KevinD

Ahh... Professionalism in the kitchen! The surest way to capture a woman's heart.

(This is an article I wrote for my romantic advice blog — The Leading Man.) The psychological essence of masculinity is firmness, definiteness, solidity, strength. A romantic gentleman combines these character elements with two additional aspects: maturity and professionalism. This last I call the "secret ingredient." While all of the traits I named are rare among men, particularly in today's world, professionalism truly sets the Leading Man apart. It's the source of his power; it's what places him in the lead. Most people think of professionalism as pertaining to business or a career. Of course it does, but it also runs much deeper. Professionalism is an attitude, a way of life. It begins with the acceptance of personal responsibility — "If it is to be, it is up to me." Professionalism implies a commitment to oneself, and to others with whom one deals. The message exuded by a professional is: "You can count on me. I can be relied upon to complete a task, and to execute it competently." A professional is a person who makes things happen. Professionals get respect, because they have earned it. A professional is one who inspires confidence in others, and makes others glad that they're on the team. The opposite of a professional is an amateur. Or worse: a slacker. We've all encountered employees who don't seem to care much about the work they do. They show up at their jobs because they have to. They perform duties with minimal energy and enthusiasm. No one respects them, no one feels good about them, and no one particularly wants to deal with them. A man with a professional attitude toward life regards himself as the CEO of his affairs. He is the architect of his existence; he is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for his well-being and happiness. One of the major complaints of women today is that they desperately want to admire a man, but feel consistently disillusioned and disappointed by men. Weakness, aimlessness and lack of resolve characterize far too many men in the eyes of women. When a woman is in the presence of a man who projects an aura of self-reliance and self-responsibility — a man for whom professionalism is a natural aspect of his personality — it can inspire confident feelings in her to an extraordinary degree. This confidence stirs her femininity, which can in turn arouse in her the emotions of admiration and, eventually, passionate romantic love. © 2012 Kevin Delaney

Join me this Sunday (11/18) at 6 p.m. Pacific / 8 p.m. Central / 9 p.m. Eastern for a free, live & interactive Webinar — 7 Things Every Man MUST Know About Romance & Relationships (But Few Do). In this session, I'll share some of my most powerful principles for creating an exciting connection with a woman. I'll expand on concepts I've discussed in my articles for The Leading Man blog, and answer your questions live! The session is free, however you must RSVP to attend. Click here to sign up Not sure if you'll be able to make it? Register anyway, and I'll send you a link afterward to download a recording of the full Webinar.

(This is an article I wrote for my romantic advice blog — The Leading Man.) Back in the olden days, if a man wanted to irritate and annoy a woman, he had no choice but to do it in person. Then came an invention which revolutionized man's ability to transform himself into a pest. Alexander Graham Bell developed the telephone, and instantly men embraced it as one of the most useful devices of all time. Thanks to Bell's brainchild, it was now possible for a man to completely overdo his communications with women, and drone on about his opinions and alleged accomplishments for much too long — without leaving his own home! But man was not satisfied with his newfound ability to brag and bore via long distance. Man wanted more . . . Eventually, he invented answering machines and voicemail, so that even when a woman is not at home (or decides not to answer, because it might be him calling) he can still leave a message, which she can ignore and erase at her convenience. Later, email appeared on the scene, which allows men to instantaneously send unwanted electronic messages to women. Today, thanks to the Internet and social media, we have any number of avenues for bugging the crap out of the fairer sex. With just a few keystrokes and a click of the mouse, a man can announce that he is lonely, socially inept, lacking in manners and respect, and that he has very little of importance going on in his life. But the the apex, the piece-de-resistance of male groveling-by-proxy, is a technology that every one of us now carries in our pockets: cellular smartphones, and their ability to send and receive text messages. With "texting," a man can become a nuisance, not just to one woman, but to several within a short period of time — and he can do this from virtually anywhere. (Even while driving.) Text messages allow men to wear out their welcome at an unprecedented pace. Once, it might have taken several weeks or more for woman to lose interest in a man, as she gradually became disgusted by his incessant intrusions into her life. This same feat can now be accomplished in a matter of days, or sometimes even hours. Text messaging simplifies man-woman interaction, omitting irrelevant elements such as body language, tone of voice, and the necessity of making eye contact, and pares interpersonal communication down to its essence: tapping out words and emoticons on a miniature keyboard with one's thumbs. Weak, immature, clueless men everywhere love text messaging, and can't live without it. The rest of us . . . What the hell is a text message?? © 2012 Kevin Delaney

(This is an article I wrote for my romantic advice blog — The Leading Man.) As men, we are charged with a very special kind of mission. We have been put on this earth to help women relax. Show me a modern woman, and I'll introduce you to a person who is likely frazzled, feels overwhelmed, and is just plain worn out — probably in ways the average man can't even imagine. Thanks in large part to the feminist movement, women today enjoy all of the same demands, stresses and pressures of men. (This, of course, in addition to the demands, stresses and pressures they've always had to contend with.) Today's woman isn't exactly a man — she is a woman and a man. She is expected to play both parts. Women don't usually complain about it. In fact, they often do an exemplary job of not letting on that anything is the matter. Whatever successes might be attributed to Women's Lib, one area where it has failed is in recognizing that men and women are different. We are equal in moral worth, to be sure, but we don't experience life in quite the same way. A woman's internal emotional makeup is significantly more complex than a man's. A woman tends to have a broader emotional scope, and — quite unlike a man — she is able to experience multiple, even disparate emotions simultaneously. This can give rise to the feeling of being "mixed up," and the need to sort through her emotions in order to make sense of them. Unfortunately, few women are given the opportunity to detach from external demands for long enough to allow this to happen. For the modern woman, it's always something — a ringing phone, a crying child, a complaining client, a well-intentioned mother giving grief. A woman's world can easily become dominated by these "somethings," each requiring her immediate, focused, problem-solving awareness. On top of that, women have a peculiar ability to empathize, a power essentially unknown to a man. A woman doesn't just feel her own pain; she feels the pain of everyone in her life whom she cares about. Ditto for elation, excitement, joy, sorrow, fear. To the degree that she loves a person, a woman absorbs their feelings, experiencing them as if they were her own. This further contributes to the swirling emotional cocktail which is her inner life. The greatest thing that a man can do for a woman, is to give her a break — to allow her to "step off the world" for a while, and provide her with a safe context in which she can feel free to relax, unwind, and let go of stress. When a man succeeds at this, he finds himself in the presence of a much happier, much more loving and receptive woman. In future articles, I'll discuss specific ways that a man can form a powerful connection with woman by helping her to relax. In the meantime, I'm extremely interested to hear from women about this issue. © 2012 Kevin Delaney

DonAthos, please reject every single one of my ideas, I implore you.

This is what is always boils down to. "You cannot produce evidence or proof of your claims, therefore your ideas cannot be shown to have any merit. What you are saying, therefore, need not be considered by anyone." I have no interest in "arguing" my ideas — but some people sure seem hell-bent on arguing, in any way they can, against them.

JASKN: It is extremely crucial that a person not accept anything I say, unless it jibes in some way with their own personal experience. "Science explaining brain chemistry"???

JASKN: I posted my article because I think that it would be of interest to those who are familiar with Ayn Rand's ideas. I'm not aware of how one "argues" points such as those made in my article.

For the record, I'm not interested in advancing "arguments" on this topic, nor in logically proving or demonstrating anything. My writings can be taken, left, considered or ignored as each individual reader sees fit. I'm happy to participate in friendly discussion about these ideas, but I will not engage in debates. Also, I have not used the word "submissive" to describe a woman's position relative to man in a romantic relationship. It isn't my style, and it lends itself to certain implications which are not at all what I intend to convey.

mdegges: Thanks for sharing the link to the Leykis audio. He and his female callers make some great points about "nice guys" — i.e, weak men who beg women for permission and approval. Aside from his shock-jock style of presentation, Leykis' main problem is that he holds a fundamentally cynical view of man-woman relationships. In Leykis' world, there are two types of men: spineless wimps and antisocial jerks. Because women can't stand weakness or subservience in men, a man must become an abrasive "bad boy" type if his goal is to attract women. It's a false dichotomy. There is a third option: A mature, responsible, confident gentleman, one with the self-esteem necessary to take a strong and positive lead in a relationship. This type of man embodies respectful, benevolent, romantic dominance, which every (good) heterosexual woman deeply craves. This is the kind of man whom I write about, and whom I seek to address. (In his broadcast, Leykis uses the word "gentleman" several times, but he lumps this type of man in with the "nice guy.")

mdegges: Whom are you asking?

bluecherry: Indeed, I have nothing. Less than nothing, in fact.

As I mentioned previously, romance pertains primarily to a woman's nature and needs, not a man's. A woman is made aware of the issue of romance very largely via her emotions; it is internal and felt by her, and tends to seem obvious. On the other hand, a man must extrospect and acquire conceptual knowledge, if he is to make sense out of the male-female dynamic. (If he doesn't, he will become the proverbial "clueless" guy that so many women complain about.) A man arrives at an understanding of romance through a careful study of women. A woman comes to understand romance, mostly by examining herself.

bluecherry asked me to define what I mean by "romance." My definition is contextually accurate. I don't mean to imply that gay people can't experience romance — perhaps they can, maybe in some modified way, or possibly not at all. Or perhaps a gay person's experience of romance is exactly the same as a straight person's. I don't know. I include "between a man and a woman" in my definition, partly to delimit the subject, and also avoid the irrelevant (to me) discussion of same sex relationships.

As an addendum to my last post — I assumed that by "all this," Reidy is referring to the idea of women testing men, which others in this thread have taken issue with. But if he truly means my article in its entirety, and its main message that a good woman is attracted to a man who is committed to the principle of simplicity, then tragically I am not aware of any formal evidence or studies which support this.

bluecherry: Romance is the emotion of sexual love, as experienced by and between a man and a woman, viewed from the perspective of a process. I'm sorry if that doesn't make a lot of sense to you right now. It's the best I can do at this time, in this particular context.

I polled 5,000 women, asking them: "Do you, or have you at any time, 'tested' your boyfriend or husband, in order to determine his level of internal fortitude relative to you?" Every one insisted that they do not do this, that they never have, and they called me the devil for daring to suggest such a thing. That was when I knew that it was true!

"Honey, are you a spineless wimp?" "Me? Of course not! "I knew you weren't! That Delaney guy is so full of crap…"

bluecherry: Romance pertains to the dynamic or energy created by the masculine and the feminine coming into contact with each other. If that sounds new-agey or vague, bear in mind that romance is predominantly an emotional issue — one which pertains primarily to a woman's nature and needs, not a man's. Romance is the central aspect of a successful man-woman relationship, though it's far from the only factor involved. Both men and women must learn what you might call "relationship skills" if they are to get along with one another and be happy. But a woman need only introspect to understand romance — meanwhile, a man must undertake it as a course of study.

bluecherry: The difference between what things?

bluecherry: I didn't say that women are incapable of screwing up their relationships; I said women don't need any help in understanding romance. If men read 1/10th the number of relationship self-help books that women do, there would be a 0% divorce rate.

softwareNerd: Women don't need any guidance whatsoever when it comes to this topic. They understand romance completely — because they invented it!

(This is an article I wrote for my romantic advice blog for men — The Leading Man.) Imagine a giant checkerboard, with squares large enough to comfortably stand on. Each of the squares is labeled. One is marked "Complexity." Another: "Confusion." Others: "Weirdness," "Mixed Messages," "Inconsistent Behavior." In the upper-left corner of the board is a square marked "Ambivalence." The square adjacent says "Ambiguity." In the lower right: "Drama." These squares represent factors which make romantic relationships impossible, and which deprive men of their sanity. However, there's a "safe square" located directly in the center of the checkerboard. It's marked Simplicity. The rules of the game are — appropriately enough — simple: Your mission is to stand solidly on the Simplicity Square at all times, never venturing so much as a toe beyond its borders. Do this consistently, and you will win. Your prize will be self-respect. You will have earned the security of mind that comes with knowing that you are acting in a manner appropriate to your nature as a man. Step off the Square, and you will suffer. You'll become disempowered, diminished, and your dealings with the opposite sex will likely bring disappointment. Any woman will tell you that she doesn't want a weak man. What she might neglect to mention is the extent to which weakness in men repels her. If she is like most women, she is turned off and disgusted by a man who is pliable, easily dominated, who can be manipulated, swayed and controlled. The idea of male strength is so essential in a woman's mind, that she will run tests on a man to determine whether or not he is a henpecked husband in training. (Or, if he is married, whether or not he has become one.) All of a woman's tests involve the effort to persuade a man, in one way or another, to step off of the Simplicity Square — to accept confusion, complication, complexity and weirdness as if these were normal. At some point in a romantic relationship, you can be certain that a woman will: Raise a bizarre accusation, with the purpose of seeing if she can get you to defend yourself against it. Attempt to incite an argument, to find out whether you can be suckered into fighting with her. Try to change plans initiated and created by you, often at the last minute, effectively assuming control and placing herself into the dominant position in the relationship. A woman's task in these moments is to try to make things complicated — to confound and agitate you, with the goal being to provoke you into reacting to her out of fear. Your job is to stand solidly on the Simplicity Square, politely declining all invitations to engage in unusual behavior, and calmly refuse to become embroiled in interpersonal conflict with her. When you stand your ground in this manner, you maintain your dignity, and retain your personal power. This causes an extraordinary thing to happen inside of a woman: she experiences an erotic charge relative to you — the inevitable emotional reaction of her efforts to create drama, colliding with your backbone. This won't make every woman fall in love with you. Some will decide that you are an inflexible chauvinist; the Erotic Charge will become converted into angry resentment. (A meaningful connection with this type of woman is impossible, so you'll have to let her go.) A masculine man succeeds in his life, in large part due to his commitment to the principle of simplicity in all areas. Outstanding women applaud this, and are drawn to it. Regardless of how a woman might act at times, at the end of the day she wants a man with the courage to keep things simple. A good woman desires a man for whom the Simplicity Square is his home, and she longs to stand solidly on it beside him. © 2012 Kevin Delaney

When an article includes the word "romance" in its title, and begins with the sentence: "Most men grossly underestimate their power to bring excitement into a woman’s life," I think an intelligent reader can surmise that its author is addressing heterosexual relationships. True enough, I generalize within that context. It's also true that — at least in the general sense — I happen to be right.