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

[Turgon]

many men do not understand female nature and that they are totally different

My therapist has worked with hundreds of couples, and she says there is a very large communication gap between a lot of men and women and difficulties in understanding where the other is coming from. So, from her extensive experience and my incredible ability to put my foot in my mouth, would agree. It's probably why a relationship is work!

women are emotional and can change in extremes in short time their emotional state while men are more rational or used to be when taking into account todays society

Don't necessarily buy into this although women are higher in trait neuroticism, so would generally be more prone to bursts of emotionality. However, men aren't exempt from this either.

today in the west where the enviroment is especially toxic and women being much worse then men when it comes to loyality and promiscuity thanks to femminism, women "liberation" aka promiscuity, extreme left values and attack on masculinity, sexualization, social media where women get unlimited attention from numerous men(which is their fault also) and inflates their ego sky high and got them unlimited options and is reason why women in west break marriage in 70 per cent of cases and why only 10-30 per cent of marriages are healthy, non toxic ones.

I think the numbers are closer to 80% of women who initiate divorce or breakups. Men are more pre-disposed to multiple partners, but in this day and age, if social media is anything to go by, those tables are turning. However, how accurate a portrayal of what's really happening in the world is conveyed through social media? I've certainly met and know people that are like what you described above, but are mainly in the minority.

First of women are attracted to traits like confidence, high internal value in other words, man with strong opinions and values, boldnes, then internal strength - emotional strength, man who are emotionally non reactive, indifferent, keep their cool, then preselection - if they see you have many girls around you or other girls are attracted to you, research showed that women are attracted more to man who are taken then those that are single, and the last thing is being a challenge - they are attracted to a man that is not too available, has other options, and that is not chasing them.

Again, kinda true. Although, I would say that men and women who are on the path of developing solid character won't fall into this stereotypical behaviour or would be less likely to, and if they did, have valid, thought out reasons for it, although, as George Simon has said, we are living in the age of entitlement. More and more people want something for nothing. Does this translate to relationships between men and women? I'd say the dark triad traits are tempting, because that kind of narcissistic self-assuredness is enticing at the outset, but not sustainable in a long-term relationship, which is probably why those that fit into that category are usually the guys who have multiple partners and view women and sleeping with as many women as possible as 'notches in the belt'. However, there are women who will be attracted to a guy simply because of his 'status' and unavailability. So, it takes two to tango. How much of that accurately represents the average person, though?

I'd say the younger generation and those that are locked into instagram and tik tok and all these social media platforms/influencers are pushing a shallow agenda on men/women relations. But that's because instant gratification and selfishness is being glorified, and a lot of people deep down know this is 'wrong' otherwise depression, anxiety and mental illnesses of all kind wouldn't be skyrocketing. It's a response to toxic messaging that's infecting our relationships and perspectives.

Most 'normal' guys aren't all that confident, and especially in today's world are fairly insecure and anxious, especially when it comes to dating, not least of which is the societal and cultural pressure put on them. If you aren't 'high status' then you're not considered a high value partner, and there are more and more men AND women who are buying into this, at least if social media is anything to go by. So, even if it's not accurate of reality as it is now, it's planting the seeds of those ideas to germinate and influence people over time.

That's part of the agenda, though, isn't it? To create these unattainable, black/white expectations (either positive or negative) of the opposite sex that will never be realized and cause men and women to drift further and further apart into separate camps. All in all, sounds like a recipe for a LOT of seriously miserable people. I'd opt for just tossing out the entire culture of dating as we know it or expect it to be in this day and age as pathological and which uses certain inherent biological traits in both men and women as a means to turns the sexes against each other.

 

[SOTTREADER]

I think another reason why corvus' post triggered such polarising reactions is what he said made the us (men) Vs them (women) divide more pronounced. Usually, I think you can call out antagonistic extremes on such polarising subjects but to avoid isolating and dividing the audience or creating an environment where people feel like they have to "defend" a position, you'd usually want to tie off your arguments by showing points of overlap or interrelation between the two opposing sides.

Ask yourself this - do you want to create a discussion that brings people together or one that tears them apart?

 

[Jimmy Ssaz]

It is not so difficult to know that we are human so that entails many things for both women and men...and those expert studies are based on a progression of explainable events, social constructions, etc...and the unexplainable? If the C's said that there are many things we don't know about the human body...can you imagine the psyche?..I mean I don't know if there are measurements for objectivity and the standards of the "wise people"...so I think the sacred cows contradict themselves too and a lot.
Hypothetically if you accuse me of a lot of talk (hello) I remind you that you will be accused with the same measure that you are measuring me ...feel like the King when you are on the ground ¿? People we are all learning.

 

[Alejo]

Well, this escalated quickly, but it may be a good discussion to be had.

As far as I see it, and I welcome a revision, while it is impossible to deny people's individuality and uniqueness, and those very specific traits that are particular to a certain individual, there are rules that seem to be unavoidable when it comes to interpersonal relations.

Men looking for attractive women, who tend to be younger (fertile), articulate enough is one of such rules. Does that mean that it is inevitable that a man will leave his old wife for a younger prospect just because? no, but there's a biological and genetic reason for that rule to exist.

Women looking for a strong stable leader, self assured, provider and protector, with some assertiveness and aggression (hopefully healthily integrated) is one of such rules as well. Does that mean that it is inevitable for a woman to leave her husband if he falls on dire straits? or that there are no unique traits that may attract a woman beyond these genetic and biological ones? I don't think so, but it is a rule.

In that sense, when on the dating scene and because of these rules, it will give a man more chances to be successful with at least getting a yes on going on a date, if that man is a reflection of the traits that a woman looks for. Stability, assertiveness, provider and so on. And yes, a lot of these traits are material possessions, the nice car, the expensive clothes, and attractiveness. Does that make a woman shallow? not really... but just like a woman takes the chance that they guy with the nice car is shallow, or unintelligent, or rude or has no appreciation for the one woman in his life and is a player. The guy also takes the chance that the woman only wants him for his material success or status.

Which is why we have to date, and get to know the person we're taking a chance on, because of the uniqueness that lies beneath the rules and laws of interpersonal relationships. And that's even before anything gets going, because once things get going and both decide to give something a shot, then there's a whole set of dynamics and rules that will govern a relationship that are also worth exploring, but at that point it's more difficult since there's a lot more particularities, IMO, although certain rules still apply.

One has to live up to the expectations set during dating.

And that's where I have trouble with some of the discussion taking place on social networks about this topic, on the one hand there's a current of thought that thinks men, and their traits, are toxic and the only solution is to have passive and submissive men.. which is a bad idea for women and society at large.

But on the other, there's a counter current emerging, which thinks the solution is to be an "alpha" which yes... I think it has a lot of merit for men in general. But they kind of get stuck in getting guys to become as desirable as possible and then they offer.. not a lot more. Be an alpha, go to the gym, make money, get the expensive car and don't stay quiet.. get the girls... and then?

Which is where I think this conversation could lead, hopefully. The desirability that men, specially younger men, could striver for should be a reflection of inner work, and not simply a focus on appearing to be something, because that will get you the dates, a lot of them, but if you can't back up the goods with substance... then girls will leave, because another one of those traits that women like (you may correct me), once they're off the hormones of the triad.. (that is, past the initial impression) is intelligence, loyalty, maturity. Women may be attracted subconsciously to the tougher monkey in the group, and that may always be the case for a lot (just like men may be attracted to the youngest monkey) but we're also not just monkeys.

In the end, entering a long term relationship is a sacrifice of the potential that having worked on to become so desirable gave you. You sacrifice all the other partners and prospects to be with the one, but that doesn't mean you stop working on remaining desirable, again that desirability hopefully is a reflection of deeper work within yourself, that way it'll remain solid even if you're not dating, not only for yourself but because your partner chose you because of those very traits.

And while all these rules exist and it does sound perhaps a bit pessimistic that the dating scene is kind of a jungle, none of what I have said above denies the deep and unique experience of being with that one person in the world, that makes you whole, for a lifetime ( if it is in the cards for you).

And so, perhaps the way I see this whole thing, is that the work for men at least, and women perhaps too, could land at one being desirable for the opposite sex, but not as the sole focus of said work, not as vanity, but rather because as part of that work, one has grown to become desirable... A stable and strong leader, assertive when appropriate, kind when appropriate, protective when appropriate, loyal, loving, respectful and trustworthy, etc. Something that flows from within and other people pick up on, and not a shallow carcass that one can't back up.

my two humble cents.

 

[ApotheosisMMC.]

A few things about this situation remind me of what happened in this thread: Women who seek knowledge

@Corvus I think that most of us who are present here are aware of the level of psychopathy that exists in today's society and how it affects many areas and more specifically in this case the relationships between men and women, that is why your statements are true to a certain extent , they sound somewhat trivial and generalized, and more than that it seems that many of us are not observing the same thing as you, oh at least not at the level that you mention in your case, I would like you to go deeper into what you are observing and how In this way, your ideas can be analyzed in a better way since otherwise it seems to me that it is a complaint-"truth" that could be interpreted as that everything is lost and without the possibility of return in terms of human relations... it is inferred that although you focus on women on several occasions, what you really want to focus on is society in general?
I agree with that to a certain extent as I already said, we know the extent of the influence of psychopathy in society and that the way things are going, human relationships won't work out well enough until there's something like a change of mind. reality-density, but even so there could be "balancing" events before that that improve things.
Today while I was at work after reading your reply, I looked around me, and without idealizing people, I saw lots of couples of all ages, with and without children, being affectionate with each other and talking about various topics, since you mentioned a lot To the women, I tell you that most of them gave off obvious femininity and they looked quite relaxed and happy; They shared and played with both their partners and their children.
It is observed (and I observe given the extensive conversations with people younger than me that I had in recent times) a degree of superficiality mainly among young people both in relationships and in interests in various, but parallel to that despite toxic behaviors and promiscuous in many individuals, there is also a real interest in
real affection and in trying to be good people despite the fact that society does not give them many tools to achieve it, the feeling is there, and despite all the narrative of the feminist movements and that women do feel somewhat insecure and violated in their rights, the majority still do not despise men or leave aside their femininity, and although the birth rate is declining and the economic and social conditions make it difficult for families with children to flourish, women and men without idealizing no one continues in a significant number and to some extent, deep down, wanting the same things that they have always wanted, perhaps and it is what I observe in my environment, unlike what you observe, is that due to more control of society and of the ideologies that they want to implant, It is observed (and I observe given the extensive conversations with people younger than me that I had in recent times) a degree of superficiality mainly among young people both in relationships and in interests in various, but parallel to that despite toxic behaviors and promiscuous in many individuals, there is also a real interest in Many seek real affection and I have tried to be good people despite the fact that society does not give them many tools to achieve it, the feeling is there, and despite all the narrative of feminist movements, women feel somewhat insecure and violated in their rights. For the most part, they still do not despise men or set aside their femininity, and although the birth rate is declining and the economic and social conditions make it difficult for families with children to flourish, women and men without idealizing anyone continue to a certain extent. wanting the same things deep down that they have always wanted, perhaps and it is what I observe in my environment, unlike what you observe, it is that due to more control of society and ideologies that they want to implant, conscience and the one who people want to be good balances enough not to completely ruin people or not buy all the parts of the propaganda, it is also worth saying that I have talked to some people of sexual minorities in the last time and even trans people who are not aligned with the LGTB narrative and they see it and its activists as a harm to them that does nothing to really help them and on the contrary they perceive that the social acceptance they were having is vanishing... in Spain, which could be said to be one Of the countries with the largest amount of this type of ideology present in society, according to surveys this year a loss of credibility has begun to be seen, 61% of Spaniards believe that feminist movements no longer represent all women and the 71% see it as a disjointed movement with no notable differences between men and women, in recent times there have also been marked breaks within the same LGBT movement with respect to transsexuals... everything indicates that the issue in general is losing some strength, social networks are on fire, now every day there are debates and conflicts that indicate that the situation is becoming unsustainable and since we are on the subject of social networks, there is a significant increase in women who are coming to the aid of men with their advice and to present their face to them with arguments that I have investigated against all this ideology... excuse me for taking longer than necessary, but frankly in my case I do not observe so clearly what you say or what is seen and said on social networks when you leave these, perhaps indeed your place is more chaotic, oh your circle is problematic oh even you are idealizing yourself in certain aspects, I don't know, that's why I asked you and I ask you again to deepen what you observe.

and while those romantic novels are the thing how it should function based on deeper understanding and love, that is far from this reality and is more of a fiction for most part in this world with few exceptions. You in the west are those who are most possesed by ideologies that you need someone like Peterson to teach you about common sense and that says all about your ideologies.

Due to the above and because if there is a demand for this type of novels, perhaps part of the women who consume them feel identified with the female characters shown and also feel a certain taste for how the male characters are presented in them.
"they are not" real scenarios, but they are often close in terms of the problems and injuries of people in real life, there is a need to fill one's own voids, of archetypal models to follow and to improve as an individual... without idealizing , society still wants to recist, perhaps some cyclical process in which all this falls will be repeated in the future.

 

[Steph_rivers]

Can you point out what parts of his posts gave you that impression?

You know what? I can’t! Because I read the part where he was describing women being attracted to psychos! I thought he was stating the negative characteristics about himself. Thanks for actually calling me out on this.

Maybe I should lay off the forum when multi-tasking.

The only thing I will remain firm about corvus’s POV is that it is a broad stroke over a extremely complex relationship between men and women. Which has much potential for further “dissection”

 

[Joe]

"Most" implies the majority. If we are going to make such a generalisation them surely we need some evidence to back it up?

I'd consider the above an incorrect assertion without some sort of evidence to show it being true?

Would you accept the staggering success of 'Fifty shades of gray' as some sort of evidence? Enough evidence perhaps to make a generalization?

What about this one: "most Americans are clueless about the extent of govt. corruption". Would you call that an incorrect assertion? If not what evidence do you have to back it up?

"Do not use logic". Surely a generalisation?

Maybe not the best way to say it, but the data on the general tendency of women to be more right hemisphere dominant and men to be more left dominant is abundant.

Generalizations can always be dismissed by pointing out the exceptions, but generalizations by definition ignore exceptions in order to make the generalization, which is never any less valid (for being a generalization) simply because you can point to exceptions. Are you saying that a majority of women do not have a general tendency to favor a more nuanced take on a given situation than men?

 

[Joe]

Some members seem to have taken Corvus' statements personally, as if they applied to us. This is strange to me because most of us here have no problem when we make generalized judgemental statements about "people out there" in the context of the Work. We all seem to agree with statements like "most people are sheep" etc., because we

a) have evidence that it's true

and

b) exclude ourselves to a large extent from that statement.

We are the exception, right? So why not in this case? Why can members not take a step back and assess the validity or otherwise of what he was saying from that detached perspective? Why do some of you seem to react as if it were a personal judgement?

I suppose it's not surprising that the PTB have weaponized the differences between the sexes at this point in history. It obviously runs pretty deep, even for 'enlightened' people like ourselves.

 

[Anamarija]

Can someone show me where what Corvus wrote aligns with any of the above comments?

Anamarija said:
you think badly of ALL women.

First of all I must say that I didn't find Corvus initial post offensive or insulting, actually I like threads and posts where people are open and sincere, it doesn't matter if they talk about negative or positive emotions, it's good that they talk.
Actually, I was more worry about Corvus than anything else because of this:

and if you want to know I just came from succesfull date and have two tomorrow, had to cancel one,

Sometimes there are circumstances you can not influence, and women do it all the time, some on purpose to test you if you are needy.
I may be wrong but you seem like old school guy but in today s modern day the things are different, man must put 50 times more effort then his grandad to get woman who is 20 times worse. And if you always put her needs on first place bad choice and see how you end up, do not hold women in high regard, they are just like you with their flaws and far from perfect, and man must earn their value and most women in modern society are given just based on their looks. You never ask a fish how to catch a fish but a fisherman.

I am not, I have no problem being alone, I am good enough with me alone and spent most of my lived life on my own, and I know peace comes within not from external sources, and I have many other things in my life.

And you right Joe, in his posting in this thread he was very careful not to say all the women. That was wrong on my part. And thank you for point me of this so I can be more carefully next time when I'm writing my posts.
But, problem with above bolded quote is that I don't know where does this come from. Is this from bad experiences?

Even though I agree that there's jungle on the romantic field and off course we living in the STS world but if one is searching for someone to love it is very dangerous to search with Corvus way of thinking, IMO:

especially today in the west where the enviroment is especially toxic and women being much worse then men when it comes to loyality and promiscuity thanks to femminism, women "liberation" aka promiscuity, extreme left values and attack on masculinity, sexualization, social media where women get unlimited attention from numerous men(which is their fault also) and inflates their ego sky high and got them unlimited options and is reason why women in west break marriage in 70 per cent of cases and why only 10-30 per cent of marriages are healthy, non toxic ones.

Most women are attracted to dark triad traits,

Most people lack emotional control and are reactive as we know and it comes to women that those kind of men are not going to provide stable relationship under pressure so the women will test and many test unconsciously and other with intention or both to see if you are reactive, trying to push your buttons, some also do it to manipulate you and get from you what they want, that is many women are prone to emotional manipulation, for example crying to get you to react or feel guilty when there is no reason for that, so there is that saying women is stronger then king or emperor because she can get them to do her bidding.

So, if this comes from reading studies and articles about differences between women and men or from his bad experiences? If the first one, than ok, we just discussing about it, we exchange opinions but if it's the secondly than Corvus has a problem and many other woman will have problem with dating him. If someone dating women with all this assumptions of them how can he expect anything other than that these assumptions are realized again and again?

Did you ever notice that with some people is so hard to not act in some way (maybe this is related with lack of awareness, control's of own emotions) and in a second you could be entangled in a web. You have a feeling that he thinks of you this or that (it could be positive, not just negative, but certainly isn't objective) and you start to act in a way that you think that he thinks you're that kind of person.

If you think, on a date, that woman testing you, is it still possible that you make relaxed atmosphere so she could, at least, lower hers defense mechanisms? Someone have to be first and give opportunity to other person.

And if you searching person to love, to share life with you, and I don't know other reason for searching for love (but this could be due to my age) then it will be great if you're open, having hope and to be brave because there will be bad experiences which could help you to develop more, to understand more clearly what you need (and not what you desire) and to become more person that you wanted to be. But, if you become disappointed, bitter and deep down angry at the women or the world overall (I don't say that Corvus is all that), than every next possible connection one will see through the lens of negative perspective, painted with not only with bad experiences but with amplified negative feelings and thoughts.

Another thing, in my post I used word ignorant. Writing the post I was thinking is this appropriate word, will it offend or hurt Corvus. Especially, because I think that we could easily be trigger emotional when we're involved in some discussion. I check the Google Translator and it said: someone who is not knowledgeable. I think that every time we suffer we're ignorant till we gather information and experience, process and eventually become more knowledgeable. Than we become less ignorant, but we still remain ignorant about a lot of other things. And I certainly didn't mean to say that Corvus is ignorant, I just thought that his lack of more objective information's about women, IMO, is ignorant because, like he said, he decided to be alone but in the same time having dates on daily basis.

I tried to explain more clearly what I meant but if not, I'm open for further discussion.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Would you accept the staggering success of 'Fifty shades of gray' as some sort of evidence? Enough evidence perhaps to make a generalization?

What about this one: "most Americans are clueless about the extent of govt. corruption". Would you call that an incorrect assertion? If not what evidence do you have to back it up?



Maybe not the best way to say it, but the data on the general tendency of women to be more right hemisphere dominant and men to be more left dominant is abundant.

Generalizations can always be dismissed by pointing out the exceptions, but generalizations by definition ignore exceptions in order to make the generalization, which is never any less valid (for being a generalization) simply because you can point to exceptions. Are you saying that a majority of women do not have a general tendency to favor a more nuanced take on a given situation than men?

Some good points I think Joe.

I agree that generalisations in some situations can be useful as one can capture patterns and trends which can then be used to hold a discussion. I'd say it depends on what one is looking to focus on and understand. I think it can also be said that a situation that is multifaceted can have more than one set of pattern or trend that applies to it and it is indeed quite difficult to capture the totality (or even the general impression) of a thing via a set of descriptions of its general patterns or trends. For example

• You can say a dog is a man's best friend. The exception may be those dogs that attack their owners. I agree the latter doesn't negate the former as a general rule but I disagree the general description captures what dogs are
• Someone else can come in and say, a dog is a mammal

Who is right / who is wrong in the above? I'd say it depends on the context of the discussion as to which slice is more relevant to the discussion.

Anyways, since you brought Iain McGilchrist into the discussion, to use his language, I'd say the point I'm aiming at is when we are using our left hemisphere to understand something, we tend to slice it up and focus on the slice we are looking at and can sometimes run into the error of assuming the slice represents the "whole" or the majority of the "whole". So, whilst I agree with your general premise on generalisations, I think it comes with quite a few caveats - not only in noticing the exceptions to the rule but in noticing there are a whole bunch of other generalisations that can be made on the thing you are describing that you aren't even capturing or coming close to capture in your descriptions.

Whilst it may also simply be a matter of choice of words, I'd say being "right brain" dominant doesn't negate being logical. The right brain is the master after all, it see's the whole picture, it see's the unity and the connections. It understands at once without the need for logical deduction. I do get what you are saying though - there is a distinct difference in general between how men and women approach and see the world and one could say women are more attuned in general to emotion whilst men tend to take a cerebral approach. I would caution on this assumption though as a general rule in all / most situations but won't make this longer by painting the shades of grey that dominate the landscape in the real world. I'm sure you understand.

 

[Joe]

I thought it might be useful to go through each point by Corvus and analyze them a bit.

many men do not understand female nature and that they are totally different, women are emotional and can change in extremes in short time their emotional state while men are more rational or used to be when taking into account todays society,

generally true.

and of course this are some general characteristics and dinamycs and probably do not apply to someone who works on self

Not sure about this one after the replies here.

Some dating books about female psyche and dating should suffice, so it is not only about psychopaths it is about women nature and what women are attracted to, and especially today in the west where the enviroment is especially toxic

I think this was his main point. That there is more to the topic of 'toxic masculinity' than just psychopathy, which makes up a small percentage of the population.

and women being much worse then men when it comes to loyality and promiscuity thanks to femminism, women "liberation" aka promiscuity, extreme left values and attack on masculinity, sexualization, social media where women get unlimited attention from numerous men (which is their fault also) and inflates their ego sky high and got them unlimited options and is reason why women in west break marriage in 70 per cent of cases and why only 10-30 per cent of marriages are healthy, non toxic ones.

This is perhaps a problematic generalization: that "women are much worse than men when it comes to loyalty". Sure, today, women initiate most divorces because they are "liberated" by feminism etc. etc. but I'd say that a significant percentage of the cause for those divorces are due to men not doing what is necessary to prevent the divorce, rather than it simply being a matter of a feminism-induced lack of loyalty among women.

Most women are attracted to dark triad traits, in the end we live in the sts world, so should take into account of that facts and inner state of most people.

There's nothing wrong with women being attracted to "dark triad traits" (as they're called).

First of women are attracted to traits like confidence, high internal value in other words, man with strong opinions and values, boldnes, then internal strength - emotional strength, man who are emotionally non reactive, indifferent, keep their cool,

Is there meant to be something wrong with this? Sounds like pretty good selection criteria. Also, are these meant to be "dark triad traits"?

then preselection - if they see you have many girls around you or other girls are attracted to you, research showed that women are attracted more to man who are taken then those that are single, and the last thing is being a challenge - they are attracted to a man that is not too available, has other options, and that is not chasing them.

Again, sounds pretty sensible to me when a woman is looking for a partner. What else is she gonna look for when doing a 'blink' assessment of a potential partner to start the process of getting to know him? It's pretty logical in fact. Over time, whether or not the guy lives up to the impression is another story.

So when it comes to most man today in western world and broader many have low internal value and confidence, and many simp for women and change their beliefs if they have any to match women they are interested in so to get her to like him, if not at first then later in longer relationship or marriage, and they want to prove their value to women by telling her how much money they have, what they achieved, etc... that is all repulsive and they come as insecure.

If anyone did that to me I'd probably conclude they were insecure too. Again, this is a pretty smart selection process.

Most people lack emotional control and are reactive as we know and it comes to women that those kind of men are not going to provide stable relationship under pressure so the women will test and many test unconsciously and other with intention or both to see if you are reactive, trying to push your buttons,

If by "most people" Corvus means "men", then I think this can be said to be generally true, especially today. A lack of emotional control in either men or women is not ideal, and in fact it's a major part of the Work on ourselves that we do there. Women, being more "emotional" (let's say, 'have stronger emotions') are given more of a pass than men who are, by nature, less emotional and more logical. For this reason, it's not ideal that men are too emotionally reactive because that's the woman's 'role', while it's the man's 'role' to calm those moments of emotional turmoil that beset women (through no fault of their own other than choosing to be born a woman!)

some also do it to manipulate you and get from you what they want, that is many women are prone to emotional manipulation, for example crying to get you to react or feel guilty when there is no reason for that, so there is that saying women is stronger then king or emperor because she can get them to do her bidding.

There are, of course, women who fall into (or learn) emotional manipulation and practice it as part of how they navigate life. And that should be part of a man's selection criteria when first looking for a partner, to stay away from women who are inveterate manipulators in that sense. BUT, the problem arises when men decide that any and all emotional reactivity from women is a 'bad sign' and to try to exploit and use it against women to control and "manipulate them back". ALL normal women can be overly emotional at times (from a man's perspective). Any man who sees normal female emotionality as a threat, is a man who simply is unable to handle HIS own emotions and is therefore "acting like a woman". As I said, one aspect of the ideal male role in a relationship is to act as a calming and tempering force during times of heightened female emotions. She can be, at times, the raging sea, and at those times, he is meant to be the imperturbable rock, a rock with an understanding and caring nature.

Most men are today thought wrongly through their parents, movies and modern society, to put women on pedestal, treat her like princess, buy her gifts when you just met, treat her as a prize so that tells her you just met her and do not know her yet so you must like her because of her looks that is shallow and that you have no other options or both, and many man today are needy and make their life priority women or marriage and are always available on her whim to help her because they care for her, but too much availability, familiarity, going out of your goals and plans to satisfy women (her controlling you in other words) and no distance kills attraction.

This is all generally true, and it's not just true of women. Any normal person values a strong independent person who can, nevertheless, be a good partner and commit to a relationship. Someone who comes across as too needy is, well, too needy and likely not be able to "pull their weight" appropriately in any relationship. That doesn't mean you throw them away, but you'll likely think carefully about how much you will depend on them in a tight spot. And a lot of tight spots come along in the average life-long intimate relationship.

As said most women are emotional and they mostly do not use logic and you can not reason with them when in emotional state,

My experience is that you can't reason with anyone when they're in an emotional state. And yes, it's not controversial to say that women are "more emotional" than men. Just to be clearly, please, FINALLY, ONCE AND FOR ALL, being "more emotional" than men is NOT A BAD THING. Quite the opposite in fact.

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,

One of the main reasons men are attracted to and love women is because of their emotional natures. It's makes for a more 'fun' life experience than the 'cold logic' than men like to employ a bit too much. It's not surprising, therefore, that women who prefer men who have a bit of spontaneity and openness - even recklessness - to them. The problem arises when this is all there is, and that spontaneity and openness is just a cover for narcissism and a lack of an ability to really consider or love the other.

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.

Yep, that's a problem that becomes apparent to women once they are emotionally connected to the degenerates who continue to "push their chemical buttons" to keep them hooked.

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.

There's a serious caveat to all that Corvus says here, and it's that most of it applies to the "dating" or mate selection period of time. All of the "tactics" employed by women are completely rational when you consider that they are attempting to make the best choice based on very limited data.

Most women will deny what was written because it is mostly unconscious at their part, other won t say it because it does not sound nice, and small number is concious of it and will admit it if they are not judged for it.

Spelling it out takes the "fun" out of it, and women are probably a bit concerned that doing so will also make it easier for them to be manipulated and exploited by bad men. And they're not wrong as you mention. So it's really not something women want to be involved in. It's really a thing for men to discuss among themselves and figure out. The main thing they need to figure out being, how to "grow a pair of balls" and stop acting like a 2nd woman in a relationship with a woman. It's not really that doing that is "not attractive", it's that it doesn't work. An intimate relationship as nature and god-ordained, is man and woman, not woman and a woman or man and a man. Sure, there are lots of things to iron out and learn in the process, but if you don't start with the fundamental basics, the chances of achieving the ideal (remote as they still may be) are very low if not impossible.

So the point of whole story is that those with dark triad traits by their design are hacked into women sts biological nature.

Yeah, that's pretty much what Sandra Brown was talking about when she wrote her book.

 

[Joe]

I'm sure you understand.

I sure do!

 

[Joe]

Anyways, since you brought Iain McGilchrist into the discussion, to use his language, I'd say the point I'm aiming at is when we are using our left hemisphere to understand something, we tend to slice it up and focus on the slice we are looking at and can sometimes run into the error of assuming the slice represents the "whole" or the majority of the "whole". So, whilst I agree with your general premise on generalisations, I think it comes with quite a few caveats - not only in noticing the exceptions to the rule but in noticing there are a whole bunch of other generalisations that can be made on the thing you are describing that you aren't even capturing or coming close to capture in your descriptions

I think generalizations are useful for the individual to use to decide whether or not the generalization applies to them rather than use it to denounce generalizations are not applying to the individual because "there are always exceptions". That's just lazy. If you consider it and decide honestly that the generalization (especially a negative one) applies to you, at least at times (or often) then it might be something a person would want to look at and use as motivation to improve themselves.

 

[Joe]

Don't necessarily buy into this although women are higher in trait neuroticism, so would generally be more prone to bursts of emotionality. However, men aren't exempt from this either.

This is a great example of the way a statement that is generally true can be quibbled over by saying that, in this case, "men aren't exempt from this either". It's like, yeah, I think everyone knows men can be emotional too, so what's the point of even mentioning it. It's beside the point being made, which is true, which is that women are more prone to "bursts of emotionality" than men. The problem seems to be that people immediately think that someone (in this case women) are being "harshly judged" when that is not the case. At least, that's NOT the case here where we're expressly trying to AVOID divisive commentary and argumentation in favor of a better understanding of the world, people and ourselves.

That's just a comment Turgon, on that particular point, and does not detract from the majority of your post which I think was spot on.

 

[Joe]

I mean, here is a good example of a man being an absolute twat to a woman

That's an example of a man competing with a woman to see who was the most emotionally-fragile i.e. a man acting more like a woman than a man in the context of the ideal man and woman. Even worse, he was backing up his claim to be the most emotionally fragile by leveraging the primarily male trait of aggressiveness, using it against a physically weaker woman.