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

[sid]

Just caught up on this thread. Focussing on the first post only, I am not seeing issues with the points being made. I made my wife read it too and she agrees with 90% of it. She said that these days women are picking up richer guys first regardless if they are confident or not whilst still holding out for someone better. The confident ones are second picks. Also, they are a bit more calculative, not that much of emotional fools. A girl generally “knows” what she is getting into unless its a situation involving psychopathic males. The modern life’s pressures are likely contributing to these behaviours.

On the male behaviour too, I have to agree as I have seen similar behaviours in myself and others. I also tried to please my wife too much to compensate for my quietness and general lack of confidence. It took a lot of years but my wife eventually helped me come out of it with regular painful mirrors and willingness to stick with me, at the expense of her suffering from my behaviour (i.e. lack of spine and failing to act like a proper male). All of that “keeping it inside” would then burst out as misplaced anger. I am forever grateful that she came into my life.

Corvus doesnt appear to be a native english speaker therefore he is writing his thoughts as he feels them, without trying to soften the language with better comprehension. This is common with non-english folk and I have the same issue too sometimes. But, the thoughts are genuine and relatable. I work in an environment where I am surrounded with women, particularly young ones and I can testify that most women are indeed like this. Doesn’t mean that “all” women are like this too. Similarly, most men are also hopelessly lost trying to navigate this mess, but not “all”. Fwiw

 

[luc]

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.

Yeah, the hormonal cycle alone makes it true that women are more emotional and emotionally "fluid". There is no point saying that "men can be emotional too!" in this biological context.

It is also true that we have been subjected to so many bad ideas like that "men should open up emotionally" that we can't see the forest for the trees. I mean, yes, if emotions ruin your life and behavior, you need to solve that problem, and part of it might be "opening up", such as going to therapy if you have PTSD. Or if there's an issue that needs to be addressed because it hampers your life and relationship, you need to talk about it with your spouse. But more often than not, men need to provide stability by not opening up - by simply ignoring their emotional fluctuations and pretending they don't exist. Like, when you are feeling crappy, you don't talk about it - because what good does it do to complain about your feelings? Especially for the women in your life, who have to struggle more with those things? That wouldn't be fair to them.

Generally I think there is a lot of truth in the Red Pill space; the problem however is that there are subtleties that can only be learned by experience and trust in common sense, and getting these subtleties wrong can have disastrous consequences. And it is very easy to get them wrong when your only source is the manosphere. This can lead young men to infer that they should be treating women like crap, when in fact such information should encourage them to treat them better. I have seen guys online advocating for men to celebrate their midlife crisis, buy a sports car, go on a party trip and sleep with teens, things like that. You know, to show it to them, to live out your manliness, blabla. It's this stupid idea of a zero-sum game between the sexes. Given the craziness of feminism and the increasing feminization of everything, it's easy for young men to get drawn into this sort of thinking, but it's no good for anybody.

 

[SOTTREADER]

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.

I wholeheartedly agree. If anything, I think the starting position for anyone should be "to which extent does this generalisation apply to me" rather than I'm exempt. I think the whole thing may work the way the brain works - to stick on the theme of Iain McGilchrist, we all still have the reptilian brain, it's just that we have also evolved other faculties that attenuate, regulate and mitigate those reptilian tendencies.

So I think it's kinda recognising we are kind of the same and things that apply to others also apply to us but we also have the ability to work on and improve ourselves to develop faculties that would make strong the tendencies that would lead us in the direction we want to go. Hopefully that made sense.

Here's the thing, speaking from a personal perspective, the longer I have lived, the more I have experienced, the harder it is for me to see in myself what is truly unique to me. I'm mostly a consequence of my environment, upbringing and innate individual tendencies and whilst I have an "internal" world, this is also common to others. When I was younger, I used to think I'm way more special and unique than I am now. I've slowly but surely witnessed the erosion of this thought / feeling in myself over the years and it's not like I am becoming more depressed or anything as I grow older. Bloody life... it hammers and chips away at you.

Unless @Corvus is immune, the fact that he's dating probably means he hasn't yet settled into a stable long-term relationship. Going on multiple dates within a short space also means he's probably using online tools as I doubt he's approaching that many women in real life. The uncertainty, the hope / feelings/ thoughts that run through your mind, the games you have to play to "sell yourself" etc etc, the mostly inevitable disappointment at the end in the online dating world ALL these will lead to some level of despondence and perhaps even anger. Is he immune or is the question, to what extent does this plague him? Without pointing to any particular sentence in his original post, the overall impression was he was indeed wounded, stung, made cynical by the world etc and that was my "right brain" deduction. All I'd say to it is, it's quite normal and to be expected in the "dating world" where people see each other as commodities.

 

[KTC]

Sounds like you have made some poor choices on women assuming your perception of ‘most women’ comes from what you have experienced thus far.
I’m not sure where you might be finding these people but IMO you are looking in the wrong place or resisting the lesson, hence repeating the mistake?

 

[Joe]

Unless @Corvus is immune, the fact that he's dating probably means he hasn't yet settled into a stable long-term relationship. Going on multiple dates within a short space also means he's probably using online tools as I doubt he's approaching that many women in real life. The uncertainty, the hope / feelings/ thoughts that run through your mind, the games you have to play to "sell yourself" etc etc, the mostly inevitable disappointment at the end in the online dating world ALL these will lead to some level of despondence and perhaps even anger.

Or maybe valuable lessons learned? And I don't see anything wrong with "selling yourself" if it means being your best self in an effort to attract the right partner for you.

Is he immune or is the question, to what extent does this plague him? Without pointing to any particular sentence in his original post, the overall impression was he was indeed wounded, stung, made cynical by the world etc and that was my "right brain" deduction. All I'd say to it is, it's quite normal and to be expected in the "dating world" where people see each other as commodities.

I'm assuming here that he's fairly young, in which case going on dates with multiple women is just part of the weeding process.

 

[Scottie]

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.

A pregnant physically weaker woman, no less - pregnant with THEIR CHILDREN! Crazy.

As I see it, part of the problem is nicely illustrated by Steven Crowder: There is this idea that people like him are "masculine", whereas then the truth comes out and we begin to see that he wouldn't understand real masculinity if it bit him in the rear.

The same seems to be true of popular examples of "femininity".

 

[Jimmy Ssaz]

A man (chief engineer) has the utmost urgency to build a house and that house must be finished because in the region where he lives a disaster is coming, the worst of all! in the construction site there is an engineer in construction, a senior master builder, the experiences of the mason on duty and even others like him in the same situation.

When the day comes, the engineer has to start firing the less efficient employees and arrives with that face of "I think I am God and I can send you to hell"... then comes the master builder to fire him. Then comes the master builder to "mediate" the situation, he is supposed to have a little more humility or empathy for the workers, but he also exercises a certain abuse of authority (either by the engineer who is his accomplice in firing and giving work, his own work that warrants it or his own judgment - he is not interested in firing, he is just another one who sits in the front row to cut heads) so first he goes to see what the rookies do and one or more of them will be fired.
If you were the boss of the site who would you fire? you have 4 options.
A- the worker who does nothing
B- the worker who does but does badly.
C- the apprentice.
D- none of them.

Choose wisely because this construction is about your house.

 

[T.C.]

Generally I think there is a lot of truth in the Red Pill space; the problem however is that there are subtleties that can only be learned by experience and trust in common sense, and getting these subtleties wrong can have disastrous consequences.

Well said, Luke. Ultimately, it’s not so much the message that Corvus is preaching that is the issue. It’s what I meant when I said, “The only fact you’re pointing out is that a woman wants a man who isn’t useless.” Okay, I may have been reducing everything Corvus said down into an over simplification, since there were more points he made that hold water, but my point is that you can take the facts one way, or a different way.

I’ve personally found that it’s easy to make mountains out of molehills. A lot of his points, for me, can be responded to with, “So?”

When I decided to reply to him, it wasn’t in order to try and take some sort of moral high ground, it was to try to get across that by falling into a rigid pattern of thinking that is often rooted in misuse or usurpation of emotional energy - such as resentment or arrogance or self-righteousness, etc. - you end up losing a real connection to what IS, which in turn can result in missing a real opportunity to find “the one”.

There was that discussion recently about how going out into the world with a left-brain representation of a concept that doesn’t exist means that no matter how hard you look for it (the war on terror was given as an example), you’ll never find it. When I read that, it struck me as applying to romantic partners, too.

So as luc says, there are subtleties that can only be learned from experience. And when Corvus’ post read like he’d lifted it from any manosphere article on the web, it struck me as not being info learned from experience - i.e., real - but a pair of glasses like from the movie “They Live”. A lens-like attachment that changes the way you see things. And we all know that the way we see things determines our choices and actions.

You just can’t see reality through a left-brained rigid conceptual framework. That just cuts off the right brain, whose purpose is to literally see what is.

 

[Ryan]

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

I may have been a bit hyperbolic in my description of his perspective, but I did find the comment about cueing up multiple successive dates with different women within as many days, and after a successful one no less, as being somewhat utilitarian. Personally, I've never felt comfortable with the idea of dating multiple women at once, even if only early in the picture. If someone is interested in you then you should give that person your exclusive attention unless it becomes clear that the relationship is not going to work, and then you should move on.

Maybe that's just my perspective. My main point, however, was that Corvus' posts were inappropriate and inconsiderate given the topic of discussion, which was not about men and women in normal relationships, but women in pathological relationships. Seems to me like Corvus just got triggered and gave the cliche, "but she was asking for it!"

Is that sexist?

On this note, given that psychopaths are vastly overrepresented in the male sex, I think that it is actually and primarily a male responsibility to shield women from the harms that psychopaths do. And in my opinion, men have been doing a pretty lousy job of it for the last ~300,000 years. Still, all is lessons, so hopefully we're improving.

 

[Yas]

I think that the ideas shared about women are generally true as well. However, it is also true that among women there’s also a difference as there is among men.

Some women are more emotional than other women. Some women are more aware of their emotionality than other women too. Some women were taught how to navigate this by their female role models when they were girls and adolescent, some weren’t, so they may or may not learn how to do it later in life. Some women may associate being emotional with weakness and try hard to harden up, becoming a bit man-like in their expression, and some may allow emotions to run the show too often too.

All the same applies to men, who can be a bit more emotional/aggressive/assertive/confident/etc... or less depending on various factors such as temperament, environment, circumstances, soul choices, pathology, etc.

So, when I reflect on these tendencies, I certainly believe there is truth to the fact there these tendencies exist, there is a biological base for them to exist and the more we know and understand them, the more we understand certain aspects of ourselves. Denying the existence of these traits won’t help, because not seeing them doesn’t make them disappear, it only makes us blind to them. But it also wouldn’t help to hold on to them as if they were the overall inflexible truth, without seeing nuances and other aspects of human beings which exist too.

If we take for example human beings, regardless of their sex, and things such as tiredness and hunger. There is some truth in the fact that people can feel irritable when they’re too tired and/or hungry. As human beings we need to eat and sleep, that’s a biological truth, and if we are deprived of such things our bodies react, maybe by turning on the sympathetic nervous system and making us prone to fight/flight mode, which changes not only our bodies but also our psychological state. This is true for most people, but the ways in which this might manifest for each person can be a bit different depending on all the factors that make up a person, including sex, but not constrained to that.

Let’s say I deny or ignore the fact that if I’m too hungry and/or too tired, so I feel somewhat anxious and irritable but I don’t know or don’t want to know why. Instead of just eating something and maybe resting a bit, my brain tries to come up with ideas about why it may be that I’m anxious or angry, and it says: “oh, it must be because this other person said [something I don't like]”, or, “It is because I’m such a [negative thing]“. So, instead of understanding the reason, we come up with a reasoning that only justifies the feelings and trap us into them.

I guess everyone here knows about this, so it isn’t something new, but the point I want to make is that, the same applies to the traits that are more associated with women or men. Being aware of them can help us navigate them better and make better choices based on knowledge, denying their reality only makes us more prone to being driven by them. Being aware also helps us understand where others are coming from a bit better.

There’s also more than the biological aspects to human beings and it is also true that there’s a story behind most people. So, I think that the tendencies do define us to some extent but maybe they’re just not whole banana. And maybe people react to generalizations that seem too inflexible because of that, although some may react because they don't want to acknowledge it too. So... it is complex.

 

[Joe]

It sounds like women for you is not about relationships but about sex and about satisfying a hunger that you have at times just like hunger for food. In that way you are using women for sex just like some women will choose to do. In the above the entre was good and now you have already ordered the main course and the desert, hoping both to be satisfactory, while you cancelled the petit fours with the coffee. That whole game is not about seeing the other person as a human being with all the emotional, spiritual, intellectual complexies which is, but only with the aim of satisfying a hunger. It can easily lead to a shallow and sexist view of the other sex, whether male or female and it appears to have influenced you too in that way.

I'm perplexed as to where you got the above interpretation from Aeneas. Because a young guy goes on two successive dates that means "relationships for him are about sex and satisfying a hunger"? In that case, you better include just about every man who have ever gone on a date with a woman. How can a date with someone you just met "be about relationships"? You don't even know the person. How long do think you'd have to wait to "see the other person as a human being with all the emotional, spiritual, intellectual complexies"? Is it reasonable to expect anyone to wait until they have all that nailed down before they do the monkey dance? Did YOU??

That doesn't mean dating has to or should be primarily about sex, but ya know what, after a few dates, if you really like the person (even if you don't know them that well) and they like you, if sex happens, that's called "bonding" IMO. not "hunger for sex", and it should (ideally) at that point come with an understanding of a commitment to the bond that has taken place, rather than just skipping out and finding another hook-up. Corvus himself said what his stance on dating women is:

I do not date for sex (and I know many man and women do today) because to me it is too shallow and I look for something serious and if someone dates more then one people it is maybe because that every person you date is not right match for you. I do not see women in a degrading way as sex objects

Do we decide he's a liar and disregard that in favor of our knee-jerk, triggered, delusional feminism-inspired take on male female relationships?

 

[Jimmy Ssaz]

Sometimes it can happen that digging a bottomless pit you can find pearls and some foci (species not yet discovered) that is to say that all points of view and interpretations on this post and any other you can find water, mud, oil, stones, layers and more layers of earth and some other foci even gold.

But be careful with following the orders of the boss because you can also fall and sometimes earthquakes occur and even the boss can get paid.
In my case I prefer to watch from a safe distance.

I have my little shovel to help and even friends who have excavators, while some bring their super steel shovels, I prefer to observe with caution.
You can see that there are very strong and tough men digging and women who are also very tough ...in the big bottomless pit.

 

[Joe]

I did find the comment about cueing up multiple successive dates with different women within as many days, and after a successful one no less, as being somewhat utilitarian. Personally, I've never felt comfortable with the idea of dating multiple women at once, even if only early in the picture. If someone is interested in you then you should give that person your exclusive attention unless it becomes clear that the relationship is not going to work, and then you should move on.

"multiple successive dates with different women within as many days and after a successful one no less"? If that's how you read what he wrote, you might want to read it again. Here it is:

I just came from successful date and have two tomorrow, had to cancel one

So he "just came" from a successful date (whatever that means) and he had two tomorrow, one of which he cancelled, so he has one tomorrow. So he went on a date with a girl, it was successful, although he clearly isn't that enthused about this particular girl since he is going on another date tomorrow with another girl. Please someone tell me how this is, on the face of it, a problem or bad or a mistake?

He even said so himself in his 2nd post.

I do not date for sex (and I know many man and women do today) because to me it is too shallow and I look for something serious and if someone dates more then one people it is maybe because that every person you date is not right match for you. I do not see women in a degrading way as sex objects

Maybe that's just my perspective. My main point, however, was that Corvus' posts were inappropriate and inconsiderate given the topic of discussion, which was not about men and women in normal relationships, but women in pathological relationships.

His point, if you read his second post, was that the 'dark triad' - machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism, and sub-clinical psychopathy - when manifested by men in the context of attracting women are VERY successful in doing so. Men with those traits are masters at flattery and making a person feel like they're special, they're exciting, spontaneous, fearless, confident. His point was that these traits SHOULD be manifested by men who have a 'heart and soul' rather than my callous psychos who just lure women in and then hurt them.

Maybe you missed his summation:

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

That was the whole point of what he was saying, and it is, coincidentally, precisely the same thing that Laura said (more than once) many years ago when we first came across Sandra Brown's book. In fact, maybe you (and everyone else here) should watch the video Laura posted yesterday in the 'Women who love psychopaths' topic, because that guy pretty much says the same things Corvus said, although much expanded, and from a hard science and statistical data pov.

Seems to me like Corvus just got triggered and gave the cliche, "but she was asking for it!"

Really Ryan? "Because she was asking for it"? Come on man.

Sandra Brown's response to Corvus - which is still in the 'Women who love psychopaths' topic since the split:

"I find your ideas about both men and women to be sexist... I'm done with this conversation"

was pretty lamentable IMO. Then again, as I said in a previous post today, this specific topic isn't really of interest to women, so I also understand why she got outta Dodge, although I still think she's a lefty snowflake.

 

[Joe]

it was to try to get across that by falling into a rigid pattern of thinking that is often rooted in misuse or usurpation of emotional energy - such as resentment or arrogance or self-righteousness, etc. - you end up losing a real connection to what IS, which in turn can result in missing a real opportunity to find “the one”.

How did you determine from what he wrote that that is what was likely or possibly going on with him?

So as luc says, there are subtleties that can only be learned from experience. And when Corvus’ post read like he’d lifted it from any manosphere article on the web, it struck me as not being info learned from experience - i.e., real - but a pair of glasses like from the movie “They Live”. A lens-like attachment that changes the way you see things. And we all know that the way we see things determines our choices and actions.

Well he seems to have applied some of the theory, and he, at least, thinks its working for him. But as is the case for all, life and life experience is the best teacher.

How can I say this... If men were to

a) truly learn about and understand female biological and emotional nature and any and all common problems, hangups and failings therein (and yes, that's largely as described by Corvus)

AND

b) work on themselves and their own biological and emotional natures and FIX any and all common problems, hangups and failings therein,

they would become, for women (and anyone else who's interested), the living embodiment of the composite male protagonist character in the romance novels so many have been reading for several years now.

 

[Happy Poo]

Bit of change subject here, hope you guys don't mind..
The title of this thread really got me thinking.. Have been thinking about relationships, about what would be the ideal kind a lot recently and for me, and an ideal partner for me would be someone who is genuinely interested in the work here.. I mean how can we really understand each other unless they understand the C's and these kind of subjects?

And was thinking, how rare it really is to meet someone who is sincerely dedicated to the work here.

How in reality just how difficult it is to meet and just even chat to another human being that understands this!

I've not met anyone who is really fascinated with these esoteric subjects in everyday life. . (Apart from one guy i worked with once and he was married). And those who show some interest is fleeting at best. Most people I've met in day to day life seam to be "exoteric" or more normal for want of better word.

So was thinking, if it's so rare it to meet someone in actual life that is really into this stuff, (and doesn't just say they are) , then just what are the chances of meeting an ideal partner in terms of the work, being able to understand, able to truly understand and talk about the subjects here?

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it's very unlikely. And if it doesn't happen, then he ho.. It could be worse lol. I'd rather be single that with someone who doesn't really show a real interest for these subjects, who doesn't care about it.

And when this is the case, found this to be really difficult in past relationships, and a big obstacle with regards to wether we could really relate to each other.. If that makes sense my grammar isn't great.

Maybe others here have met more folks in person who are oriented towards esoteric subjects, but I've found that this is really rare for sure. Can be pretty lonely, even exasperating at times.