Keeping Romance Simple

Psychology and Self Improvement Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
41

Kevin isn’t trying to sell himself as a scientist. Never seen him call himself that once.

Nor did I accuse him of trying to sell himself as a scientist. I said that his arguments are not scientific in nature. Do you disagree?

That doesn’t make him a mystic though. Not unless you’re a mystic too, for failing to apply scientific standards to your posts.

If I were to advocate for some sort of knowledge and refuse to provide evidence for it, treat it as though it’s just the kind of thing you either know or not, then of course we’re discussing mysticism. A person doesn’t actually need to don robes and wave a wand to be a mystic.

Those actually paying attention would notice that I was initially referring to someone other than Delaney when describing their argument as mysticism. Specifically this:

That’s a huge problem when discussing these things. It’s incredibly difficult to explain to someone who doesn’t “get it”. Alot of women are unaware of it and those who are aware rarely explain it to guys. For the guys not seeing whats going on the whole concept seems alien. What you’re left with is explaining your own experiences and observations, plus a few insightful women who tell it like it is. Not to mention that the whole thing is supposed to go unnoticed!

This is not to say it’s wrong to question the idea, it’s just that the nature of it makes it a very tough debate.

But here, Nicky. Why don’t we just proceed as Delaney and Alfa would have us do? I mean seriously, why not?

Nicky is wrong about this and many other things. It’s a huge problem discussing why, though. Incredibly difficult to explain to those who don’t “get it.” For whose who don’t see what’s going on with Nicky’s arguments, the whole concept seems alien. What you’re left with is explaining your own experiences and observations, plus a few insightful posters who tell it like it is.

See? I just happen to know this stuff. I’m just sharing my knowledge. And no, don’t bother asking me for things like “proof” or whatever; like Delaney, I wouldn’t even know how to “argue” that you’re wrong, and I have no interest in “arguing” it. I just know that it’s true… somehow.

I think there’s plenty of logic behind, and evidence for, what he is saying.

Do you? Brilliant! Why not use your valuable posting time providing that? Because that – logic and evidence – is really what this thread needs (what this board needs) and not what we’re currently engaged in.

Most of it of the obvious variety, and pointless to explain to people who are only interested in getting offended by the suggestion that women aren’t exactly like men in every conceivable way.

Oh drat. Reason and conversation fail us again.

Perhaps if such people got out of the threads he’s starting on the subject instead of repeating the same illogical points over and over again, he’d get around to discussing some of his ideas in detail.

We should all just “get out of the threads” Delaney’s making because he can’t stand people questioning his views?

Are the “illogical points” you’re referring to… the women saying that Delaney is wrong about their inner experience and desires and mannerisms?

But anyways, this is a discussion board. And if Delaney wants to put his views here, they’re going to be challenged. Sure, it’s true, some of the challenges he’s likely to receive will be more logical, or otherwise better, than others. But that’s life in the big city. Perhaps he just needs to “man up” about it. I’ve heard women like that.

Just because someone doesn’t respond to a specific criticism, doesn’t mean he can’t and that the critic is therefor right. Could be that he just doesn’t want to respond, because the criticism sucks too much to be worth it.

Of course that could be it, generally speaking. But I don’t think it applies in this case. Actually, if you read back you’ll find Delaney saying that he doesn’t even know how to argue for his points, so…

Anyways, if there’s ever a time and a place where I don’t respond to any specific criticism you make of my posts, you may rest assured that this is the actual reason – your criticisms just suck too much to be worth a response.

By the way, I’ve seen you do this forever, but here’s an opportunity to correct. “Therefore” has an ‘e’.

Way to completely miss the posts that agree with him. That takes effort.

You are so often a douche, Nicky. You put so much effort into your hostility and general bullheadedness that I’ve wondered if you’re actually a troll account – and way more effort than whatever it is you think you’re accusing me of right here.

As to content, bluecherry’s already handled this.

42

If I were to advocate for some sort of knowledge and refuse to provide evidence for it, treat it as though it’s just the kind of thing you either know or not, then of course we’re discussing mysticism.

I think the Earth is round (or square, or insert any shape you want here, doesn’t matter whether my claim is true or not). I refuse to provide any evidence for it.

Does that mean I’m suggesting that the shape of the Earth is something we either know or not? Does it make me a mystic? Of course not. There are plenty of reasons why someone would refuse to provide you with evidence, most of them don’t imply that he thinks there is no evidence.

The subject of this thread has nothing to do with mysticism. Of course Kevin thinks that women are physical beings subject to observation, and therefor all claims about women can be evaluated based on evidence. He just doesn’t see it fit to provide you with evidence for some reason (I’m guessing it’s because he’s annoyed, that’s usually the reason why I cut conversations short with people on the Internet). Mysticism is a specific thing, you can’t just call anything you don’t like mysticism.

And should they fail to provide these things, it shouldn’t be surprising if their claims are dismissed.

I’m not surprised. I just disapprove of doing that.

His behavior (i.e. refusal to provide evidence) has no logical effect on the validity of his claims. Those claims have the same exact truth value now that he refused to provide evidence for them as they had when he first posted them.

A logical person should still evaluate those claims based not on Kevin’s decision to not accommodate critics, but on pertinent facts available to him from elsewhere. There is plenty of pertinent knowledge available on this. Most of it is, however, comes from personal experience and nowhere near exact enough to be presented as definitive proof. Not without a lot of research, which a single person who isn’t even a scientist, writing a blog as a hobby, can’t do.

In a situation like this, your best bet is to evaluate what he’s saying based on your own knowledge, and take it or leave it. Don’t expect scientific studies as evidence, there aren’t any.

43

Perhaps if such people got out of the threads he’s starting on the subject instead of repeating the same illogical points over and over again, he’d get around to discussing some of his ideas in detail.

He can dive right into his ideas of he wishes. He doesn’t have to object to every single point, he only needs to throw in some concrete examples for the original post. That is, where have you or Kevin *seen* the type of behavior in the OP? I actually get the impression you will see it in bars a lot, but no where else. I can’t say I’ve observed that anywhere else, except in movies.

I don’t deny there being ANY differences, including mental ones, between males and females, I just know for darned sure he’s wrong on this one.

Minor point thing to add to this, the science on those differences is questionable because of the methodology used, and even if the science is valid, the differences might not be all that significant.

44

You are so often a douche, Nicky.

I’m sarcastic a lot, sure. Not sure why that would make me “a douche” though. I think that when it comes to responding to dishonesty or stupidity, sarcasm is the least douchey option (short of ignoring it, which is what I’m gonna do now).

45

Stuff.

You’ve missed the most important thing of my post. So here it is again:

Do you? Brilliant! Why not use your valuable posting time providing that? Because that – logic and evidence – is really what this thread needs (what this board needs) and not what we’re currently engaged in.

What we need here are: logic and evidence.

You lay claim to having the logic and evidence to support Delaney’s claims, do you not?

If so, please let’s stop wasting time and get to the heart of the matter. Just lay your logic and evidence out so we can sort this out.

46

I wasn’t saying that I just happen to know this stuff and that people should just accept it. I was pointing out how difficult it is to navigate through a subject like this because it’s based on observations from interacting with people, and what’s subcommunicated. A much easier way would be to observe real world interactions and simply point out what’s happening.

47

It is also rendered difficult when the argument boils down to “to those who don’t ‘get it’, no argument is possible; to those who do, no argument is necessary.”

Strawman. I explained why these people might not “get it”, and I did not say it is beyond argument. It is only beyond argument when they dogmatically deny psychological differences between men and women, specifically the differences in how they come to experience sexual attraction/feelings of romance. I know this BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT!!! Just look at the way men and women dress differently, what the focus is on, how they accentuate certain features… this is across all cultures.

No, that doesn’t mean every woman wants the exact same thing concretely, since we can all choose our own values. However, the way in which we discover those values is the same – through testing via “dominance” games (call it whatever makes you feel comfortable) such as the way described by the OP.

In my opinion (no, I do not have a scientific study), the dominance game played between the sexes are typically played in the beginning, when the two people involved are just getting to know each other. I know this through general observation, discussion with female friends, and my own personal experience.

There is no official study that I know of. This is just something you know from observation, which involves trusting the evidence of the senses.. AKA common sense.

Psychology is not mysticism, but the “arguments” advanced in this thread so far are mysticism and not psychology or any other kind of science.

No one here is a certified psychologist/scientist (correct me if I’m wrong). But that doesn’t mean any conversation or thoughts on the subject are straight up mysticism. NO!

That is completely lazy, use your brain independently. Honestly think about the claims, then test against your own experiences (not your preconceived idea of romance) and then decide for yourself if it’s true or not. By the way, people can be wrong - that does not make their thoughts mysticism. It means that they are trying to make sense of the big picture, using what they know from personal experience and observation. A mistake means that they have missed or misjudged certain data - but the process of trying to find a pattern, finding “the one in the many” vast observations and interactions they’ve had with other people… is completely legitimate… it is not mysticism.

48

Honestly think about the claims, then test against your own experiences (not your preconceived idea of romance) and then decide for yourself if it’s true or not.

Great.

I’ve done all of this. I’ve said numerous times that Delaney’s claims run afoul of my own experiences, and others here have said the same thing. His claims are not true.

49

Great.

I’ve done all of this. I’ve said numerous times that Delaney’s claims run afoul of my own experiences, and others here have said the same thing. His claims are not true.

Have you never had a woman not call you back, suddenly change plans or stop responding? No distancing behaviours once you’re starting to get close? No picking fights or jealousy plots? No creating challenges for you?

50

Great.

I’ve done all of this. I’ve said numerous times that Delaney’s claims run afoul of my own experiences, and others here have said the same thing. His claims are not true.

Good - I’m glad you are using your brain! That’s fine to reject it. There are still many things unknown about psychology - it is not at the level of other subjects like physics or math.

But I think you owe an apology to Kevin and others in this thread of whom you’ve irresponsibly accused of mysticism… this is an honest discussion about the nature of men and women. No one here has asked anyone to take something on faith.

51

Have you never had a woman not call you back, suddenly change plans or stop responding? No distancing behaviours once you’re starting to get close? No picking fights or jealousy plots? No creating challenges for you?

I’m sorry? Delaney’s ability to make claims without providing evidence for them is held up throughout this thread as some sort of gold standard… but any rejection of those same claims now requires evidence and argument? It figures! :slight_smile:

But to answer your question? Of course I’ve known some women who’ve acted in those sorts of ways. And others who have not. I’ve chosen to spend my time with the latter, and frankly, I think that’s worked out.

Good - I’m glad you are using your brain! That’s fine to reject it. There are still many things unknown about psychology - it is not at the level of other subjects like physics or math.

If you’re glad that I’m using my brain, why not join me and use your own?

And to clarify, I’m not simply “rejecting” Delaney’s claims in some obscure and isolated way for myself. I’m saying that his claims are false. Untrue. Contrary to reality. Snake oil. Not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit.

But I think you owe an apology to Kevin and others in this thread of whom you’ve irresponsibly accused of mysticism… this is an honest discussion about the nature of men and women. No one here has asked anyone to take something on faith.

Oh please. Why can’t I opt to take the method advocated in this thread of making claims without feeling it necessary to defend them. After all, the mysticism underlying the arguments in this thread is “obvious” in the way Delaney’s claims about gender supposedly are.

Remember, as Nicky so sagely observed:

Just because someone doesn’t respond to a specific criticism, doesn’t mean he can’t and that the critic is therefor right. Could be that he just doesn’t want to respond, because the criticism sucks too much to be worth it.

But if you’re sincerely interested in knowing? PM me and we can discuss why I call these arguments mystical in nature.

52

I’m sorry? Delaney’s ability to make claims without providing evidence for them is held up throughout this thread as some sort of gold standard… but any rejection of those same claims now requires evidence and argument? It figures!

The evidence is from being alive and interacting with men and women everyday. If you disagree with these observations, why not bring up your own which do not fit with the pattern detailed in the OP?

But to answer your question? Of course I’ve known some women who’ve acted in those sorts of ways. And others who have not. I’ve chosen to spend my time with the latter, and frankly, I think that’s worked out.

So you’ve chosen women who don’t challenge you? Personally, I have never met any woman who does not find it exciting to challenge a man she is interested in. By the way, challenge does not always mean make unneccesary drama… it can mean asking a man difficult questions that make him uncomfortable, then measuring his reactions and how he deals with the discomfort. It’s a process of getting to know someone by reading between the lines. The drama can act like litmus test. For example, when I openly disagree with him, how does he react? Does he get angry? Hurl insults? Appease me? Debate? or does he have a reasoned discussion with me? What kind of man is he?

And to clarify, I’m not simply “rejecting” Delaney’s claims in some obscure and isolated way for myself. I’m saying that his claims are false. Untrue. Contrary to reality. Snake oil. Not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit.

That’s fine, but can you explain how it is bullshit? I can understand that it may not apply to every woman in the world, but I think it rings true for 99% of the heterosexual women I know. Women learn about men by interacting with not just words, but through action and measuring a mans REaction. Some of the most effective actions are the ones which cause drama, tension, complexity, or confusion.. because those are a challenges to a man and his ability to deal with her. Again, those challenges do not neccessarily mean making irrational accusations, stating falsehoods, or behaving in an unjustified hostile manner.

But if you’re sincerely interested in knowing? PM me and we can discuss why I call these arguments mystical in nature.

Why not just discuss it here? I think everyone is curious to know why you are so hostile to this viewpoint.

53

Nah, forget it. DonAthos, I find you too rude to bother arguing with.

54

It is only beyond argument when they dogmatically deny psychological differences between men and women, specifically the differences in how they come to experience sexual attraction/feelings of romance. I know this BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT!!! Just look at the way men and women dress differently, what the focus is on, how they accentuate certain features… this is across all cultures.

Those aren’t such great examples. Yes, definitely, many cultures have focused on gender features. What of it? With regards to accentuating certain features, sure! There are physical differences, and it would be folly for anyone who cares about style or fashion to ignore any differences. In terms of psychology, this is nothing. “Differences” haven’t always been a common viewpoint. Some people, in medieval time periods, thought that women were simply inferior to men. Not that they were more emotional even, just that they were simply inferior. Only after the Enlightenment did people really get talking about differences. That’s when people started to say: “Women are more emotional, best fit for being a housewife. Men are more rational, best fit for public and scientific life”. I do not think anyone here is claiming that, I’m only pointing out how the idea of psychological differences came about. Likely, there are some psychological differences, just as there are psychological differences between me and every poster in here. But which psychological differences actually contribute to perspectives or emotions in romance? And of any psychological differences, which come about because of how you were raised by your family?

Perhaps another way to look at my objections… I would not even want to pursue the type of woman mentioned in the OP. I do not care to put up with a game-like back and forth. Am I SOL, because I’m looking for someone that doesn’t exist? Or is there different advice Kevin would give me?

55

Let’s go back to the main points brought up by Delaney in post #1:

Women run tests on a man to determine whether or not he is a henpecked husband in training…

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.

So he’s claiming that:

  1. Women purposely change plans at the last minute so that they can become the dominant partner in the relationship. (wtf? since when does changing or canceling plans have anything to do with being ‘dominant’?)

  2. Women purposely argue and ‘attempt to incite arguments’ with their partners to test them. (wtf? arguing and accusing men for.. what exactly? to see if they’re dating a strong man?)

  3. Women are erotically attracted to ‘strong men’ who don’t give in to these totally ridiculous tests and ‘maintain their personal power.’ (wtf? what does personal power have to do with anything? if this strong man had any brain at all, he’d be asking himself ‘why am i dating such a psycho?’)

  4. Women do all of these batshit crazy things to see if their man is a ‘henpecked husband in training.’ (wtf? so women do all these crazy things to see if their man can deal with all their drama without going completely insane.. and if they can handle it, their man is well-equipped to be a good husband?)

Sorry, but NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY SENSE.

1 Like
56

The evidence is from being alive and interacting with men and women everyday. If you disagree with these observations, why not bring up your own which do not fit with the pattern detailed in the OP?

If my evidence is similarly “from being alive and interacting with men and women everyday,” then why not hold me to the same demands for evidence as the original claimant? Why push for double standards? Why is evidence even necessary for a refutation when the original claims have nothing substantial backing them in the first place?

“That which is asserted without evidence…” – yeah?

So you’ve chosen women who don’t challenge you? Personally, I have never met any woman who does not find it exciting to challenge a man she is interested in. By the way, challenge does not always mean make unneccesary drama… it can mean asking a man difficult questions that make him uncomfortable, then measuring his reactions and how he deals with the discomfort. It’s a process of getting to know someone by reading between the lines. The drama can act like litmus test. For example, when I openly disagree with him, how does he react? Does he get angry? Hurl insults? Appease me? Debate? or does he have a reasoned discussion with me? What kind of man is he?

I’ve chosen women who do not act in the manner described by Delaney, yes. Also who do not act in the manner described by Alfa, to whom that quote was addressed. That’s the requisite context for my remarks.

Your “methodology,” in taking out “challenge” and responding to that, as though it stands alone and means all that “challenge” might mean, is intellectually bankrupt. Why such dishonesty?

But if you’re actually wondering for any legitimate purpose and not merely trying to sidetrack the discussion with veiled ad hominem, my wife “challenges” me in all sorts of wonderful ways.

That’s fine, but can you explain how it is bullshit? I can understand that it may not apply to every woman in the world, but I think it rings true for 99% of the heterosexual women I know.

I won’t argue with you if you want to say that 99% of the heterosexual women you know are as Delaney describes. I’m sorry for you, that such is the company you keep, but that’s your business.

Why not just discuss it here? I think everyone is curious to know why you are so hostile to this viewpoint.

I am “hostile” (by which I presume you mean “unwilling to let slide without refutation” or insisting on calling a spade a spade, and Delaney’s snake oil for what it is) to all falsehood and all dishonesty.

Further discussion as to the particular nature of Delaney’s untruths (i.e. is it “mysticism”?) is interesting, but not so interesting to me that I want to proceed on the matter with someone who displays so little intelligence and so much dishonesty. Some folks here have claimed to have the “logic and evidence” necessary to support Delaney’s false claims; I’d rather this thread were used for that purpose.

Though it doesn’t honestly seem as though that “logic and evidence” is forthcoming…

57

“If you disagree with these observations, why not bring up your own which do not fit with the pattern detailed in the OP?”

He has. So have other people in this thread.

“I can understand that it may not apply to every woman in the world, . . .”

I haven’t seen the thread creator acknowledge this though, not without saying that if they don’t that they can’t be good.

Also, any kind of challenges to one’s partners aren’t what’s disputed, it’s 1) that the aim of the challenges is to cause emotional strife and 2) doing so as a test of one’s partners’ dominance or leadership or something else to do with power distribution between the involved parties 3) disregarding these challenges is the desired response 4) passing these tests is a turn on, failing to pass them makes one less attractive 5) this is supposed to be a secretive effort. Challenges of skill I think are a whole 'nother ball of wax with a different goal and desired result entirely. Challenges of skill I would say are much more common in my observation and often are not just done by one party. They’re also done in a much more upfront manner.

58

Your “methodology,” in taking out “challenge” and responding to that, as though it stands alone and means all that “challenge” might mean, is intellectually bankrupt. Why such dishonesty?

This is an unfair statement to make towards Choo. Words like dishonesty and intellectually bankrupt are not judgments that can be made in this context. Perhaps there are flaws of reasoning that you notice, particularly relating to evidence. I agree with those flaws. But I would not go as far as to suggest intellectual bankruptcy. You need more evidence. I do not care to discuss this point further, but I wanted to at least address this.

If you still want to keep up with this thread, just as some counter-statements to Kevin’s OP, in what ways does your experience with your wife contradict what Kevin says? Challenge has been mentioned, so, in what ways does she challenge you in ways that are not like Kevin describes?

59

I was doing this, not intentionally, not with a plan, not knowing why, but subconsciously. I wouldn’t be able to identify it explicitly like you did. Very stupid behaviour looking back. I think I learned those irrational ideas from the romantic sub culture.

I am not sure about the dominant male theory, though. Mutual agreement for mutual benefit should be the principle?

60

I was doing this, not intentionally, not with a plan, not knowing why, but subconsciously. I wouldn’t be able to identify it explicitly like you did. Very stupid behaviour looking back. I think I learned those irrational ideas from the romantic sub culture.

I am not sure about the dominant male theory, though. Mutual agreement for mutual benefit should be the principle?

I don’t think Kevin is suggesting a “dominant” male. Would you consider the party making the reservations and calling the waiter over during dinner “dominant”? Or would you consider it playing a “masculine” role?

An imperfect analogy: let’s say a boss and his assistant go out to a working dinner with some clients: the person running the show, more often than not, will actually be the assistant, not the boss. I know that I’d prefer it that way, if I was the boss and had a competent assistant. Clearly, that does not make the assistant dominant (or submissive, for that matter - the boss might be a mid level manager, and the assistant a student at Harvard and the son of the CEO, just getting his feet wet in the business). No, there’s no dominant/submissive relationship: the two are simply performing their roles in the limited context of a professional relationship.

Similarly, a romantic relationship is a limited context: it doesn’t even extend to the entire relationship between the two people, it just extends to the romantic aspects of a complex relationship. Just as the boss/assistant could the very next day end up going to a movie together acting in completely different roles (acting the way anyone acts with their friends, not even acknowledging that in a professional setting one’s the boss), so could the man and the woman end up making a financial decision together, or raising their kids together, with both weighing in equally or the woman leading the process if she is better qualified to do so (she’s a financial analyst or teacher, husband is an actor or baseball player).

1 Like