner eats Pizaz , does that make him or her a New Yorker? No, it merely means he or she acted according to the New York paradigm. 

This is the problem with your line of argument. We're not saying "a woman who behaves in a manner which is more commonly observed in men, is a man" we're saying "a woman who behaves in a manner which is more commonly observed in men, behaves in a manner more commonly observed in men."

To go back to the post that started this entire back and forth. The point I was getting at was simply that perhaps women are more attracted to males who embody behaviors and traits more commonly associated with men, such as stoicism, assertiveness, decisiveness, aggression, than males who embody behaviors and traits more commonly associated with women.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> If lets say that eating Fish and Chips for lunch is more common in London than in New York and eating Pizza for lunch is more common in New York than in London, would it be arbitrary to say that "fish and chips are more of a London lunch" and "Pizza is more of a New York lunch"? To further the analogy, if a Londoner eats Pizaz , does that make him or her a New Yorker? No, it merely means he or she acted according to the New York paradigm.
> 
> This is the problem with your line of argument. We're not saying "a woman who behaves in a manner which is more commonly observed in men, is a man" we're saying "a woman who behaves in a manner which is more commonly observed in men, behaves in a manner more commonly observed in men."
> 
> To go back to the post that started this entire back and forth. The point I was getting at was simply that perhaps women are more attracted to males who embody behaviors and traits more commonly associated with men, such as stoicism, assertiveness, decisiveness, aggression, than males who embody behaviors and traits more commonly associated with women.


Generally agreed, except it's a (mostly) cultural construct, which is what I was pointing out originally. And it's not Universally true, at least not here in Berkeley, anyway.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Before reading that section in the book I mistakenly assumed that it was feminists who were inclined to discount men's emotional capacity (e.g. redirecting attention on male issues back to female issues), but it seems women in general do.


I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding. It's not that feminists seem to hate the idea of men's issues per se, but the fact that when men or women present it, it tends to be in the form of derailing a lot of threads and discussions on women's issues.



> She was shocked when she realized that she had ignored men, (her exact words were "I'm the patriarchy") and began researching into the subject of men and shame.


I think this is the big reason a lot of men feel a disconnect with feminism, though. Men tend to take the "what about teh menz?" memes as a simple dismissal of men's issues (instead of as a response to derailing) and get the message, "Patriarchy is bad - now shut up and be a good patriarch!". And sometimes it can be, which makes it all the more confusing.



strangestdude said:


> *Do you believe, or have you experienced, women lose respect or attraction towards you by exposing vulnerability and shame?*


Well, considering I've never been able to project a strong and stoic image for any long period of time (however, I'm actually an extremely stoic person in crisis situations), I can't say either way. 

I think I might have experienced it once on my first date ever with a woman. I'm emotional and happy-go-lucky and not masculine and I never really make any effort to hide it. 

As for respect, I don't think I've ever really gotten any from women. Women have generally seen me as someone to coddle, and I think I kept avoiding them because that was the case. When I was younger, I tended to get away with a lot of smartassness because I looked cute. The reason I remember idolizing my older brother at a young age (even though he had many problems) was because he would treat me with that respect. He wouldn't let me get away with shit, and I loved it.

My favorite teachers were always the strict teachers, because they aren't soft on you and tell it like it is. That is what I consider respect. I like to hang around a mostly male crowd not because I'm particularly masculine, but because men hardly ever coddled me or treated me like I couldn't do things on my own.

I think I grew a habit of avoiding women because a lot of them were too protective of me. It's not that I have some sort of bruised male ego, but it's frustrating because I always received it as "Your qualities or your ability to stick up for yourself don't matter."


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Whippit said:


> Generally agreed, except it's a (mostly) cultural construct, which is what I was pointing out originally. And it's not Universally true, at least not here in Berkeley, anyway.


That's where I want you to make the argument. You have to make a reasonable argument as to why the association of certain behaviors with a gender is (mostly) cultural rather than biological. Considering that similar gender-role patterns appear in various cultures that have had little interaction prior to 1900, it's very difficult to swallow the "mostly cultural" bit.


----------



## muffleupagus (May 14, 2013)

@Scelerat

That's because there are no large scale matriarchal cultures in existence today. The culture exist in degrees of Patriarchy.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

quantriqueptidez said:


> @_Scelerat_
> 
> That's because there are no large scale matriarchal cultures in existence today. The culture exist in degrees of Patriarchy.


No, it's because similar gender role patterns appear to be better at surviving and reproducing than others. I tried reading the wikipedia article about matriarchy and the words I saw the most were "until they were colonized" or "until they were defeated". Now, without getting into this whole "why do I keep ending up in this argument" argument, all I'm asking is that if someone is to assert that something is mainly cultural, then they should argue that point, not just make the assertion. 

Personally, I think it's a mixed bag. I think that a large part of attraction is based in biology but that it can be influenced by culture. Without going into details, I think attraction works off generalizations.


----------



## muffleupagus (May 14, 2013)

If you read what I was replying to, your reply makes absolutely no sense. None. 



> Considering that similar gender-role patterns appear in various cultures that have had little interaction prior to 1900, it's very difficult to swallow the "mostly cultural" bit.


I think you're being rather short sighted, and ignorant.

Matriarchy was the norm throughout most of our species cultural evolution. 

Only after the climate changed throughout the Sahara did the people start to flip the culture. 

There is absolutely no good reason to still live in Patriarchy. It's incredibly regressive, considering how far we've come technologically. 

I'd suggest you do some deep reading in the subject before further commenting. You obviously are a bit clueless here.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Torai said:


> I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding. It's not that feminists seem to hate the idea of men's issues per se, but the fact that when men or women present it, it tends to be in the form of derailing a lot of threads and discussions on women's issues.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is the big reason a lot of men feel a disconnect with feminism, though. Men tend to take the "what about teh menz?" memes as a simple dismissal of men's issues (instead of as a response to derailing) and get the message, "Patriarchy is bad - now shut up and be a good patriarch!". And sometimes it can be, which makes it all the more confusing.


It is very annoying when men derail discussions on feminism with discussions of men's rights/issues/cultural biases. Women create their own platform and finally men have begun to organize and start their own platform with MRA. I don't always agree with them. But it is a much more appropriate approach to deal with sexism turned against men.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Please guys, if you want to argue about feminist theory in depth start another thread.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Please guys, if you want to argue about feminist theory in depth start another thread.


Sorry, I think I made the first post on that. I think I should take responsibility.

But great thread. I'm really enjoying the discussion it's bringing.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

quantriqueptidez said:


> If you read what I was replying to, your reply makes absolutely no sense. None.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, educate me. Because the last time I checked my sources (as of this moment) the hypothesis you're proposing has been discredited (source being Encyclopedia Britannica) matriarchy (social system) -- Encyclopedia Britannica 

Secondly, I could be short-sighted mostly because it's very difficult to establish the organization of a social group prior to the Bronze age due to a lack of written records. 

Thirdly, eliminate feminist theory from your mind and let's discuss facts. Starting with you presenting:

A) Objective historical facts that prove that matriarchy was the norm until the climate started to change in the Sahara. I'm guessing you mean the change in roughly 1600 BC, and I have to give you credit for picking the times of which there is the least written records if records at all from.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Please guys, if you want to argue about feminist theory in depth start another thread.


But feminism is always ignored. Blah blah blah blah...

ETA: I forgot my indignant hair flip. There, that's better.


----------



## muffleupagus (May 14, 2013)

I'm going to keep this short because we were asked to keep it out of this thread. I'll reply to you via PM.

I do think it's worth mentioning that the way rulers control their people is by controlling the flow of information (ideas). Rulers have long attempted to wipe the history of prior ruling stories to lead their people. There is no good reason to think this isn't the case with Matriarchy. Fortunately, some very clever individuals have extracted evidence of Matriarchal societies of our past, and brought it back to light for the scholars who care to study the topic. 

Also, you seem to be confused as to WHY there would be so little records of this time. See above.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Nesjamag said:


> Yes, I notice quite well when it makes me lose respect. I don't care though and I never hardened up. I've always considered it as a brave thing of myself to show feelings, even vulnerability.
> If I lose respect because of it I'll know who I'm dealing with, though I won't necessarily judge someone for it since I understand it's part of this society and these people are not skilled in interacting with people or understanding their own reactions (how could they, throughout life this is never taught in any way to people).
> I also believe quite a few women wouldn't know how to respond to a man expressing actual emotion because it doesn't fit within the narrow stereotypes of how men are "supposed to be".
> 
> ...


I consider vulnerability to be one of the most; if not the most attractive traits about anyone, male or female because they are not afraid to show that they're human. It takes considerable courage and a high degree of self-worth for anyone but _especially_ a man in our society, to be able to do this.

There is nothing more appealing to me than a man who isn't afraid to show me his vulnerability. Conversely, there is nothing less attractive than someone who poorly tries to cover it up with passive-aggression, mind games and defensive "jerk"-like behaviour.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Lol, you never stop trolling.


Lolz, I find it hilarious to think that you think that I am a troll. Last time I just said yes to you and I got banned for it (I think). You said that I was the best troll ever which totally cracked me up.

The funny thing is that I make my living with what I am saying here on PerC. You have no idea how much people are willing to pay me just to hear me speak. I am not kidding you. 

Nice signature. Fan of Blake? Let me recite a poem:

He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy;
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sun rise. 

William Blake

He is right...I talk about this poem day in and day out here on PeC but no one seems to understand my words.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Well discussing this kinds of things takes time and space, lots of it.



strangestdude said:


> She was shocked when she realized that she had ignored men


Doesn't surprise me.

You know what's sad? the social idea of women goes around being *loving*, *understanding *and *caring*, and you can bet on how many men lack real loving, understanding and caring, just demands. Most of times things go around providing this to the women. And this is not a battle, please consider your ideas before posting (not you stranges  )




strangestdude said:


> *Do you believe, or have you experienced, women lose respect or attraction towards you by exposing vulnerability and shame?*
> 
> *Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.*


I've been VERY understanding to the vulnerabilities of ex GFs, but many times when I have failed at something (made a mistake) they couldn't avoid trowing a comment on "see you fail too". Understanding is a failure whenever someone acts like competing or justifying past mistakes, it's not like that.

I always liked poetry and many women have liked that, the sad thing is many see poetry "for them" and not as a genuine expression of how someone feels, just like a flower, you cut a flower and it's understood as "it's for her", the same for many emotional expressions. So many times I have explained how I feel on poetry only to be told "blah blah blah" meaning: "ohhh for me? thanks, it's lovely" you know, it's my heart I'm talking about there!!!! so, many times they like vulnerability but many other times when it implies doing something, most don't really know what to do.

In many cases women see the man as leader so when something happens they look at him, if he falls... well, it's not supposed to happen!!! I understand this very well but then how can a relationship be based on mutual understanding? Shame? I don't know how to address that, from my education I face mistakes and fails as that, not as something to be ashamed of.

*You know how bad women are at understanding? post any story of how your woman failed you and instead of understanding, many will come to tell you "you must have failed at something for her to behave like that".*

Don't believe me? there are tons of examples already posted.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Strangestdude, 
Every so often you write good posts like this and then ruin it with some dig at feminism. Alas, I shall ignore that for now and simply answer your question.

*Would you, or have you experienced, a loss of respect or attraction towards a man by exposing vulnerability and shame? (eg. a man displaying nervousness - due to feeling vulnerable because of the risk of rejection - when attempting to court you.)

*
I can think of two examples where I have lost interest in men because of their vulnerability but I can also think of examples where that has not been the case. I think this question is too broad because all men do not react to stressful situations in the same way. One time a friend of mine was suffering from depression. I sat with him on a bench whilst he chain smoked cigarettes and told me his insecurities. I felt nothing but love, admiration and sympathy for him. Another friend of mine also suffers from depression. His way of dealing with it was to drink until he was no longer coherent. I understood what he was going through having dealt with friend number one previously but pretty soon got fed up with him because every weekend we'd go out together and my fun would be cut short because I'd have to clean up his sick, call his parents, make sure he got home okay etc etc. I quickly stopped being so attracted and nurturing towards him.

Finally, to answer your specific question about courting, I did once lose interest in a guy because of his lack of strength. I think we spoke of him before when we were talking about 'white knight' culture. He was so passive that he'd never stand up to me about anything (even if I was completely in the wrong like taking a wrong turn) and he'd frequently tell white lies about what he liked and what politics he agreed with. Maybe this was down to nerves. In my mind this set off alarm bells because I figured if he wouldn't stand up to me now then later on down the line he still wouldn't and then would just end up resenting me rather than talking about it. I think he was a product of everything you dislike about gender culture today and what you frequently blame on feminism. He was too busy trying to please me to care about himself and kept a stoic nature rather than showing vulnerability. 

IME + IMO, I prefer the emotional, vulnerable guy to the stoic robot. I think you and I see the same problems in society but have opposing views on them since what you see as the cause is what I see as the solution.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> I think you and I see the same problems in society but have opposing views on them since what you see as the cause is what I see as the solution.


A culture of not respecting men's capacity to experience vulnerability and shame, is the solution?


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

So ignoring the mega-argument that seems to be going on here I'm just gonna answer OP's question and go. 

*Would you, or have you experienced, a loss of respect or attraction towards a man by exposing vulnerability and shame? (eg. a man displaying nervousness - due to feeling vulnerable because of the risk of rejection - when attempting to court you.)
*
No. I wouldn't. And I never have. And honestly that's completely foreign to me. I'm _more_ comfortable around men who allow themselves to be vulnerable honestly... likely because I don't want men to view me as vulnerable. I'd much rather a guy admit he's scared of rejection than myself admitting I'm scared of rejection.

However, I have experienced men expressing their vulnerability in a way that makes me feel as though they are attempting to guilt me into making a decision. (e.g. "If you don't date me, I'll go back to being promiscuous.") That does turn me off, but that's because the man in question has made me feel like my decisions are responsible for his actions which is frankly untrue. Simply saying, "I really like you and I don't want to mess anything up and I'm afraid of doing so" absolutely will not turn me off or make me change my mind in the slightest. 

Clinginess is also a huge turn-off, but that isn't a gender-specific issue. 
*

*


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I think this is simple, the cliche everything in moderation, comes to mind. I don't know that much about woman,nor do I claim to,but, I think in my experience stoicism has its limits, and vulnerability, can mean trusting other people, that they won't laugh at your need to open up to them. And relationships are built on trust, so in the end it may pay dividends to be vulnerable on certain things. That doesn't sacrifice that women may want a general protector on certain themes, that's the to love till death do us part in sickness and in health part, I think. Men will probably want the same from women. But it comes down to everything in moderation.


----------



## Empress Appleia Cattius XII (Dec 22, 2010)

I can't think of anything worse than being with a stoic man who I can't understand or doesn't let me understand him. There's nothing to learn from that relationship or about that person.


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

Yes, I have experienced women losing respect or attraction towards me after being vulnerable with them. One girlfriend, she wasn't very healthy, started crying after I shared I had been raped. I asked why she was crying, and she mentioned something about me being gay. Again, a lot of these weren't healthy women, but I find that when I share some of my fears, shames or insecurities that they have a tendency to bring the conversation to themselves. They don't offer a lot of empathy. I am at the point now where if I get intimate with a woman, I will be reluctant to talk about my shames or insecurities. I've done it in the past, and everytime I've done it while being in a romantic relationship, the relationship has ended.

I think there is a difference between sharing vulnerability with a female who is a good friend and someone who you are in a romantic relationship with. For the most part, I think most women who are friends with are more likely to be empathic and support you. I don't think this is as likely to happen if you are in a romantic relationship though. Your partner may accept it on a mental level or in the head, but not at a heart or feeling level. I don't think this is intentional, but it is going to be a long time before it really changes. Now things are starting to change at the surface level, but not on the deeper level. It will take a few more generations for society to fully accept that men are vulnerable and that is okay for them to express their vulnerability. If that makes any sense. 

And the women who can be empathic and supportive, no matter if it is a friendship or a love interest, they are keepers. I think that is the a great sign that she is strong and healthy, and would make a great girlfriend or wife. That doesn't mean that you depend on her for your own happiness or to have your needs met, but it does mean that she will be able to support you and help you in your time of need.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> A culture of not respecting men's capacity to experience vulnerability and shame, is the solution?


I meant feminism. You see it as the cause of gender issues; I see it as the solution.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@lifeisanillusion

Your post was fucking heart breaking to read.

I'm sorry you've experienced that. I hope you're able to find a good woman in the future.

Something someone said in an interview that I immediately saw the truth in (because I saw it in myself) is; People with a lot of psychological problems tend to be inwardly focused. You've obviously experienced that reality.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> I meant feminism. You see it as the cause of gender issues; I see it as the solution.


You're wrong.

But that would derail the thread to discuss it.

So I'll just leave it by saying, you're wrong.

You're wrong.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

I find this topic fascinating because I think it directly relates to cognition. Specifically, when Fi and Fe are in the dominant position, or when Si is either in dominant or aux position.

I think the loss of attraction is subconscious, regardless of what the women THINKS consciously or SAYS, when it comes to dominant F, because of the unconscious attraction to heavy T manifestation. Interpersonal nature will always be a turnoff, from the basic anima/animus relationship that triggers attraction. I believe this is the biggest reason why the friendzone actually does exist - because someone displaying "F" behaviors will be thought of as more familial than attractive, while "T" behaviors are highly attractive.

Si is a sideshoot, because those with a high degree of Si will see a man displaying traditionally "female" roles as a break of the norm, and thus unattractive.

I have recognized many experiences in reality that support my hypothesis. Almost every "F" man I know is *heavily* "macho", perhaps moreso than the rest of us. The most macho guy I know is an ESFJ. I believe this contributes heavily to his mood swings, because he is not allowed to positively vent his emotions, or voice how sensitive he is.


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> @lifeisanillusion
> 
> Your post was fucking heart breaking to read.
> 
> ...



Thank you. That person is very wise. Yes, it is something we all do at times. The trick is to become aware when we are doing it. There have been times when I am incapable of being there for others due to my own hurts.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm strong, self reliant, independent, cool right? well the subtitles for that say "*I-don't-need-you*"

I go hard on myself (as many others) and sometimes I need a little comfort, and by sometimes I need, I mean *NEED*. But it's just a bit, after getting it (NOR NOT) I'm running again, of course not getting it hurts a lot, then I'm on my way, on my own again with people trying to approach me. I believe this is a very common scenario but what most people fail to understand is: *when we don't get the emotional understanding from our woman WE WILL STOP LOOKING FOR IT*. At least we stop looking or expecting it from "our" woman, problem? many women understand this line as '_oh so then you go looking for it somewhere else, you cheater_', that's wrong and it's silly to just think about it, it's not related. 

So reality is: many will fail at providing emotional support and don't want anyone to give it to you. And yes, I'm away from the infidelity matter in this context, we can get understanding from friends and family. But don't forget we only live once and sometimes it's valid to think "hey, I'm not married, and person A understand me BETTER than person B" so it's easy to say "I'm off this place" but it's not the guy, the guy was pushed, rejected so don't complain.



strangestdude said:


> A culture of not respecting men's capacity to experience vulnerability and shame, is the solution?


I understand by the quotes it's not necessarily this what you both are arguing but I'll take advantage of the line: when this happens we stop looking and expecting such things to come from our loved one. That's step #1. Guess what's step #2 is? well, stop providing what we are denied to. So it's pretty common to say "no more understanding for you".

The whole thread gains a whole new perspective (shame) when we talk about a man loosing his job. Ohh yes. And many times the woman will become overprotective with he money (if any) while all that time the guy was providing. In my country there are cases where the women are over protective with their savings after such scenario but guess where they got that money? from him. OF COURSE this is not 100% of cases, there are women who really give support, both emotional or other kinds, but it's rare. Yes you read that right, rare.



AppleCat said:


> I can't think of anything worse than being with a stoic man who I can't understand or doesn't let me understand him. There's nothing to learn from that relationship or about that person.


I think I love you 

Well, many men such as me become self closed. On our way many women will get this as interesting and approach us, why? just curiosity? it's sad when people want to get to know you but they don't really engage, don't really care by ones feelings (except for "love me, love me" and I mean -love her-), that's too self centered. I have walked off several relationships because of what you say, I can have many things but I don't see a point on staying with someone who doesn't understands me (or refuses to). 

I think you Apple Cat mean it and understand this, but in general I can say it's sad how many women say they want to get to know us while this is from many angles at once: false.
@lifeisanillusion: Best for you man, what she did sucks. And it sucks more how many will ignore those words and just continue addressing other points.


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

The way I see it, if a girl couldnt stand to talk about the deeper shit and respect a guy for being open enough to express himself, then she isn't a girl worth having no matter how pretty she is.
(Actually, she sounds like a total bitch, especially if she laughs or scoffs at a guy attempting to find a connection on a deeper level)

In the end of the day, we're all human. We all have our problems, and our flaws, (I personally have a ton of them, I'm not afraid to admit that), but if we really like the positive aspects of each other enough, then those flaws can easily be worked around.
(E.g. I really don't like how my best friend acts like a slob, and keeps jokingly making me a bit uncomfortable by randomly touching me, (i feel a little uncomfortable with people touching me) but he's a real laugh, and incredibly generous and caring, so of course he's a real pal to have around!  (and if he wants to talk to me about anything, I'd be more than happy too (because he's my buddy and I care about him. Likewise I know he'll have an ear for my troubles too))) )

I wouldn't mind if a girl I cared about wanted to share something significant with me, and likewise, I would expect the same from her.

But still, just because she has a vagina, doesn't mean a girl can't be a dick. (And I bet there as many nasty women out there as there are men. (They probably hide it better! XD))


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I find this topic fascinating because I think it directly relates to cognition. Specifically, when Fi and Fe are in the dominant position, or when Si is either in dominant or aux position.
> 
> I think the loss of attraction is subconscious, regardless of what the women THINKS consciously or SAYS, when it comes to dominant F, because of the unconscious attraction to heavy T manifestation. Interpersonal nature will always be a turnoff, from the basic anima/animus relationship that triggers attraction. I believe this is the biggest reason why the friendzone actually does exist - because someone displaying "F" behaviors will be thought of as more familial than attractive, while "T" behaviors are highly attractive.
> 
> ...


I'm an LIE-Te so Te is quite heavily manifested in me and I've noticed a variety of responses based on my behavior. I'm also the type where you won't get a hint of emotions (besides anger related ones) existing unless I'm drunk or actually exerting an effort to be more "emotional". I've actually had colleagues/friends ask me "are there emotions in there?" to my face. 

What I've noticed is that the Te behaviors are a double-edged sword in that too much just makes you see aloof, cold-hearted and unapproachable, when combined with judgments and a tendency to be critical it creates a packages that is in and of itself less attractive. However, when you temper Te by appearing like more of a Byronic hero,. 

"a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow, and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection" 

In a sense an idealist romantic that got browbeaten by the world, the response changes. It's almost as if people want to pick apart the outside to figure out what is going on within.

Some other things I've noticed is that the combination Fe-Si (as Fe-Si or Si-Fe) seems to enjoy having their "buttons pushed" in an enjoyable way, such as making them laugh at something they normally would find very inappropriate subject matter. 

Extroverted perceivers combined with either dom or aux feeling on the other hand seem to have less tolerance for Te, much in the same way that I have a low tolerance for Ti, it's as if it gets in their way. 

I think the combo you speak of with heavy T behaviors, also requires a developed F function in the person to temper the onslaught so to speak. An ENTP will tend to have well developed Ti and if they combine that with well developed Fe function very well in social situations. 

An ENTJ or ESTJ on the other hand, with well developed Fi, tend to be secure in their values, be less influenced by the external, and as such takes on a sort of "rock" (as in stone) appearance.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> I'm an LIE-Te so Te is quite heavily manifested in me and I've noticed a variety of responses based on my behavior. I'm also the type where you won't get a hint of emotions (besides anger related ones) existing unless I'm drunk or actually exerting an effort to be more "emotional". I've actually had colleagues/friends ask me "are there emotions in there?" to my face.


Do you get a lot of female attention?


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I find this topic fascinating because I think it directly relates to cognition. Specifically, when Fi and Fe are in the dominant position, or when Si is either in dominant or aux position.
> 
> I think the loss of attraction is subconscious, regardless of what the women THINKS consciously or SAYS, when it comes to dominant F, because of the unconscious attraction to heavy T manifestation. Interpersonal nature will always be a turnoff, from the basic anima/animus relationship that triggers attraction. I believe this is the biggest reason why the friendzone actually does exist - because someone displaying "F" behaviors will be thought of as more familial than attractive, while "T" behaviors are highly attractive.
> 
> ...


Well if what you say about F and Si is true, then us male INFPs are truly buggered! XD


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Do you get a lot of female attention?


Quite a lot more as of the last few years, losing 100 lbs, learning how to dress and groom well, and learning not to go into "bulldoze" mode seems to have helped. Heavy Te combined with inferior Fi can be a "FUCK OFF" sign. 

My challenge was never initial attraction so to speak, but moving on from there. 

It's highly dependent on the woman though, as I said in my rant post you'll never be attractive to everyone, and everyone has an audience that they are better with.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> It's highly dependent on the woman though, as I said in my rant post you'll never be attractive to everyone, and everyone has an audience that they are better with.


I agree.

I'm trying to figure out where to meet and attract 'eccentric' chicks.


----------



## Aqualung (Nov 21, 2009)

"Do you believe, or have you experienced, women lose respect or attraction towards you by exposing vulnerability and shame?" 

Odd that I never gave it much thought. Probably because I was socialized not to. Anyway, of the women I've been involved with including my wife & ex wife, I can say that there was one who would not lose respect or attraction towards me by exposing vulnerability and shame. The rest, yes. Just my personal experience for what it's worth.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

monemi said:


> I would find it odd if feminists focused on men's issues. .


My problem isn't that feminists are looking out for the interests of the cis-woman demographic, it's that they don't admit it.



> But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.


I said they are as good, or as bad, as each other. I meant it.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Kyandigaru said:


> I don't know if you mean vulnerability by naïve or gullible, but that is my boyfriend's flaws. I hate that shit! Tis' the only thing about him that I hate.


No, I defined what I meant by vulnerability in the OP.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> And then we've arrived at "attraction isn't a choice". Perhaps even many feminists do not find the type of man they intellectually want men to be attractive.


I'm 'nerding out' on dating research and advise these days, and I've pretty much came to a similar conclusion regarding what triggers 'the spark of attraction' in women. 

I have to agree with the douchebag PUA called mystery who summarized that due to our evolutionary heritage, hetero women on a genetic level are attracted to a man who has high social value and social proof of desirability, whether they like it or not. And they are attracted to physiological traits (deep voice, visible muscle tone, etc) that have a positive correlation with testosterone.






I'll probably do a thread on that in the future.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> To be honest, I'm getting bored of talking to feminists these days.
> 
> I think you are sincere snail in your concern and activism regarding problems that both men and women face, but I think most feminists focus on women's issues, but won't admit it. *Which is what annoys me. (Like I previous wrote about feminist fiction media analysts focusing on female objectification, and ignoring the normalization of men getting their heads blown off, or hacked to death, by other men.)*
> That pretty much sums up my problem with feminism in nutshell.
> ...


Yes, I completely concur; that needs to change: oblivious focus on soley one side or the other, _without_ dealing with BOTH sides of the paradigm, will just ultimately lead to circle jerking and circumvent real and meaningful change. It cannot work, if as a society we don't focus on gender roles in their totality.






I found the responses of the women who were interviewed in this video very depressing. =(

A really good book that examines society's treatment of men is Joseph H. Pleck's, _The Myth of Masculinity_.


----------



## dalex (May 26, 2012)

I agree, those women weren't even that hot. They are just average women that want more than they could possibly swallow with no pun intended. I'm a man that often does the same things as the women above, however I'm actually trying to become a stronger version of myself before I do try and go get some hot wimmins. Unfortunately whatever a woman does to improve herself, in terms of economics, and fashions, men just don't really care if the hotness isn't there. The only thing that does solve problems for women is to lose massive amounts of weight if they are incredibly obese, or just a few pounds, if they are overweight. Actually the same could be said with men, some gender issues are not specifically unique. However men are weighed more in terms of economics and social status, than they are in fashion or physical strength. Its about a 30/30/20/20

On another different topic, there is a high probability that this set of behavior is causing men to stagnate and withdraw from the world. Rejected dudes everywhere are tired of hearing about the wonders of female empowerment, and how their own gender is to blame for the suppression of women. Ugly girls have good personalities, and men are pigs for wanting the hot ones. Let society develop a prejudice for overtly ambitious men, that simply want to ensure a good gene pool for their generations to come, but allow women to continue with their silly fantasies about finding the man that they never will have. Attraction comes with a deep price. Really hot men would not stick around these women, since they have a high demand, and a high sexual drive that would probably keep them from settling. On the other hand attractive women, are very time consuming if one does not have the economic, physical, and social strength, it is physically draining as it is the equivalent of having an enormous house debt. A free market society is wonderful, it allows the weak to flourish, and strong to crumble as it knows no boundaries, besides the behaviour of two simple things: need, and supply.

The patriarchy is a myth, men did not only support these conventional roles in numerous societies, but as well the women, whom saw it as a convenient way to not work as hard, since many of the modernities that we have today were simply absent. I blame women for the suppression of female empowerment as well, since they play a larger role in "convincing," their husbands in formulating such decisions.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@dalex, I think that you missed the point of my post. I was responding to @strangestdude's _legitimate_ complaint that men's issues are not being taken as seriously as women's and that this must _change_! I'm not really sure what _your_ point is, but I fail to see as to how your objectification of women is supposed to in any way, shape or form, help to resolve this very serious problem.

So... let me.. see, if I understand your reasoning: If women lose weight/are hotter/and/or etc., that will somehow help to stop the tragic, massive and senseless loss of male life in wars, prisons and in dangerous macho counterproductive displays of aggression . . .

Ah . . . I . . . see . . .


----------



## dalex (May 26, 2012)

NichirenWarrior said:


> @_dalex_, I think that you missed the point of my post. I was responding to @_strangestdude_'s _legitimate_ complaint that men's issues are not being taken as seriously as women's and that this must _change_! I'm not really sure what _your_ point is, but I fail to see as to how your objectification of women is supposed to in any way, shape or form, help to resolve this very serious problem.
> 
> So... let me.. see, if I understand your reasoning: If women lose weight/are hotter/and/or etc., that will somehow help to stop the tragic, massive and senseless loss of male life in wars, prisons and in dangerous macho counterproductive displays of aggression . . .
> 
> Ah . . . I . . . see . . .


 @_nichirenwarrior_ It was an indirect response to the video that you made above, just look a little closer how I did not make a direct quote unlike this one. My statement was completely different, and addressed the video and another issue than your statement about male imprisonment, and crime rates, and wars. 

I was addressing that the video was depressing because of a completely different reason.

Now I will bluntly say, "Are you fucking kidding me!" Everybody is objectified to an extent! You missed my whole statement too. Sexuality is all about biological economics. Self improvement and criticism should not be taken as objectification, but rather as a realistic statement that someone will always be deficient in a certain area. There are areas that one can control, and others that one can't, and attraction is one of them. Men care about hotness, and women care about status. I don't care about other abstractions in the norm, that is the general. It is emphasized heavily heavily in the media, and in many of my peers, even if they deny it I see how it influences them in a more unconscious level. 

My mind is filled with the incoherence and non-sequential pattern of this thread. I am confused as hell and will try to say things as best as possible. Sometimes when I'm typing I use the wrong words for what I mean to say. So I will edit the hell of that statement, since English is not my first language.

Generally those crime rates, and male aggression comes from deeper seated issues than women not caring about men's feelings. It usually comes from an uneducated idealization of extreme masculinity, that men must be violent to attract all the hoes since bitches love muthafucking killas, having feelings is gay, and traditional jobs suck because they pay very little. In the military men are just trained to kill others, because the government says so. As tragic as this sounds many people will make it seem trivial, unless there was women involved, because men are just told to suck it up. To become a strong person, you really do have to suck it up, since it is emotionally exhausting, but there comes a point where total loss of emotions does turn somebody into a raging sociopath.

I was speaking of the hikkikomori type of guys that just lock themselves up because of lack of aggressiveness, and male self-assuredness. If a guy fails to express certain feelings and roles, he falls into depression and loses the ability of sexual transmutation.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> I'm 'nerding out' on dating research and advise these days, and I've pretty much came to a similar conclusion regarding what triggers 'the spark of attraction' in women.
> 
> I have to agree with the douchebag PUA called mystery who summarized that due to our evolutionary heritage, hetero women on a genetic level are attracted to a man who has high social value and social proof of desirability, whether they like it or not. And they are attracted to physiological traits (deep voice, visible muscle tone, etc) that have a positive correlation with testosterone.


 People will run as fast as they can away from the idea their evolutionary traits impact and effect their mindset and behaviour.

They won't run very far, though.


----------



## Nesjamag (Jun 11, 2013)

The evolutionary traits or effects on our psyche are not known very well.
As humans we aren't a clear cut category as most animal species are. We have traits of both warrior species as familial species.
What makes it even more complicated is the differences between individuals.
And what makes it even more complicated is our neo-cortex that is capable of changing our sexuality, what we like, what we love etc... Yes, our experiences, our nurture has a great deal in shaping us and to most people their ignorance, we can manipulate our own nurture, by choice (and power of will I guess). This is unknown to the vast population, despite this knowledge being presented in abundance in occultism (I'm not an occultist myself, I just don't have prejudice against information from exotic sources, especially if it aligns with factual evidence) and psychology and neurology.

Gender stereotypes are sign of primitive thinking, of minds weaker than they could be. They're a sign of a society that's having trouble evolving past a plateau. Eventually humanity will get past this though, like some are already able to see through the surface. Hiding behind rationalizations like evolutionary psychology will hinder it, but eventually there will be no stopping of stronger minds. Eventually humanity will evolve.
It just sucks if you're ahead of the rest, just as this has always sucked big time, no matter what age a person has lived.
Seeing/realizing more is both a blessing and a curse.

Hiding behind evolution to rationalize all these things is irrational in itself, it goes in against fact and (lack of) knowledge. We can not make judgement calls like these based on evidence about how our brain and psyche work, based on what research and case studies teach us.
Our mind and personalities are highly malleable and the instinctive impulses we have (yeah, we certainly have them) can apparently be quasi completely abolished. That's the power of our mind, at least our thinking mind, not our instinctive brain.
We can learn to block any impulse and grow appreciation for anything, because that's an ability we have as humans (well, at least I have it, because I've developed it my entire life).

It's a shame to see these gender stereotypes returning so often, especially considering they are quite a modern age phenomenon, most likely intensified due to media which brainwashes people oh so well (especially people who steer themselves/their thoughts less consciously).
Unfortunately on a feeling level many more will be harmed by stereotypes and flawed rationalizations, because as humans the external world weighs more on how we fee about ourselves compared to our internal world (including our smarter mind). So even very bright people will feel the horror of stigmatization. Either because they do not live up to their gender stereotypes or because they feel undervalued as individuals (even people who do live up to their gender stereotype can feel disconnect if they're aware people never see them, but only their surface).
People suffer because they're mentally further advanced than our still primitive society. It's heart-breaking to see really. Creatures with so much potential damaging each other so much.


I personally also feel unworthy as a man, because I don't have ambition for leadership (in the traditional sense), success, wealth or all that nonsense. I want a world with connections, honest genuine connections, emotions and vulnerabilities that are welcomed/accepted because they're a very normal part of being human (both men and women are human). My mind knows I am fine and have a great deal to offer, but the way the world treats me affects my feelings and my rational mind can not undo the effect (I'm not loved by anyone though, I'm an exception in this. If I were to meet someone who genuinely cared for me or loved me, than my feelings and self-image would quickly become fine). It just sucks, real bad sometimes.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Nesjamag said:


> I personally also feel unworthy as a man, because I don't have ambition for leadership (in the traditional sense), success, wealth or all that nonsense. I want a world with connections, honest genuine connections, emotions and vulnerabilities that are welcomed/accepted because they're a very normal part of being human (both men and women are human). *My mind knows I am fine and have a great deal to offer, but the way the world treats me affects my feelings and my rational mind can not undo the effect (I'm not loved by anyone though, I'm an exception in this. If I were to meet someone who genuinely cared for me or loved me, than my feelings and self-image would quickly become fine). It just sucks, real bad sometimes.*


 @Nesjamag, I think that what you said is beautiful and the world _needs_ more people - irrespective of gender - like _you_ in it. However, you mustn't allow _anyone else_ to define your self-worth. You need to first see the beauty that is already inside of you; know your true self-worth - which does not depends on anyone other than you to affirm or deny it.

I believe that we all have self-worth or a "Buddha nature" that is already inside of us. We just need to wake up and realize it. No one person, thing, activity or place can give us that. Once you recognise this truth, others will be able to see it too. No one can truly love you, unless you love yourself first; then others will not be able to help to love you as well.

*No one can make you feel inferior without your consent ~ Eleanor Roosevelt


My primary relationship is with myself - all others are mirrors of it. As I learn to love myself, I automatically receive the love and appreciation that I desire from others. If I am committed to myself and to living my truth, I will attract others with equal commitment.

~ Shakti Gawain, Reflections in the Light*

What is healthy self-esteem?


----------



## Nesjamag (Jun 11, 2013)

NichirenWarrior said:


> @_Nesjamag_, I think that what you said is beautiful and the world _needs_ more people - irrespective of gender - like _you_ in it. However, you mustn't allow _anyone else_ to define your self-worth. You need to first see the beauty that is already inside of you; know your true self-worth - which does not depends on anyone other than you to affirm or deny it.
> 
> I believe that we all have self-worth or a "Buddha nature" that is already inside of us. We just need to wake up and realize it. No one person, thing, activity or place can give us that. Once you recognise this truth, others will be able to see it too. No one can truly love you, unless you love yourself first; then others will not be able to help to love you as well.
> 
> ...


Hehe, thx 

My self-esteem is most likely fine. All the things in that article I do and act according to. My behavior is according to it as well. I'm fine acting like my geeky self and people find me likable for it sometimes. I don't let failure get to me, I accept it as part of things and learn from it.
But feeling wise I don't think I can do anything more. Self-love imo only works if a person has received some love from others. I grew up in a hostile household and had to undergo emotional abuse and neglect. I had no friends to go to (my mother had made sure of that) either. Throughout my life I've gone through difficult moments, as anyone does, and I never had anyone to support or help me in any way. It's a miracle I didn't end up a severe addict or dead. I was lucky to have the mind I have. I knew I didn't deserve the pain I was caused and was smart and sensible enough to know people aren't perfect. I knew how to put things in perspective, even if they were hurtful.
I don't feel loved, because I've never been loved. I just don't know what that is like and there is nothing I can do about it.I can't force people to love me and I'm not willing to compromise on my values by tricking/manipulating someone into loving me.
There isn't a thing I'd like more than to share love and have a meaningful connection with someone, especially because I feel like I was made for it, made to give love and affection, etc... But I guess I was unlucky in life.

I can understand this working though for someone who was at least at some point in their loves loved by someone (or at least felt loved).


I'd be damn good at relationships though, because I'd basically be very loving. 
But ... I'm apparently not attractive enough. I'm quite geeky or silly sometimes and sometimes I'm shy and somewhat withdrawn, other times I start talking about some new invention or research and I confuse people more than anything else.


----------



## SunflowerSpright (Jul 21, 2013)

Women;

*Would you, or have you experienced, a loss of respect or attraction towards a man by exposing vulnerability and shame? (eg. a man displaying nervousness - due to feeling vulnerable because of the risk of rejection - when attempting to court you.)

*I'll try to return to the OP's question and ignore some of the stuff in between  I'm older I suspect than many of you posting here, so my views may be quite different than others have expressed.

I have never experienced a loss of respect or attraction for a man by exposing vulnerability, which I do not equate with weakness. Stoicism, while nice in the face of a crisis, usually hides the weakness of runaway emotions underneath, in essence, someone not comfortable with emotional expression. It is someone who has not dealt healthily with emotions and uses a control mechanism to isolate oneself from hurt/pain/disappointment. In my past experiences I find that those kind of people (male or female) actually fear emotion. As one ages, you seek a well-rounded mate, someone who can experience all of the beauty and difficulties in life in full partnership. Someone who understands give and take, watching the other's back, supporting when necessary. I still desire a man to be 'stronger' than I am in some masculine way.

That said,for a man to share too much, too soon, may give others a perception that one is an 'emotional vampire' as one poster so aptly put it. I'm not sure if that rolls the same way from women to men, if they indeed feel that as well about a woman who reveals too much, too soon. 

The only man I have ever had reveal shame to me was my late husband, and that was well after we were married. I did not feel less attracted to him in any way due to this. I felt honored that he trusted me enough to share some very deep things. 

I was a traditional woman (SAHM, raised children) that moved into a non-traditional role later in life in a second marriage to a far younger man - I was primary bread winner, primary decision-maker. This was not by choice; it was because no one was doing it and someone had to do so. I became strong and assertive by exposure in the corporate environment. For the last four years I've been on my own completely, and made many life decisions and handled both roles by myself. As such, the partner that I would seek now must be stronger than I am for it is he whom I will trust with the rest of my life. While I feel that we can modify our expectations of what it means culturally to be man or woman and allow for full expression for all, if I was attracted to a woman, then that would be whom I would seek as a partner, not a man. Man embodies something different from me, woman, in my brain and attraction center. In my youth, I was attracted to the strong, virile, bad-ass, good-baby making specimen type. Today, while I prefer a more traditional man because of the life-style I wish to live, I look for someone more complete; mentally, emotionally and physically well rounded. The ability to feel, and to express those feelings, including vulnerability, is a vital component of that. Perhaps the level of acceptance of how much emotional vulnerability one can 'handle' without losing attraction, has to do with the emotional state of the woman receiving it. 

As an aside, I have a brother ten years younger than I. He often speaks of the loss of place for men in society and is quite agitated by it. He is very well-rounded - an able outdoors-man, accomplished musician, successful in business and a budding writer. It breaks my heart to see someone so complete feel so out of place. I worry about what the changes in our social structure have wrought, and while I know many a woman who find our historical past abhorrent, I see less men who do and who are struggling in today's new environment. I find more women acting more like men (if one can actually label it that) and more men lost as to who to be now. I only hope for the succeeding generations we can find a comfortable balance for all.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> And then we've arrived at "attraction isn't a choice". Perhaps even many feminists do not find the type of man they intellectually want men to be attractive.


I don't really buy into the whole "attraction isn't a choice" thing. The PUA community sells that line to men. "Women can't change who they are deep down inside because attraction isn't a choice, so we are going to teach how to be attractive to them. We won't give you cheesy pick up lines. No, we will teach you how to transform yourself from deep down inside with deep inner game."

In other words, they claim that women can't change who they really are so they will teach men how to attract them by changing who they really are.

If the men can change, the women can too.

People can develop their tastes, whether it be the food they eat or the people they date. "Attraction isn't a choice" is really just a license for women to want to date the emotional equivalent of a fast food cheeseburger. Just as a person can cultivate an appetite for healthy foods, so can a woman develop her tastes in men (switch genders if appropriate).


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

> Would you, or have you experienced, a loss of respect or attraction towards a man by exposing vulnerability and shame? (eg. a man displaying nervousness - due to feeling vulnerable because of the risk of rejection - when attempting to court you.)


Actually I did, but I also did the reserve.
My ex-boyfriend is a weak man who had to use guilt trip to keep me by his side, though that didn't last long. He was nervous around me, he was scared of me rejecting him which eventually I did because of the way he tried to manipulated me because he had nothing else to keep me with him. On the other hand, the person I'm now in love with is weak and scared of me rejecting, but doesn't manipulates me into it, we have a sweet relationship in which we act like both friends and lovers.

See the difference? Weakness can be a turn off depends on how you show it to others and use it against others.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

marked174 said:


> I don't really buy into the whole "attraction isn't a choice" thing. The PUA community sells that line to men. "Women can't change who they are deep down inside because attraction isn't a choice, so we are going to teach how to be attractive to them. We won't give you cheesy pick up lines. No, we will teach you how to transform yourself from deep down inside with deep inner game."
> 
> In other words, they claim that women can't change who they really are so they will teach men how to attract them by changing who they really are.
> 
> ...


What "attraction isn't a choice" means is that there are some traits that large amounts of the population will find attractive. Just like how you can change your way of eating but fatty/rich+salty+sweet will always taste nice to your body and trigger reward chemicals. 

Its doesn't argue that women can't change who they are just like the men are able to. It argues that attraction is separate from concious choice, hence why you can hate someone and be attracted to someone at the same time.


----------



## Konkelvonk (Jul 19, 2013)

My INFJ wife will divorce me if I dare to become Manly.:happy:


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Men;
> 
> *Do you believe, or have you experienced, women lose respect or attraction towards you by exposing vulnerability and shame?*
> 
> ...


Sure, when I was younger I'd meet a lot of women who would tell me that they find it weird that their boyfriends (or in my own case, I) would demonstrate moments of vulnerability or feelings of unhappiness or shame. However, I think that as people age they start to acknowledge the individual rather than judge against the abstract. As the women that I know stopped seeking a man in the abstract for an individual man, they began to respect the elements of their character that show vulnerability.

In my own experience, I've met women who have told me to "man up" before, but usually, that has made me laugh and inform them that they should probably woman up and try and be more nurturing and supportive, if gender essentialism is the game that we're playing. That tends to throw people. 

It also depends, in my experience, heavily upon what you're being vulnerable about. If you're someone who just breaks down with ease, then even I find that off-putting in women, so I'd expect them to find it off-putting in me. Personally, I believe that vulnerability is the human touch, and a couple who are comfortable enough to be vulnerable around one another are a strong couple. A couple who have to constantly shore up the foundations of one vulnerable member of the partnership are likely to have stormy weather ahead. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> What "attraction isn't a choice" means is that there are some traits that large amounts of the population will find attractive. Just like how you can change your way of eating but fatty/rich+salty+sweet will always taste nice to your body and trigger reward chemicals.
> 
> Its doesn't argue that women can't change who they are just like the men are able to. It argues that attraction is separate from concious choice, hence why you can hate someone and be attracted to someone at the same time.


Every single time I've heard that phrase it would carry the implicit message that women can't change who they choose. It's like our culture believes that just because you like something then you must be forced to act upon it. I understand the relationship between response and stimuli; regarding food and dating. 

Also, I wasn't trying to imply that you failed to make the distinction, but I find that phrase in error in practice (less so in thought).


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

AyaSullivan said:


> Actually I did, but I also did the reserve.
> My ex-boyfriend is a weak man who had to use guilt trip to keep me by his side, though that didn't last long. He was nervous around me, he was scared of me rejecting him which eventually I did because of the way he tried to manipulated me because he had nothing else to keep me with him. On the other hand, the person I'm now in love with is weak and scared of me rejecting, but doesn't manipulates me into it, we have a sweet relationship in which we act like both friends and lovers.
> 
> See the difference? Weakness can be a turn off depends on how you show it to others and use it against others.


I guess, I have a very different understanding of the OP than you do. I don't view vulnerability as a "weakness" at all but as the ultimate strength, because few things take more courage, than to make yourself totally vulnerable to another person.

"Weakness", OTOH, is the complete inability, to allow oneself the ability to be vulnerable.

So, I would claim that the first bf that you mentioned - the "manipulative" one really _is_ weak but certainly _not_ vulnerable. The second one, OTOH, _is_ vulnerable but not at _all_ weak. A fear of rejection makes us human but not weak. What makes us weak, is the inability to admit this to ourselves and others.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

marked174 said:


> Every single time I've heard that phrase it would carry the implicit message that women can't change who they choose. It's like our culture believes that just because you like something then you must be forced to act upon it. I understand the relationship between response and stimuli; regarding food and dating.


There is a degree of choice, but we are talking about 2 separate things. Attraction exists without choice, whereas choice is an action that someone makes. The two are separate.

For instance, I've mentioned "balance" a lot of the time in my posts, and what it refers to is basically attraction and not choice. The choice is something that the other person has to make, but you can influence their choice. 

Of course, I tend to think that most things are within a range, for instance looks do matter, but only outside of the range. If we take a 1 - 10 scale for instance only appearance based "deficits" that lay a certain range below the other person would be important. 

Things like being morbidly obese for instance will have a large disqualifier effect, whereas a few lbs up or down won't. I can explain more in detail if requested. 



> Also, I wasn't trying to imply that you failed to make the distinction, but I find that phrase in error in practice (less so in thought).


 This isn't so much practice though as it is thought. I do largely find it to be true if applied in a strict sense, you simply do not select who you are attracted to, but you do select whether or not you act on it. If you cannot generate attraction, the choice does not matter.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nesjamag said:


> Hiding behind evolution to rationalize all these things is irrational in itself


I'll try to presently concisely my thoughts on evolutionary psychology and female attraction;

In a nutshell; Evolutionary inheritance is *a* variable regarding attraction, as is social environment, life experience, and social identity. And attraction is an unconscious process.

The hypothesis of evolutionary psychology regarding what attracts women has been simplified by the PUA mystery (no longer a fan of PUA FWIW to anyone); 

*Preselected by women* (women desiring your company eg. groupies, being married, etc, makes other women desire your company ie. if a number of women desire a man then he has good genes, or is a good protector and provider) 

*Leader of men* (In your particular tribe/social group/sub-culture you are valued and respected for a particular purpose)

*Protector of loved ones* (By force - ie. the ability to intimidate or be violent - or via foresight - ie. awareness of potential danger and either taking precautionary measures or avoiding probable danger)

I'll also present that manifestations of testosterone (eg. a propensity for risk taking behavior manifested through the trait of 'ambitiousness', visible muscle tone, a deep voice, etc) are attractive to hetero women.

_(I'm currently reading a book called decoding love and unfortunately it's appallingly referenced, he sights hypothesis and research without an identifiable sources constantly but anyway I'll present the reasoning)_

Women are inherently committed to the process of child rearing, once the get pregnant they have to carry the child for 9 months and then nurture the child physically. And according to anthropology studies (which the dude annoying doesn't cite) it takes a child to become approx 15 yrs old before they can produce, or gather, as much sustenance as they consume. So in regards to sexual selection a woman most likely desired a man with good genes, and could be a provider and protector for her whilst she carries the child and for the child until they were 15 and the intuitive indicators of that are social value and social proof.

The majority of women are attracted to men of high social value (which is an assessment based on the context tribal/group identity, but also has universal characteristics ie. notoriety) and a man who has social proof of desirability as a mate.

I think it's a plausible hypothesis regarding why men with social power, notoriety, athleticism or wealth (aka financial security, aka protection) are still sought after by large numbers of women for sex or for relationships. But I acknowledge that is a hypothesis, and evolutionary psychology is criticized as a field in general.






Also I think the common belief that personal belief that change personality traits, and values easily is dangerous nonsense. Our unconscious runs the show, and our conscious mind can only strengthen processes but not create them. In a nutshell; I don't believe in contra causual free will.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I think people will say just about anything to sell a book.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I think people will say just about anything to sell a book.



Read the book?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Read the book?


No, I would have stopped reading at this


> And men tend to develop aggression, as a socially acceptable way of hiding or coping with situations that elicit those psychological experiences.


Do males that belong to solitary species not develop aggression then? 
Do male chimps find a strange male and beat it to death because they are suppressing socially unacceptable emotions? 
Are their cultures where males are non-aggressive? 

Or does male aggression run through just about every culture and species where males have high levels of testosterone? 

I figured out that women had an innate predisposition to find vulnerability in men unattractive when I was 11 years old and saw my new bf lose a fight to my ex bf. He was my ex bf because he was an aggressive bully towards others and I didn't like it. Yet he became more attractive when he won the fight and my new bf less so, when he lost and showed emotion. But that didn't influence my conscious choice. She needed a phD to figure that out? 

Anyway, if I'd have agreed with the quotes, would I need to read the book?


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I figured out that women had an innate predisposition to find vulnerability in men unattractive when I was 11 years old and saw my new bf lose a fight to my ex bf. He was my ex bf because he was an aggressive bully towards others and I didn't like it. Yet he became more attractive when he won the fight and my new bf less so, when he lost and showed emotion.


Such a tragic statement on women and the depravity of their appetites. I certainly hope that they are not all hard wired in such a way. If a person values violence over emotional openness then why should we even attempt to please such a person? 

I know you were just being honest, and I thank you for it; but such truths expose a very dark situation and imply even darker conclusions.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

marked174 said:


> Such a tragic statement on women and the depravity of their appetites. I certainly hope that they are not all hard wired in such a way. If a person values violence over emotional openness then why should we even attempt to please such a person?
> 
> I know you were just being honest, and I thank you for it; but such truths expose a very dark situation and imply even darker conclusions.


I never said I valued violence, what I value is a conscious choice. I consciously chose, even at 11 years old, to pick the less aggressive of the two boys. What I instinctively react and respond to is not what I value. Maybe other women aren't hard wired like that, but I find it doubtful that there would be a great difference between us. 

And yes, I believe that things do get much darker than that, I also understand that many people don't like to hear it. It creates an emotional response, mainly because people fear it's true. To say something that people don't want to hear doesn't sell books, which is my point.

Also, why bother having such discussions if we're not going to be honest? The depravity of women's attitudes aren't too bad compared to those of men, I've observed patterns in their behavior that few would openly admit to.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> I never said I valued violence, what I value is a conscious choice. I consciously chose, even at 11 years old, to pick the less aggressive of the two boys. What I instinctively react and respond to is not what I value. Maybe other women aren't hard wired like that, but I find it doubtful that there would be a great difference between us.
> 
> And yes, I believe that things do get much darker than that, I also understand that many people don't like to hear it. It creates an emotional response, mainly because people fear it's true. To say something that people don't want to hear doesn't sell books, which is my point.


 Value might not be the best word, but I didn't know what else to call it; "an instinctual inclination which predisposes a person to particular trait which is despicable in both thought and practice" might have been better.

However, to many people the instinctual impulse is enough to merit what one could properly call a value.


----------



## PlacentaCake (Jun 14, 2012)

Absolutely not! I like honest emotions and I know I can be intimidating


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

I like vulnerability in men but at the same time I wonder how many women say they want that when really they just want a little pet, someone they can control and turn into a male feminist? I'm not against feminism in the sense that I think women should fight for their rights, but yeah...if you're not careful you will end up with a woman that is a bully to you and others around you. Vulnerability should protect itself.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

marked174 said:


> Value might not be the best word, but I didn't know what else to call it; "an instinctual inclination which predisposes a person to particular trait which is despicable in both thought and practice" might have been better.


If you're open to all possibilities, even those you don't like, you would be surprised at what you can see. Even more so, if you don't judge so quickly, you will be surprised at what people confess. 



> However, to many people the instinctual impulse is enough to merit what one could properly call a value.


I sincerely hope not.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

rosegeranium said:


> I like vulnerability in men but at the same time I wonder how many women say they want that when really they just want a little pet, someone they can control and turn into a male feminist? I'm not against feminism in the sense that I think women should fight for their rights, but yeah...if you're not careful you will end up with a woman that is a bully to you and others around you. Vulnerability should protect itself.


I really fail to see what any of this has to do with vulnerability. 

All vulnerability is, is being open and honest about one's feelings, needs, fears and desires. How you are equating that with either being a doormat or allowing others to abuse you, is beyond me.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

NichirenWarrior said:


> I really fail to see what any of this has to do with vulnerability.
> 
> All vulnerability is, is being open and honest about one's feelings, needs, fears and desires. How you are equating that with either being a doormat or allowing others to abuse you, is beyond me.


Uh, because when a person is open and honest in the way you describe it can put them in position to be hurt? Have you ever been open and honest about your feelings, needs, fears and desires, only for someone to exploit you? If you would read more carefully you'd see that I do am not defining vulnerable by my post, but rather am explaining what can happen if you show it, in this case, as a man. 

Some women will say they want a guy that is not afraid to be emotionally vulnerable and then they will crap all over him or take it as a sign that she can make him her bitch. I'm not saying it will always happen, but as I insinuated one must be careful. Men having bad luck with women may fall prey to this because they think if they take the approach of showing vulnerability more that they might have better luck with women, particularly the types that would appreciate that. I'm not saying men or women shouldn't show vulnerability, but one should be wary of types that say they want someone open and honest with their feels because they may just want to control others.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

rosegeranium said:


> Uh, because when a person is open and honest in the way you describe it can put them in position to be hurt? Have you ever been open and honest about your feelings, needs, fears and desires, only for someone to exploit you? If you would read more carefully you'd see that I do am not defining vulnerable by my post, but rather am explaining what can happen if you show it, in this case, as a man.
> 
> Some women will say they want a guy that is not afraid to be emotionally vulnerable and then they will crap all over him or take it as a sign that she can make him her bitch. I'm not saying it will always happen, but as I insinuated one must be careful. Men having bad luck with women may fall prey to this because they think if they take the approach of showing vulnerability more that they might have better luck with women, particularly the types that would appreciate that. I'm not saying men or women shouldn't show vulnerability, but one should be wary of types that say they want someone open and honest with their feels because they may just want to control others.


I dunno. Women who want men to be their lapdogs would probably keep them from ever being vulnerable. Even among the feminists (I say that term loosely) who want men to be their lapdogs, there's generally this sense of "man up" or other subsequent requirements to fulfill traditional male gender roles. And then most of these people will be sexist towards women when it benefits them. Statuses like these are big dealbreakers for me:










This kinda crap was posted mainly by women. I've seen one man post this.

And the suggestions for men are always the same. Women need to be babied, women need to be pampered, women need to be coddled. How about, women are fucking adults who don't need your condescending paternalistic bullshit that not-so-subtly indicates that you're passive-aggressive by virtue of your gender?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@rosegeranium , I've never advocated anywhere in this thread that people ought to make themselves into willing victims. 
Vulnerabilty does not equal stupidity!



Torai said:


> I dunno. Women who want men to be their lapdogs would probably keep them from ever being vulnerable. Even among the feminists (I say that term loosely) who want men to be their lapdogs, there's generally this sense of "man up" or other subsequent requirements to fulfill traditional male gender roles. And then most of these people will be sexist towards women when it benefits them. Statuses like these are big dealbreakers for me:
> 
> And the suggestions for men are always the same. Women need to be babied, women need to be pampered, women need to be coddled. How about, women are fucking adults who don't need your condescending paternalistic bullshit that not-so-subtly indicates that you're passive-aggressive by virtue of your gender?


I agree. People who want to take advantage of others are seeking the exact opposite of vulnerability; they are more likely looking for insecure, desperate and very lonely individuals who are afraid to think for themselves.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

NichirenWarrior said:


> @_rosegeranium_ , I've never advocated anywhere in this thread that people ought to make themselves into willing victims.
> Vulnerabilty does not equal stupidity!


You shouldn't take it as an attack on you or your thread. I'm just presenting another viewpoint. Is that allowed? Your posts are valid, if you'd read more carefully you'll see that I didn't say ALL shows of vulnerability are bad or make you "stupid". And by the way, sometimes when people are vulnerable and they are then taken advantage of it is not conducive to stupidity. The point I was making was that _some_ women will say they want to see vulnerability(in the way you described) and then make an about face and say they don't want it, and hurt the guy. It's very difficult for a lot of men to open up and be vulnerable, and some women will just take it as a sign to toy with him or take him for granted. I already said that I think vulnerability is a good thing in men, but that some women say they want it but then they don't. I'm not saying that you would do that, if that is what you are insinuating.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Men;
> 
> *Do you believe, or have you experienced, women lose respect or attraction towards you by exposing vulnerability and shame?*


I read the same book!

If a man finds it naturally hard to cover up his vulnerability, I guess that's what stops immature women (most women nowadays in the western world?) from being attracted to him. More mature women presumably aren't so bothered, although most would prefer a "tough" guy if all else was equal. And that also excludes cases when a woman is already attached to a particular guy after being exposed to him for a certain amount of time.

As for shame, I think most people just think, at least at first (mis)judgment, that if you are ashamed of yourself for some reason, then you must be a bad person, so they avoid you. It's similar to how some negative thoughts / opinions / ideas you picked up randomly from somewhere outside can cause a negative emotion inside you, which is then misjudged by others as being somehow intrinsic to you as a person.


----------



## LoveAshley (Mar 31, 2013)

A man showing vulnerability makes me more attracted to him.


----------



## Nesjamag (Jun 11, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> I think people will say just about anything to sell a book.


Not only that. Humans are also addicted to rationalizing events and observation to reduce cognitive dissonance. A simplistic view like that of pick-up artists and some evolutionary psychology misinterpretations/reduction-isms is an example of humans being enslaved by their instincts versus being able to consciously process information and bring nuance to their observations.



Neverontime said:


> I figured out that women had an innate predisposition to find vulnerability in men unattractive when I was 11 years old and saw my new bf lose a fight to my ex bf. He was my ex bf because he was an aggressive bully towards others and I didn't like it. Yet he became more attractive when he won the fight and my new bf less so, when he lost and showed emotion. But that didn't influence my conscious choice.


I think that's a great example. As humans we all have instincts, but we also have a personality, values and the ability to make our own choices. Some people seem to struggle with this though and remain more enslaved by the more primitive parts of their brain.  Others have stronger will and personality.

I as a male do not choose women based on their appearance or physical attractiveness. I know the instincts are there, I'm well aware of them and I reduce their importance to 0 by by being aware and by having learned to make conscious choices according to what is important to me, what I value and what I believe to be better/kinder.


Our personality and consciousness trump anything hardwired in ourselves.
Why would a person reduce themselves to a slave when they have the potential to be free.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@rosegeranium, please re-read my post; you apparently enjoy arguing with people who don't have any interest in arguing with you. This conversation is becoming ridiculous and boring. 

If you respond back to me; I will just keep regurgitating this post until it finally sinks in, or hell freezes over.

~peace out =)


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Depends on the woman. Some may leap when they see a more sensitive guy. Others may cringe. I'm dealing with a super sensitive male right now. My problem is that he is so passive. And honestly do I have the energy? I have my own issues and I've got to walk around eggshells keeping up with his. Hmm. For a different perspective if I find out something in Kabbalah as male and female energies spiritually may have a definition in a relationship, I'll add it. Hmm. the relevance of this topic within a relationship I mean, I think would depend on the type of woman and man and their situation.

I know slightly off topic. I adore this new man in my life but I see his emotional nature as likely too challenging for me. I can barely deal ): Often relationships I've learned are strongly tied to a person's soul lessons, so I look at variations in personality qualities in a picture of what types of issues each individual has and why would people be put together usually it is to enhance or grow. Sorry language is now poor for me it is getting dark here...such a nice topic thank you strangestdude. Why does this topic interest you?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

I am a huge fan of Brene Brown, and this is a very interesting topic for me.



strangestdude said:


> *Do you believe, or have you experienced, women lose respect or attraction towards you by exposing vulnerability and shame?*


Absolutely. Without doubt. 100% of the time. No joke. 100%. There is only ever the situation, like posting here on a psychology forum, where the context is one of awareness and sensitivity and vulnerability, that this is not the case (and that from 3rd party women). Even in person, in an intimate discussion about how I feel, the women I have shared time with are simply incapable or unwilling to entertain the notion that I should be allowed to be comfortable in expressing or sitting with my vulnerability. All of them. Without exception. Even and ODDLY the closer they were to me, the less they could tolerate this. I want to mention here that vulnerability is a constant companion. It increases beyond a certain age until eventually, it ends in death.

The absolute most grim answers I have ever had when I asked questions that made me vulnerable were all delivered to me by girlfriends and my ex-wife. A proof if you will that familiarity breeds contempt and that no one can hurt you as deeply emotionally unless they really know you. But I am an enneagram 8, an innocent, sensitive to betrayal. And betrayal is everywhere. Still I cheerfully await the next one.

I am not a misogynist. But I damn sure ought to be. The cruelty of women, the scars they leave, and rejection is one of these, is epic. Men are chumps by comparison.



> *Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.*


There is a terrible conundrum in the concept of equality. I face this issue on several fronts right now. So I am becoming painfully aware of the arguments involved.

We can discuss and should discuss equality of worth as human beings. That is the sacred moral position and it should permeate our lives and be the first rule referred to in any judgement we make. But this equality only speaks to belonging. Everyone belongs. All things being equal treatment should be the same. We all need to eat. We all need shelter. We all need medical attention. 

But what about sex? This is an issue that REALLY PAINFULLY hits at the heart of the concept of belonging. All the many errors in our world of separationist philosophy come down to misunderstandings about belonging. Perhaps the MOST POIGNANT act of belonging, the MOST COMMON WAY to achieve that sensation, of belonging, is with orgasm and intimate sex. The sacredness of this act, this delivery of belonging, and indeed the AWARENESS of the sacredness of the act of sex along those lines, is woefully under-stressed in our society.

The mind says, the body says, :Rejection! There it is. You do not belong. It takes a lot of maturity to accept a watered down message out of any rejection. To feel like you still belong in the universe and it has not rejected you when a woman rejects you. You are life positive and the universal yes, she is life negative and the universal no. She is evil. The common result: Violence. If you say I am not a part then I wound you to balance the scales. Fair is fair. All you had to say was yes, just like me. It's clear you could say yes, and you are broken if you only say no, right? It is NOT presumptuous to propose belonging and connection. It is natural. Rejection is far more suspect. 

But that is a surface view. A child pooping in public. My body says to poop! Adults know better. It does not mean you cannot poop. It means this is neither the right time nor the right place to poop. It is NOT presumptuous to propose pooping anywhere. It's natural. Not pooping is far more suspect. Alien. Evil. 

And how you handle that alien evil situation of restraining what is natural is critical. All manner of perversions will result from improper handling. Spank the pooper child and psychosis results. Cruelly reject the sexual advances of a man and psychosis (and violence) results. It is not anyone's right to treat what is natural as if it were not so, as if it were an offensive thing. Rather, it is a curiosity and life positive thing than must be carefully curbed into proper behavior. We do not strike mentally challenged children for throwing food. Their emotional reactions are understandable and they have to be carefully curbed into proper behavior. So does the child who poops everywhere. So does the man that asks every woman he sees for sex. 

It is NOT presumptuous to want to discuss your vulnerability. To in fact BE vulnerable in truth. We all are. It is natural. Not being vulnerable, not being willing to discuss it, is far more suspect. Alien. Evil. It denies anyone so afflicted by their culture or gender the right to be communicative and get their problems on the table. Culturally, certain weaknesses are discuss-able and others are taboo. The entire realm of the revelation and discussion of weakness by men is - taboo.

As I have pointed out, even the women that know this, that perhaps involve themselves in psychology and teach it to others, are no less susceptible to the powerful currents of culture, biology, and their own dark desires and judgement. Their psyches, their very bodies, subconsciously respond to a male who fits their image of power. Millions of years of evolution cannot be undone by high-brow awareness of some ideal truth. The improper behavior has to be slowly curbed. Culture must eventually decide to believe in a truth that has always been there and change its methods of indoctrination. 

And still ...

When two immature people get together to explore sexuality and life and one cruelly or even un-carefully rejects the other because she is afraid or angry and the other causes physical harm because he is wounded by rejection, who is to say who was wounded the more? Society has failed more than either of these two unfortunates. If humans aspire to be more than animals they must ready these two for that moment with more skill and more compassion, each towards the other. 

The natural vulnerability taken by someone asking to sense belonging is worthy of respect. Tread on that innocence at your peril ...


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

I guess its time I chimed in on this.*

Do you believe, or have you experienced, women lose respect or attraction towards you by exposing vulnerability and shame?* 

Definitely. It was quite a puzzling situation at first. The experience was that of what I would imagine a deep and meaningful relationship in which both of us exposed our vulnerable side to each other. When things got toxic between us though she ended up trying to use that knowledge against me. Initially I'm ashamed to admit that she did succeed in almost completely and utterly destroying me. Her words were akin to poison to the heart but she made the foolhardy claim that she "knew" me. We might have known each other for over a year, but even with the level of intimacy we had she still hadn't really got to know me. I guess looking back thats what saved me in a way. The knowledge that she had was only one side of my many aspects and the fact that she based my entirety on that aspect was baseless.

I was quite happy to find the strength to move on afterwards. To this day she regrets what she did to me and has attempted many times to "fix" things. At times I did falter but its been quite a long time now and I've never felt better, and I assume shes never felt worse and its something that she will have to live with for the rest of her life.


*Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.

*I think that both society and the person is to blame. I felt that the reasoning behind the lack of respect that also surprisingly coincides with the level of attraction is due to the mind being conditioned to certain societal expectations from either gender whether it be male or female. 

I would like to look at both as I see a problem with men being intimidated by masculine or otherwise independent women due to their thinking being formed(or in this case deformed) by the environment they live in. As well as women being unaccommodating and disrespecting as well as downright hurtful when it comes to emotional and/or otherwise vulnerable men. 
(fair warning that I am generalizing a bit and I don't view the entirety corresponding to this and my thoughts on the matter will also follow the same path but know that I do know there exist many exceptions).


Firstly it starts with society, from our younger age we are told to view each gender having specific roles, this corresponds to the media we consume and if applicable the religions we follow. Both genders are brought up with certain ideas shaped by what they are told, what they hear and what they see. Now considering that a majority of men and women in the world do follow the old fashioned gender specific roles its no wonder that when growing up you would assume that the people we interact with are cut from the same cloth.

This is where the fault of the person comes into play. If the person is not open to the concept that maybe some people are different, then when suddenly faced with it they do not know how to respond let alone handle it. Add to this a certain expectation that said person hasn't adhered to and the other person is left with no way of coping.

This thinking goes deep into the core of media as well. There are comfortable boxes that surround the supposed typical man and women and anything outside it is met with negativity and rejection by quite a few.

Its not that women don't like vulnerability in men, its just that they are made to believe that the reality is that they cannot be vulnerable or that they are not normally vulnerable. Thus their thinking is formed and they accept it and any life experiences are dealt with based on assumptions following this thinking. 
When faced with vulnerability they are not equipped to handle it and would much rather disregard it completely than try and accept it as a possibility. 

The extreme scenario in this case is to lose respect and a loss of attraction follows as well because sometimes the attraction is also based on the type of thinking that is formed. In the sense that many women want a man to carry her bags open doors and deal with pests. Many also want to be dominated whether sexually or otherwise. If a typical man brings this to the table its fine but if a shred of something completely opposite to this is faced it becomes almost impossible to deal with, and in their minds it is ticked off as an unattractive quality because thats not what a man is supposed to be. 
In reality its not what they have accepted what a man is supposed to be.

Its the same with intimidation and disrespect when it comes to independent women. If you take an average group of men and ask if they would appreciate an independent, outspoken woman many would answer with a resounding no. Why? because they are conditioned to think in a certain way and many accept it without question.

Ultimately the only solution I feel is if both men and women judge each other on a more human level than what they see, hear and experience in life. That is to say, not only be open minded but not picture a person based on what they find as a typical man or woman. That way when confronted with possibilities alien to the norm it will not be met with such intense distaste and rejection.


----------



## AustenT09 (Jul 8, 2013)

Vulnerability is okay. Neediness, guilt, manipulation, timidness and weakness is not.

(I'm a gay man, not sure if my perspective is wanted, but oh well, haha)


----------



## steffy (Aug 21, 2012)

Vulnerability is necessary for relationships and love, as gracefully demonstrated by Brene Brown. Just like saying else, the right amount of vulnerability* not too much, not too little; I'm a big fan of Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, commonly referred to as the happy medium. Refer to *Bedazzled* for too much vulnerability and too little. Refer to Johnny Cash for how to walk that line.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

NichirenWarrior said:


> @_rosegeranium_, please re-read my post; you apparently enjoy arguing with people who don't have any interest in arguing with you. This conversation is becoming ridiculous and boring.
> 
> If you respond back to me; I will just keep regurgitating this post until it finally sinks in, or hell freezes over.
> 
> ~peace out =)


Thank you for volunteering to rexplain things to me until hell freezes over! Fortunately for you the fact that you are silly has made itself clear. I've reread your posts and you've not really participated in conversing with me other than by blithely defending your beliefs. I was hoping to actually hear intelligent feedback from you, but I suppose that you ascribe to that Kafka quote far too literally! To assume that all I am looking for is argument is perhaps your own projection beyond your smiley faces and transparently fake, dimissive "peace outs".

Namaste!  Walk with Ursus.


----------



## PisceanReve (Jun 2, 2011)

Alright, I was too lazy to read 23 pages worth of posts, but first I must say that the most credible answers...will probably not be found in 90% of males' opinions because they are either bitter or have misunderstood just why a woman is no longer attracted to them. However 10% will have a good, insightful opinion.
Personally, I believe it depends on the woman. To be honest, the majority of them will want a strong man who can take care of them, etc. etc. but they like to see vulnerability in their relationships with both men and women whether it be friends or more, as it strengthens a bond. The average woman doesn't want to be a relationship where he must depend on her, but she would like to share an emotional connection.
And even with fiction, female readers go crazy over the strong men with hidden vulnerabilities or whatever XD


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

PisceanReve said:


> Alright, I was too lazy to read 23 pages worth of posts, but first I must say that the most credible answers...will probably not be found in 90% of males' opinions because they are either bitter or have misunderstood just why a woman is no longer attracted to them. However 10% will have a good, insightful opinion.
> Personally, I believe it depends on the woman. To be honest, the majority of them will want a strong man who can take care of them, etc. etc. but they like to see vulnerability in their relationships with both men and women whether it be friends or more, as it strengthens a bond. The average woman doesn't want to be a relationship where he must depend on her, but she would like to share an emotional connection.
> And even with fiction, female readers go crazy over the strong men with hidden vulnerabilities or whatever XD


*He flexed his rippling bronze arms. Although his pectoral mucscles bulged with vigor in the light of the sunset, a dark shadow had cast itself beneath his eagle eyes*

Woman: What is it, Blaisdelle? You can...you can trust me..."

*He turned away from her in shame, sticking the legendary bastard sword that his grandfather gave him into the rock where it would remain inert*

Man:Shiela...I-I...I'm actually not the chosen one that God picked to save earth...I'm actually...just his brother. My brother got eaten by a puma. It was my fault, I was too busy sweatily collecting lumber to watch out for him. I don't know how you can love me, Shiela.

Woman: Oh Blaisdelle! I-I DO love you...I don't care that you're a negligent fool. 

*Passionate lovemaking ensues*


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Only my personal point of view:

I like/love vulnerability in men. I perceive it as a strength, as contradictory as that may sound. Vulnerability, to me, means being open, being exposed, not holding back, not trying to rein in one's feelings for fear of being hurt. I perceive that as very strong, not weak.

What I don't like are neediness, clinginess and unfounded jealousy. If these feelings arise, we can talk about it, and I appreciate if the man opens up to me and explains why. Maybe I did something to make him feel that way without noticing. If I assure him however there is no reason to feel that way, and he still suffocates me out of some stupid sense of insecurity, I'll run for the hills. That's not vulnerable, that's just needy and immature.

But vulnerability and emotional openness are important. I actually expect it in a way, because I make myself vulnerable, too. Every guy I was with had my full trust, and therefore also knew how to hurt me. Some did (unintentionally and intentionally), some didn't. I guess it's all part of living and loving really.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@rosegeranium, I know that you quoted me cuz I got the memo; since you are now on my ignore list; I have no idea what you said.

This is all I want to say to you ever:


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

PisceanReve said:


> Alright, I was too lazy to read 23 pages worth of posts, but first I must say that the most credible answers...will probably not be found in 90% of males' opinions because they are either bitter or have misunderstood just why a woman is no longer attracted to them. However 10% will have a good, insightful opinion.


 OP asks for men's (and women's) experiences, all of them are "credible". When you judge a group solely based on their gender, then you're a sexist. 

I don't think that you would appreciate me saying something like "Well, I didn't read this, but I think most of the women here are wrong, cuz you know.. they're women. Back to zuh kitchen biatch!"


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

marked174 said:


> OP asks for men's (and women's) experiences, all of them are "credible". When you judge a group solely based on their gender, then you're a sexist.
> 
> I don't think that you would appreciate me saying something like "Well, I didn't read this, but I think most of the women here are wrong, cuz you know.. they're women. Back to zuh kitchen biatch!"


Just to give you the 411:

- It's only sexist if it goes against women. 
- It's only racist if it's against non-whites.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

**Sits down in chair and offers Sage advice from many ***-hags**

Women are humans and like dynamic. If you are going to be sweet 24/7 without a backbone, you are boring. If you're going to be ride-or-die 24/7, you're going to be boring.

From what I gather, women enjoy men who have a vulnerable side, indeed. They may be attracted to the allure of a big-boss, but that quickly fades if there is no emotional support.

You gotta have that Super Bass.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

series0 said:


> Absolutely. Without doubt. 100% of the time. No joke. 100%. There is only ever the situation, like posting here on a psychology forum, where the context is one of awareness and sensitivity and vulnerability, that this is not the case (and that from 3rd party women)...The entire realm of the revelation and discussion of weakness by men is - taboo.
> 
> As I have pointed out, even the women that know this, that perhaps involve themselves in psychology and teach it to others, are no less susceptible to the *powerful currents of culture, biology, and their own dark desires and judgement. Their psyches, their very bodies, subconsciously respond to a male who fits their image of power*.





UtterMess said:


> [/B]I think that both society and the person is to blame. I felt that the reasoning behind the lack of respect that also surprisingly coincides with the level of attraction is due to the mind being conditioned to certain societal expectations from either gender...[/B]


Just like racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes powerfully condition all us from a young age to subconsciously respond in predictable ways, automatically and reflexively. Indeed, racial attitudes research has consistently shown that we have to consciously learn how to overcome these stereotypes. Even then, certain stimuli can still subconsciously activate these stereotypes. Because much of attraction occurs subconsciously through our emotional processing, the violation of gender roles can impact even those who genuinely want to reject the stereotypes...

I've lived it too. And it is painful to have gender roles thrown back into your face, despite the explicit rejection of the roles by both parties from the outset and throughout the relationship. While I don't have a problem with showing vulnerability and sensitivity, I vowed to never show "weakness" again to someone I love. That is, I will control the expression of these emotional states from a position of strength--express myself unashamedly, but rationally with intent and awareness. For example, if I express fear to my partner, then I still have a plan to face and overcome my fear. I "own" my emotions; my emotions do not "own" me.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

MindBomb said:


> Just like racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes powerfully condition all us from a young age to subconsciously respond in predictable ways, automatically and reflexively. Indeed, racial attitudes research has consistently shown that we have to consciously learn how to overcome these stereotypes. Even then, certain stimuli can still subconsciously activate these stereotypes. Because much of attraction occurs subconsciously through our emotional processing, the violation of gender roles can impact even those who genuinely want to reject the stereotypes...
> 
> I've lived it too. And it is painful to have gender roles thrown back into your face, despite the explicit rejection of the roles by both parties from the outset and throughout the relationship. While I don't have a problem with showing vulnerability and sensitivity, I vowed to never show "weakness" again to someone I love. That is, I will control the expression of these emotional states from a position of strength--express myself unashamedly, but rationally with intent and awareness. For example, if I express fear to my partner, then I still have a plan to face and overcome my fear. I "own" my emotions; my emotions do not "own" me.


Indeed, and this expression of weakness, call it - Weakness stated openly but without the accompanying emotional vulnerability - has become my only means of expressing it to those I love as well. It's a tough act. Still. But it accomplishes both the goal of sharing difficulties and the maintenance of a strong masculine image. It DOES NOT ring true for me that this is either fair or ideal, but it is what it is and it works.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

series0 said:


> Indeed, and this expression of weakness, call it - Weakness stated openly but without the accompanying emotional vulnerability -


That was exactly what the guy who asked Brene Brown why she hadn't interviewed men about shame said; men learn to fake vulnerability with women.

Like you said; We express our vulnerability and shame verbally but with emotional detachment, because we believe it's the only form of transparency that women will respect.

And I'm sure many men can identify with what you've described.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

MindBomb said:


> Just like racial stereotypes, gender stereotypes powerfully condition all us from a young age to subconsciously respond in predictable ways, automatically and reflexively. Indeed, racial attitudes research has consistently shown that we have to consciously learn how to overcome these stereotypes. Even then, certain stimuli can still subconsciously activate these stereotypes. Because much of attraction occurs subconsciously through our emotional processing, the violation of gender roles can impact even those who genuinely want to reject the stereotypes...
> 
> I've lived it too. And it is painful to have gender roles thrown back into your face, despite the explicit rejection of the roles by both parties from the outset and throughout the relationship. While I don't have a problem with showing vulnerability and sensitivity, I vowed to never show "weakness" again to someone I love. That is, I will control the expression of these emotional states from a position of strength--express myself unashamedly, but rationally with intent and awareness. For example, if I express fear to my partner, then I still have a plan to face and overcome my fear. I "own" my emotions; my emotions do not "own" me.


I can definitely agree. Showing "weakness" has only yielded it being used and throw at my face then laughed at incessantly, and also used as a supportive of pure spite. 

With that being said while I can agree with having a way to deal with and overcome particular emotions, I'm still going to leave it up to whoever it is to that is on the receiving end and let them judge for themselves. 

I guess I'm stubborn that way. For me my emotions and vulnerability are all a part of who I am as a person, with that ideology I would probably be shot down by many women in the long run but I would most probably still hold onto it in the future.


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Hey cried because his mother yelled at him. And I did my best to console him and listen. He pouted and sulked like a child when he had to face me after I returned from my trip. I couldn't be what he wanted, even though he told me I was wonderful and beautiful everyday for three months. Now he'd rather avoid me instead of telling me to my face he jumped at a new woman that was introduced to him by a philandering guy he calls his new best friend. He wickedly witholds touch and attention as it suits him and wants it when it suits him. Emotional man rollercoaster - no thanks.

Oh - and get this secret - it is the people who act the least emotional who are the MOST emotional in my experience. Gross. This is my latest experience. Judge it if you've been through it yourself.


----------



## PlsTryAgain (Dec 14, 2012)

Huh. Oddly enough, no. In the past I've been with men who has expressed weakness, shame or vulnerability, and I actually found it sexy. Why?? Because it was an indicator of their level of trust in me. They loved me enough and felt loved enough by me, to be comfortable doing this. I certainly didnt see them as weak BECAUSE I know that what they did took far more courage then being tough and pretending would have been. I want to be my partner's partner. I want to have their back. I want them to feel safe with me, to feel like I too can offer them protection in my own female lesser way. Shelter them from harm.

Their vulnerability only allows me to give back one tiny but of the trust and safeness they give me every day...and to feel like we're closer then many man and woman can get because of it.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> I mean is emotional honesty and courageous openness - to bravely put yourself out there to another, in the name of authenticity and greater intimacy.


So it is how I interpreted your definition - a lack of insecurities from vulnerability. Your only clash with @Mair would be perhaps about true stoic, as for she it would be the ideal, but for you he couldn't prove himself, lacking the vulnerability in the first place. 



WikiRevolution said:


> Brené Brown: The power of vulnerability | TED Talk | TED.com


This talk is genuinely strange to me - like a bizarre world. Either I or she misses something vital about the topic.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

SilverFalcon said:


> This talk is genuinely strange to me - like a bizarre world.




Thanks for the compliment. I hope you ll rewatch it a couple of times 

Mind to give some more explanation on why does this talk appear so strange to you?

Cheers


----------



## sogood (Aug 24, 2014)

I think everyone is attracted to someone who is confident in themselves or knows who they are; but that kind of confidence isn't machismo or domination. You can know yourself and be shy, introspective, serious, kind, empathetic, ect. Those are attractive qualities they just may not be for everyone. Vulnerability isn't generally attractive if it's spilling out the seams in a reveal everything fashion like someone desperately seeking sympathy or connection but healthy vulnerability as in honesty, maturity, and self-awareness and sharing what is weak about you is a building block for healthy relationships.
Some women may be in macho men but I'd do best not to reduce all men or women into one ay of viewing the world since there are billions of both genders and each preson is influenced by different cultures, personal beliefs, ect.


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

Women absolutely lose respect via vulnerability. They prefer security to happiness.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

Well,

@OP it is a question of maturity.

People need all sort of different stuff at different times...

As an enneatype 8, I have fought hard against my vulnerability yet I am aware that cultivating that dominating ego is just stupid, I need to grow by accepting that I am not perfect and vulnerable.

I really find ego-trips stupid and fake.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

WikiRevolution said:


> Mind to give some more explanation on why does this talk appear so strange to you?


Watched once again to pick most of the disagreements:

1)_"Shame - who do not feel it, has no capacity for empathy and humanity"_
Haven't felt it for a long time (decade at least), and it was for talking about think I knew only very superficially and made fool of myself (interchanging two famous persons). But it had nothing to do with feeling of worthy of connection, it was beings short of my own intellectual standards. There were a few things I did as child and was ashamed of - mostly mistakes that hurt someone else (took lesson from each of those).
I live a live so I do not feel ashamed of myself. Have I become less able of human connection and empathy? Do we connect only out of weakness?

2)_ The idea of I am not good enough for_... is I am not as good as I can be, hence lets do something with it. It never was crucial vulnerability for me. This feeling is mere opportunity/motivation for growth. And it is in my own hands.
Never felt it's preventing me from connections because I tend to judge myself more strictly on things that matter to me than I judge others to whom I give benefit of doubt (my primary judging function is introverted - subjective).

3) There are lots of false dichotomies IMHO. Like "Letting go what you should be accept what you are and be kind to yourself". I think about myself as being molded by my mental framework - a self-regulating organism. I am creating harmony of what I should be and what I am. That is not necessarily kind or unkind, this sounds like judgment of feeler to me (no offense to feelers it's just not the way I forge my thoughts).

4) The vulnerability she describes later do not seem like vulnerability at all. Why should "willingness to say: 'I love you' first" etc. be vulnerability. To me this seems like lack of understanding the stoic point: "There are lot of things we cannot control so why worry ourselves with it. Lets control the things you can - primarily yourself."

Saying "I love you" in a wrong time and wrong manner is something I would worry about. Whether it is reciprocated is not in my control so why should I worry about that.
The thing is - if the rejection is kind, it's just the fate. If it's unkind, you can be glad for seeing the love was misplaced and opportunity to fix the mistake.
When aikidoka assumes open and welcoming stance, its not vulnerability. He opens to opponent so that he can show him the proper way (usually subdue him). 
If one knows how to handle emotions, he is not vulnerable. It's about knowledge, harmony and balance.

I guess as she was receiving those letters and stories she was unproportionally exposed to stories of people who felt unsecure, vulnerable - has something to say, share about it. Hardly stoics.

5) Hence all the numbing part seems quite off. I am ready accept that I do not feel happiness as strong (I don't have manias and depressions) for my relative indifference we INTPs usually have. But I lack all the negative traits she describes - addictions (no alcohol, no smoking,adultry etc...), no dismissing of uncertainty, no medications. It's because I do not numb emotions, I learned to manage them by reason. I still do feel melancholy etc, but can contain it without hurting me or "spraying it" out on other people.

6) Breakdown - I am skeptical to conclusions made out of weakness. To much space for wishful thinking and rationalization of irrational.

7) Why should we be deeply seen? Are we that special? Such exhibitionists? Why tease those who would like to hurt us, even if the don't really want to. It saves conflict and energy if the do not even try.

8) I am enough is meaningless. Enough of what, enough for what? All that matter is what I am and what I can be.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

@SilverFalcon,

you might want to read a passage from C. Jung (@Abraxas PMed it to me) about introverted consciousness :


The really fundamental subject, the Self, is far more comprehensive than the ego, because the former also embraces the unconscious, while the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness. Were the ego identical with the Self, it would be unthinkable that we should be able to appear in dreams in entirely different forms and with entirely different meanings. But it is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert, which, moreover, is as much in keeping with his own inclination as with the general bias, that he tends to confuse his ego with the Self, and to exalt his ego to the position of subject of the psychological process, thus effecting that morbid subjectification of consciousness, mentioned above, which so alienates him from the object.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

WikiRevolution said:


> @SilverFalcon,
> 
> you might want to read a passage from C. Jung (@Abraxas PMed it to me) about introverted consciousness :
> ...


I will probably be able to pick only bits from this. But I guess it makes sense to subjectificate ego if anything because unconsciousness can only be object. Unconscious can only be studied through the actions that lack conscious reason. It's either instincts or emotions.
Anayway if I remember well he criticized Freud for judging people on unconscious rather than conscious thus imposing his own notions onto the subjects.


----------



## properlady247 (Jun 13, 2015)

No.

My partner cries all the time. The reason it doesn't sit poorly on him is because he's been that way from the beginning. He's not broken or insane. He's simply an innately gentle feather and doesn't try to fight it. CONSISTENCY. Iz gud.

What I have little patience for is turbulent and emotionally-stunted people. Speaking from experience, these people should just stay single. At least until they can clear the baggage. These people only feel more bitter and persecuted when things end. And believe me, it will end. 

Granted, this is just my personal account and my preferences in a mate are quite on the alternative side. I'd say many women do want a stone man. And many men prefer their woman to possess all the recessive traits. But those who don't meet the criteria of said men and women shouldn't feel bad because many people are idiots.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> I mean is emotional honesty and courageous openness - to bravely put yourself out there to another, in the name of authenticity and greater intimacy.


No matter how strong you are, you are flawed in someway. Everyone has weak spots, trying to hide them is counter productive. If you build up your qualities, your flaws won't matter anymore.


----------



## Chris Merola (Jul 11, 2014)

I haven't experienced much shame based on the provided definition, but I have shown much vulnerability and its bitten me in the ass thus far in my life. (Aged 17, only a handful of romantic experiences) I usually put myself in the position where I stand to be hurt the most or lose the most from the relationship. I do this because I feel like I can take the pain and this is an expression of trust as well as true inner strength. It certainly doesn't seem like this is how it comes across to women. 

I've dealt with an emotionally immature gal in a relationship who believed that her lack of consideration or reciprocation wasn't in fact the issue, the issue was that I wasn't being a man because I didn't "suck it up" when she would get nasty and hurt my feelings. This was the only scenario where I was directly called out on my manhood based on vulnerability, the girl had major issues so it didn't cut deep and I'm long past that scenario.

Otherwise, I have seen vulnerability receive mixed reactions. I have been praised for it, but its also been seen as a turn off by some. (I didn't hear this from the girl directly, but one can infer, lol.)


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

I always felt that men who show their vulnerbility are some how more human than those who can't. our society want man to be this tough, strong person who never cry or show their weakness. however we are all human, and you will find that those men who are not in touch with their emotion to be very hard to deal with down the road. ( because they usually express everything with anger, or frustration instead of talking things out). this does not mean that I like man who whine and cry about every little things. suck it up.


I have an ESFJ friend. and one time I accidentally said something that offended him, and he told me about it. I apologized and never felt that he was whiny or annoying. I thought it was great he was able to tell me so I can be more aware.


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)

i find vulnerability and openness to be really endearing in men, and i know a lot of women who feel the same way.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

I don't want to be that guy, but I think it depends on the woman and the culture. Some women are actually more attracted to "cute" guys, in which case vulnerability is not necessarily antithetical to their perceived attractive traits. 

For example, I don't want to generalize, but in East Asian cultures, it seems to be desirable for even the hot guy "idols" to do cutesy or emotionally vulnerable behaviors at times. 

Exhibit A: 






As well, some more aggressive women I've met seem to be attracted to less masculine men. 

In general though, for the average north american girl(caucasian, black, hispanic) picked out of a crowd, I would guess that vulnerability and perceived femininity is a turn-off. I mean, if you go on online dating sites it seems like half the girls specifically prefer men with beards. Whether this is a cultural thing at this place and point in time or not, I think you could generalize that, _especially for initial attraction_, vulnerability is not really attractive to these average girls. Once they get coupled up I'm sure it's different, and a lot of girls seemingly like to monopolize their SO's "sweet" or "gentle" side, even if he's a "man's man" who's built like a linebacker. 

I personally am not stereotypically masculine, I don't think. I am not physically imposing, very aggressive, etc. However, I would say I don't act particularly vulnerable around strangers simply because I'm shy. However, once I build a rapport with someone I do tend to become more open, and much less stoic and mysterious than I seem. I have found that it can be a turn-off to some girls who are surprised by this, but again, it depends. I've had trouble being expressive and warm/vulnerable around my female NF friends in the past because sometimes they actually became very attracted to me and it made for awkward friendships. Extrapolating from that I think a lot of it boils down to whether a girl prefers an _empathetic partner _who they can share feelings with or the _gruff, contained man _who keeps them guessing.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

That's actually what attracts me to my crush. He's not afraid to show his emotions. (I guess the one downside of that is that I'm afraid if I ever do get together with him, he'll expect me to do the same, and I'm really uncomfortable with that.) The fact that he isn't afraid to admit something made him cry, or that a situation makes him nervous or uncomfortable or say that he sometimes feels like an outcast (even though he's really successful and well-liked) because he was bullied as a child makes him seem more approachable. 
I find his vulnerability refreshing. I grew up around men who were very stoic, and also with the unspoken idea that men are better than women (my family doesn't actually believe either gender is better than the other, but there were enough subtle cultural influences to pick up on) and that if you wanted to be taken seriously, you had to act like a man. Showing your emotions was considered annoying, immature, and just not cool. And being Fi-dom, I feel things very deeply. By being comfortable with his emotions, he gives the impression that if we did get together, he'd still take me seriously even if I wasn't 100% stoic and rational all the time. He wouldn't think less of me if I cried in front of him and it wasn't for a good reason. I think if we were together long enough, I just might feel comfortable opening up to him without feeling like I'd be judged.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I actually can only love men who are vulnerable to me and who are capable of feeling shame. However, I would strongly suggest that perhaps women don't like to see this as their first impression of a new partner, as that a lot of the more biological parts of mating also involve wanting a man who is a protector, a man who shows strength of some kind, whether it's physical or intellectual or whatever. I doubt many women are randomly turned on by a man's insecurities, if he's a stranger or acquaintence.

But I actually like when men open up to me about certain things, I'm actually really a sucker for it if I already like the guy and find him attractive. It makes me feel closer to him, like he trusts me. 

The problem of course is that men may resist showing emotional vulnerability in sexual relationships to avoid closeness and keep things shallow, and that's actually frustrating to women who want emotional intimacy in their relationships.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Chris Merola said:


> I haven't experienced much shame based on the provided definition, but I have shown much vulnerability and its bitten me in the ass thus far in my life. (Aged 17, only a handful of romantic experiences) I usually put myself in the position where I stand to be hurt the most or lose the most from the relationship. I do this because I feel like I can take the pain and this is an expression of trust as well as true inner strength. It certainly doesn't seem like this is how it comes across to women.
> 
> I've dealt with an emotionally immature gal in a relationship who believed that her lack of consideration or reciprocation wasn't in fact the issue, the issue was that I wasn't being a man because I didn't "suck it up" when she would get nasty and hurt my feelings. This was the only scenario where I was directly called out on my manhood based on vulnerability, the girl had major issues so it didn't cut deep and I'm long past that scenario.
> 
> Otherwise, I have seen vulnerability receive mixed reactions. I have been praised for it, but its also been seen as a turn off by some. (I didn't hear this from the girl directly, but one can infer, lol.)


Well you're still young and there are probably lots of immature people around you. 

There's also such a thing as rushing intimacy. There comes a point where a person will love you more for crying over something that happened in your childhood, revealing your physical or other insecurities, or just doing nerdy things like dancing around in your underwear. But if you rush that process, people can be turned off fast.

I think this is why hook ups rarely lead to lasting relationships unless the people either have great boundaries, or are the total opposite, and are psychotic freaks who latch on to anyone. 

It's best for humans in general not to be too vulnerable to the wrong people. This also includes women, this is how women get treated like dirt by jerk guys who use them for sex, because they were vulnerable to a person who just took advantage of it instead of appreciating it.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

When I saw "Back and stronger than ever" written in the thread, I was getting all excited about the triumphant return of strangest dude. Turns out it's a thread from 2013. Le cry.


----------



## Chris Merola (Jul 11, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> Well you're still young and there are probably lots of immature people around you.
> 
> There's also such a thing as rushing intimacy. There comes a point where a person will love you more for crying over something that happened in your childhood, revealing your physical or other insecurities, or just doing nerdy things like dancing around in your underwear. But if you rush that process, people can be turned off fast.
> 
> ...


I feel like I have a decent enough judge of character to know whom I can be relatively safe with when revealing vulnerability, but I've made some mistakes in the past so I should learn to be more cautious.

I like what you said about rushing intimacy, I fall into this behavior when my inferior Se sees opportunity after my Ni recognizes relationship potential down the line; I usually end up gunning it and things feel somewhat forced. I have to work on that.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Chris Merola said:


> I feel like I have a decent enough judge of character to know whom I can be relatively safe with when revealing vulnerability, but I've made some mistakes in the past so I should learn to be more cautious.
> 
> I like what you said about rushing intimacy, I fall into this behavior when my inferior Se sees opportunity after my Ni recognizes relationship potential down the line; I usually end up gunning it and things feel somewhat forced. I have to work on that.


As a very dear INFP friend recommended to me : take at least 4 months before engaging anything. Be friends. Don't rush. Get to know if the person can truelly be dependable and comforting in the way you'd need. 

I got the same problem than you, I feel safe if the direction suggested by Ni (which didn't happen yet but could and will anyway so I'd like it to happen now) become real (Se). And it's pretty hard to keep it cool and rational in a sense. But you'll see with time it get better


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

johnson.han.3 said:


> I always felt that men who show their vulnerbility are some how more human than those who can't. our society want man to be this tough, strong person who never cry or show their weakness. however we are all human, and you will find that those men who are not in touch with their emotion to be very hard to deal with down the road. ( because they usually express everything with anger, or frustration instead of talking things out). this does not mean that I like man who whine and cry about every little things. suck it up.


I find this paradoxical. Those who show anger and frustration show their vulnerability as much as those who cry.
Strong, invulnerable people are calm. It's same with dogs. The smaller and more scared dog the more he barks. Big calm dogs just look at you and if you do something bad they growl a bit to warn you.



Thalassa said:


> I actually can only love men who are vulnerable to me and who are capable of feeling shame.
> ...
> I doubt many women are randomly turned on by a man's insecurities, if he's a stranger or acquaintence.
> 
> But I actually like when men open up to me about certain things, I'm actually really a sucker for it if I already like the guy and find him attractive. It makes me feel closer to him, like he trusts me.


This is finally understandable unlike some posts before. First sentence is about having sort of control over him.
Second makes sense too, kind of what I tried to say - distinguish meanings of sensitivity, insecurity, vulnerability. 
Third also makes perfect sense, something I tried to distinguish - insecure vulnerability versus lack of insecurity over own weaknesses.
Openness makes perfect sense too, but perhaps that is not necessarily tied to vulnerability.



Thalassa said:


> The problem of course is that men may resist showing emotional vulnerability in sexual relationships to avoid closeness and keep things shallow, and that's actually frustrating to women who want emotional intimacy in their relationships.


IMHO there is huge difference in vulnerability and depth of feelings. I can never put myself into shoes of someone outwardly emotional, but it seems to me more superficial compared to those who keep it inside.


Francesco Petrarca said:


> To be able to say how much love, is love but little.


***********
To explain my confusion about word vulnerability used in context of this thread I will use metaphor in physical world.

I mean would be weird say: 
"This is my balls, its my vulnerable body part. If you kick me there I will roll on the floor in pain."
"Also nose is easy to break, and if kick me in the knee, I would be totally vulnerable."
"If you yap at me I may get heart attack!"

I would understand that insecurity in vulnerability would be bad, meaning he would not be able to relax. Always tense and wearing silly armor on all of his body making him slow and cumbersome (and cold to touch). But what is good about vulnerability itself?

I can only see following reasons:
1) Control over the man / insurance against own vulnerability in expected power-plays.
2) Maternal instinct as vulnerability is childish property (well puppies and kittens are weakness to humans anyway)
3) Sense of connection via shared vulnerabilities (But i still do not accept that relationship of balanced people is more shallow)
4) Mark of sensitivity (sic!) (I think it's not. Sensitive people can still be quite strong and though.)
5) Mark of trust through openness (sic!) (I think not, strong and though people can be open.)

EDIT: My interest in this might seem strange, but if a girl asked me to show some vulnerability I would be totally puzzled.


----------



## Chris Merola (Jul 11, 2014)

Sygma said:


> As a very dear INFP friend recommended to me : take at least 4 months before engaging anything. Be friends. Don't rush. Get to know if the person can truelly be dependable and comforting in the way you'd need.
> 
> I got the same problem than you, I feel safe if the direction suggested by Ni (which didn't happen yet but could and will anyway so I'd like it to happen now) become real (Se). And it's pretty hard to keep it cool and rational in a sense. But you'll see with time it get better


In my case, four months isn't even long enough, lol! Thank you for the advice, though


----------



## benningtonsmythe (Dec 9, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with vulnerability in anyone! Why shouldn't men be vulnerable?


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

benningtonsmythe said:


> There's nothing wrong with vulnerability in anyone! Why shouldn't men be vulnerable?


Why anyone should be (except that everyone is vulnerable to a degree by nature of being human)?
I am totally puzzled why vulnerability should be positive trait and I wonder what kind of meaning people give it nowadays...

If you can stomach thinker's approach in this apparently emotion-wise issue I am open to exchange of perspectives on it. I already expressed my confusion in several posts above.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> I actually can only love men who are vulnerable to me and who are capable of feeling shame. However, I would strongly suggest that perhaps women don't like to see this as their first impression of a new partner, as that a lot of the more biological parts of mating also involve wanting a man who is a protector, a man who shows strength of some kind, whether it's physical or intellectual or whatever. I doubt many women are randomly turned on by a man's insecurities, if he's a stranger or acquaintence.
> 
> But I actually like when men open up to me about certain things, I'm actually really a sucker for it if I already like the guy and find him attractive. It makes me feel closer to him, like he trusts me.
> 
> The problem of course is that men may resist showing emotional vulnerability in sexual relationships to avoid closeness and keep things shallow, and that's actually frustrating to women who want emotional intimacy in their relationships.


All in good time; and the proper order; and the right proportions. Get any one of those seriously out of whack, and either the relationship won't get established, or it will falter.

One of the things that makes successful relationships so hard to find or achieve, is that each person has their own blueprint for what should be revealed, and when; and in the initial stages, they are operating blind ... both to what the other person's ideal match is,
and to the other person's strategy for finding it.

Blind man's bluff where both people are "it". And if you guess too wrong, early enough in the game, you don't get a second chance.

The other issue is that both parties are motivated by mixtures of pride and hope and shame and guilt and fear. What one person takes as a fatal flaw or grave defect, another person might point to with pride as a feather in their cap.

Rant mode off.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

To the general subject of vulnerability, two thoughts come to mind.
In interaction, vulnerability is generally weighted by a social relativity in which a person's sharing or vulnerability should be in some relative equilibrium with the other. This is where if one person is "over sharing" the other is generally put off because they're not wanting to open up, the trust, comfort or interest isn't there to have the sort of intimacy that evolves in sharing.
People can share lots and it not be intimate, but generally mutual sharing is required to evoke the feelings that seem to make one experience intimacy. 

The other is I wonder about the effects of people's attachment and general upbringing, people who know attachment theory can already guess the behaviour of secure, anxious and avoidant attachments in how they'd express vulnerability if at all on average. But I do wonder about individual experiences which do relate to gender and other factors like how one's parents were or one's experiences with peers.
That some people might be negative towards other peoples vulnerbility on account that they don't like to express it themselves.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

The triumphant return of strangestdude?!!

Oh...


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Meh I think I do just fine with vulnerable men. 

Where I came into conflict with this in the past was not resenting their vulnerability existing in itself, it was that they wanted their cake and to eat it to. Sorry but if I am going to wear the fricken pants because you dont want to deal with anything, then no bitching and stomping up and down your the man weh. 

Lol my ex was never bothered by the fact I was likely the one addressing anything with a pair of ballz, but he terribly hated that what came with it was people seeing him as a goofball, and coming to me with any seriousness. (Well then dont run around like an attention starved child demanding attention and guard the gate instead). I always was the alert dependable guard of the family. 

So anyways in itself I do not care if a man is vulnerable. (I usually find it endearing when its complimented with love and such). In other words I would not mind being with a nurturing man. (I think it would compliment me well). But if they are just vulnerable in childlike manners and do not even pair their vulnerability with nurturing-no I would never again want to deal with a vulnerable guy who simply deflects from any role with responsibility. If I am the family guardian then they should be the nurturer. Not a man child running around leaving a wife to be the 'man and woman'. 

So yeah I do not mind vulnerability but it better be paired with a nurturer, and not a man child throwing tantrums when they dont get to play and goof around and evade guardian or leadership roles, but also do not tend to any nurturing or comfort, because then they offer no fundamental psychological role to me (if I am doing it all mentally anyways).


----------



## benningtonsmythe (Dec 9, 2014)

SilverFalcon said:


> Why anyone should be (except that everyone is vulnerable to a degree by nature of being human)?
> I am totally puzzled why vulnerability should be positive trait and I wonder what kind of meaning people give it nowadays...


All people have vulnerabilities - it's a part of being human.
The key though, is that many choose not to _show_ these. Which doesn't mean that they aren't there, just that culture (e.g. shaming people who show vulnerability) has influenced standard behaviour.

To me, it's not that vulnerability is a 'positive trait' as such - it's simply an inherent part of human nature. 

My positive reaction is not directed at the vulnerability itself, but at what surrounds/ results from it e.g. the bravery it can take for people to show it, putting their trust in others.


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

Unfortunately, it seems true but it doesn't mean that it's the most clever thing to numb. I much prefer to focus on human qualities.

This talk I found interesting. 






also ftr : vulnerability != weakness


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

My best estimate is that women like rare moments of subtle vulnerability which slips out despite a man's better efforts. Generally, and this really pretty much seems to go for everyone, people prefer someone who is strong. Not some whiner. I tried this out myself, I tried to be emotionally open to a woman I was going out with once. My verdict is that most of the time, expressing one's emotions is actually just manipulative and makes a person feel like the host of some parasite. Better to just stay mysterious and let their imagination do most of the work.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Women;
> 
> *Would you, or have you experienced, a loss of respect or attraction towards a man by exposing vulnerability and shame?* (eg. a man displaying nervousness - due to feeling vulnerable because of the risk of rejection - when attempting to court you.)
> 
> *Please share any other thoughts you have on this topic.*


A lot has depended on where I've been in life myself. I went through a period of insecurity after a big break up and initially I found these traits in other men endearing, but there was a trend where they would project. Basically, they'd pick at my insecurity while denying their own. I absorbed the blame of the awkwardness, which felt like a rejection in itself, so then how much sympathy am I really supposed to have? Or they'd behave badly due to these emotions, rather than sucking them up for the sake of following through on commitments.

I think romantic relationships can fall into an odd mother-son dynamic with too much emotional vulnerability in men. Especially if the expectation becomes needy or entitled that the woman always accept this. That becomes dangerous too because temper tantrums in men are typically more dangerous than temper tantrums in women. Most men can overpower women and get those surges of adrenaline fueled by testosterone. There are also times when men do need to step up to the plate I think. Like if the woman were pregnant for example, and her hormones were going haywire. 

Otherwise I've been with emotional men and I didn't mind vulnerability at all. Oddly, the biggest softies were usually the more macho types publicly.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

@benningtonsmythe
This way I can understand. As I claimed before its not the vulnerability, but the lack of insecurity about being vulnerable being that is positive.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I miss the good old days when men could just drag a freshly hunted deer to the woman he was interested in and they got to baby making right there in the woods.

"Deer for you. Give me pussy."
"Such big deer. Good provider! Give me baby"

(in their own primal languages, of course)


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

Death Precedes said:


> I miss the good old days when men could just drag a freshly hunted deer to the woman he was interested in and they got to baby making right there in the woods.
> 
> "Deer for you. Give me pussy."
> "Such big deer. Good provider! Give me baby"
> ...


And having to worry about your own survival again?
I'll pass.
I rather have a lot of free time to mentally grow.


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

WikiRevolution said:


> also ftr : vulnerability != weakness


This so much. 
I'll show vulnerability wherever I like, makes it easy to quickly spot those who pray on the 'weak'
If they don't like it, their issue. I know who I am and am very happy with myself.
There's a difference between showing vulnerability and letting another use it against you. The latter is weak.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Death Precedes said:


> I miss the good old days when men could just drag a freshly hunted deer to the woman he was interested in and they got to baby making right there in the woods.
> 
> "Deer for you. Give me pussy."
> "Such big deer. Good provider! Give me baby"
> ...


I recently killed a possum (for reasons). Should have saved it for a gal I wanted to mate up with. Maybe if I just start going around displaying dead animals to women their stone age instincts will kick in and I'll soon have a harem. 

Imagine I look something like Conan the Barbarian and sound like James Earl Jones.


----------

