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

Maybe this song fits in the same spirit

Hope I'm not hijacking this thread, but great guitar work, along with the very meaningful lyrics. Funny, but when I was younger back in the day I never was that impressed by Lynyrd Skinner, except for SWEET HOME ALABAMA This is the first time I heard this piece, and I really enjoyed it. Maybe do a dig into some of their other stuff.
Thanks Alejo :cool: :cool2:
 
Hope I'm not hijacking this thread, but great guitar work, along with the very meaningful lyrics. Funny, but when I was younger back in the day I never was that impressed by Lynyrd Skinner, except for SWEET HOME ALABAMA This is the first time I heard this piece, and I really enjoyed it. Maybe do a dig into some of their other stuff.
Thanks Alejo :cool: :cool2:
I got one word for ya. Freebird.
Thank me later.
 
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.


As said most women are emotional and they mostly do not use logic and you can not reason with them when in emotional state, and someone who is predictable and stable becomes boring for women(especially those unstable with prior traumas) and they feel emotionally dead, so many, especially those with prior baggage will choose toxic relationship then stable ones because they feel more alive, and their current partner became to dependent on them, too invested, available, so you only have to polarise women emotions in a positive or negative way, and here are those of dark triad traits that are masters of it and have it so easy with women as research showed that they have much more partners. They do not lack confidence because they think all world revolves around them, they have no emotions so they are cold, they are challenge because they do not care, they are cold, and they only want power, that is women are drawn to man with social status, not so much to money but to man who can make money and provide for her and offspring(if they are not gold diggers), and to man who have ambition, and as said who have better social status, so you can get a picture why psychopats and similar degenerics.

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting a little Cassady Ward from Instagram. And sorry if I'm denigrating this thread.
 
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.
Men seem to focus on the theme that the heroes are always rich and influential, but that is not what gets them the lady. It's nice to have that, and does show evidence of some traits that are attractive, but mainly it makes for a better story because...... imagine the opposite!

I agree with the above points when talking about women of this forum and similar non-damaged, non-OP women. As a young man with less knowledge it was easy to miss this and see how the average women behaved. I do think for the average OP and damaged women being rich (money), influential (status), + looks ( The LMS (looks, money, status) paradigm that is often espoused in the manosphere) is largely correct and can certainly get you chicks.

Thinking back on how this thread started with discussion about Sandra Brown, I may be incorrect as I haven't read this book for a while, but I recall one of her main premises being that "high status" women, or women who were intelligent, beautiful, vivacious, out-going and loving were particularly in danger of falling for psychopaths and often ended up in relationships with them. They were often the main targets of these predators and Sandra's book wrote of ways for them to protect themselves.

If it is true, that women largely end up in long term relationships due to unique individual factors, and it is not so easy to describe generic ways in which a man can create a strong bond with a woman, then doesn't that mean that Sandra's book and premise is, at least to a degree, untrue? Perhaps the women who truly fall for these man are not so "super". Made me think of one of Joe's earlier posts where he mentioned that the information in the book was, perhaps, somewhat out of date.
 
Most women will tell you they want a nice guy, who is kind, etc.. but always look at their actions not for words because women will rationalize based on her feelings that someone has that traits based on her feelings not facts, and they are attracted more to "bad" guys that are just normal guys who are more direct and honest what they want, have their values they stick to no matter what, women is not a top priority in their life, ready to walk away when disrespected, ready to say no if they do not like something, while those nice guys come as dishonest and pretending so to get women to like him and are affraid to be rejected so are easily controlled.

Research also showed women think nice guys are easily manipulated and taken advantage off which is not good for survival.
written here is true, afaik. we should follow women's actions as an indicator to what they really are attracted to. women advice men to be nice, honest and true to oneself, but as they say in red pill circles do not take advice from fish on how to fish. you should ask fishermen. they can have good intentions with advices given to males, but women simply do not understand fully male position in mating game.
the mentioned story of knight and lady has the same undertone. if the knight is not the knight - aka high value man with status and power, he would have never gotten to chance to get a lady in the first place. fairy tales with peasants getting the girl of high beauty and status are almost non-existent. it the same with that, cinderella or even 50 shades of gray. christian grey would've been called a creep if he wasn't that rich. status is not everything, but without it other qualities are almost irrelevant. high iq nerds don't do well with women either.
i think some stuff spoken here reflects older thinking about male - female relations. milennials and zoomers have different experiences.
 
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..

mariowil7, I think you are misunderstanding what the C's meant in these quotes:

A: A man draws his energy for battle from his "lady fair." When he has this energy, he is supposed to utilize it not only for battle, but also for "building the castle”. When there is any break in the chain, he not only loses his "battle energy" but also his castle. Why do you think the legends of the "grail" speak of these things? And also fairy stories? A true warrior cannot be strong against the enemy without the lady. The lady cannot provide the energy without the castle and the "bower" of love.

A: Yes. And the warrior on his knees aiming to please is also a part of the dynamic. After all, it is honorable to bow before the author of the force for good. You don't need the ruffles though. (laughter) Study fairy tales to discover.

I don't think the usage of '"bower" of love' and "to bow" come anywhere close to what you have chosen to quote with the "bow down" definition above. In the context that was used in the sessions by Cs, I think it has nothing to do with the act of "bowing down" to someone who is more powerful than you in some typical STS hierarchy. It is about the "Knight" building the "receivership capability"within himself, part of the building of the castle and "bower" the Cs mentioned, which then enables the "soul questing" individual to learn how "to bow" tactfully and appropriately in various situations to his Lady; that is, to he has chosen to strive to realize his potential capacity of truly Loving and honoring his founded complementary soulmate. And if he has reached a point in the learning cycle to have earned it, then Universe will provide him his "just due". He has to first have "blossomed" the "tree" within himself that has something to give: to cherish, to adore, and truly know and Love his complementary soulmate. And If he still doesn't know how to truly know and love himself first, then he is still just dreaming for the light.
 
My advice to any young (or old) single guy reading this is whilst okay to theorise how things should be, nothing beats just getting your hands dirty with some real life experience. Certainly one thing you'll learn very quickly is the world doesn't fit too nicely into theories and you'll have to learn how to mostly figure things out by yourself. Just be a decent guy with good character, and not some crazy person and you know, let the chips fall where they may. Rejection is probably your best friend in the dating world so embrace it. Life's messy most of the time and doesn't fit too well into the theories people come up with to try and figure it out.

On the gym and physical fitness, my personal view is that you need to do something physical regularly to maintain some level of health. Whether that's in a gym or somewhere else, just do something physical and try and maintain a decent physical condition - look at it this way, it won't do you anything bad but the opposite will most likely result in some undesirable outcomes. Over the last couple of months I got into a state of being quite sedentary and I didn't feel too good with an ever increasing level of guilt and shame that I decided to pay for a PT to get back into doing something and just bypass my will which was becoming rather lazy and good at making excuses - over the last couple of weeks when I've been having some guided PT sessions I've felt really good. Nothing beats getting up at 5am to go workout before the day begins and I'll be sticking with it for the foreseeable future.

Good poem for the guys sat on the fence of life hesitating to jump in and try something

 
Last edited:
Seems to me that the "manosphere philosophy" purports to help men understand women, but in doing so it tends to highlight the differences between men and women, and not-so-subtly present female characteristics in a negative light, often to the point where men would be forgiven for coming away thinking that women are like a hostile alien species.

In that case, why would men bother even trying to interact with women? The answer, of course, is that this hostile alien species possesses something men wnat and 'can't live without' i.e. sex, and the only solution therefore, is to war-game the whole situation with a 'winner takes all' objective. Cool! :umm:

I could be wrong, but I think that one of the effects of what you write above, is that it can push especially young men into opting to try getting their 'fix' from other men rather than taking on the challenge to engage with women. Something which is aided if not outright pushed by the materialistic evolutionary biology proponents thus leading young men to question their sexual and biological identity.
 
Well, to be fair, some women are just mellow and deferential by nature without it being caused by any pathology or deficiency on her part. But I'm pretty sure that that is rare.
I'd say most women are that way by nature as compared to men (although many men can be that way too, both by nature and more recent social programming).

I agree that if you compare just those traits (and some other ones too!) between men and women, women would generally score higher. But, I was meaning women who have those traits as predominant characteristics. I don't think a majority of women could be described that way.

The problem arises, I think, when men don't understand that as something that is very valuable - that that passivity or deference is a function of a natural ability to perceive nuances and complexity (i.e. a deeper truth) in a given situation, especially when it comes to human relationship dynamics and human beings in general - and instead see it as a kind of inability to be decisive or figure things out. i.e. a weakness.

I agree that some men don't value it correctly. I won't speak for all men because I also know many men who do! But, another problem I see is that, at least among what I've seen of the manosphere interpretation of these traits, is that they are not only seen as a weakness but as desirable traits in exclusion to the opposite.

Now, you fellas can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that many men, not just under the the influence of the manosphere stuff, can find these traits attractive in the right context. Probably because it is an obvious mark of male/female difference. I don't see anything wrong with that. But I will also say this, at least among the girlosphere, it seems to be common knowledge that if you want to flatter a guy, you pretend to be less intelligent and capable than you are so that he can feel good about himself. And it's commonly thought among women as using very bad form if you need to do this to secure a man. It also reflects badly on the man that he could be so easily tricked. Overall, women do not find men who can be easily tricked attractive.

I like the Knight and Lady metaphor. A common understanding in fairy tales is that a young man needed to be tempered like a sword through a process of intense heating and cooling and constant hammer blows to make him into a 'young blade' - someone who was sharp, willing and able to defend the community, neither too flexible nor too hard and brittle. It was cool to see that this image showed up in the recent season of the Mandalorian where the matriarchal blacksmith tells this to Grogu - that Mandalorians are not born, but shaped on the forge of life.

The point of this forging of men in medieval stories seems to be primarily as preparation for marriage. Only once the sword was crafted could he find his home in the sheath.

Indeed. Self-development should come first when it comes to real or long term relationships. The man must achieve some level of knighthood (perhaps with the idea that he is doing it for his future, as yet unknown, lady) before he presents himself. Not that he has to be perfect. His lady will not be perfect either! But it is backwards to think that he should first trick someone into being his lady under false pretenses as a good thing. Normal for the world today maybe, but still backwards if you have any higher goals. At that level, he is still a boy playing games, and long term relationships are not very likely.

Seems to me that the "manosphere philosophy" purports to help men understand women, but in doing so it tends to highlight the differences between men and women, and not-so-subtly present female characteristics in a negative light, often to the point where men would be forgiven for coming away thinking that women are like a hostile alien species.

In that case, why would men bother even trying to interact with women? The answer, of course, is that this hostile alien species possesses something men wnat and 'can't live without' i.e. sex, and the only solution therefore, is to war-game the whole situation with a 'winner takes all' objective. Cool! :umm:

Totally agree with this. Sounds like a video game! Which is fine, if all you want to do is play games, but not so fine if you are aiming to become a mature and real man and have a real relationship with a real woman.

It's actually quite terrible from a spiritual perspective. Real men are needed in these times of transition. Needed to be honorable and discerning moral leaders for everyone's sake. Needed to be defenders of the weak and what is right. What we see actually happening here is men misleading men, pretending to be powerful to feel good by making women smaller in their minds, justifying it as 'waking up to the truth' and actually becoming like caracatured women seen from a man's perspective. Competing with women. It's kind of a reflection of what we see in the whole trans movement, actually. But under a new name. Kind of like how the liberal attitude compares with Nazis.
 
One day the best experts in the world come to give a lecture they have all written best selling books and are known to be the best representatives of both men and women on the subject but at the end of the lecture someone in the crowd applauds and shouts out energetically Thank you for the knowledge! it is time to rethink if the woman next to you is the man you want in your life and vice versa for the woman.
Haha
 
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.
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.

Exactly the bolded part. I would also say: Decide what specific kind of man you want to be and what specific kind of woman you want to attract. Focus on learning about those two types of characters and make efforts to become the former. Yes, there are some tips for across the board, like clean your room, take care of yourself, etc., but your overarching attitude regarding the whole quest will prove what you are actually after and will determine what you get. So be careful! Do you just want as many girls as possible thinking you're attractive at first blush? It's certainly possible to attain.

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:

Yes indeed. I do believe that it is all set up to generate human suffering. I'm not sure in your particular case how much emphasis you put on devouring mothers and men not being able to control them, but I have heard this line before from men who use it as a blame game, or excuse, and a justification to a misdirected desire to dominate. In the guise of 'taking responsibility'. Now, I do know that the devouring mother thing is real. As is the tyrannical father. But, it is a small part of the problems society faces. I have known men who have suffered under abusive mothers, or single mothers, and not turned out to be girly men. I have also known men from unbroken households, with decent mothers and fathers, or decent mothers and narcissistic fathers, etc., who turn out particularly weak willed or, on the contrary, great men. From my observations throughout life, and I have have been paying attention as much as possible, that factor doesn't seem to be as important to manliness as it's made out to be. Societal programming, related and propagated amongst peers plays a pretty big part too. And, it seems to me, that personal inherent character has as much say in how susceptible a person is to that programming as parental care does.

Another observation, and woman wisdom from throughout the ages, is that, excepting the cases where there is serious pathological mothering, men who blame or disrespect their mothers have something wrong with them. It's seen just as negatively as men who are overly Momma's boys.

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.

Well, I commend you for that. Those are definitely good things!

There's no need to caricature the misery of a man who was raised by a devouring mother.

There is no need to project it either.

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.

It is definitely a good thing, in my opinion, to learn to see women as people who you can relate to. The whole virgin/whore dichotomy within the male psyche is as old as time. It is the mark of an immature man who has not yet resolved his mommy issues. Growing up and getting over mommy issues is a good thing. How you do it is important too, because it determines what kind of man you will be and what kind of woman will love you.

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.

That's a terrible story and I'm glad you have found each other if you treat each other right.
 
But, another problem I see is that, at least among what I've seen of the manosphere interpretation of these traits, is that they are not only seen as a weakness but as desirable traits in exclusion to the opposite.

Now, you fellas can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that many men, not just under the the influence of the manosphere stuff, can find these traits attractive in the right context. Probably because it is an obvious mark of male/female difference. I don't see anything wrong with that.

All men see it as attractive, but pathological men, or men with otherwise messed up values, see it also (or primarily) as a weakness to be exploited. Therein lies the difference, finding an appeal and even joy in the natural, positive, healthy, periodic submissiveness of female nature, that, more than anything else, provokes a protective instinct, compared to seeing it as "attractive" only because it is a weakness to be exploited, kind of like a lion is "attracted" to the weakest gazelle and wants to "protect it" (in my belly!) In such men, it is something they want all the time and when that doesn't happen, they get angry and abusive.

But I will also say this, at least among the girlosphere, it seems to be common knowledge that if you want to flatter a guy, you pretend to be less intelligent and capable than you are so that he can feel good about himself. And it's commonly thought among women as using very bad form if you need to do this to secure a man. It also reflects badly on the man that he could be so easily tricked. Overall, women do not find men who can be easily tricked attractive.

Ah come on now! The demure, eyelid batting waif fawning all over us for our manilness and big muscles?! We're lambs to the slaughter! :lol:
 
Exactly the bolded part. I would also say: Decide what specific kind of man you want to be and what specific kind of woman you want to attract. Focus on learning about those two types of characters and make efforts to become the former. Yes, there are some tips for across the board, like clean your room, take care of yourself, etc., but your overarching attitude regarding the whole quest will prove what you are actually after and will determine what you get. So be careful! Do you just want as many girls as possible thinking you're attractive at first blush? It's certainly possible to attain.
What you say is fine, however from my personal point of view, I would not try to be this or that nor would I try to attract one type of woman and not another.

Things can arise naturally and then accept them or not, both the rejection of us and the opposite.

Then discernment and knowledge.

There is a phrase that I never remember from the author (Charles Chaplin perhaps), in which when asked what kind of woman does he like, he answers:

I like the woman, that she likes me!

For me that is the starting point.
 
What you say is fine, however from my personal point of view, I would not try to be this or that nor would I try to attract one type of woman and not another.

Things can arise naturally and then accept them or not, both the rejection of us and the opposite.

Then discernment and knowledge.

There is a phrase that I never remember from the author (Charles Chaplin perhaps), in which when asked what kind of woman does he like, he answers:

I like the woman, that she likes me!

For me that is the starting point.

exactly: when having to choose cat in a refuge, i like the cat choose me...
 
Back
Top Bottom