Is There an Ideal Way of Acting and Being in Male-Female Relationships?

[mkrnhr]

Interestingly enough I found that not initiating any conversation until after her first cup of coffee worked wonders. YMMV

That's trade secret for online courses, payed seminars, and books ;)

 

[T.C.]

My wife and I are together because we love being together. It’s really very simple.

When Corvus says that making a relationship work is not easy, I do understand what he means. But we are fortunate enough that for us, being together is easy; maintaining our marriage is easy; planning things and executing them, planning our life, running our house, supporting each other, enjoying our time together, enjoying each other - it’s practically effortless.

And she isn’t interested in politics, philosophy, esotericism, science. And that doesn’t matter, because again, we’re together because we love being together. I love her, for who she is, as she is. Who she is and how she is makes me happy, and it’s the same for her with me.

So, what is an ideal relationship? Why be with someone rather than be on your own? I think if you find someone and you make each other happy; you compliment and suit each other; neither of you creates drama; you’re both practically minded when it comes to life; you have enough healthy common sense, make each other laugh; why on Earth would you not want to spend your life with that person?

 

[Andromeda]

Like Matai's comment above about his wife explicitly telling him that she prefers him to be direct about what he wants rather than being ambivalent, that's something that I think would be kind of annoying (at least mildly) to anyone.

Indeed. And I would say that in the example given there, the devil would be in the details. I would never feel cut adrift or uncertain if someone gives me an ambivalent answer, unless they do that ALL the time and I feel like they are being insincere about their ambivalence. I appreciate when people are direct, but I appreciate honesty even more. If the person really doesn't have a preference and they say so, that is fine by me.

And, another thing to consider on that topic would be that while it may be true that some woman like a show of decisiveness from a man because 'it's manly', MANY women are wounded by narcissistic fathers and might benefit from, and be even more attracted in the end to, men who are extra considerate of their preferences. It would be more harmful to play on someone's programming in that instance than to possibly forego a 'score' of attractiveness. So, that's something to work out depending on the individual.

There is huge amount of confusion.
Just examples:

I would think that most of the things you listed would be better worked out between the individual parties concerned.

While it is always good to know about how things work, especially our own (and others') machine, and to identify the problems, one should also be very mindful of any proposed "cures" or recipes. Sometimes the cure is as bad as the illness.

Yeah. At least from what I've seen so far, the whole things reeks of cointelpro. Talk about subverting real manliness.

 

[Nević Nenad]

My wife and I are together because we love being together. It’s really very simple.

When Corvus says that making a relationship work is not easy, I do understand what he means. But we are fortunate enough that for us, being together is easy; maintaining our marriage is easy; planning things and executing them, planning our life, running our house, supporting each other, enjoying our time together, enjoying each other - it’s practically effortless.

And she isn’t interested in politics, philosophy, esotericism, science. And that doesn’t matter, because again, we’re together because we love being together. I love her, for who she is, as she is. Who she is and how she is makes me happy, and it’s the same for her with me.

So, what is an ideal relationship? Why be with someone rather than be on your own? I think if you find someone and you make each other happy; you compliment and suit each other; neither of you creates drama; you’re both practically minded when it comes to life; you have enough healthy common sense, make each other laugh; why on Earth would you not want to spend your life with that person?

Thats wonderful what you just wrote. I dont know if you are experienced it, and I'm with my girlfriend for 22 years (we never felt the need to officially get maried, with papers and all that), but when I hug her, that is the feeling of pure joy, really undescribable. Feeling that calms me down, tells me that everything will be OK, that the world will be gentle on me, and she's there to help, if there is a need for that. And that feeling goes to her too. That feeling I can only describe as divine. As I can see it.

 

[Michal]

I mean, without understanding what is going on how can you love someone? Is it love then? Is it ever?

I think that it is true what You have said. I am not able to love something/someone without knowing.
Proof: If there existed for example Kate that I never heard of, and she would be known to some people but to me nothing from her existence would be known then it is obvious that I cannot love Her as there is no Subject of my love.

 

[luc]

that case, where does that leave women who are and want, let's say, more than that?

Also, does this kind of literature not run the risk of encouraging narcissism in men that read it, where the are encouraged to view ALL women from that oversimplified perspective, and that the "most natural" way for a woman to be is a kind of "little lady" constantly fawning over her big burly caricature of a manly husband?

And if and when, later in a relationship, these men find out that their girlfriends or wives are not content with that framing of the relationship, and rebel against it in their "evil wily womanly ways", the men get all upset and claim that their girlfriends/wives have been "mind programmed by feminism".

This is precisely what seems to happen in many cases from what I can tell from some of the ramblings in that sphere. Unless common sense, experience, and love prevail. It is not surprising though that this type of information is made available and resonates I think, and it's a discussion that needs to be had. And some of the things might be helpful for some guys, if even just as a first step.

There seems to be a dynamic I like to call unholy dialectic that is being played out again and again with different topics: you create a massive imbalance, in this case with feminism and a flat out denial of biology and common sense differences between men and women, and people suffer from it. Some are waking up, but instead of using that as a chance to look deeper, further, and reach new heights of understanding beyond both old clichés and new clown-world reality, they are channelled into a counter-revolution that can get silly and disastrous real fast.

Perhaps one of the reasons why the manosphere stuff is only useful up to a certain point is that it is based on evolutionary psychology. While this has some merit and can be a basis for reflections about our biological programming, it rests on materialist assumptions where things like soul development, differences between people's development, and goals beyond survival and reproduction are not considered or at least not primary.

 

[Carl]

Yeah. At least from what I've seen so far, the whole things reeks of cointelpro. Talk about subverting real manliness.

This is such an important point. This sub-culture has just as much, if not more cointelpro vibes than anything I have ever seen. If you're a single guy without a network trying to figure this stuff out it is absolutely crazy-making. And I guess that's the idea.

 

[Carl]

Absolutely. After using 'red-pill principles' to learn to be assertive with women, I realized that my problem was a lack of assertiveness/weakness in all areas of my life.

Yes, and a lack of emotional control (control over your own mood, motivation and happiness), programmed insecurities, low self worth, sexual hangups, toxic traits etc. All stuff that we here should be working on by default anyway.

Imagine if you could wave a magic wand and fix all that, would anyone really need a strategy to meet women and have a good relationship?

To be fair, meeting people out is a useful skill to learn if you don't want your options to be limited to work/social circle/dating apps, but even then it's much more about shining your light and spreading good energy than it is about lines or tactics or games.

 

[Revolucionar]

Yeah. At least from what I've seen so far, the whole things reeks of cointelpro. Talk about subverting real manliness.

Spot on. As I mentioned earlier, this is exactly the conclusion I came to after taking a dive into these sorts of podcasts recently.
It's all just a big old mess of lies, misconceptions, shallow truths and outright deception and manipulation.

Even so, the post that started this thread still holds true. The whole truth is a lot more nuanced, though.

For example, the statement that women are more emotional than men is most certainly true. And it's true that women therefore value a man who is less emotional (unless she has some disorder and seeks to create chaos and manipulate men). Probably the more emotional a woman is, the less emotional her ideal man is likely to be.
This is then used by psychos and ponerized men to manipulate these women since the psycho is the epitome of unemotional functioning, when he wants to.

But if a normal man happens to come across a woman like that, and say he's not particulary emotionally reactive, all he has to do is be himself and see her as a real person (love?) to be able to give her what she needs.

Problem is that this manosphere philosophy implicitly or sometimes explicitly teaches men to put on an act.
It's pretty pathetic when you think about it. They're telling men to project confidence and act like they don't care what women think and act like they have their own goals separate from women (always materialistic) and then women will want them and submit to their will. Sounds like their entire motivation to get their life in order is to get women to like them. Makes no sense to me.

What seems to be happening is that a war between sexes is being promoted and both men and women are being taught to manipulate the other side to satisfy their needs. You'll never ever hear anyone talk about love. It's always transactional.

Men are being taught that love is weakness and that the woman of your dreams is a submissive housewife with no other interest but to please her man and take care of his offspring. Giving your all to a woman is inviting disaster, they say.

This is a reaction, imo, to the radical feminist stream that teaches women that the most important thing in their life is their career. Family, and especially any sort actual spiritual development is secondary at best, often a complete waste of time.

Well, now women are reacting to the manophere's insistence that women need to be merely appendages of their men by becoming complete and utter sluts and gold diggers.

So how does a man make sure he doesn't marry one of those? He employs manosphere tactics and worldviews and in that way perpetuates the split.

The biggest tell for me is this constant talk of what constitutes a high value man or woman.

Apparently, a high value man makes a lot of money, has access to women, makes his own way in the world and takes no crap from no woman. He works out, he runs his own business or side hustles, he dresses sharply and he takes care of his looks.

A high value woman, one the other hand is supposed to be virgin, needs to be submissive, demure, mellow, caring, feminine, great cook, freak in bed, amazing mother and loyal even if a man sleeps around.

I mean, this stuff is ridiculous. These people have no chance in hell of over being in a functioning relationship, much less a loving marriage till death do you part.

At the same time a lot of it makes perfect sense and that's how they get you.
It's really necessary to take each little thing apart and put it into the proper context. Also, each individual is different and there a huge number of women and men who don't fit with the generalizations, so I think it all comes down to knowing yourself which might give you a chance to understand the other person and figure it out from there.

This was a bit rambling, but I'll try to follow up with more ramblings.

 

[Revolucionar]

Is it possible (likely even) that a lot of this kind of literature on "how to attract women" is using 'OP' women as a reference? Women who are largely content to be seen as 'giggling feminine girls' by men, and little more.

I would say that being a man with a put together life, who's emotionally stable and physically capable is attractive to the vast majority of women.
The problem arises when men are being told that they need to project these qualities, whether they posses them or not. This usually then turns into something like: Become a hustler and make loads of dough, drive flashy cars and wear expensive watches (at least make it look like you have money), act like a psychopath to appear emotionally stable, and get super ripped.
On top of that, play games with women to play into their vulnerabilities and never show them your true self. Don't become a simp. Love is for Betas!

Also, does this kind of literature not run the risk of encouraging narcissism in men that read it, where the are encouraged to view ALL women from that oversimplified perspective, and that the "most natural" way for a woman to be is a kind of "little lady" constantly fawning over her big burly caricature of a manly husband?

It sure does. The whole thing is one big ego trap.

in favor of an over-simplified, arrogant and obtuse analysis (however true in certain situations for some women).

I still think it's true for most women. What women in general want is pretty accurately defined by this "philosophy", the problem is what is being done with that information.

As you said before, there are always exceptions, but the generalization holds true nonetheless.

Also, I have to say that I don't really understand people getting offended by this stuff.
I hear generalizations about men all the time and I never get offended. It either applies to me personally, or it doesn't. I don't feel the need to defend the entire male sex. It seems that many men have been offended by this, too, which indicates that men have been indoctrinated into feminism just as much as women. It's kind of like those white Americans who are so anti-racist they're more black than Malcolm X.

 

[Revolucionar]

I think this video sums it up nicely.

Both sides are just hopeless.

 

[Alejo]

That's it, in a nutshell. It's also fascinating to start examining yourself in this way. You might just discover that, oh look! In many ways, you're already the man/woman you want to be... It's just that there are a few 'little programs' that get in the way sometimes... And sometimes, those 'little' programs get in the way in a BIG way.

It is, because what you might be facing is weakness, and I do not mean weakness as in someone who is flimsy and a weakness for which the only solution is "I am going to toughen up!". I mean weakens as in places within yourself where your decision making ins't entirely within your control, and you end up in places where you find pain, or not pain but trouble, chaos.

There you examine its origins, and educate yourself with what you may be missing within, and try again with a new paradigm. And it is different for everyone, I do think that there's an obvious biological drive that can turn your priorities upside down, but if there's weakness in there, it can make those biological drives even more prevalent in your life.

Not with the goal of becoming whatever some sites consider an "alpha" to be, but rather with the goal to have more of you show through in more interactions, in a more secure way. The goal of this discussion, as far as I can see, which is where it differs from most advice for men out there, isn't to turn anyone into an irresistibly attractive creature, but to have more of you show through.

Now, "you" is someone who most won't find attractive, just because of statistic, but that's a better place to be, than to find yourself desperate to be attractive to everyone. But interestingly, being in that place and presenting yourself that way, carries more authentic confidence, whether it's attractive to the opposite sex or not, than training yourself to seem confident.

And creates better chances, not more, of whoever might be out there for you.. if there is such a person, to recognize you. And if there isn't such a person, then you're comfortable within your skin, at peace with solitude.

If I may invoke Caesar to help me explain what I mean, a lot of these sites are encouraging men to become leaders in a relationship, masculine leaders.. because that is what men do. Which sure, but.. there's a different approach in leadership, by force or by strength, one that aggressively forces and manipulates others to follow, and one that inspires from within, and others follow that. One you can fake, the other you simply cannot.

Because, as I said earlier, while there are rules that apply to our behavior and some of them we're unable to escape and it's better to become acquainted with them, there's also each individual's nature that can't be ignored or we shouldn't try to ignore and it's in that nature where the stuff for a "perfect" relationship is found and recognized by someone else. That's what makes it different and particular amongst all other relationships, despite the laws and rules of the jungle, so to speak.

Perfect as "the little prince" would put it, when he spoke about the unique rose in a universe full of roses, or as it was mentioned in that move "Good Will hunting", not a perfect individual to be with, but perfect for each other.

And in that sense, to bring caesar into it once again, maybe his one quote applies here once more: "Stay true to your own nature, and fear nothing"... So do not be afraid to face yourself, and that which you can change, but do not sacrifice your nature, because that's what makes you unique.

 

[Alejo]

And one more thing, on this

As a result, women can become addicted “biochemically” to stressful, negative, or life-threatening situations when they become hooked on the chemical release that occurs during stressful situations. This is the primary reason why a woman can be so angry and upset with a man, yet find him so attractive at the same time. Fear and dread are closely linked to human survival. Implementing dread game is a simple way to trick a woman’s brain into thinking her survival is at stake. At a biological level, inducing dread activates a woman’s fear receptors, releasing endorphins, cortisol, adrenaline, and norepinephrine into the woman’s body, causing wave after wave of anxiety and sexual tension. This chemical release now brings the woman’s focus onto the source of her anxiety—you. And just as she was about to forget you, you once more become the focus of her attention.

Again, while true... it is something for both men, and women to work on I would say, if you recognize that you're addicted to the adrenaline and that impairs your judgement in partner selection... then that's awful, like any other addictive dynamic, it'll simply end up in tolerance building and the need for more and more extreme stimulation and that can only mean a downward spiral into worse and worse relationships.

Don't get me wrong, fun relationships are fun, and some adventure/risk is probably essential, but it ought to be built, IMO, on a secure foundation that is predictable and known. If you're going out to sea to face the unknown, you at least should have a sturdy and trusty ship to navigate it with.

 

[Alejo]

Apparently, a high value man makes a lot of money, has access to women, makes his own way in the world and takes no crap from no woman. He works out, he runs his own business or side hustles, he dresses sharply and he takes care of his looks.

A high value woman, one the other hand is supposed to be virgin, needs to be submissive, demure, mellow, caring, feminine, great cook, freak in bed, amazing mother and loyal even if a man sleeps around.

I mean, this stuff is ridiculous. These people have no chance in hell of over being in a functioning relationship, much less a loving marriage till death do you part.

That's the other aspect of it that bothers me, it reduces people to tiny dimensions of life and somehow makes it almost understandable if your SO leaves you because you let your "value" drop...or worse, because someone else with more "value" showed up, huh?

Which if you think about it, it's another self soothing mechanism that muddies the situation, it's not that your partner wasn't a very good choice to begin with, or you made a bad call, it's that the value system dictates that this was always going to happen.

 

[fifty_five]

In the past, males used to make fun of us because as women we always (lol) needed "manuals" even to build simple things. and we in turn made fun of them because they did'nt read the "instructions" but always (lol) stayed with the f*cking screw left over at the end of the Ikea assembly, and the bookcase always (lol) collapsed. But it never occurred to me that this was because of that biological thing that someone gets between the legs. In fact I have always "hated" manuals or instructions . Maybe it's because I have an innate attitude toward life in general (lol) quite spontaneous with the attention and vigilance that are kind of included. It's not that everything always (lol) goes well but when does everything always (lol) go well? And what does well always (lol) mean anyway? Pair MRK 1034 enclosed, live from my shaky shelves. a sci-fi ensemble by Maria Grazia Calandrone (translated to the best of my ability, in Italian it is wonderful) Anyway it was interesting and also fun to read you all. Thank you!