Alfa
-
Posts
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Alfa
-
-
Howard Roark didn't have a slow hand. Dominique issued him an "engraved invitation" to put on some speed.
J
I don't think he had an "easy touch" either.
One of the most common mistakes guys make is to fail to communicate sex from the get-go. Instead they treat her as a friend and spend lots of time talking, listetning and being nice to her. Without the underlying sexual tension the guy is going to end up in the friend zone.
Fact is that women are horny and enjoy sex too. Things can happen quickly for her, under the right circumstances. However, a woman looking for more than just getting laid will of course crave a deeper connection (the same thing goes for guys as well, but I think men can more easily separate sex and emotions). Sometimes that connection builds fast and other times it's slow.
I don't think men should worry about fast, slow or whatever. It doesn't matter. What matters is what you want. That's what you should go for. What do you want with this woman? What kind of relationship and what kind of connection? What kind of sex do you want? How do you want it? When you know what you want, take charge and start creating it. If you want a gorumet meal you need to cook it yourself.
When you communicate and show her what you want she will trust you, and she can choose wether or not to stay or run for the hills. When you communicate it well it creates a real connection, because she can see you for who you are. And when she sees and understands who you are she can feel safe in opening up to you.
Women want to be seen and desired by strong men. Men who know what they want and how to take it. That's when she feels the most feminine, beautiful and sexual - when she can awaken a burning passion in that man. A strong man knows how to control that passion, to not be consumed by it, but sometimes it goes quickly from a glowing ember to a roaring flame.
Being passionate and enjoying sex is not immature or being a horn dog. Chasing everything with a pair of boobs might be.
-
Reminds me of how I met my girl...
Spotted her when looking over my shoulder at a night club: "Hi, who are you? Nice to meet you. Come here, we're going out for some fresh air...". Me and my friend talked to her for five minutes. I got a good impression of her, she was quick and funny, so I took her number.
Texted her the next day. First a simple "Hi, i'm that guy from yesterday. You were very charming and funny so I want to know who you are. Like, blablabla?". She complimented my approach, asked for a picture and that I present myself. No problem...
Set up a date: "There's a really nice café in XX that I like, I want to take you there. Does wednsday at 4 O'clock work for you?"
Funniest date I ever been to. She was charming, witty and funny. I teased her about getting spinach caught in her teeth, apparantely a big no-no: "Aww, what the heck! I'm gonna kiss you anyway - come here!".
"Everyone's looking..."
"I don't give a damn"
Gentleman as I am I offered her my arm when walking on the cobblestone street after we left the café. I made sure she held on real tight, assuring her that my intentions were perfectly immoral. Then I kissed her real good before saying goodbye.
When I got home I texted a thank you note for such a wonderfull date. Told her I wanted to see her again but that i'd have to get back to her on the details, I had a lot of stuff planned already. We kept texting over a couple of days and talked over the phone before I could set up a new date. It was over a week 'til then, so I told her that regretfully i'd have to wait before kissing her again.
"I get the impression that you like me..."
"I do. I want to take you in my arms and kiss you... i'd show you if you were here."
"Really? Tell me, what would you do if I were there?"
So I told her. No. Described it to her. In detail. She liked it, so I kept describing it... in a way she'd never experienced before.
After a couple of nights I know her more intimately than anyone else. She's taken to heights she never knew existed and her soul is completely naked.
That's a pretty good set up for a second date.
The point here is not to brag but to point out the importance of sex. Not only is sex awesome... done well it's mind blowing and more intimate than anything else. I'd say that's a good way to start off. There are other good ways as well, but when you rock her world you're going to own her. Completely.
Life as a "horn dog" is good. Other advantages are that sex doesn't get awkward because of waiting too long for it. You get to know quickly if you're compatible, and your performance is certainly going to be better if you don't have months of sexual frustration behind you.
-
It's more that beauty/strength refer to the same thing in this context, they just crop out of an unnecessary distinction within a concept of "moral fortitude". People used to think that a moral man is different than a moral women, relating to masculinity/femininity. If you mean physical characteristics, I don't see how that relates to an abstract essence of what leads to attraction.
Beauty and strength are two sides of the same coin. They are both psychological and physical.
Obviously something causes men and women to be attracted to men or women, sexually or not. We could make a number of educated guesses and get pretty close even without more precise scientific knowledge. But I don't think Rand was close in her gender theory, or her "importance of sex" theory... it is obvious that Kevin isn't close, at least as much as he cares to not explain when asked. Masculinity/femininity as it is presented by those two and in our culture is flawed, as shown by the poor explanations for and evidence contrary to these current theories. And then homosexuality throws a giant wrench in the whole thing -- it's obviously "normal" for humans and other animals to be homosexual, so what does that say about all sexuality... or not? It's silly to talk about sexuality, as Kevin does, while specifically excluding an entire realm, especially when it's looking more and more like most people have at least a little bit of homo -- or hetero -- in them next to the main stuff that arouses them.
There's just too much unknown at the moment to be making these belligerent and unquestioning generalities coming from Kevin. It's contrary to the nature of Objectivism, which demands individual understanding and accountability for all, even (especially?) if Rand herself is the one being scrutinized.
Yes, there's something that causes men and women to be attracted to each other. For sexual attraction gender is fundamental. A heterosexual person is not sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. There are differences between men and women which are essential here. What are those differences?
If you consider all of the characteristics of how men and women are regarded throughout history and in our culture, whether you agree with the characterization or not I think masculinity is in essence strength, while femininity is beauty.
I know very little about homosexuality so i'm not discussing it here. What I do know is that sexual polarities are very important in heterosexual relationships. This isn't about a precise scientific knowledge either, it's about offering a more fundamental understanding that helps in building sexual relationships with the opposite sex. It's a thread about advice for guys to get the girl.
-
I'm not saying men are attracted to beauty, and women to strength, exclusively, but that those traits are essential and fundamental. Other traits may very well be important, the just add or substract from that essence. For example, a beautiful womans strength can make her beauty more valuable. A beautiful man can appear more strong, youthfull, virile etc.
-
Not necessarily. Eye contact, for example, tends to be a much more important issue for a woman than it is for a man. A man might fail to make eye contact out of ignorance; it feels awkward for him simply because he is not used to doing so.
As you yourself acknowledge, a man can have certain "bad habits" which could give a woman who meets him for the first time a somewhat wrong impression of him.
My article is not intended to instruct men who "completely lack confidence with women" on how to "mimic the appearance of confidence." I hope it sheds light on the issue of confidence, and helps a man to deepen his awareness of the subject by looking at it from a female perspective.
Self-awarness and introspection is a good point to make. However, another point to make here is that the most important thing is simply being comfortable with whatever. Confidence isn't a staring contest (not implying that's what you're saying) to see who can hold eye contact for the longest. It's being comfortable looking her in the eyes or looking away.
-
Wether you think her views made sense or not it's a fact that it gets very difficult to get a sexual relationship without polarity. In essence, men are attracted to beauty and women are attracted to strength. Those aspects can manifest themselves in a variety of different traits, in different combinations, but what's important is how they manifest in a relationship between two people - a man and a woman.
Without the difference is masculine and feminine essence there's not going to be much sexual attraction. After all, most men are attracted to women and most women are attracted to men.
Unfortunately, most guys are clueless about what it entails and as a result they end up lonely and the women end up being frustrated.
-
How many women have you met?
Seriously, though, it's silly to say those traits are only found together in someone with a penis.
I don't know, several thousands probably.
I'm not saying those traits are only found in men. What i'm saying is that the term is commonly used as reference to certain traits of strength, which in turn is masculine. And by that I don't mean that men exclusively possess strength, or that strong women are masculine.
Furthemore, the point was to illustrate the polarity. My best friends wife is a hot-headed, willfull, busy bee - chewing gum and kicking ass for a living. Yet, she's very feminine. Like a little angry tsunami. He, on the other hand, is immovable stone. Calm, determined, rock solid integrity and dependable - she can throw herself at him and he wouldn't budge a bit.
That's one example of polarity. I'm not saying Ayn Rand and Frank O'connor had the same, I know very little about their relationship, but considering she described him as her rock they may have shared similar masculine and feminine polarities.
Speculating about their relationship is not a good idea though. There are very little facts available and too much second hand information. She illustrated her views very well in her fiction.
-
It is commonly used to describe someone as strong, solid, dependable and with integrity. I've never heard a woman described as a rock.
-
Ayn Rand referred to Frank as her rock. Maybe she was the howling wind against a mountain top.
-
If that's the case then a good, clean, break is the best thing.
Good luck!
-
Before you make a decision you should consider that pictures can be deceiving. Especially pictures or video from a mobile phone or webcam.
Wide angle lenses, bad lighting and contrast as well as how the person faces the camera can make the most beautiful woman look horrible. Also, the things you notice might not be the same as when meeting in person.
-
I thought the VMA performance was trashy but I can't find anything wrong with that video. It's a very well done video that fits the song.
-
I'm unfamiliar with the American common law but that must be a clear violation of the principle of res judicata - that a matter may not be relitigated once it's been judged.if the judge disallows it, can the government charge a person again for the lesser crime and have another court-case? I assume that's an option, at least in principle.
-
men and women are human first, and individuals first, and that you should not turn a description of a generality (even one explained by the process of sexual selection and evolution) into a prescription for people, or a defense of sexist social dating conventions.
Sure. Agreed. Except perhaps for the part about sexist dating conventions. But let's look at some generalities.
Most women are passive when it comes to dating. They may flirt and make subtle invitations, but it's up to the man to make the first move towards something romantic.
Of course there are exceptions. A few women like to "hunt" and some tend towards being the sexual agressor the more attractive the man.
Being passive as a man tends to lead to misery though. Those men end up lonely and then fall for the first one who shows them any interest. Such relationships are usually very unhealthy. Who hasn't had friend who simply "disappeared" when he met a girl, then when you finally meet them it's obvious she's got his balls in her purse?
Taking the initiative also means taking responsibility. If you're asking her to make room for you in her schedule and follow along, then you better have a plan. "Let's... um... do, like, something on...um, friday or maybe, like, sunday?" is not much of a plan. Telling her; "Picnic in the park on saturday. I'll bring some food and wine. Pick you up at two", that's more like a plan.
That works universally as well. Imagine what it would be like if your boss never communicated what he wanted and expected from you. He just wants to be nice, so he never expects anything from anyone. He'll just praise you for anything you do. When he asks you to take on a new project he's very vague; "Um, could you take on this thing, eh, I don't exactly know what it is - something about customer feedback, um...". So you have to pull more information out of him, you don't know what's expected, if you can do it, how long it would take and when it's supposed to be done. Instead of communicating directly: "I want you to gather customer feedback on our new product. Check with our service department and call up some customers. Give me a report on monday". That way you know what it's about, and if you can't do it you can tell him so.
When it comes to sex most women are submissive. It's even in the nature of sex, considering men are more physically dominant. As I wrote before, that takes a great deal of trust. Demonstrating strength and leadership becomes very important in that respect.
Furthermore, understanding that part of her psychology and what turns her on certainly leads to better sex. That's rather important in the long run.
On the other hand, these are broad generalizations. There are exceptions and things can look quite different within those generalizations. For that reason you can't make very specific prescriptions. And if you deviate from the norm you may need to find a completely different way. The most important thing is to find principles that work for you to build great relationships.
-
Nah, we're done. I don't answer to that kind of bullshit.
-
I never said it wasn't possible to meet many good women. I have met many good women, and "bedded" some number of them, in your parlance, and married the best of them. But it is not possible employing Delaney's advice, or similar advice. That will lead to many not-good women.[/qupte}
I only answer for my own advice, not Kevins. And by my own advice it is possible to meet many good women. I have. In socialist and feminist country.
Delaney was making claims about what all women (all "good, heterosexual women") do; this isn't about what "many good women" do or don't do, but whether there is something about being female which means that a woman must act in this manner, either of her nature so that she cannot act otherwise, or that which women ought to do, again of their nature (so that they may live longer, better lives). That there is something wrong with a woman who does not act as Delaney describes, which again, is not just about "testing" (which seems broad and unspecific in your use), but about specific behaviors like this:
"Raise a bizarre accusation, with the purpose of seeing if she can get you to defend yourself against it."
and this
"Attempt to incite an argument, to find out whether you can be suckered into fighting with her."
Don't shy away from his words, please, but deal with his actual claims directly. Do all women do these specific things? Should they? Is it as Delaney claimed, that "[a]t some point in a romantic relationship, you can be certain that a woman will [do these things]"?
Because I am not certain that a woman will do these things. In fact, I feel pretty certain that some women will not. And rather than hold that the good women do what Delaney describes, and the women who do not are somehow acting against their nature qua woman, I believe that the women who act like Delaney describes are typically crappy human beings, and should be avoided. I believe that better women exist. In fact, I know that they do.
I say that women, most if not all, test men. They do so in a variety of ways Some ways are quite common while others are rare.
Ayn Rand provided a few examples of her own. Like between Dominique and Roark, or when Dagny asks Galt a question and realizes that if he'd answered it any other way it would have been over.
No, it's not about "getting women." (Like I said, we can just keep this going.)
Or if it is, tell me -- would you be comfortable going up to a woman and telling her that you're approaching her because you're trying to learn how to "get women"? (And I do mean in those very words.) Why or why not?
I've told women far more provocative things than that, so I think i'd be comfortable. But, I approach women for many different reasons. Practice is not one of them. Ask me a serious question.
I think this is probably a typical backstory for those who primarily approach women as a kind, rather than as individuals. I'm not interested in trying to work out all of the psychology involved, and wouldn't be successful if I tried, but it's damned queer to me to treat women as an alien species that must be studied and conquered, when that's nothing I've ever needed to do or felt was even appropriate.
I'm glad that you consider yourself happy, and wish you luck with everything, but my "advice" will remain (if not for you, then for others who are still weighing their options) to deal with people as individuals, and not members of a tribe.
My claims are that women are different from men. Such differences are important in special instances like sex and romance. I have never claimed that women are an alien species. Those are your words, not mine.
I have also claimed that some things must be learned, just like any person needs to learn social skills. However, you there's no requirement to study women. Learning about sex and romance is a very worthwhile pursuit though - both men and women will be happier for it.
I have never claimed that women must be conquered. But man do they want to! And I cannot think of anything better than conquering the best of them.
-
I have never claimed that gender is a social construct, nor that sexual desires are unrelated to brain chemistry. What i'm claiming is that to understand human behavior you must first study the actual behavior and establish what it is, before asking why and studying the biological mechanisms behind it.
-
I can not gather all empirical data and I wouldn't be able to do so even in a few decades. So, does that invalidate all of my previous point? If it does then what made you think that my take on the things as well Kevin's advice are bogus? You ought to have at least some kind of idea of how the whole gender thing is.
My point is that the methodology is incorrect when when you start with looking at evolution and biology to try and prove how humans act. You should start by studying their actions.
Yes, I do believe I have some idea of how the whole gender thing is. What i've posted here is based on my own experience and observations, as well as that of others. There are also studies on human behavior. Howver, I cannot say that because of hormonal differences or brain chemistry, men and women work this or that way.
-
While scientific research on gender differences is interesting, I think it's a bad way to try and prove differences in sexual psychology.
For example, hormonal differences between men and women is well established. Some claims about the psychological effect of hormones are also fairly uncontroversial. Testosterone can effect how confident and adventurous you are, while cortisol makes you more docile. On the other hand, even with a complete hormonal map it would be very difficult to make accurate claims about a persons psychology. It would be even more difficult to make claims about the persons sexuality. Atleast aside from finding out why a particular person is depressed or impotent.
Without being an expert I dare also say that the human brain is more complex than the endocrine system.
So, to go from there to proving that women like strong men is a bad idea.
To prove that I think you need to first gather empirical data. Find out how men and women do actually act. Then, when that's been covered, human biology can help explain why that empirical data looks as it does.
I'd like to add that it would be quite a daunting task and incredibly difficult to do.
-
Turns out there are some people doing research into the idea that "women like bad boys". Since it sort of related to this discussion -- though not quite to the OP -- here's a link for anyone interested.
I find that interesting. There's also research reporting the same results regarding masculine/feminine facial features.
However, I think that the "bad boys" aren't always that bad, while "Mr. Right" isn't always that right. It depends on how you define the two. Let's take a couple of different examples:
One guy would be like an old boss of mine. Always correct, firm and reliable. A family man who's favorite saying must have been "let's think about the children!". He was so inoffensive it was irritating, everything he said was politically correct. His only humor was making bad puns. The most controversial topic he ever debated was which sattelite navigation device was best for his mini van, or wether it was allright to let the kids eat at McDonalds once per week.
Family was his only priority. Rarely did he ever go home late from work. Once per month they organized a little after work, where he would stay to serve people food before he went home.
If you're thinking Ned Flanders from Simpsons I think you get the picture.
Contrast that against someone who's independet. He lives according to his own head. Likes adventure and he's been to many places around the world. He's not afraid to step on a few sore toes, tells things like he sees them and can be a bit abraisive at times. He likes to enjoy life to the fullest. Tough, goal oriented and ambitious. He's challenging and wants people to live up to his standards.
Of course this guy's got women fawning over him. And he loves women, too. But why commit to one in particular? And what would it take for him to make the biggest commitment of all, to have children? Surely it would take a really great woman. But once he's got that, and perhaps fathered children, who's to say he isn't going to be fiercly loyal - although still a challenge?
Now, put like this I find it hard to argue the merits of Ned Flanders. In reality there are of course many different combinations of traits. Some "bad boys" are simply bad news, and some "Mr. Rights" are just right. But I think they do share some fundamental traits, which will either turn a woman on or off. Smart women choose the man who's attractive AND has a good character.
-
Says you. I think you're completely wrong when it comes to Delaney and his advice. An "abundance of women" doesn't mean a thing if these women are approached in a way that makes it more likely that you will draw -- and be drawn to -- the worst of the gender/sex.
And when I examine Delaney's beliefs and advice, I believe that's exactly what happens and will happen. It helps to explain his description of women, for instance, in the post where he says:
In giving Delaney the best benefit of the doubt I'm able at this late date, I'd say that he believes that women are like this because...
...the women that Delaney is around are like this! I think that his "methods" attract this sort of woman, or perhaps require Delaney to seek this kind of woman out. And that's really unfortunate, in my opinion, and nothing I'd like to have in my own life.
If I'd taken his advice earlier in my life, I have to believe that I wouldn't have wound up with my wife, but that I'd be stuck in relationships with the sorts of women that Delaney describes above. That'd be like trading in filet mignon for a bunch of rancid McDonald's patties. "[N]o issue between quality versus quantity" indeed!
Yes, it is quite possible to meet many good women. And the fact is that many good women do test men. Ayn Rand even provided a few examples herself, albeit fictional. Another fact is that if you never meet them you have no chance of knowing their character. And when you meet many women chances are higher that you'll come across the really good ones.
And speaking of speaking of experience, the experience I've had in observing men do the very thing you recommend says that you are wrong in the conclusions you draw. They do not know "which ones to avoid and which ones are worth pursuing," but rather typically pursue those that will most easily succumb to their "game," whatever it is, and however they otherwise justify it to themselves. These are not high-quality human beings.
If they don't learn then that's their problem. The fact is that you actually have to meet women and get to know them in order to learn how to judge them. Otherwise the whole process will be rationalistic. You learn by interacting with women, or people, and draw conclusions based on that.
]Well... no. I mean, I'm sure you can restate this a hundred times going forward, thinking that you're "arguing your case," but each of my responses will continue to be that "this isn't true."
The relationship I've developed with my wife was not a matter of "getting a woman," and neither has any relationship I've ever had. It is not like going to the market to pick up some steaks. A woman -- any woman -- is a unique property, an individual. There is nothing satisfactory about "getting women," but everything depends utterly on the actual relationships you have with specific individuals, and your reasons for having those relationships, and what they provide you in real life.
Oh, I'm glad you're not talking about "PUA-tricks"; I was worried there for a minute! You're just talking about approaching strangers and "working your charm" so that you can "bed her," learning to get through the rejections like a salesman, knowing that every "no" brings you a step closer to a "yes." Doing this "hundreds of times."
This is garbage.
It's no different from developing social skills.
You need to learn how to get to know people so you can make friends, handle a job interview, holding presentations, communicate your ideas, tell jokes etc.
In the same way a boy learns that girls are pretty, and when he comes of age he'll want to get closer to them. That's usually scary. What does he say or do? What if she doesn't like him? And why do girls act so different from boys?
To learn that the boy can't sit at home and play World of Warcraft. He needs to get out there. To approach girls. Talk and interact with them. If he wants to get close to a girl he'll find it's different from playing football with his buddies. If he wants to have sex with her he'll soon learn that she doesn't work quite the same way as he does - heck, at that age just about anything will get him going!
Yes, it's about "getting women". As in, taking action to get what you want. It requires development of character, skill and knowledge.
I do prefer to be witty and charming instead of a stiff oaf. I also enjoy sex, so that's where i'll lead things if I like her. And certainly every rejection brings me closer to what I want. You may try and twist that all you want.
While there's nothing wrong with approaching someone who interests/attracts you, and while a person needs to develop a healthy understanding of rejection (not just for romance, but for life), neither is there any good in approaching women in this way, where every pretty girl is regarded as a potential sale/score, and one must "always be closing." I find this utterly degrading to the experiences I've actually had in my life and continue to have.
I never said I approached things this way. I approach women who interests/attracts me to find out more about them. I only try to "close" those I want to "close". It's not a chase to bed as many women as possible. I have yet to meet a mentally healthy individual who chases numbers on his bedpost.
What counts for me are the wonderful moments I can spend with her. Maybe just a quick chat/flirt on the street or in the grocery store. If she still interests me maybe i'll take her on a date, and we can share a moment or two with interesting and fun conversations and little games. Maybe i'll notice little things about her; the way she talks, smiles and grooms her hair. Just maybe I like her so much I want to pull her in, look her deep in the éyes and kiss her. Maybe wishing that moment could last a little bit longer. Maybe I even want to take her home to spend the night and trash the whole apartment. Maybe we'll spend the whole weekend in bed. Possibly, maybe, we'll have wonderful conversations laying exhausted in bed. Maybe i'll see her again, or maybe not. Maybe i'll marry her and spend many more precious moments with her. What counts are those moments with a person of my choice.
Except for the men who respond to "masculine traits" (whatever that ultimately means to you) and for the women who respond to "feminine traits."
Or yes, if you'd like to speak about whatever you believe "the majority" happens to be -- on the basis of culture, or wherever these supposed preferences might come from -- that's fine. But then, I've never been interested in the "majority of women," and I cannot say that I'd recommend them, either. The women I've always responded to, and pursued on my own terms (i.e. according to my own nature, and the nature of the particular woman as an individual; not according to advice I've found in a pick-up book or on a "romance blog"), have always been rare and utterly unlike the norm. In a word, special.
Yes, and I talk about men who respond to feminine traits, and women who respond to masculine traits. That happens to be the majority of mankind. It may or may not interest you, but it's not bad because it happens to be the majority.
For the record I prefer strong, intelligent, independent and exquisitley feminine women. Very few indeed live up to my standrads, which is why i'm still unmarried. I reckon though that the pursuit of my future wife will be quite enjoyable.
And see, here's the advantage of experience and having many women to choose from. I have a farily good idea of what i'm looking for. My biggest problem is figuring out where i'll have the best chance of meeting the right woman, since I don't have the time to run around at random. I have many female friends and women i've dated that'll vouch for me. They know me and can set up dates with their friends. That sure helps. And when I find the right one i'm not a helpless pup, so things are more likely to work out just fine.
LOL, I'm sure you think that you have!
No, I'm equally sure you're not talking about "manipulation or anything of that sort." You're just talking about dancing a particular dance -- acting in certain prescribed ways -- in an attempt to bed hundreds of women ("What?! Me manipulate?!"). Or something like that. I don't know. The fringe details aren't very interesting to me, to be frank, because I find you to be mistaken at your core.
You're reading things into the dancing metaphor which are not there. There's nothing manipulative about it, just as there's nothing manipulative to ask a girl to dance and actually knowing how to do it.
And yet again, my goal is not to bed hundreds of women. I find sex to be more or less wasted when it's just grinding of flesh. It only serves a physical need, while sex with someone you really like can be the greatest pleasure.
But whatever. If you think "honesty and authenticity" are where it's at, then there's no need for further squabbling. A man who has "feminine traits" ought to be true to that (and perhaps seek out a woman who responds to his character) rather than act as though he is other-than-who-he-is for the purpose of attracting some other woman or group of women -- yes? A man who would rather solicit his date's advice on which table to choose at a restaurant, rather than supposedly assert his dominance by choosing it himself, should feel comfortable in his approach -- yes?
If we're agreed on points such as these, then we're both contra Delaney, and I don't have much interest in further trying to assess whether there's something to this "masculinity/femininity" business that just somehow doesn't translate into any generalized real world advice. The point remains to deal with people as individuals, first and foremost, and if people's further beliefs on "masculinity/femininity" doesn't interfere with that, then I guess I am sufficiently happy with that, at present, howsoever wrong they remain.
Being authentic does not mean being set in your old ways. Fundamentally you have to ask yourself what kind of character you want to develop, and what your values are. What kind of man do you want to be and what traits do you find important? Is this going to help you find happiness or misery?
To take a personal example. I used to be shy and introverted, and at times it felt rather miserable. I could have accepted that as my fate, like a loser, and felt sorry for myself. Instead I did all those things I found difficult. I recognized it as being difficult, at times feeling unnatural, but made no pretense of being the most confident guy around. And now I don't find those things difficult anymore, i'm much happier for it, and i'm just as authentic as I was before.
If, on the other hand, you find no good reason to try another approach, you're happy with yourself and what life brings you, then it would be a bad idea to try it.
-
Alfa, you didn't specify much in that post. In your prior posts which did offer specifics to counter Kevin's, the same criticisms could have been aimed at you which were aimed at him. You're saying there are no universal laws, and these things only work on the majority of women, but you disagree about what they are, yet you don't offer examples of these laws... isn't this approaching nonsense? At this foggy level of knowledge, wouldn't a more sensible approach be to just throw the "laws" out and focus on the person of interest instead, as an individual?
It's true that I didn't go into any specifics. I could write an essay about it and still not cover the whole subject. In the end you'd still have to go out and test the ideas Much of it is also very difficult to cover in text. For example, in the post where I offered specifics it's difficult to see the humor and dynamic. Things easily get misunderstood and misinterpreted.
However, I'll do my best to briefly cover my position.
The typical feminine sexual response is submissiveness. When women actually are the sexual agressors it usually happens in a much more subtle way (take for example when Ayn Rand tripped Frank O'Connor).
That response means letting go. She's giving up control to fully experience being along for the ride, or following in that dance. To do that she needs to put alot of trust in him (though i'm sure an element of danger can be exciting as well). If she's going to be comfortable and fully "in that moment", she'll want to be sure he wont step on her toes or dress; that he won't trip her, drop her or otherwise embarass her.
So the most fundamental thing for a man is to know how to lead. To be in control, of himself and everything around him.
Women often test that, which is oh so controversial... quite often subconciously, and with warying degrees of subtelty. To pass one must always be honest and authentic. She's not going to trust you if she notices incongruencies.
On the other hand, if she knows you are who you say you are, and you display strength, competence and leadership...
Now, that's a brief overview of the fundamentals. It could be expanded upon but I Think it'll get the point across.
From there you can elaborate on certain specifics. Do this or do that. The thing is they can all "work" to the extent that they adhere to the fundamentals. I mean, strength is an important characteristic, but how many displays of strength can you think of?
That's the thing with all this pick-up artistry stuff. There are a wide variety of approaches, and they all work to a certain extent. What they tend to have in common are the fundamentals.
If you go about life as James Bond you are going to pretty darn popular among the ladies. Especially those who like guys in nice suits (and who doesn't?
). You can also be a Don Juan, or maybe one of Ayn Rands heroes.Take my example of telling her to pay the bill because i'm broke. What does that subcommunicate? First of all that i'm not afraid to upset her, and that I don't need to seek her approval (being broke is bad, right?). Then when I tell her; "Nah, just messing with you. I got a few pennies left. Of course i'll pay - you've been good!", that's because I want to pay - as an exchange for the value I got. I think that's a compliment to her, and she's probably going to laugh about it.
You could also go about the opposite way. Be a perfect, configdent, gentleman. When you lead her through the door you give a her gentle shove in the back, pull out the chair for her etc. When she offers to pay her way you respond with a; "Nonsense! I'll take the check!", with a voice that tells her there's no room for debate.
I think both ways demonstrate very similar characteristics. On the other hand, if you offer to pay with a "No, I insist...no, I really really do insist...", and otherwise act clumsy and nervous, that's a different story (and yes, the same thing goes for my example - I posted that to give perspective, not as a formula every man should adopt).
The thing with these do's and don't's is what's being subcommunicated. And of course, the best way to subcommunicate the right things is to actually be that guy. Pick-up routines can help you fake it (some say til you make it, but I don't share that philosophy). What you say in one context can get you slapped in the face, while in another context it may end in glory times.
So, the universal thing is to step up and take the lead. Understand the subcommunication and dynamic, and demonstrate your character. That can in turn happen in many different ways. People are different and you may have different relationships with different people. That's all fine as long as you don't comprimise yourself.
If, on the other hand, you don't take the lead, you're clueless as to whats being subcommunicated and the dynamic of the relationship you're going to drive women nuts in frustration. That's a bit like stepping on her toes all the time when you dance.
-
This is part of the problem with not only Delaney's advice, but the "pick-up artist" mentality in general.
In what world does it make sense to approach women as a type, a breed, as though they're uniform in any manner when it comes to character? And why should a rational man want to "get women" as it's phrased above?
Brief anecdote. In my youth, I was close friends with a self-styled pick-up artist who was ultimately very successful on his own terms, in his own way. He developed a system, I'm sure based on his many experiences, that dictated when to make a physical move and etc. He selected targets based on certain pre-qualifying identifiers, and maintained an enormous black book such that a weekend never went by where he didn't have a date, nearly always ending in sex.
My own approach to dating was quite different, of course, and my friend, accounting himself far "more successful" than I (according to how many women he was able to "get"), wanted to "teach me his secrets" several times. But I wasn't interested. In terms of results, he was routinely surrounded by women that I wouldn't have any interest in dating; women who -- as they must be -- were the type to respond to what was essentially a prefabricated, generalized approach. Women who were easily manipulated, and who were unable to see through his facade and put-ons. The women I dated were markedly different, such that my friend openly wondered how I was able to find women of such character and intelligence. Women that he would have liked to date himself, if he could, but "couldn't find." Or, more to the point, women that almost certainly would have not responded to his "one-size-fits-all" approach even if he did run into them at the market or library or bar.
I don't want to bore with every last detail (though I will answer questions if asked), but suffice it to say that things did not work out for my friend romantically in the long run. And so far as I can tell, they have for me. I was right to do things my way and not his, and "my way" was never anything more than treating women as treating anyone else in that they are individuals.
"Getting women" is not a sensible goal, and even if it were, "women" don't exist such that there could be one set of instructions for dealing with them romantically or in any other way.
Rather, people exist as individuals, and this extends to women as well. Contra Exar, this recognition does not mean that one should be "somewhat sexless." I consider myself to be very "masculine" in many ways as that label is traditionally understood, and that's not something I shy away from or make any excuses for romantically, or in other facets of my life. (Nor do I make any excuses for those areas where I am not.) When I date (though having been in a committed relationship for years and years, it's not something I do at present), my partners (or now wife) have to deal with me as an individual, too, and that is part of who I am.
But what it does mean is that if a woman -- an individual -- interests a person romantically or sexually, they must be approached according to who they are as an individual, first, foremost, and always.
There's no issue between quality versus quantity. Having an abundance of women around you gives you much more choice and it increases the chances of meeting the right one. That way you can also enjoy the company of many good women.
This puts you in a much stronger position. If things don't work out you recover alot faster. Experience also teaches you which ones to avoid and which ones are worth puruing. And speaking of experience, having experience sure helps if you want her to stay and she's going to be thankfull for it in bed.
Getting women is something every man should learn. And it is just that, getting them. Go out, talk to that pretty stranger, work your charm, get to know her and bed her if you like her. This also means you will crash and burn hundreds of times. Learn to face fear and rejection. Once you get the dynamic both you and the women will be much happier for it.
This is not to say that women are not individuals. However, there are some fundamentals the majority of women respond to. Just as men respond to feminine traits, so do women respond to masculine traits. That does not mean there's one secret formula or trick that works on everyone. These traits can manifest themselves in different ways, and different people like to be approached in different ways. The important thing is the dynamic.
It's like a dance. I suppose you can break every dance down to some fundamentals, like you're following a certain beat and the man leads. That doesn't mean every dance is the same. The same is true in the dance of romance. It's important to know how to dance, but instead of debating wether tango or salsa is the best dance I suggest making it your own.
That was sort of the point with my first post here. Kevin suggests one way of doing it, and I pointed out the opposite. Yet still, there are some fundamentals in common.
Lastly, you're making straw men. I'm not talking about manipulation or anything of that sort. I think honesty and authenticity are the best afrodisiacs. Neither am I talking about PUA-tricks. I have certainly learned a thing or two from that community, but it's so diverse that I wouldn't label anything I say as coming from there.
-
...for some, anyway. And isn't that what's being discussed? Approaching women as individuals vs. making sweeping assumptions about them which aren't actually so sweeping?
I'd say it goes for the great majority of women, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's true for ALL women.
A funny thing i've noticed... I've been interested in this subject for many years and debated it over and over. Whenever there's a discussion about it, almost every woman disagrees. With a few exceptions. But, after years of interacting with women and observing them, it's the exact opposite in practice. And, I might add, I happen to know guys who do this for a living and are extremely popular among women. I also do quite well myself, though I don't fancy myself as a playboy.
Many times, what women say and what women do are complete opposites. They may say they want a nice caring man, who respects them - which I don't doubt at all - but when you bed them it's a different story. I don't think it's because these women dislike being treated well, it's just that their sexual desires are guite different from the egalitarian view of things.
As you may have noticed I disagree with Kevin on many things, and I agree with some of the criticisms, but I do agree with him on one thing- the male/female polarity.
What I can offer on that basis is empirical data. I don't know why things work as they do. I'm not a scientist. Maybe a cavewoman found something a caveman did many years ago as attractive, and we evolved from that. There's alot of research on the subject, but all i've seen has been really bad.
However, you can look at what actually works. I mean, put a guy out there and observe what kind of actions attract women. Certainly not ALL women, but if you take a guy who couldn't get a date if his life depended on it and teach him the ropes. I Think it's rather telling if you can go from that to be surrounded by women.
I used to be one of those guys. Today, I've gotten dates by just going to work.
That's the real value of this sort of advice. Most men are Clueless as to how to get women. The few who get "lucky" live i miserable relationships But those who "get it" can pick and choose.
This may not be true for ALL relationships. If you're homosexual, bisexual or have any other "deviations" from the norm, I have no idea what works best for you. But for the majority of men and women, understanding the male/female polarity is going to give a much better success.
That part of Kevin's advice I do like, he tries to polarize things, but I disagree about the particulars and I think he misses some of the fundamentals.
She Wants a Man With a Slow Hand
in Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
Posted
I agree and you're making a good point. However, many guys mistake niceness with creating sexual tension, which are different things. There are also times when niceness can relieve the tension created. Like when the tension gets uncomfortable and you back off instead of maintaining it.