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

[Jones]

In the context of the world being a classroom, and other people being mirrors, giving us constant feedback so we can (choose to or not) work on ourselves, acting is an intentional deception, preventing the opportunity to work on your true self. That just allows us to work on the character we are acting as.

What if I'm an asshole ? If I'm not aware that I am, I would hope someone would tell me so I can change and not be an asshole, unless I want to be one, or I don't want to believe them that I am - but that's choosing to work on yourself or not I guess. I think acting in a relationship to be blocking even this chance to improve yourself, and be more excellent to others.

Just to add to that and not just to you but as a general statement, also be careful about who tells you that you are or calls you an asshole if that happens.

Some might level that accusation at you if you were basically doing the right thing, but doing that was in conflict with an outcome that they desired. Being called an asshole might be a sign that you're on the right track with something.

 

[Kika]

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.

I think that is good advice. Yesterday I thought of this subject in terms of A, B and C influences. If the other person is predominantly or fully run by A influences and thus preoccupied with the external world, is such a person what one would like as a partner, just because they can talk glibly, have a sixpack, dresses faultlessly, has money or the other way round, if the women, look like an hourglass, plays simple minded, praises the sixpack etc.? If one is trying to escape the natural law, then such a choice for partner might not be ideal and also not for the other person involved.

I took these two comments as an example to highlight my impression, which is that this entire topic and conversations revolve around two words: relationship and partnership.

In our country, when two young people who know each other (have some kind of platonic relationship) enter into sexual relationship, they are known to everyone, we are in a "veza". (Veza = connection, link, bond, tie...). (Here, I am sure that this expression arose due to an (unconscious?) feeling of energetic connection.)

When they want to deepen and expand such a connection to something more than just sexual relations, for example by getting married, they create a partnership.
Well, like any partnership (eg business partnership) to be successful, it must contain;
What is the goal and purpose of entering into a partnership, and what do I expect (what qualities must my partner have) and what do I offer (what do I bring to that partnership), in order to attract and retain a potential "worker". (Applies to both genders).

Only then does that very good advice come in: "Be yourself, be honest about what you are looking for and want."

Here I will argue that women are more inclined, in establishing a connection, to consider that by entering into sexual relations, they are establishing a partnership.
I think it's because of those biological differences, or design differences. Because for a woman, sexual intercourse subconsciously means pregnancy.
In our country, a pregnant woman is said to be in a "drugo stanje" = different state, or to be "trudna" (trudan = tired, overcome with fatigue).
Therefore, her life and the life of her offspring depends on her partner's ability to bring her food to the "nest" and to protect that "nest", because she is physically and mentally changed. Also, not only the physical health of the child, but also the mental health depends on the circumstances in which the pregnant woman finds herself. It is not without reason that it is said that a pregnant woman must be in a garden full of roses (that is, without worries and stress). (I know from experience, I gave birth to two children.)

So to all those women, who claim that they don't need a man in their life, and that they can be a single parent - Good luck with that!

 

[Kika]

That is where love comes into it as Paul reminded us about in 1 Corinthian 13.
Rephrasing it to fit this thread: "If you have a sixpack, look and talk glibly, have money, the greatest haircut or an hourglass figure, the best wrinkle free face botox injections can make, but if do not have love, you have nothing. (free interpretation from an unknown letter ascribed to be from Paul...I think).

Or in the RA interpretation, offering green-ray energy (isn't it?)

 

[Joe]

Well there are other traits that can get in the way like for me it was being very very introverted.

Yeah, just to be clear, the "just be yourself advice" doesn't work for most people because most people are not the ideal version of themselves, some closer and some farther form that ideal. So it's not just "what if I'm an asshole", it's also "what if I'm introverted" etc. etc. Basically, any trait that makes it difficult for you to create a good impression in the area of trying to attract a woman (or anyone for any reason), when you're in competition with other people who do not have those traits. Bottom line: if you find yourself in a position where those less than ideal traits are an obstacle to getting what it is you want, then you have no other choice than to change yourself, or decide it's not worth the effort.

 

[kenlee]

The ideal way to act towards any human being : Be yourself and treat them with respect. No "Acting" is required.

I think it was Maurice Nicholl (a student of Ouspensky) who said that a man can be measured by his understanding. That is, what a man is....is his understanding. That's the real man. That's who and what he or she really is.

You can treat someone with respect but if they misunderstand you due to prejudice, preconceived beliefs, lack of awareness, etc., then they can see anything you say as disrespect. So to be oneself one must first know oneself and to know oneself one must reach deeper levels of understanding and as one reaches deeper levels of undestanding then one will be 'more able' to accurately determine the level of understanding of others and then act accordingly so as to not cause greater misunderstandings.

So in this context it may be necessary to 'act' consciously. l think it's a balance between being oneself and being not oneself to properly externally consider the world around us so as to not cause greater discord with those who we interact with especially when interacting with those who are consumed by the world of 'A' influences.

 

[Wandering Star]

Yeah, just to be clear, the "just be yourself advice" doesn't work for most people because most people are not the ideal version of themselves, some closer and some farther form that ideal. So it's not just "what if I'm an asshole", it's also "what if I'm introverted" etc. etc. Basically, any trait that makes it difficult for you to create a good impression in the area of trying to attract a woman (or anyone for any reason), when you're in competition with other people who do not have those traits. Bottom line: if you find yourself in a position where those less than ideal traits are an obstacle to getting what it is you want, then you have no other choice than to change yourself, or decide it's not worth the effort.

I agree to work on us and try to clear out the undesirable and limiting, like being an introvert.

However, if I am an idiot and surprisingly I have found out that I am an idiot, just in case I have done an amazing job on myself and I have stopped being an idiot, I will introduce myself as myself.

Otherwise, I will be lying in order to get something.

As in alcoholics anonymous..., Hello, my name is... and I'm an idiot!, but I'm working on it. Pleased to meet you!

I simply don't like lying and pretending what I'm not to achieve something.

Unless the law of three in my discernment shows me that this is the only way, for that wonderful stubborn woman to realize that I am the man of her life.

 

[Alejo]

Yeah, just to be clear, the "just be yourself advice" doesn't work for most people because most people are not the ideal version of themselves, some closer and some farther form that ideal. So it's not just "what if I'm an asshole", it's also "what if I'm introverted" etc. etc. Basically, any trait that makes it difficult for you to create a good impression in the area of trying to attract a woman (or anyone for any reason), when you're in competition with other people who do not have those traits. Bottom line: if you find yourself in a position where those less than ideal traits are an obstacle to getting what it is you want, then you have no other choice than to change yourself, or decide it's not worth the effort.

right, so the maxim still applies.. "just BE yourself", the trick is that you have to decide who your self will be. It's not be your default self, but.. decide who you will be, from experience and knowledge, and be that or at least be someone who is moving in that direction.

 

[Alejo]

I don't know, some Hollywood movies do a pretty good job. And even Disney, believe it or not. A lot closer to the truth than this stuff anyway. Though they do tend to focus much of the time on what the man's role is, and not so much the woman. Maybe that's because men need more explicit advice?

I think so too, perhaps not so much recently but I think one of my favorite examples is Aragorn from TLOTR and his relationship with Arwen. He had to grow, and sacrifice the lawless ranger, become himself.. the king, and only after that was he able to marry her, who had to go through her own process of sacrifice and trials.

In terms of women needing to work on themselves, I'd have to think about it, but perhaps Daisy from The curious case of Benjamin Button, that movie shows growth from immaturity to love in the woman mostly.

And it was a good way to depict that before you meet "the one" if she's there or he's there for you, you have to first introduce yourself to you... and traverse that meeting and decide if you would introduce that person to "the one".. and if not, then you can get to work.

 

[Alejo]

I have been thinking about this over the past few days,

Chances are I will be repeating some of the ideas that have already been explored, if so I hope not to add much noise to the conversation. But it occurred to me that Paul had already figured it out thousands of years ago, the way of love or the way of the law, this is another way, I think, to understand what the manosphere and the girlosphere is proposing to humanity.

That is, we're naturally going to long for company, affection, validation, commitment, understanding, so many things that we can only find in the opposite sex. And there are certainly rules that are biological, genetic, cultural, etc, that can help one navigate some of the dynamics that govern the interaction of men and women.

However, what is being proposed, is a reductionist, left brained, set of laws to "master" the dynamics, with the promise of receiving all of the things we yearn for... and most importantly, adopting that set of laws as the only map to navigate this reduces our own understanding of ourselves, each other, and leaves us feeling empty. Not only do we adopt the cold laws of the game, but we accept that somehow what we yearn for isn't anything that can't be reduced to what the system tells you.

That is the way of the law. That can serve a lot, in a lot of circumstances, and who is to say that it isn't enough for some to feel content and in harmony with their lives.

However, it denies what's in between all the bits and parts that create the system, and I do believe that is where this conversation is leading, that is, to hopefully understand that you could simply live a life that as far as interpersonal relationships are concerned, remains at the level of law and flesh, and that's ok if that's what you want, I mean it.

But you could also see beyond those laws and understand why working on yourself might look superficially similar, to aiming to simply be attractive. Like Paul said, not merely following rules but rather attaining a deeper and unique connection with something that changes your behavior, that might end up in you being a law abiding citizen, without the law being the only reason you do things.

Does that make sense?

Some of these systems proposed, offer a set of rules/laws that promise salvation if you only stick to their program. But if the goal is love, romantic love, from another human being, the path has a fundamentally different origin and destination, even if you do need to strive for attractiveness and desirability, because you do need it. But it is a desirability that isn't a biological urgency, but someone's wish to keep you in their lives, and that can only accomplished if what you offer, beyond the attractiveness is qualities solid enough within yourself that may be relied on for a lifetime (or a long time).

But also, it's an attractiveness that is being offered to someone who has earned it, if you will.. and not one designed to offer you self gratification from strangers, does that make sense? To put an example already mentioned above, having a nice body, let's say, could be the result of you wanting to look "hot" or, it could be a result of you seeking to remain healthy, by learning and applying discipline, watching your diet, sleep. etc.

And no one can fake strength, confidence, intelligence, honesty, reliability, affection and generosity, etc, for a lifetime. And also, no one can promise those things unless they really know themselves and work on their own machines.

And that's what I have been thinking bout lately, you can aim for a lawful marriage, or a loving one, and Paul had the right idea about it.

 

[Menna]

I just read your title and will read the full post soon.

However if I was to judge your title you are intellectually assuming there is or there may be a formula to apply to male/female relationship. There are guidelines or principles that can or should be applied but is there an ideal way to be effective in ever changing dynamics? Also you bring up the word “acting” You should try not to “act” you should IMO improve yourself while you allow the other to be themselves…


I feel your title implies good intentions but a need to control or handle a relationship. I have a saying. If I can’t be myself (as close to it as possible) than I rather be by myself … no acting no this or that. If you are creating a thread about Male/Female relationships I assume it is important to you and assume you want a longer rather than short term relationship. Do you want to have to act long term or get to a point where you can’t keep up the act and then you change mid relationship?…

Let people gravitate to you as you be yourself so my answer is no there is no ideal way as relationships in life are fluid but there are guidelines and principles but not an ideal…life doesn’t allow you that control especially with another individual and especially as two separate individuals go through lives dynamics. Your fate will say nice try if you try to apply control/ideal

 

[John G]

And no one can fake strength, confidence, intelligence, honesty, reliability, affection and generosity, etc, for a lifetime. And also, no one can promise those things unless they really know themselves and work on their own machines.

I guess since the ultimate goal is genuine service to others, fake or forced can't be a real long term goal just kind of a step in the process that can maybe put you in a better position for more steps in the process. It might not all work overly ideally in a lifetime, things like personality or bad experiences can be difficult to overcome.

 

[BlueKiwi]

I think I got caught out on the wording of this thread title - the word acting. It seems some words can mean slightly different things to different people. Take for example the word racist - it use and understanding is now far form the dictionary definition.

We can behave, act, be ...

For me acting is to play the role of a character temporarily - and in @Corvus's case only when in the presence of Women. So what about if you're in the presence of a Man and a Women at the same time, and then the Woman leaves ? Do you now act differently ?

As far as I know psychopaths do this depending on the person they are trying to control - they have a program for each food person.

I would just say be yourself (sorry Joe) and let the universe and the beings within be your teachers.

@Corvus I would suggest you take notice of your behaviour, opinions, and the effects, instead of generalising and stereotyping Women and Men. Tolerance and understanding can go a long way, as can seeing the positive in people, not just the negative.

 

[Andromeda]

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.

written here is true, afaik.

Somewhat, yes. I'll try to offer a more right brained analysis though. The overall feeling you get from reading this is that most women don't know their own minds. And hey! That's actually kinda true! But, it is wrongly applied to the rest of the hypothesis in that excerpt. It may even somewhat imply that this is a 'woman' phenomena (not knowing your own mind, being dishonest with yourself). Which is untrue. And divisive. Also, just on that point, if that attitude is generally adopted, it can be quite disastrous in actual relationships. When a woman DOES know her own mind on something and the man does not believe her, WATCH OUT! That'll take you straight past the friend zone, without collecting 200 dollars, right into the disrespectful donkey zone.

Anyway, in more detail, for the rest:

Most women will tell you they want a nice guy, who is kind, etc..

Yes. And when she says that, it is generally true.

but always look at their actions not for words

Yes. And if interpreted correctly, they will show consistency with her statement.

because women will rationalize based on her feelings that someone has that traits based on her feelings not facts,

Sort of. She is not just basing her inclination on feeling, but incomplete data. A 'blink' that can go very wrong without having enough knowledge to back it up.

and they are attracted more to "bad" guys that are just normal guys who are more direct and honest what they want,

Yes. Although I fear that the 'direct and honest what they want' is often misinterpreted as a sure sign of heroic traits to inexperienced women, when it can just as often be the traits of a narcissist and game player. Only time and shrewdness can tell her which is really which in most cases.

have their values they stick to no matter what,

Yes. But if that is faked off the bat, it will always come out in the end. And, the type of values is another thing that takes time to find out if they are compatible.

women is not a top priority in their life,

Sort of. I think most women don't find it attractive if a guy makes getting any woman the top priority in his life, because that is a sign of someone who doesn't know himself, is controlled by his hormones, and will NOT be dependable. But I'm pretty sure that most women find it at least somewhat attractive if the man wants to make earning the right woman a top priority in his life. That is a sign of a responsible, dependable, intelligent, and romantic man.

ready to walk away when disrespected, ready to say no if they do not like something,

Yes. Although I saw some advice going in these circles that a good way to establish this 'fact' is by actively looking for ways to demonstrate it against the woman you are courting. That is backwards. If a man does actually have this trait, and if it is born of a correct idea of what constitutes respect and standing up for himself appropriately, he should be showing that to anyone. A woman should deduce this trait by watching his interactions with others and the world at large, and also deduce that if the need arises, he can tell her 'no' or expect respect. Although, in courting relationships, if that need does arise, it should be done entirely differently than how a man does it towards another man or a game playing woman. I heard it said somewhere once that a man should be able to say 'no' to his woman, but that generally he shouldn't. I think that's good advice in a healthy relationship. Only not with a woman who plays games.

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.

'Nice' guys here being immature men. They are not the nice guys women are talking about. They come across as being dishonest and pretending things to get a woman to like them because they are! And they are also easily controlled. Not just by women, but also by other men, and mostly by their hormones.

It is normal for most people to be afraid of being rejected. Whether or not someone can take rejection when it happens is what shows their character in the end.

we should follow women's actions as an indicator to what they really are attracted to.

Alright. But if you did that with men and women equally, and only considered their first impressions, everyone would look pretty bad.

women advice men to be nice, honest and true to oneself,

That's generally good advice.

but as they say in red pill circles do not take advice from fish on how to fish. you should ask fishermen.

That reflects really poorly on the red pill circles. And imagine how that would sound coming from a feminist talking about how to get what they want from men.

they can have good intentions with advices given to males, but women simply do not understand fully male position in mating game.

Maybe not fully, but I'd hazard that they understand a lot more than you think. The whole 'from a male position' and 'my left brain rational thinking' is way overused and often a cop out to actually understanding each other by communicating and finding common ground. Women and men are not so different that they cannot understand each other. I think they were actually made to learn to understand each other. Of course, there are different types of human beings that may have trouble understanding each other. But that is a different story.

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.

Yes. He earns the chance to get the lady (as she earns the real status of lady). What he achieves will determine the particular type of lady he ends up with.

fairy tales with peasants getting the girl of high beauty and status are almost non-existent.

Naturally. Although some do exist where the man is not rich or the woman is not beautiful, they are rare because fairy tales generally represent ideals of worthiness and beauty to aspire to in a very shorthand way.

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.

I haven't read 50 shades, but I have read Cinderella. I would not ever say the prince was a creep. That is one fairy tale that is more focused on the woman's traits and struggles, though. Where Cinderella endures quite a lot without being turned rotten and, in the end, a high value man recognizes her worth.

As for 50 Shades, as much as I've heard about it, I'm pretty sure that that guy would be called a creep, even being rich, if he tried some of that stuff in real life. I think that at least many of the women who that appealed to (and that's probably not everyone who bought the book) might be women who read racy books (not quality romance novels) indiscriminately and needed to 'up the ante'. Kind of like how some guys might be pulled down the porn hole and look at some things they normally wouldn't find attractive because their dopamine receptors have been desensitized. I think it's probably likely that many guys would find some of those things creepy in real life too. And, I don't think many people would judge some of the things men look at as a true representation of what they want.

status is not everything, but without it other qualities are almost irrelevant.

I don't think so. And a lot depends on what you mean by status too.

high iq nerds don't do well with women either.

Usually not. But it's not because they are high iq nerds. It would be more likely because he is only a high iq nerd. Although, to be fair, there is a market for that too.

i think some stuff spoken here reflects older thinking about male - female relations. milennials and zoomers have different experiences.

That is true. Though some things are timeless.

 

[T.C.]

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 think the root of this kind of dynamic is the fact that no one wants to feel redundant in a relationship. If my wife could do everything I can, and more, where would that leave me? There would be no point in her continuing to be in a relationship with me.

I guess in the unhealthy relationship or in a manipulative woman, these exaggerated traits of helplessness and weakness simply parasitise what are supposed to be the inherent masculine strengths and the man's desire to be of use and gain fulfilment by exercising his abilities. So it's no accident that these caricatures of indecisiveness and weakness are the opposites of traits that are found attractive or inherent in men - decisiveness and physical ability.

Perhaps even if a man thinks he finds a 'helpless' woman attractive, that's not actually what's going on deep down inside him, and that he is actually just seeing the potential to be of use? Although, I guess there actually are 'dangerous' men who see in a helpless woman the potential to dominate and drain her.

 

[Andromeda]

The 'manosphere' is, as far as I can tell, exclusively focused on the biological and material aspects of attraction and gender roles in relationships, family and in duties and work. I think this can be instructive in examining sex dependent biological needs that are natural to instinctive and biological drives, but there seem to be some fundamental things that are either missing or faulty in the larger conversation. Biological drives and instincts are an aspect of our mind, but there are also conditions that can distort or lead those drives astray. In other words, these things are like our 'horse', which has essential functions however that horse cannot be wild and it does need proper training and guidance, and I don't see too many of main figures in the 'manosphere' really talking about this aspect. Jordan Peterson shines in this area and the 'tonic masculinity' discussions on substack are also giving a needed voice to the topic.

One of the most glaring issues, that seems to relate to this problem is Darwinism is a significant if not predominant influence, which makes our relationships and drives / motivations out to be purely based on materialism/ biology. And that it is the competitive, dog eat dog world that creates success or failure. In this there really isn't much room for the experience and development of love and how that is a driving force for communication and mutual understanding, of sharing and working on vulnerabilities, of sharing and working on misconceptions, and various programs we develop throughout life. Relationships seem one of natures way of getting us to work on ourselves and to learn our 'karmic and simple understandings'. It is also where deeply held programs can surface. At times and on the exterior this can appear chaotic but I think if it is approached with sincerity, effort, and love it is where you can be come to both know yourself and another, and use that knowledge to grow deeper connections, improve yourself, and work toward your ideal.

This relates in a way to the ridiculous tweet by Rollo Tomassi that Beau posted. He and others like him have a very twisted view of what it is to be a 'knight' or your ideal person. They focus pretty much exclusively on material pursuits as the ideal. There is simply no inner work to be done other then setting your horse toward material gain. Same might be said of 'motivation' gurus like David Goggins and Jocko Willink. An argument I've seen a handful of times from clips from some of the popular figures/shows in the manosphere (Kevin Samuels, Tate, FreshandFit podcast, The Whatever podcast, etc.) is this idea surrounding a 'high value man' and that he does not need to come home from work and have to deal with the problems of his girlfriend/ partner. That right there demonstrates how many of these guys view 'relationships' and women. It's narcissistic and juvenile, without meaning, discovery, intimacy or growth. They come across as just looking for an extension of themselves to act and behave the way they want.

And so this leads to another fundamental that is missing which is the understanding of the predator's mind and how that ties in heavily with the biological mind as well as our lower emotional body. We are what we feed our minds and what we give to others, and these guys are focused on a lot of material things as well as just things that are trash. Perhaps those things might provide for an outlet, but it is not providing things that give people real meaning and purpose. Maybe it can provide enough purpose for an OP, but it will likely just lead to suffering for men who need something more.

Very well said!