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

How does being physically fit help a man become a fully functioning adult? I mean, I know it can help train one to be disciplined by sticking to a regiment, but I have known plenty of male gym rats who are not at all very good at being an adult human. It just seems like another superficial trait that the manosphere people think is important in getting a woman (pretty girl like big muscle).

Yeah, if it's done for that purpose then it's a misdirection of the energy that should be for the purpose of improving your strength and staying healthy. The really stupid thing is that gurus will tell guys to hit the gym to improve their chances with women, and in the same breath tell them that how you are physically is not really that important to women (average is fine) since women are not primarily visually inclined when it comes to partner choice.
 
If those dudes were to read something like this, would they see no reason to build a castle only to become a simp within it, or something like that?

Pretty much. "Bowing" (in whatever way) before a woman is a "nice guy" move. Bowing guys come across as needy, trying to impress, putting a woman they don't know on a pedestal, in order to get something from her. It's deemed dishonest and unattractive and gets you friend-zoned.
 
The biggest one is that more and more young men are being raised to be "prostitutes in trousers" as Gurdjieff called them.

I don't think that's the case. I do think that boys today are having a particularly hard time. For many reasons. Girls are too. A contributing factor can be single mother households. But, it is not the only one. Sounds like too easy a solution to me. Our entire society is backwards from top to bottom.

It's certainly true that good hard physical activity and challenges seem to be especially important for most men, but if it comes with all the pathophilosophy, it will end up doing more harm than good. Men are not only muscle and blood.

I think there are too many people (perhaps, or not, people like you) who try to shock and awe young men by caricaturing their misery, and the potential amazing outcome if they follow the rules, so that they will buy into a certain world view to fix it. It's as bad as drug dealing.


And so what a lot of us have been doing is simply teaching young men to get physically fit so that they can become fully functioning adults.

Well, that sounds good. Keep at it!

We don't have millions of followers like the popular cointelpro influencers, but we make a difference.

I hope it's a good one.

Most of us are just family men with modest social media followings who act as surrogate fathers to these lost souls who never had a dad to play with them, get them involved in sports, and develop the 'organic will' that is missing in them. After they do that, only then can the usual advice to just "be yourself" start to make sense to them. Before then, it's cruel to tell them that. What self? Everything they think and feel that they are, up until that point, is completely external to the self.

Yeah, that 'just be yourself' thing is mostly bogus. It's only appropriate in certain intimate situations. In my mind, everyone should always try to be their better self.

Having the 'organic will' that Gurdjieff was talking about doesn't guarantee that a man will work on himself, but not having it does guarantee that he cannot work on himself, no matter how well he knows the need for it or how much he feels that he wants it.

There are several things that guarantee someone cannot work on themselves. Having no organic will is only one of them and is not the blanket answer for everyone.

For men damaged in this way, physical suffering is the key the that opens the door to further growth. Mental and emotional suffering are already far too abundant and nothing useful can be done about any of it until they develop will over their bodies.

Actually, I think it's just that people mostly indulge in the wrong kind of mental and emotional suffering. It's called unconscious suffering.
 
Pretty much. "Bowing" (in whatever way) before a woman is a "nice guy" move. Bowing guys come across as needy, trying to impress, putting a woman they don't know on a pedestal, in order to get something from her. It's deemed dishonest and unattractive and gets you friend-zoned.

And in reality, bowing will never get you friend zoned. It also will not get you chicks. The friend-zoned/not friend zoned relies entirely on other factors. If a girl already doesn't like a guy and he 'bows' to her, she doesn't like it. If a girl already likes a guy and he bows to her, she is most likely to love it.
 
@hlat I think I would not call Sandra or anyone here snowflake but I would leave it to Joe. To me snowflake is having rather negative connotation like rainbow nowadays. I am not sure how bad it is treated in English speaking word especially US being called a snowflake? I trust that Joe had a reason snowflaking Sandra.
Don't worry Hlat. We give Peterson stick for his failings too, while recognizing his insights and achievements. The same applies to Sandra. Calling her a "snowflake" was a bit OTT, I admit, because I didn't and don't have enough evidence to draw that conclusion. Although I leave open the possibility that she might be one. I don't think she's very interested in this forum in general, or the work we do, outside of the interest we had in her work about 10 years ago, and I suspect, but don't know, that she would be horrified if she read some of our posts on certain topics. She might call you names if she read some of your posts. ;-) I suppose we'll never know. But for now, I would like to withdraw my statement that she's a "snowflake", for the reasons given.
Michal, your thought is correct, and you don't have to leave it to anyone else. Together we may be able to see something that any one person does not, and so in that way we can all have each other's back, though it only works when we say something when we see something. I think of what the Cs said below, though applied not between the Cs and us, but between us ourselves.
A: We are all the names of God. Remember, this is a conduit. This means that both termination/origination points are of equal value, importance.
A: Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with which you communicate understand this too!
 
And in reality, bowing will never get you friend zoned. It also will not get you chicks. The friend-zoned/not friend zoned relies entirely on other factors. If a girl already doesn't like a guy and he 'bows' to her, she doesn't like it. If a girl already likes a guy and he bows to her, she is most likely to love it.

Definition of bows down: to show respect to someone and agree that they are more powerful than you.

@Andromeda Honestly It does not seems to be a good position to be. Provably She will loose respect for this kind of gesture in the long run.

As it is said: What comes Easy goes Easy! And is not respected..
 
The Aquarius woman is a free and very intelligent woman. I lived for a long time with an Aquarius woman and they are really charming women (at least the one I was with). Perhaps the sign sometimes influences to congeniality I am of the scales of justice.
 
As it is said: What comes Easy goes Easy! And is not respected..
This applies to the self too...how many people have natural abilities almost 2nd nature that people marvel at and yet the individual insists on a path of trying to do something difficult that is actually ill-suited for their God-given gifts? (Or gifts acquired through work in past lives?) So we do not respect in ourselves the things that come easy. It is boring. Not challenging enough...ugh.
 
Definition of bows down: to show respect to someone and agree that they are more powerful than you.

@Andromeda Honestly It does not seems to be a good position to be. Provably She will loose respect for this kind of gesture in the long run.

As it is said: What comes Easy goes Easy! And is not respected..

Well, that is a bunch of horse hocky. If you refuse to bow to someone in an effort to gain their respect by proving that the person doesn't have power over you, they have power over you. You might as well be honest about it.
 
Well, that is a bunch of horse hocky. If you refuse to bow to someone in an effort to gain their respect by proving that the person doesn't have power over you, they have power over you. You might as well be honest about it.

Horse Hocky DEFINITION:. lies, nonsense; a euphemism for horseshit.

@Andromeda If you say so...
 
If a girl already doesn't like a guy and he 'bows' to her, she doesn't like it. If a girl already likes a guy and he bows to her, she is most likely to love it.

Which brings us nicely full circle to where we started: "how to get a girl to like you". How about we all start this topic again!?? :lol:
More seriously, see post below.
 
Last edited:
Horse Hocky DEFINITION:. lies, nonsense; a euphemism for horseshit.

@Andromeda If you say so...

Well, here's the thing...

Well, that is a bunch of horse hocky. If you refuse to bow to someone in an effort to gain their respect by proving that the person doesn't have power over you, they have power over you. You might as well be honest about it.

A is right, depending on the context though. If a guy likes a girl, but has learned "game" that he should not show any overt signs of interest because "that's bad", then it's true that she is controlling him, or he's allowing her to control him.

The solution is to show as much interest as you like, but do it in the "right way". It's not "do", or "do not do", it's do it in the right way, and whether or not a guy can do something "in the right way" is a function of his awareness and knowledge of self and others, the extent of which is usually determined by experience and how it interfaces with his nature and natural or acquired abilities.

Basically:

easygoing, naturally confident, funny guy shows interest in his way - bingo.
uptight, insecure, serious guy shows interest in his way - not bingo.

Not rocket science, although it seems like it when you really wanna play bingo but don't know the rules.
 
I don't think that's the case. I do think that boys today are having a particularly hard time. For many reasons. Girls are too. A contributing factor can be single mother households. But, it is not the only one. Sounds like too easy a solution to me. Our entire society is backwards from top to bottom.
Society is backwards! Weak men abuse their daughters who go on to abuse their sons who become weak men and so on. And everybody keeps suffering more and more each generation. Devouring mothers have graduated from mentally/emotionally castrating their sons to literally cutting their balls off and putting them in dresses, and still the weak men in their lives do nothing to stop the cycle of abuse. It's almost like this is a human farm designed to generate suffering or something. :lol:
It's certainly true that good hard physical activity and challenges seem to be especially important for most men, but if it comes with all the pathophilosophy, it will end up doing more harm than good. Men are not only muscle and blood.
We absolutely are more than muscle and blood. The point is that the type of men often called incels and simps can't reach those higher parts until they get in touch with their bodies and develop a modicum of willpower. I don't promote any pathophilosphy that I know of. Mostly I just try to get them to stop watching porn and hit the gym.
I think there are too many people (perhaps, or not, people like you) who try to shock and awe young men by caricaturing their misery, and the potential amazing outcome if they follow the rules, so that they will buy into a certain world view to fix it. It's as bad as drug dealing.
There's no need to caricature the misery of a man who was raised by a devouring mother. And the amazing outcome is that they can feel comfortable in their own skin and start seeing women as human beings with whom they can relate, instead of seeing them as imaginary extremes of either untouchable goddesses or vile whores. That's a scary thing for a woman to experience from a man, I know. And I feel for you and understand your fear of seeing that in men. Let me assure you that men don't like being stuck in that place either, and most of them are decent and desperately want a way out of that mental prison.
There are several things that guarantee someone cannot work on themselves. Having no organic will is only one of them and is not the blanket answer for everyone.
There is no blanket answer for everyone, but it's the one thing that was holding me back for most of my life and so I am duty bound to help others who are still stuck where I was. And I think maybe I caused some confusion by giving the impression that I'm equating male strength to physical strength. That's not what I mean. My wife's father had great physical strength. He was a 380lb Russian bear of a man. Not through any effort or will of his own. He was just born that way. And that big strong man had no organic will. He couldn't do anything his body didn't want to do, like keep a job and provide for his family. He couldn't stop himself from doing anything his body wanted to do, like drink all the time and take out his frustration over his own spinelessness on his children. He was a very weak willed man and his weakness created a lot of suffering for my wife.
 
According to this "confident" thing, there are four situations at least:
- Naturally 'Confident'. Can be honest or manipulative (think psychopathic for instance).
- Naturally insecure: three types: the resigned, the quiet one that may surprise you at the right moment (courage), and one who undergoes inner transformation. In these types, there are the honest and the weak (manipulative and back-stabbing).
- Naturally insecure who fakes "confidence"
Under pressure, the resigned insecure and the insecure who fakes confidence fold first but from a certain point of view, the faker would probably be the most pathetic. My guess is that everyone chooses between what's easily immediate and what's long-term hard work.
 
Back
Top Bottom