Imo Kevin’s generalized advice makes more sense than all these watered down “be yourself, and maybe somewhat sexless” advices others give.
Approaching women as individuals vs. making sweeping assumptions about them which aren’t actually so sweeping?
Treating a woman during a romantic relationship like a woman and not like your bud is not a sweeping assumption, if anything that fact that you called it a sweeping assumption is a veiled adhom.
Imo Kevin’s generalized advice makes more sense than all these watered down “be yourself, and maybe somewhat sexless” advices others give.
Treating a woman during a romantic relationship like a woman and not like your bud is not a sweeping assumption, if anything that fact that you called it a sweeping assumption is a veiled adhom.
Like Kevin, you need some reasons for those opinions. And your claim of ad hominem makes no sense.
Check out the replies to the other topics Kevin has started. There is a pattern – Kevin makes claims, people challenge those claims, Kevin withdraws from discussion, gives some sideways insults, or just repeats the claims.
Treating a woman during a romantic relationship like a woman and not like your bud is not a sweeping assumption . . .
Again, for now putting aside the question of any value or lack thereof to strongly emphasizing a person’s sex in romance or any other context, Kevin hasn’t even just said what I’ve quoted from you here either. He’s made specific claims about the nature of women and therefore specifically what treating them “like a woman” would entail. He hasn’t given backing for why his specific version of what a woman is accurate as opposed to any of the zillions of other claims one could make about “this is what women are like.”
…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.
Most men are Clueless as to how to get women.
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.
Like Kevin, you need some reasons for those opinions. And your claim of ad hominem makes no sense.
Check out the replies to the other topics Kevin has started. There is a pattern – Kevin makes claims, people challenge those claims, Kevin withdraws from discussion, gives some sideways insults, or just repeats the claims.
I recognized a lot of my personal mistakes I’ve made during dating when I came across valuable dating advices which I’ve heard from a few a lot more experienced men than I am, older too. The reason why I consider my previous actions to be flawed is because I’ve personally analyzed them and saw a clear pattern there. I won’t start telling you my life stories though. Those advices aligned well with what Kevin says. I’m not going to check out all of his replies. I’m more than certain that all counter arguments that were made will fall in line with what I saw in this thread. Not a single one of you was capable to properly challenge anything he said, all you do is tell him “nouhh maann just beyourself and liek it’ll go well dontcha worry!”
Rather, people exist as individuals, and this extends to women as well.
Did I claim it was any different? Did I claim that Kevin’s advice applies to every single one of you and your loved ones? If you want to have it different by all means.
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 get why would you call Kevin’s little summary as one size fits all be it all universal go get em’. All he did is gave some generic and common sense how to be a gentleman advice. But hey, feel free to share some of your wisdom, maybe I and Kevin will learn something new.
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.
Sure, you’re an individual and you have your strong preferences and dislikes.
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.
See, that’s why I’d never take your advice, there is a huge gaping hole in what you just said qua dating. During your first 2 or 3 weeks of dating most people have a very bad idea of who exactly are they dealing with. During that time some certain rules of engagement apply to whole thing, unless of course you don’t mind going full Helter-skelter..That’s where and why things can get really silly though.
Again, for now putting aside the question of any value or lack thereof to strongly emphasizing a person’s sex in romance or any other context, Kevin hasn’t even just said what I’ve quoted from you here either. He’s made specific claims about the nature of women and therefore specifically what treating them “like a woman” would entail. He hasn’t given backing for why his specific version of what a woman is accurate as opposed to any of the zillions of other claims one could make about “this is what women are like.”
He strongly emphasized how male could act in order to make a good impression, and sure thing gender is strongly emphasized for some heterosexual men who look for a feminine woman I suppose. And yes indeed there are zillions of claims on what being a male and female is, I’ll stick with the classy version that makes sense, just like I decided to stick with Objectvism.
Now, why don’t you tell me what you think the nature of femininity is and how should a man treat you.
He strongly emphasized how male could act in order to make a good impression, and sure thing gender is strongly emphasized for some heterosexual men who look for a feminine woman I suppose. And yes indeed there are zillions of claims on what being a male and female is, I’ll stick with the classy version that makes sense, just like I decided to stick with Objectvism.
Now, why don’t you tell me what you think the nature of femininity is and how should a man treat you.
“Classy” and “makes sense”? I’m not seeing either of these things in what Kevin says. Objectivism has slews of arguments and evidence supporting it, Kevin has yet to provide anything like such things for what he’s been saying. Do you have any such things you could provide? If so, great, provide 'em. If not, you’ve got no more grounds than those zillions of others which you do not presently believe to be as classy or sensible.
As for the nature of feminity, I really can’t answer that. Frankly, I’ve never even seen a good definition for the word to know what the hell I’m supposed to be looking for/talking about to begin with. I’ve occasionally come across some studies that look at the brains and hormones of males versus females on average and found a reasonably plausible sounding hypothesis for an explanation for some trend among one sex or the other, but only for very specific cases, never anything broad and overarching. As for “how a man should treat you” - that depends on who the man is and who the “you” in question is. There’s really nothing I can come up with that would be generally adviseable for treating just about any female which wouldn’t apply just as well to males and/or non-romantic contexts. I think the best general summation is “treat somebody like exactly, specifically who they are” as opposed to “treat people like just another unit of some category.”
I’m not going to check out all of his replies. I’m more than certain that all counter arguments that were made will fall in line with what I saw in this thread. Not a single one of you was capable to properly challenge anything he said, all you do is tell him “nouhh maann just beyourself and liek it’ll go well dontcha worry!”
Secondhander has asked Kevin how this advice has worked out for him. I asked the same. Other people probably have in other threads. Kevin has never answered. There is no “proper” challenge to make because there is nothing to criticize except Kevin’s methods of an utter lack of examples. I mean, Secondhander gave some examples, DonAthos did, while others have just questioned Kevin’s methods of analysis that are weak or just don’t follow. Alfa gave some examples too. But nothing like that from Kevin. This is human behavior here, with numerous factors, so examples are great, and can only help with context. Sure, there is no refutation per se, but there is nothing to refute - it’s just empty of content. That’s rationalism (that’s not an insult, I mean to say that it leads to an error of thinking or an incorrect conclusion.)
I’m not going to check out all of his replies. I’m more than certain that all counter arguments that were made will fall in line with what I saw in this thread. Not a single one of you was capable to properly challenge anything he said, all you do is tell him “nouhh maann just beyourself and liek it’ll go well dontcha worry!”
That is not my reading of the two opposing sides in this debate at all. Moreover, if you haven’t read the history of the debate (and refuse to) it may be difficult to imagine how you arrived at such a “more than certain” interpretation.
“Classy” and “makes sense”? I’m not seeing either of these things in what Kevin says. Objectivism has slews of arguments and evidence supporting it, Kevin has yet to provide anything like such things for what he’s been saying. Do you have any such things you could provide? If so, great, provide 'em. If not, you’ve got no more grounds than those zillions of others which you do not presently believe to be as classy or sensible.
What kind of evidence do you need? A social study maybe? If why being a gentlemen is good must be proven with some kind of hard evidence than you’re way over your head lady.
As for the nature of feminity, I really can’t answer that. Frankly, I’ve never even seen a good definition for the word to know what the hell I’m supposed to be looking for/talking about to begin with. I’ve occasionally come across some studies that look at the brains and hormones of males versus females on average and found a reasonably plausible sounding hypothesis for an explanation for some trend among one sex or the other, but only for very specific cases, never anything broad and overarching. As for “how a man should treat you” - that depends on who the man is and who the “you” in question is. There’s really nothing I can come up with that would be generally adviseable for treating just about any female which wouldn’t apply just as well to males and/or non-romantic contexts. I think the best general summation is “treat somebody like exactly, specifically who they are” as opposed to “treat people like just another unit of some category.”
Perhaps you should check out Ayn Rand’s take on it then? What I find to be somewhat improper is that you can’t tell me your own take on your gender and the nature of it…even a small detail would suffice I suppose.
There are thousands of anomaly’s nowadays and to my defense, the vast majority of people’s philosophical views are either Subjectivist, Mystical or Nihilist. It doesn’t make them normal or proper though. Not according to me at least.
Secondhander has asked Kevin how this advice has worked out for him. I asked the same. Other people probably have in other threads. Kevin has never answered. There is no “proper” challenge to make because there is nothing to criticize except Kevin’s methods of an utter lack of examples. I mean, Secondhander gave some examples, DonAthos did, while others have just questioned Kevin’s methods of analysis that are weak or just don’t follow. Alfa gave some examples too. But nothing like that from Kevin. This is human behavior here, with numerous factors, so examples are great, and can only help with context. Sure, there is no refutation per se, but there is nothing to refute - it’s just empty of content. That’s rationalism (that’s not an insult, I mean to say that it leads to an error of thinking or an incorrect conclusion.)
So what if he doesn’t answer? If you don’t consider Kevin’s advices to be valid or legit in any form just because he won’t tell you any personal details then so be it. Give your counter advices with well documented advices or don’t bother.
That is not my reading of the two opposing sides in this debate at all. Moreover, if you haven’t read the history of the debate (and refuse to) it may be difficult to imagine how you arrived at such a “more than certain” interpretation.
I’ve scrolled down this thread and read all replies, I haven’t checked out any other posts made by Kevin though.
I’ve also been wondering what sort of evidence is necessary to prove a hypothesis about human sexuality, gender roles, etc. We obviously need SOME kind of evidence in order to accept a hypothesis or assertion, but I don’t know exactly what kind of evidence that is or if it can even be gathered in respect to these topics.
What kind of evidence do you need? A social study maybe? If why being a gentlemen must be proven with some kind of hard evidence than you’re way over head lady.
Perhaps you should check out Ayn Rand’s take on it then? What I find to be somewhat improper is that you can’t tell me your own take on your gender and the nature of it…even a small detail would suffice I suppose.
There are thousands of anomaly’s nowadays and to my defense, the vast majority of people’s philosophical views are either Subjectivist, Mystical or Nihilist. It doesn’t make them normal or proper though. Not according to me at least.
It’s his claims about the psychology of females that I’m looking for where he’s pulling his claims from first and foremost. As for being a gentleman, I don’t oppose that word/concept in general, but I do oppose what seems to be Kevin’s particular idea of what being a gentleman constitutes. I just don’t think that what he calls a gentleman is really a gentleman at all.
I’ve read everything I know of by Rand dealing with what femininity is. There is very little we have records of from her on that topic explicitly and in what is there she seems to give only her own introspection as her source for the claims as far as I recall. Since those things don’t match up with my own introspective findings, that leaves basically no basis for me to believe any of the few claims she made about femininity.
I’m really not kidding about my inability to tell you anything about what femininity is though. I don’t know. I haven’t noticed anything reliably consistent among female personalities which is not also reliably consistent among male personalities. This is especially true when taking into account various time periods and people from different cultures. More than a few times I’ve considered if gender may simply be an anti-concept along the same lines as “ethnicity”, something which a coherent, clear definition really cannot be formed for. The question of if gender is an anti-concept or not though I think is getting too far off topic, so I’ve been avoiding things related to that issue in this thread. So, improper or whatever else you may contend it is or isn’t, that’s the state of things - I really can’t tell you anything at all about femininity since I don’t know what it actually is and I’m still not sure if there even is such a thing in the first place.
“If you don’t consider Kevin’s advices to be valid or legit in any form just because he won’t tell you any personal details then so be it.”
It’s not JUST because of that particular type of information being absent. All forms of grounds for his claims are absent. Asking about his personal experience is actually going fairly easy on him, allowing him to provide a personal anecdote instead of thorough research or sound, compelling logic. His own life experience can’t prove anything to be anywhere near as widespread as he claims it is, but hell, it would be a start at least.
“Give your counter advices with well documented advices or don’t bother.”
Shifting the burden of proof? We prove something else which in the process proves Kevin’s claims wrong, or else Kevin is to have his claims to be presumed valid and left alone? We have already provided counterexamples aplenty though, which is more than Kevin has provided for his side of things.
“. . . or don’t bother.”
This post here from the last thread goes into some of why it is worth bothering to point to flaws in what Kevin has to say even if we don’t provide some detailed alternative. (“Be yourself” and “treat people as individuals,” which is what most of us generally propose as an alternative, you seem to regard as somehow deficient.)
Can’t edit my other post, but I wanted to add something:
The only ‘evidence’ I’ve seen about gender roles is from participant studies. From these, generalizations are made with respect to people’s personal anecdotes, feelings, experiences, etc. I don’t know if this form of evidence is valid- wiki says “it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence (regardless of the veracity of individual claims)” and “the process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation.”
So IF these studies are the only ‘evidence’ available right now, there’s not much we can do except to say “that generalization is false in these specific situations” and leave it at that.
What Delaney and other romance bloggers/radio-hosts do (see tom leykis) is try to help people along in their relationships and/or make a living. Where do they get their info? Cherry-picked anecdotes, their own experiences, and maybe a few studies or articles on google. Obviously their advice is not going to work for everyone or even be appealing to everyone, because their info is based ( at best! ) on generalizations.
It’s his claims about the psychology of females that I’m looking for where he’s pulling his claims from first and foremost. As for being a gentleman, I don’t oppose that word/concept in general, but I do oppose what seems to be Kevin’s particular idea of what being a gentleman constitutes. I just don’t think that what he calls a gentleman is really a gentleman at all.
“refers to any man of good, courteous conduct.” Virtues man. The way Kevin describes seems to be pretty courteous and anti new age swagger type. Works for me.
I’ve read everything I know of by Rand dealing with what femininity is. There is very little we have records of from her on that topic explicitly and in what is there she seems to give only her own introspection as her source for the claims as far as I recall. Since those things don’t match up with my own introspective findings, that leaves basically no basis for me to believe any of the few claims she made about femininity.
So you do have a few ideas about femininity. If you didn’t have any you wouldn’t disagree with her.
I’m really not kidding about my inability to tell you anything about what femininity is though. I don’t know. I haven’t noticed anything reliably consistent among female personalities which is not also reliably consistent among male personalities. This is especially true when taking into account various time periods and people from different cultures. More than a few times I’ve considered if gender may simply be an anti-concept along the same lines as “ethnicity”, something which a coherent, clear definition really cannot be formed for. The question of if gender is an anti-concept or not though I think is getting too far off topic, so I’ve been avoiding things related to that issue in this thread. So, improper or whatever else you may contend it is or isn’t, that’s the state of things - I really can’t tell you anything at all about femininity since I don’t know what it actually is and I’m still not sure if there even is such a thing in the first place.
We have different sets of hormones. The Nature and Evolution shaped us differently, wouldn’t you agree? Moreover, I did see a trend as a Ukrainian immigrant who lives in The Netherlands. I’ve seen that the most non-feminist girls prefer to have a confident, masculine and yet gentle male on their side who doesn’t do any dumb stuff..and the more “civilized” and (intelligent/fashionable, it depends..) he is the better.
“If you don’t consider Kevin’s advices to be valid or legit in any form just because he won’t tell you any personal details then so be it.”
It’s not JUST because of that particular type of information being absent. All forms of grounds for his claims are absent. Asking about his personal experience is actually going fairly easy on him, allowing him to provide a personal anecdote instead of thorough research or sound, compelling logic. His own life experience can’t prove anything to be anywhere near as widespread as he claims it is, but hell, it would be a start at least.
What if I posted a ytube vid which proves my point? would it suffice? Or a social study? Or maybe you’d counter it with another study? Can you tell me what you expect from men and why?
Shifting the burden of proof? We prove something else which in the process proves Kevin’s claims wrong, or else Kevin is to have his claims to be presumed valid and left alone? We have already provided counterexamples aplenty though, which is more than Kevin has provided for his side of things.
Kevin gave a few self evident advices on how men should act as well as understand why they should act this way, there is nothing mind boggling about them. Btw, if I don’t want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that’s my problem. As far as I’m concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.
“. . . or don’t bother.”
This post here from the last thread goes into some of why it is worth bothering to point to flaws in what Kevin has to say even if we don’t provide some detailed alternative. (“Be yourself” and “treat people as individuals,” which is what most of us generally propose as an alternative, you seem to regard as somehow deficient.)
Okay, let me break it for you really quick, if I were full throttle myself with my “I desire to be my future gf” she’d run away screaming “what a morally heavy, intense, overly passionate, radioactive and nit picking snob this guy is, NUUU”. It applies to a lot of men..Well, some of it. What’s your take on the nature of masculinity btw?
“refers to any man of good, courteous conduct.” Virtues man. The way Kevin describes seems to be pretty courteous and anti new age swagger type. Works for me.
So you do have a few ideas about femininity. If you didn’t have any you wouldn’t disagree with her.
We have different sets of hormones. The Nature and Evolution shaped us differently, wouldn’t you agree? Moreover, I did see a trend as a Ukrainian immigrant who lives in The Netherlands. I’ve seen that the most non-feminist girls prefer to have a confident, masculine and yet gentle male on their side who doesn’t do any dumb stuff..and the more “civilized” and (intelligent/fashionable, it depends..) he is the better.
What if I posted a ytube vid which proves my point? would it suffice? Or a social study? Or maybe you’d counter it with another study? Can you tell me what you expect from men and why?
Kevin gave a few self evident advices on how men should act as well as understand why they should act this way, there is nothing mind boggling about them. Btw, if I don’t want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that’s my problem. As far as I’m concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.
Okay, let me break it for you really quick, if I were full throttle myself with my “I desire to be my future gf” she’d run away screaming “what a morally heavy, intense, overly passionate, radioactive and nit picking snob this guy is, NUUU”. It applies to a lot of men..Well, some of it. What’s your take on the nature of masculinity btw?
Doesn’t work for me. I don’t find what Kevin describes to be courteous at all. Quite the opposite.
I only have “ideas about feminity” in the sense that any of them I’ve heard never sync up with my own observations of myself and others and they have a very strong tendency toward being groundlessly asserted and/or extremely hastily over-generalized. I can’t tell you what femininity is, but I can tell you that none of the various candidates for what it is that I’ve heard proposed check out against reason and reality.
Never been to the Ukraine and/or Netherlands personally, but I’ve never seen any such pattern anywhere I’ve been before.
Depends what is in the video or the study. I don’t think I’ve got any expectations from men in general that wouldn’t apply just as easily to women in general. I’ve never been able to come up with something that would be clearly beneficial when done by males, but not when done by females. Well, aside from obvious things like that it would be stupid and futile for a female to try to give to a sperm bank.
“Kevin gave a few self evident advices . . . As far as I’m concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.”
“It’s obvious” is not an argument. I really want this one added as an official, explicit rule to this forum because it comes up all too often.
". . . as well as understand why they should act this way, . . . "
His claims for why men should act a certain way are said to be because of something about women. He’s never proven any of his claims about women. He hasn’t even given any backing to them at all. It’s about as good as me saying that “everybody should wear bomb squad gear when holding babies because babies are highly explosive” with no evidence of explosive babies, but still expecting people to use those bomb squad suits when holding them.
“Btw, if I don’t want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that’s my problem.”
The only time somebody has said anything in support of not holding the door was one suggestion which was intended to be done humorously. Otherwise, the sentiment hasn’t been “don’t hold the door,” it’s been “done insist on holding the door because she’s a female.” Somebody earlier in this thread gave a good account of why insisting on holding the door because somebody is female is not some great thing.
Nit picking snob? Anyway, different pacing works with different people. A night or two is generally never enough, but otherwise with some people getting serious fairly early works, it doesn’t send them running for the hills. But, anyway, there’s a difference between being yourself and spewing every impulse that hits you. You aren’t “not being yourself” by thinking and considering what you say before you speak rather than just saying everything that crosses your mind as a comparison of what I’m talking about. I say that trying to stick to a cookie cutter formula with what to do with every female is as bad as giving all of them the same pick up lines. You tailor conversation with different people in response to who they are and you can do the same basic idea with actions.
Masculinity? Same story as femininity, except I don’t qualify to examine that one introspectively and thus have only observation of others to go on.
“It’s obvious” is not an argument. I really want this one added as an official, explicit rule to this forum because it comes up all too often.
I disagree that this should be a rule. When someone has nothing apart from “it’s obvious” to back up their claims, it is a good demonstration of their respect for knowledge, for discussion, and a strong warning to not waste one’s time in further argument.
BTW, I think your exploding babies comparison is killer! 
Kevin gave a few self evident advices on how men should act as well as understand why they should act this way, there is nothing mind boggling about them. Btw, if I don’t want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that’s my problem. As far as I’m concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.
Whilst to you Kevin’s pronouncements about relationships and gender may seem directly justified on the perceptual level without the need for intermediating elements like “reasons” and “evidence,” however, those of us who have not imbied the Delaneyan gospel may differ with this. Generally speaking, we require actual argumentation for claims.
Doesn’t work for me. I don’t find what Kevin describes to be courteous at all. Quite the opposite.
I only have “ideas about feminity” in the sense that any of them I’ve heard never sync up with my own observations of myself and others and they have a very strong tendency toward being groundlessly asserted and/or extremely hastily over-generalized. I can’t tell you what femininity is, but I can tell you that none of the various candidates for what it is that I’ve heard proposed check out against reason and reality.
When you describe the nature of femininity you are not making an in depth characterization of every single female on this planet. There is a difference between those two.
Never been to the Ukraine and/or Netherlands personally, but I’ve never seen any such pattern anywhere I’ve been before.
Depends what is in the video or the study. I don’t think I’ve got any expectations from men in general that wouldn’t apply just as easily to women in general. I’ve never been able to come up with something that would be clearly beneficial when done by males, but not when done by females. Well, aside from obvious things like that it would be stupid and futile for a female to try to give to a sperm bank.
Well, say thank you to the 3rd wave of Feminism I suppose. Talking to you about something you have practically no idea whatsoever…or even worse, you actually think it’s all the same.
“Kevin gave a few self evident advices . . . As far as I’m concerned his advice is just as self evident as the fact that existence exists.”
“It’s obvious” is not an argument. I really want this one added as an official, explicit rule to this forum because it comes up all too often.
". . . as well as understand why they should act this way, . . . "
His claims for why men should act a certain way are said to be because of something about women. He’s never proven any of his claims about women. He hasn’t even given any backing to them at all. It’s about as good as me saying that “everybody should wear bomb squad gear when holding babies because babies are highly explosive” with no evidence of explosive babies, but still expecting people to use those bomb squad suits when holding them.
And about men too. You can take it any way you want but you’ve been mentally desexed or unsexed or whatever. If you can’t see the difference behind mentality of most men vs most women than you even trying to understand Kevin’s points is hopeless.
“Btw, if I don’t want to open the door for her or talk all the time like a dumb teen that’s my problem.”
The only time somebody has said anything in support of not holding the door was one suggestion which was intended to be done humorously. Otherwise, the sentiment hasn’t been “don’t hold the door,” it’s been “done insist on holding the door because she’s a female.” Somebody earlier in this thread gave a good account of why insisting on holding the door because somebody is female is not some great thing.
The issue isn’t the opening of the door but acting toward like the way your and her nature demand.
Nit picking snob? Anyway, different pacing works with different people. A night or two is generally never enough, but otherwise with some people getting serious fairly early works, it doesn’t send them running for the hills. But, anyway, there’s a difference between being yourself and spewing every impulse that hits you. You aren’t “not being yourself” by thinking and considering what you say before you speak rather than just saying everything that crosses your mind as a comparison of what I’m talking about. I say that trying to stick to a cookie cutter formula with what to do with every female is as bad as giving all of them the same pick up lines. You tailor conversation with different people in response to who they are and you can do the same basic idea with actions.
Masculinity? Same story as femininity, except I don’t qualify to examine that one introspectively and thus have only observation of others to go on.
Considering what to say will result in not saying as well as not showing a lot of different aspect of my personality. Some would call it considering, I’d call it almost lying. Again, what Kevin outlined are extremely generalized advises, Not A Cooking cutting Formula, Formula demands a lot more detail, he’d have to write at least 5 long pages on how to act, move, what to say, when to say etc.
Whilst to you Kevin’s pronouncements about relationships and gender may seem directly justified on the perceptual level without the need for intermediating elements like “reasons” and “evidence,” however, those of us who have not imbied the Delaneyan gospel may differ with this. Generally speaking, we require actual argumentation for claims.
Perhaps a few videos made by girlwriteswhat would suffice? She does back up her claims with facts. Or maybe you’ll counter her by saying it’s all a hearsay and everything is subjective, even your sex?
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.
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?