Keeping Romance Simple

Psychology and Self Improvement Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
61

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.

Are you referring to “testing” a man in the manner I describe in my article?

I don’t agree that testing is at all stupid or irrational. I think it’s important that women test men. I believe it to be an essential aspect of romance.

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

I’m all in favor of mutual agreement for mutual benefit. Do you see this as something different from what I have written about?

62

I don’t agree that testing is at all stupid or irrational. I think it’s important that women test men. I believe it to be an essential aspect of romance.

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

Whatever your belief, it doesn’t matter, because you explicitly said you have nothing in regard to evidence.

1 Like
63

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?

For the record, I do advocate for the idea of a “dominant” man within the context of romance. The type of dominance I speak of is entirely benevolent, positive, supportive and kind.

I’m not in favor of role playing per se. I think that when you approach the issue in terms of “the male role” versus “the female role,” you get yourself into trouble.

Some people say: “Act like a man.” I say: Act as a man — recognize the fact of your maleness, understand what this means and entails, and move in a manner consistent with your nature.

A woman wants a man who is a man, who is aware of this fact, is comfortable with it and enjoys it. That’s my idea of what it means to be masculine, in a nutshell.

64

An imperfect analogy: […]

Your analogy would only work if someone should be *in charge* of a romantic relationship, like a boss is *in charge* of their assistant. Do you believe that to be true?

65

This type of man embodies respectful, benevolent, romantic dominance, which every (good) heterosexual woman deeply craves.

Erm . . . that’s an excessive generalization. I know heterosexual women who don’t have this particular type of craving. It may be a *common* value but it’s not *universal*.

As for the whole “do women test men or not” thing . . . of course we do. Not necessarily in a manipulative way, it’s just a matter of course. If you’re in new a relationship with someone, you’re going to have to react to tons of new situations, and if you react badly, yes, the woman will negatively evaluate you for it. If one of your friends makes an obscene comment in her hearing and she totally goes off on him, you won’t negatively evaluate HER for THAT? Of course you will. Does it therefore mean you’re being manipulative if you introduce your new girlfriend to your crude buddies? No, you’re being polite, offering her an opportunity to see more of your life, etc.

It’d be manipulation if you introduced her to your crude buddies in the hope that they’d be rude to her so you could then present yourself as extra-reasonable in contrast. Doing this sort of thing will only lead to conflicts down the road, because she won’t understand why a “reasonable” guy like you still enjoys hanging out with those crude jerks. And you, conversely, will think she’s being a harpy when she doesn’t want your asshole buddies in the house. Would have been better to find a woman who finds your buddies amusing, if they’re so important to you.

66

Erm . . . that’s an excessive generalization. I know heterosexual women who don’t have this particular type of craving. It may be a *common* value but it’s not *universal*.

If it’s merely “common,” then I would say it’s extremely, exceedingly common, if not quite universal.

If a woman does not want what I describe, that’s OK — but a man would have no means of reaching her romantically. Such a woman might desire a kind of a friendship with a man, but it’s impossible to drive this type of woman to the heights of romantic ecstasy.

Does it therefore mean you’re being manipulative if you introduce your new girlfriend to your crude buddies? No, you’re being polite, offering her an opportunity to see more of your life, etc.

Men: Keep your girlfriend far, far away from your crude buddies. More exactly, keep your crude buddies far away from her. Better yet, don’t have crude buddies. Associate your personal brand exclusively with world-class individuals. Remember that everything your “friends” do and say reflects on you!

67

“If a woman does not want what I describe, that’s OK — but a man would have no means of reaching her romantically. Such a woman might desire a kind of a friendship with a man, but it’s impossible to drive this type of woman to the heights of romantic ecstasy.”

So, do you believe a woman who does not want this is A) Not capable of romantic and sexual attraction to men, B ) In some way broken, she can’t reach full romantic potential, C) Not “good” (you mentioned this one in an earlier post)? I contest any and all of these. If you had something else in mind, beats me what, you’ll have to specifiy.

“I’m all in favor of mutual agreement for mutual benefit. Do you see this as something different from what I have written about?”

I do. Sounds like you’ve proposed and encouraged a lot of deception, sabotage, torment, unfounded assumptions, and disregard for the concerns and well-being of the other party. If anything is mutual here, it’s mutual detriment.

Again though, you’ve admitted to having no evidence anyway.

As for what JMS said about reacting in new situations and such, I don’t disagree with any of that, I just don’t think it counts as “testing” because the female there did not set up and administer any test, it was just making judgments as you go along experiencing and learning like you do with anything else all the time.

68

For the record, I do advocate for the idea of a “dominant” man within the context of romance. The type of dominance I speak of is entirely benevolent, positive, supportive and kind.

Can you explain what you mean by dominance here? Both partners can be positive, supportive, and kind.. but where exactly does the dominant part come in? In that Leykis clip I posted earlier, he agreed that being dominant had to do with being a man and acting like one. He basically said that women will want you if you don’t ask them how they feel about anything (ie: don’t ask for a kiss, take it. don’t ask what she wants for dinner, just order something for her.)

I’d also like to know whether you think men are naturally more dominant than women in romantic relationships, or if it’s a learned behavior.

69

Can you explain what you mean by dominance here? Both partners can be positive, supportive, and kind.. but where exactly does the dominant part come in?

I’ve partly expressed my idea of masculine dominance in this thread, as well as the present one.

I also have a blog, in which I’m developing the idea in articles, and via live Webinars & podcasts.

Masculine dominance is a difficult idea to convey briefly, in part because it counts on a certain context of awareness in a person for the concept to make sense.

It also lends itself to gross (and apparently, hysterical) misinterpretation, so it can take a while to make clear what is not meant by it.

In basic essence, my idea of dominance has to do with a man accepting primary responsibility for the health, well-being and success of his relationship with a woman.

It means a man who accepts himself proudly as the initiator and prime mover of romance. If this sacred aspect of man-woman interaction is to be, it is up to him.

Dominance, as I describe it, is largely an emotional metaphor. It’s has roots in the actual, but it’s predominantly an issue of style; it is not meant to be taken totally literally.

Ultimately, masculine dominance pertains to the way a woman experiences a man — the presence he has in her life, the impact he has on her emotions, and the status he occupies in her mind.

In that Leykis clip I posted earlier, he agreed that being dominant had to do with being a man and acting like one.

I responded to the Leykis clip here. Leykis advises men to be a jerk and an “a-hole” with women. That is something quite different from my idea of a man.

I’d also like to know whether you think men are naturally more dominant than women in romantic relationships, or if it’s a learned behavior.

Metaphysically, man is the primary actor in romance. However, man has no inherent understanding of women or of romance per se, so he has no choice but to learn it.

The average modern man, tragically, has no awareness of romantic dominance whatsoever. Most “romantic” relationships today are, at best, glorified friendships; there is no masculine leadership, and thus very little passion.

70

Are you referring to “testing” a man in the manner I describe in my article?

I don’t agree that testing is at all stupid or irrational. I think it’s important that women test men. I believe it to be an essential aspect of romance.

I was referreing to the bad behaviours you described, such as changing plans at the last minute, acting inconsistent or making random accusations.

I have learned now that it’s never as urgent to act as it seems. The more emotional I feel the more likely there’s an irrational subconscious idea I’m about to act on and the more I need to calm down before acting. I need to ask myself “what do I gain in doing this” at all times and have a rational reply for it.

How is testing good in a relationship? It seems better that each person acts as honestly and benevolently towards one another.

I’m all in favor of mutual agreement for mutual benefit. Do you see this as something different from what I have written about?

I guess I misunderstood your dominant male premise.

71

I recall a couple of good examples of testing from Atlas Shrugged. There are lots more, but these are fairly straightforward and seemingly simple. Both are between Dagny and John Galt in Atlantis. I don’t remember them verbatim, but well enough to get the point across.

One is John taking Dagny to his house.

“Will I be safe?”

“Yes”

“I don’t even know you”

“Yes you do. You named a railroad after me, remember?”

Imagine Dagny in that siutation. She’s falling for him, big time, while she’s also physically weak because of her injuries. Dagny is losing control. While certainly exciting, it’s also a scary situation. She tries to break the spell and attempts a rational(or perhaps rationalistic?) response: “I don’t even know you!”.

Galt could have answered by trying to soothe her: “Oh, it’s allright - you’ll get to know me eventually”. That would immediately have “killed the mood”, bursting the bubble so to speak. So there’s more to this guy? Perhaps even unpleasant surprises? Better put your defenses up, distance yourself, and atleast take it slow(or run away).

He could also have lost his confidence, getting defensive and trying to prove himself to her. That would have been a warning sign. Is there something wrong with the guy? What’s he trying to hide?

That’s actually a very common test: “I don’t give my number to strangers”, “who are you anyway?”, “why are you talking to me?”, “I don’t even know you!”. There are lots of variations to that theme. There are similar defenses when you lead things towards sex. In such cases she may not only be concerned about giving out personal information, talking to you or meeting up for a date. She may also worry about her reputation, that you’ll still respect her and perhaps that you’ll want more than sex from her.

Another example is when they’re discussing where Dagny should stay.

“I want you to stay at my house. If that’s what you wish”

“I’m you prisoner, remember? As long as i’m your captive I don’t have any wishes. You decide”

“You just expressed a wish”

Dagny realized that had he responded in any other way it would have been over. Galt just proved that he was able to retain his strength and was able to call her BS. What if he told her he was prepared to hold her by force, or sacrificing what he really wanted by backing off? He chose neither.

My best friend and his girl often play that game: “oh no, you decide” and “if that’s what you wish” etc. He’s never lost. They’ll be getting married this spring. I’m sure you can find lots of your own examples to relate to.

72

Regarding dominance there’s a metaphor I think works well for me.

I’m the ruler of my own kingdom, and I build that kingdom after my own vision. If I like her I can invite her into my realm and lead her into my world. She may choose to stay or leave. And if things work out really well, we can join our lands together and she can be my queen.

That metaphor pertains to more than just dominance. There’s nothing like romance to test the integrity of your kingdom. Alot of young men learn that the hard way when they fall hopelessly in love with a woman.

73

Can you explain what you mean by dominance here? Both partners can be positive, supportive, and kind.. but where exactly does the dominant part come in? In that Leykis clip I posted earlier, he agreed that being dominant had to do with being a man and acting like one. He basically said that women will want you if you don’t ask them how they feel about anything (ie: don’t ask for a kiss, take it. don’t ask what she wants for dinner, just order something for her.)

I’d also like to know whether you think men are naturally more dominant than women in romantic relationships, or if it’s a learned behavior.

I think Kevin makes a good point about responsibility. By asking a girl if you can kiss her you usually put that choice upon her(I say usually because you could make if playful and teasing, with a confident “may I?” when you go for it), making it her responsibility. If YOU want to kiss her, better make that YOUR call. She’ll let you know either way if she wants it or not.

74

If a woman does not want what I describe, that’s OK — but a man would have no means of reaching her romantically. Such a woman might desire a kind of a friendship with a man, but it’s impossible to drive this type of woman to the heights of romantic ecstasy.

I hope you respond about this eventually, as questioned in post #67. I hope you see how this part I quoted would be easily read as offensive.

75

Eiuol et al: I don’t understand how my statement could be construed as offensive, and I don’t care.

76

Men: Keep your girlfriend far, far away from your crude buddies. More exactly, keep your crude buddies far away from her. Better yet, don’t have crude buddies. Associate your personal brand exclusively with world-class individuals. Remember that everything your “friends” do and say reflects on you!

I know a number of world-class people who are quite crude in their language, and I vastly prefer them to uptight concrete-bound prudes. Better advice would be “don’t date close-minded women with radically different standards”. I know a number of men who see this kind of behavior on the woman’s part as inevitable, something they have to cater to in order to get laid. It’s not. Nor should this kind of behavior be catered to. I also know a fair number of guys who associate being a concrete-bound uptight prude with being “feminine”, so they’re actually not happy with a female who doesn’t behave in this way. But they’re not happy when she wants them to stop associating with their buddies, either. The proper response is not to become a misogynist (as many guys do), but to resolve the internal contradiction. You can’t have it both ways. If a female is supposed to be a pure, delicate Madonna, then she’s going to want you to abandon your indelicate “masculine” pursuits.

Unfortunately, this kind of behavior actually springs from a semi-good romantic motivation on the man’s part. Being “romantically dominant” does, in some respects, seem to involve catering to the woman, because while the man is active, this means the woman has the power in the relationship. In a consensual relationship, the “submissive” always has the power. It’s the “dominant” partner’s job to wrack their brain and strain their creativity keeping the “sub” happy. It’s incredibly hard work and often isn’t that rewarding for the guy, because one of the archetypal cases of a woman who *really* craves this kind of relationship is: Lillian Rearden.

Is it appropriate for a romantic man to offer his excellence to his chosen woman? Sure. But he also needs to pay attention to what she does with it.

That’s what this idea of “keeping it simple” really entails–it means knowing what kind of power you’re willing to allow the other person to exercise and not letting them push you outside those boundaries. It applies mostly to men because, from what I’ve seen, the woman is often the one wielding the power in the relationship. (Power, not authority–the man can do all the talking and decision-making yet the woman is still the one exercising the power.) You may allow your partner the power to be pleased or not pleased by your offerings (which will accordingly please or not please you), but that doesn’t mean you allow them the power to demean you via those offerings. You may allow requests, but not demands. Keeping it simple involves communicating “I’m not allowing you to be demeaning towards me” or “this demand needs to be properly rephrased as a request”. Things like that.

77

I didn’t say anything about offensive. I asked a question about clarifying one of your posts. You seeing or not seeing, caring or not caring about anything potentially offensive is irrelevant to my question.

78

bluecherry: I don’t understand your questions, and I’m not interested in discussing anything with you further.

79

Eiuol et al: I don’t understand how my statement could be construed as offensive, and I don’t care.

I’m the only one who said offensive, but my point was, even if I’m the only one who finds that particular line offensive, it could use some explaining. Not understanding what you meant was the purpose of my first sentence, the second sentence was my particular opinion. The statement can be construed as implying that there is no way for a woman to experience romance in the fullest sense if she does *not* do what you describe. Or if you don’t like *those* questions I referenced, my question in post #54 is especially relevant.

80

Metaphysically, man is the primary actor in romance. However, man has no inherent understanding of women or of romance per se, so he has no choice but to learn it.

I think Kevin makes a good point about responsibility. By asking a girl if you can kiss her you usually put that choice upon her(I say usually because you could make if playful and teasing, with a confident “may I?” when you go for it), making it her responsibility. If YOU want to kiss her, better make that YOUR call. She’ll let you know either way if she wants it or not.

That’s funny, women are usually called more romantic than men.. but I wonder why men usually take ‘responsibility’ or ‘pursue’ a woman instead of the other way around. I guess it’s just a cultural thing.

PS: Alfa- do you think Dagny pursued Rearden in AS? I always thought she was the dominant one, or the ‘teacher.’