The real logic of male/female relationships

[Hero_99]

THE REAL LOGIC OF MALE/FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS

 

As I browse and read articles concerning the psychology of the relationships between men and women it astounds me, naturally as a reflection of the significance difference in anatomy, considering the vast amount of miscommunication and misunderstanding the two sexes endure through their every day discourses. Built separately, men and women are mirror opposites of one another. Having the most testosterone men have been given the role to provide, protect, and strive for sex. Receiving estrogen, women on the other hand have been given the need for love, acceptance, and a role as nurturer and bearer of children. In retrospect, ever since mankind's creation a check and balance system has been placed within each sex, each having the ability to adequately fulfill the needs and desires of the other in absolute equality and measure.

 

.............MALE......FEMALE

GIVES: LOVE SEX

NEEDS: SEX LOVE

 

While man possesses the emotional need for sex, woman controls his wants fulfillment. Woman, from the time of her creation and her eminent nature, has been emotionally charged for the reception of love from man. Since people are imperfect carnal beings, the real act and balance of this love/sex relationship becomes distorted and remains deeply unperceived by both sexes until life experiences begin to bring to light the balance and purpose of a true relationship.

 

CHARACTERISTICS OF MEN AND WOMEN

 

MEN = QUANTITATIVE

WOMEN = QUALITATIVE

 

Men, since they have a quantitative outlook, feel the desire to roam about looking for as much interaction with females as one can muster. Mostly since only a small percentage of the male population tends to display true alpha characteristics women, as they are qualitative, tend to only desire a small percentage of the male population; those that have adapted to a dominant lifestyle.

 

DOMINANT SUBMISSIVE

TAKES

 

DOMINANT MEN

Jerks use the naturally lower self-esteem of a woman to dominate her desire for love; thus gaining control of the relationship leaving a woman emotionally starved. In her desperation she caves into his need for sex, disregarding her own wants to satisfy him.

 

SUBMISSIVE MEN

Unlike jerks, men typically termed nice tend to more freely give love superceding their own wants and needs to the point to where a woman feels satisfied enough to not feel she has to meet a mans natural desire for sex.

 

When you really have a good look at how dominant and submissive men behave; it's not hard to understand why jerks seem to be getting all of the sex. Jerks, in their self-deluded lust naturally take control; meanwhile submissive men disregard their masculine emotions and manhood allowing women to gain control of a relationship.

 

aggression ASSERTION SUBMISSION

 

At first sight becoming a jerk may seem like a great idea; a submissive man sees the success of the jerk and the women who loathe and satisfy his desires, needs, wants. He adopts the jerk as his role model practicing and emulating his actions until second nature to him; he learns the power of a dominant state of mind. Though one thing concerns this once submissive man with his newly found dominance; remembering the run-downs and onset of his unsatisfactory emotional state endured through his pattern of submission, he finds a balance of submission and aggression within his interactions towards others.

In truth, neither the jerk nor submissive man really deserves any respect in regards to their actions and motives. Just as a jerk disregards the respect owed to another a submissive man fails to regard his own right to self respect. Thus, the jerk learns that there is a middle ground to his behavior, leading to a new found assertive man.

 

ASSERTIVE MEN

Assertive men are the best relationship material for a woman; knowing when to act aggressively and when to appropriately submit to authority. For most they value and understand the true meaning of respect to themselves and towards others, and ably maintain a fairly good level of emotional health. Most importantly they develop the ability to timely and accurately gauge when to satisfy a woman's craving for love and acceptance and yet communicate their own needs to a woman in a way she can fulfill them.

 

MEN AND LOVE

The majority of men have the misconception that love subjects one person to another, binding them to someone in submission and self-deterioration, but quite contrarily love when given appropriately can be a very powerful and meaningful thing. One can look at the many strong masculine figures that sacrificed themselves throughout history and find the motivation that drove them was typically the same; that being the love they had for themselves and others.

 

THE QUALITATIVE NATURE OF WOMEN - RULES AND TEST

 

Since women have the foreknowledge and enlightenment that they possess a naturally qualitative being the reasoning becomes apparent to them that they should throughly test the strength and vitality of men in whom, at first sight, appear worthy of their attention as child rearing entities.

 

Each woman sets up her rigid set of rules in which she expects a worthy man to follow; sometimes even at the spur of a particular moment in which she will especially take note of a mans reaction; other times a woman will literally manufacture a senerio to gauge how well a man reacts either verbally or through an intentional act or opportunity.

While these rules can sometimes appear somewhat self-centered or as feminine devices to control, manipulate, and avoid hurt to themselves and any sort of responsibility on a womans part if she finds she can not have a relationship with a man; the whole of a woman's well being and the "sociatal purity" of the human species heavily relies on a womans abilty to chose an appropiate mate meaing a few individuals become sacrificed for the cause of security and strength for the next proceeding generations to come.

 

While a woman may not appear to know what she means in her sayings or actions she has an exact intune awareness to the issue; one that she would rather not have a man come to the exact realization that she thinks the way she does, although she apparently expects it of him.

 

WHEN A MAN FAILS A WOMAN'S RELATIONSHIP TEST

When a woman choses who she feels would be most appropiate she will often times attempt to befriend her previously potential mates and set them as an equal to her as a justification factor.

 

LOOSE WOMAN = SLUT

SEXLESS MAN = BROTHER

 

Often she will refer to these men as "brothers" or compare them to a male sibling in an attempt to swell any attempt on their part to persue her; The phraseology should be avoided at all cost and could only be intuitevely interpreted as an insult to a man in comparison to calling a sexually expressive woman a slut.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Lastly, nearly every man with some luck, chance, strength, and motivation has some way to become successful with women. Experience life and live to the fullest as you have already been promised these things with time, and never take a cognitive approach to a new found way of living without first realizing this must first become a part of you.

[mahlina]

Jeez Hero...Thanks!

 

That's really great insight actually. Finally someone admits to the general rules of dating/animal instincts.

 

You should be a relationship advisor or something. Have you ever read John Gray's book, Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus? I have. I find that your insight is so much more clear, basic and laid out as it is. I'm not completely sold on what he believes. Some of his theories are so bizarre, for example, the "men & their caves" theory, I found was way too complicated. But the "rubber band" theory seems to make sense. Why can't we just be ourselves and have everything fall into place as it should? Anyway, I enjoyed reading your outlook, and will take it into consideration.

 

You're completely right about the ASSERTIVE MEN part. They are usually the one's who are among the charmers. They do get all the sex. They represent the Alpha Male, and women can't help it, but to be fooled by their charm.

 

I must also mention the author/sociology professor who made studies on this 'giver', 'taker' theory, Elliot Liebow. He uses lots of references as to the 'giver' & 'taker' scenario in his studies of lower class society.

 

Anyhow, to get to the point, I think that his analogy does apply to relationships. And I must agree that the Submissive Man is usually the giver, the one who actually holds more power in the relationship, verses the 'taker', the DOMINANT men, who are the takers, and often are the ones to bail out first. (That's what Liebow makes reference to as well).

 

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time out to share your insight! I like reading topics like yours, it's interesting, clear, concisie, straight forward, and gets to the point! Two thumbs up!

[S4il]

Hero_99, dude really I'm being honest with you here.. You need to put that in a book or something, it made sOOOOooooo much sense, I find myself sometimes coming accross (in the past) to women as the guy who is SUBMISSIVE Sometimes i still have that desire, YES! i said desire to show that, but i limit it, sort of having a cap to what i allow the women to see, when showing my Submissive side.

 

I guess it just my compassionate side, sometimes it gets the best of me...Now i'm starting to straighten out into the Assertive type, But thats a whole different post...I won't chew any ears off tonight, have to catch the ladies up at the pool halll between 9:30 and 11:00 (ladies night) so my approach to this is to loose in the game of pool, show a Submissive side, but than take control of it by kicking butt in the Video games...

 

That being: they have this " BASS FISHING" game, and i so OWN the high score.

 

But thanks again for such a insightful post, I'm taking it into deep consideration, and i will use it to my advantage, when the .opportunity arises

[Hero_99]

Jeez Hero...Thanks!

 

That's really great insight actually. Finally someone admits to the general rules of dating/animal instincts.

 

Thanks..... Yeah, I plan on getting my masters in counceling when I finally graduate from undergrad.

 

I have read both "men are from mars, women are from venus" and "mars and venus on a date". Personally I think the complexity level of his books stem for the most part from the fact that he tends to likes to elaborate allagorically upon his theories, than that the theories themselves are complex;more so in the former than the latter.

 

Also, the "men & their cave" theory really is closely the equivalent of the roaming explanation I gave above with men and their quantitivity. I like to call it "settle & roam." Men pull away for a time to ease their roaming instincts and come back once they have been emotionally satisfied by a brief seperation. In old times men would feel compelled to seek out another mate, but modern man meerly uses the roaming time to contemplate important things in his life.

 

In regards to the "giver/taker" theory psycohologist also tend to mention the related "First born" theory. I'm not sure of the validity of the actualy theory, but it makes sense as a whole. One person always feels the he/she should be the center of the relationship and if both feel that way they often clash with one another; the most satisfatory relationships coming from two people who are "first" born and "second" born.

[melrich]

You need to be very careful about placing people into "boxes". It is a habit the populist psychology movement is very fond of doing because it is easy for the general public to digest. In truth people are far more complex than this and will adapt their behaviours and personality to the environment they are in. Even the creators of Meyers/Briggs, probably the most widely used personality profiling tool, are careful to note that individuals will act all accross the spectrum eg from dominant to submissive according to the environment. Putting personality traits on people according to gender is even more fraught with anomolies. Yes there are physiological differences between men and women, and it is widely accepted that men and women have different thought processes but the difference between man and woman is minute like the difference between love and hate. Men inherently carry female traits and vice versa. Some men are more female than others and vice versa. In fact at the extremes (that is the classic model you describe in your post) you will find typical bell curve populations. The great majority of men and women will populate a range around the median and the differences in their behaviour drivers will be far more subtle than those those you allude to.

[ck]

So what your basicaly saying is you have to be a jerk to attract women.....well that's obvious, but I find something terribly wrong about lowering my class and behavior because a woman feels these are real men.

 

So I guess I will be dateless until I go everseas or find a good mail order bride.

[Hero_99]

So what your basicaly saying is you have to be a jerk to attract women.....well that's obvious, but I find something terribly wrong about lowering my class and behavior because a woman feels these are real men.

 

So I guess I will be dateless until I go everseas or find a good mail order bride.

 

Did you read the entire post?

 

I'm not saying you have to be a jerk; I'm saying that you need to find a balance between aggression and submission, which in turn will grant you self-control, self-respect, and a respect for others. In turn others (especially females) will respect you and see you as a charming individual.....

[Hero_99]

You need to be very careful about placing people into "boxes". It is a habit the populist psychology movement is very fond of doing because it is easy for the general public to digest. In truth people are far more complex than this and will adapt their behaviours and personality to the environment they are in.

 

I agree with this, but there's no way I could account for the scores and scores of personalities within my writting, so I am forced to make some generalizations. All in all I believe my post contains the description of at least the the bare essentials and skeleton of a basic male/female relationship.

[melrich]

Yes I understand what you are saying but I think it is important that when anyone describes these types of theories they make notes in the text to advise that they are generalisations only. Many people reading populist psychology take the theories at face value without considering the complexity of human nature.

[mahlina]

Also, the "men & their cave" theory really is closely the equivalent of the roaming explanation I gave above with men and their quantitivity. I like to call it "settle & roam."

 

Interesting...! See! You did it again! Very straightforward explanation. I love it. It completely makes sense. John Gray does have a tendency to spout on things that I can't understand, like that part where he mentions: If he says this, he means this, so the best way to say that, should be this and that...yada yada yada. People aren't robots here...

 

About the first/last born explanation: I read about it too. It's true for the most part right? I think so. But, I don't think that we have the same Elliot Liebow person in mind. Liebow studies about lifestyles of the lower-urban class. His studies are interesting.

 

But, back to the first/last born theory, I see that alot. It makes so much sense. You can trace the patterns/tendencies among your group & peers. When I look at my friends, the first borns are often among the leaders, and the last borns are usually those who do things on their own, free-spiritedly.

 

Hey, hats off to you, I think that you'll be good at what you do, b/c you seem to be 'passionate' about it.

 

Life's not worth living, when it's not lived with passion!

Best wishes/good luck to your future!

 

Late!

[mahlina]

Yeah, I agree with richgabe to a certain extent, but I don't think that Hero is trying to group people or finalize his generalizations since he did point out in his conclusion that some men get lucky, and things just work out for them, despite the typical rules.

 

What he's saying is there's basic patterns of behaviors in human relationships. He's not trying to be black & white about it. Just like when studying animals'/primates' behaviors, you just have to get the gist of it, and then analyze further.

[melrich]

Mahlina, I have no problem with what Hero99's post. Just that I think it is important to put those theories in context. Hero99's post addresses some personality traits that may be more common in men and some that may be more common in women. It is important to provide context. Human behaviour is driven by the combination of personality, environment and reward. that is the classical pshychiatric triumverate. It si important that no one driver is looked at in isolation and that the complexities inherent in each driver are noted. I am sure Hero99 knows this and accepts my note to his post. It is only to provide context.

 

Cheers

[mahlina]

That's cool...

[Hero_99]

Richgabe is right in what he says and I clarified that very issue thourghout a previous post where some other generalizations also got me into a pinch of touble.

 

link removed

 

I actually ment what I wrote more allegorically, but apparently some mistook what I wrote as face value by mistakingly misintrepreting the context.

[mahlina]

After thoroughly reading through Richgabe's post, and having thought about it over dinner...I tied 2 and 2 together, and realized that each Hero and Rich, both have a strong point

 

I think that people have a tendency to put on a front, a defense mechanism to others when they first meet people. They don't truly reveal who they are inside.

 

People tend to conform to what society thinks that they should be, thereforeeee, what Hero says is true in a sense in which they act accordingly, I.E.- "self-fulfilling prophecy."

 

However, according to what Rich is saying, everyone is unique. He's completely right when he mentions that it's 'popular' psychology. I really thought about it, and said, "He's right, why classify and generalize people, that's b.s." And about the Myer's Briggs, it's true, it is a mechanism to box people up. The corporate world, does have a tendency to do this, to make business efficient, by grouping people according to their strengths and weaknesses. It however, does not examine them as an individual as a whole.

 

And I must agree that human beings are too complex in nature. We have everything from our predispositioned genes, gentically inhereited makeup, unique personalities, nature v. nurture issues, and past influences. We are all fundamentally built on complexity, a web, or a network of different factors, which make us all unique.

 

So, yeah, it is very corporate to 'box' others up. However, our personalities do strike up a 'tendency' in our thoughts and actions, but should not serve as a label as to who we are. We're not corporate! We're humen! We're unique! We're not cookie cutters!!!

 

Ultimately, I think that people conform to what society tells them to be, as an "exterior" side, their defensive side, but in the end, we're all only human, we are all unique. So, going back to Rich's idea, when people finally are comfortable enough, I think that's when they truly show their 'true' individuality.

 

For instance, people always ask, Are you a Sagitarious, Scorpio, Libra?

And when they get to know their own signs, they start to 'act' like it. They conform to society's labeled beliefs.

But, when thrown in a real life situation, everyday disputes, bondings etc., they knock off the exterior personality, and reveal their true selves, while disregarding their supposed, exterior 'personality.' The become comfortable enough to reveal who they truly are.

 

Heck, I'm a first born/Sagitarius/Rooster, born on the cusp of Capricorn/ENFP/INTJ...I'm supposedly Spontaneous, yet serious, etc. etc.

 

Whatever! The point is, it's intersting to read into these theories, but it should not be an all-or-none kind of thing. That's probably why psychology class drove me up the wall...I've spent lots of time at Barne's n Nobles actually reading through piles of books, and you know what? It drives me nuts just trying to analyze people based on these theories, which do tend to clash with one another.

 

Am I saying that none of the theories are true? No! Because in the professional world, I exhibit the INTP character/FIRST BORN personality. My exterior personality is quite different, serious at work, yet playful at home. That's where these theories are way to complicating to state itself as something 'factual.' It is only, theory.

 

Anyway, just ranting off on this very intersting debate. I hope my clustered thoughts made sense to you guys!

 

I love your intellectual opinions. That's what keeps my day going. Heck, you guys are more fun to talk to than my group of friends who always say the same things, "Ay you guys wanna go clubbing...oh lets go shop..."

 

You guys kick ass!

 

As I'm sitting here listening to ATB music, I must say, enotalone is awsome, the people here are great. You guys all have colorful responses. I need to get back to my agenda, and finish all of my lab writeups [Yuk!]...See how awsome you guys are???!!!

{I've been sooo intrigued that I have not touched any of it! Enotalone truly is an addiction!}

 

Last but not least, people aren't often at ease about posting their opinions to discussions like these, but for those who do: I just want to compliment you by saying "Thank You" guys. Take care, and keep the discussions going...!

 

 

\ G u ys R oC K ! \

 

Gotta get back to work. Late!

[Hero_99]

THE QUALITATIVE NATURE OF WOMEN - RULES AND TEST

 

Since women have the foreknowledge and enlightenment that they possess a naturally qualitative being the reasoning becomes apparent to them that they should throughly test the strength and vitality of men in whom, at first sight, appear worthy of their attention as child rearing entities.

 

Each woman sets up her rigid set of rules in which she expects a worthy man to follow; sometimes even at the spur of a particular moment in which she will especially take note of a mans reaction; other times a woman will literally manufacture a senerio to gauge how well a man reacts either verbally or through an intentional act or opportunity.

While these rules can sometimes appear somewhat self-centered or as feminine devices to control, manipulate, and avoid hurt to themselves and any sort of responsibility on a womans part if she finds she can not have a relationship with a man; the whole of a woman's well being and the "sociatal purity" of the human species heavily relies on a womans abilty to chose an appropiate mate meaing a few individuals become sacrificed for the cause of security and strength for the next proceeding generations to come.

While a woman may not appear to know what she means in her sayings or actions she has an exact intune awareness to the issue; one that she would rather not have a man come to the exact realization that she thinks the way she does, although she apparently expects it of him.

 

WHEN A MAN FAILS A WOMAN'S RELATIONSHIP TEST

 

When a woman choses who she feels would be most appropiate she will often times attempt to befriend her previously potential mates and set them as an equal to her as a justification factor.

 

LOOSE WOMAN = SLUT

SEXLESS MAN = BROTHER

 

Often she will refer to these men as "brothers" or compare them to a male sibling in an attempt to swell any attempt on their part to persue her; The phraseology should be avoided at all cost and could only be intuitevely interpreted as an insult to a man in comparison to calling a sexually expressive woman a slut.

[Hero_99]

Another reason I listed women as qualitative is because they (as a whole) are the ones responsible for the development and nuturing of children and have the ultimate trump (mechanically) when it goes to determining the next generation.

[ck]

Did you read the entire post?

 

I'm not saying you have to be a jerk; I'm saying that you need to find a balance between aggression and submission, which in turn will grant you self-control, self-respect, and a respect for others. In turn others (especially females) will respect you and see you as a charming individual.....

 

To be Honest I read most of the post because it was rather long and basically stated the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong what if a guy is not submissive, yet he is not all "I'm going to beat every guys ass for my girlfriend type" Does that mean he has to change himself to get attention from a woman? You say I didn't read your entire post yet you missread mine. There is a difference in being a punk wussy and being something your not a poser who wants to be a gangster. I'm not trying to say you are or that your saying we all should be, but of corse you people are probably going to take that way. *shrugs*

[Hero_99]

You need to have a look at a previous post that I made that deals with what happeneds when someone gives and takes "Just be yourself" advice...

 

It's found at this link....

 

link removed

 

 

Did you read the entire post?

 

I'm not saying you have to be a jerk; I'm saying that you need to find a balance between aggression and submission, which in turn will grant you self-control, self-respect, and a respect for others. In turn others (especially females) will respect you and see you as a charming individual.....

 

To be Honest I read most of the post because it was rather long and basically stated the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong what if a guy is not submissive, yet he is not all "I'm going to beat every guys *beep* for my girlfriend type" Does that mean he has to change himself to get attention from a woman? You say I didn't read your entire post yet you missread mine. There is a difference in being a punk wussy and being something your not a poser who wants to be a gangster. I'm not trying to say you are or that your saying we all should be, but of corse you people are probably going to take that way. *shrugs*

[vfunkera]

Firstly i must give a round of applause to Hero, who has written one of the greatest posts i have seen here. Everything, right down to the conclusion, is spot on and perfect. Now...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong what if a guy is not submissive, yet he is not all "I'm going to beat every guys *beep* for my girlfriend type" Does that mean he has to change himself to get attention from a woman? You say I didn't read your entire post yet you missread mine. There is a difference in being a punk wussy and being something your not a poser who wants to be a gangster. I'm not trying to say you are or that your saying we all should be, but of corse you people are probably going to take that way. *shrugs*

 

ck, i have been confused by where to go on this clash before. The techniques, or the simplicity of 'being yourself' and hoping that maybe you can beat off the competition. The techniques guarentee success, but i would also argue that it is short term, since i believe people will eventually see the real you after a maximum of 4 months passes by hanging out with each other. As for being the insecure person inside- try it if you want, but isn't that what we usually do(?) and end reading these posts. From my experience, we usually end up falling in the 'friends' category- referred to more as a 'brother' then a potential partner. Its beautiful to be ourselves, but its not successful if we are insecure and shy around those we like.

 

So which way do we go? Try to be a gangster or attempt to soften up and give them respect like a wussy hoping that they will be touched by our polite, kind ways and notice us? Over time i have realised that the type of advice that Hero has given should not be taken as methods and techniques, but as a state of mind- a male state of mind. I have learned that when you actually gain confidence in yourself, and love yourself, and respect yourself, and feel secure, the stuff Hero is saying should all flow naturally. The arrogance and ego we associate with a jerk should be trying boil over inside us! Whether its thanks to society and our nurturing, or if its biologically and instinctively inside us, it should be eager to show. Its beauty because its being ourselves while 'posing' at the same time. Why is it successful? Because its what being a man is all about, and whether you like it or not, its the opposite to being a girl and thats why it attracts.

 

Do we change ourselves? No, we simply upgrade to a more confident version. We are proud of ourselves, and we repect ourselves. We make no excuses for being a man, and what a man is supposed to be- regardless of whether its society that has placed that role on us or if its our testostrone. The more we lean towards associating ourselves as an Alpha. How? You simply build on your confidence and start treating and upgrading yourself to being a prize who is proud of himself. Basically follow Hero's conclusion in the original post.

 

Understand that gangsters and poser's give off male characteristics of dominance, and that will attract. It doesn't mean that you have to exclusively take that path to attract. Its like saying a girl at school has to be a model to attract guys, and you know thats not true. Build your confidence to the stage that you will start to believe you are or at least in the league of THE BEST. By this stage you will start to hang out with the best, and that will only put you above the standards of the less confident people.

 

The Assertive man to me is the ultimate goal, and what i like to consider myself as . Being confident and secure in yourself, and making sure your voice is heard, but at the same time having respect for what the other person is saying by not letting the temptations of arrogance and jerk-ness get the better of you.

 

Good luck guys!

[ck]

Ok Vfunk let me make this as clear as I can. I understood what Hero was saying in a way, now he like you is saying just display male characteristics that a jerk would and not actually be one. What you are not understanding is I know how to stand up for myself and not be a whimp as most of you guys put it (nice guy). My problem is just being something because the women seem to be attracted to what society tells then is masaculine Ie. loud overbearring, rude, ect. I don't even like to be around those types of people, and if a woman likes that so much she probably is the type like that. I don't want to date those types of chicks, the ruff necks could have them.

 

Ok I'm not desperate anymore to find a woman, so I have tried that when I was desperate, and believe me it didn't work. Now I care less about what they want because in the end they always end up getting older and changing their minds, so when they decide they don't want a thug then what??

 

Change to a wussy at the snap of a finger because they said so? Maybe yall like being transformers, but I don't. Next it's going to be artsy rocket scientist in season then what, put some glasses on and try fake a image?

 

So called gangsters especially posers end up being found out as imposters real quick. Plus some people known you before time they will call you out on it.

[Hero_99]

Ok Vfunk let me make this as clear as I can. I understood what Hero was saying in a way, now he like you is saying just display male characteristics that a jerk would and not actually be one.

 

You've entirely missed the point; it's not about being a jerk or a complete submissive, it is about knowing when to appropiately give and when to appropiately take. That's the whole of an assertive man; to share your life with another person...

 

What you are not understanding is I know how to stand up for myself and not be a whimp as most of you guys put it (nice guy). My problem is just being something because the women seem to be attracted to what society tells then is masaculine Ie. loud overbearring, rude, ect. I don't even like to be around those types of people, and if a woman likes that so much she probably is the type like that.

 

Women honestly do not like jerks. Men only think they do because they are successful at getting a woman to submit to them, it has nothing to do with liking them.

 

I don't want to date those types of chicks, the ruff necks could have them.

 

Good women do exist, but they are far and few between and mostly married off already...

 

Ok I'm not desperate anymore to find a woman, so I have tried that when I was desperate, and believe me it didn't work. Now I care less about what they want because in the end they always end up getting older and changing their minds, so when they decide they don't want a thug then what??

 

This may not apply to all women, but I will say the majority of them...

 

Women tend to change their minds once they are old enough to realize their looks are fading and they will no longer be wanted by those types.

They change their bad behaviour, since they can no longer hide it under a beautiful fasad. This starts about the age of 25 or 26 when they decide to go to seek out some chump who is well off, but was never really successful with women and doesn't know entirely the games they like to play.

 

Sad to say these type of men usually end up raises children that arn't theirs.

 

Change to a wussy at the snap of a finger because they said so? Maybe

all like being transformers, but I don't. Next it's going to be artsy rocket scientist in season then what, put some glasses on and try fake a image?

So called gangsters especially posers end up being found out as imposters real quick. Plus some people known you before time they will call you out on it.

 

Go check out the post where I talk about being yourself again....

[vfunkera]

Spot on. Young women are just infatuated to some extent- simply looking to have a good time. They'll go for hot, confident guys, and the nice guys will be left last. But when they want to settle down at around the age of 25 like Hero said, the nice guys are the obvious choice since they will be faithful and won't be be fooling around. This is in my opinion a sick and real outlook of life, since in a way, the nice guy will always be taken advantage in all his life simply because he is nice. But, as they say, thats just the way it is.

[ck]

You've entirely missed the point; it's not about being a jerk or a complete submissive, it is about knowing when to appropiately give and when to appropiately take. That's the whole of an assertive man; to share your life with another person...

 

@ Hero

No according to your post it's about knowing when they want you to give and want you to take; I don't know if your trying to ignore what I'm saying on purpose, or just don't want to listen. I'm not going to act nice or aggressive when they want me to, only when I see fit to.

 

I won't even comment on the other stuff you said because I agree with you. Once it's time to settle down they will be looking totake advantage of the nice guy that couldn't get a date; I can tell you it won't be me though. And raising somebody elses child that definitly ain't me. I'll let a chick know quickly I don't father nobody's kids but mine.

 

Go check out the post where I talk about being yourself again....

 

I checked it out the last time you told me to and I didn't understand it.

[Hero_99]

You've entirely missed the point; it's not about being a jerk or a complete submissive, it is about knowing when to appropiately give and when to appropiately take. That's the whole of an assertive man; to share your life with another person...

 

No according to your post it's about knowing when they want you to give and want you to take; I don't know if your trying to ignore what I'm saying on purpose, or just don't want to listen. I'm not going to act nice or aggressive when theywant me to, only when I see fit to.

 

No, I think you read that into the context. I didn't imply anything more than that an assertive man is a well balanced individual, not that he will be looking to a woman for cues on when to act aggressive, assertive, or passive. A man who does that obviously wouldn't have very good charge over his life.....