What is you Definition of a REAL man????

[hrtlsngl7]

I'm not flaming you. That *is* my opinion- that there is no real answer to that question, and that it brings to mind stereotypes. Nor did I say you were a troll.

 

I'll admit that I should have omitted "REAL" as that DOES conjure up sterotypes. I guess I'm trying to find what are peoples concepts of man in modern society as it used to be protector & provider. Now all of a sudden women seem to not want that, (according to this forum)

[dramallama]

I think being a protector and provider are still very much roles that the modern man plays, and I think that it's fine with many women. The trouble comes when men are unwilling to adopt other modern roles such as pitching in with housework or spending time with children. Also women are more likely to be financial providers these days, but providing comes in many forms, so that's something that men need to understand. Their roles haven't been taken away, just adjusted a bit.

[bulletproof]

I notice on this forum that when a man asserts his masculity he attacked to no end. What's up w/ that?

 

It has nothing to do with asserting masculinity. It's how it is presented, firstly- nobody, male or female, wants to be told what he or she wants or how he or she thinks. In this instance, John is saying he knows what women want even though he is neither female nor has he dated a female.

 

I think that people also get upset when these threads devolve into males vs. females. There are such a thing as individual preferences that have nothing to do with gender.

[Cheetarah]

I notice on this forum that when a man asserts his masculity he attacked to no end. What's up w/ that?

 

If by masculinity you mean telling people what they want on a subconscious or conscious level - Goes against the grain of what women supposedly want, doesn't it? Nobody knows you better than you know yourself.

 

On that note, I've never sought out a 'stereotypically masculine male'. Obviously I don't want someone who thinks they're on the same level as the bubonic plague(how can you love and be loved by someone who doesn't think they're worthy of love?) but aside from that, I tend to be the aggressor and am attracted to quiet, shy and introverted men. I would have a hard time being with a man who was dominant. Independent, yes. Dominant, no.

[-John-]

It has nothing to do with asserting masculinity. It's how it is presented, firstly- nobody, male or female, wants to be told what he or she wants or how he or she thinks. In this instance, John is saying he knows what women want even though he is neither female nor has he dated a female.

 

The fact that women consistently ignore me, ironically, is just more empirical evidence that I am right. I tend to exhibit those "beta male qualities" (as hrtlsngl7 called them) because I have social anxiety. Women are more attracted to alpha males -- men with more masculine qualities like confidence, assertiveness, and dominance. Why? Because women want a man they can feel "safe" with and feel "protected" with.

 

By the way, I am not saying this. All of this is backed up by decades of psychological and social science research. I think the link I posted above is a pretty nice analysis.

 

In any case, I'm not surprised that women here would deny these facts. That's why I said from the outset: they will never openly admit it, since these dynamics are mostly working in their subconscious.

 

I think being a protector and provider are still very much roles that the modern man plays, and I think that it's fine with many women. The trouble comes when men are unwilling to adopt other modern roles such as pitching in with housework or spending time with children.

 

Exactly. That goes back to what I was saying earlier: women still want men who are masculine (assertive, dominant, etc.) but they also increasingly want some feminine qualities (nurturing, etc.) because women are increasingly independent economically. But that doesn't change the fact that they still want those other masculine qualities as well as certain feminine qualities.

[velvette]

so then can I surmise that men are attracted to weak and fragile women, because it's in their instinct to protect such? (or to go further, because fragile women are easier to 'guard' from straying, thus guaranteeing paternity) wondering what you'd say to that.

 

shyness or lack of confidence in girls is also not sought after, despite being a 'feminine' thing (so you say, not masculine). the popular cheerleaders get the most guys, just like the popular jocks. confidence is uniformly attractive accross both genders. yes, there are guys who will go for the shy girls, but there are also girls who will go for the shy guys! since you only need to attract ONE person (generally), I personally wouldn't worry about changing myself to be more attractive to the a stereotyped preference in the other gender. I'd rather attract that one person who likes me for exactly who I am.

 

but, if embracing your inner "manliness" makes you feel better about yourself, go for it. why not. sounds fun!

[BrokenSmile]

LOL. Yet she is very likely to hook-up w/ a guy fitting the very description she is "repelled" by. What is you boyfriend like BrokenSmile?

 

Excuse me? You know nothing about me. Why is it so necessary to be so rude? Seriously.

I'm glad John provided you the answer you were so obviously looking for when you started this thread- desperately seeking someone to confirm that it's okay to be "masculine". But like I and other women said, those qualities are not what every woman wants. Sorry.

[quirky]

I agree with a lot of what John says. I can also see the point velvette made.

 

To me a real man is

 

passionate

generous

assertive

likes children

intelligent

doesn't fully understand women

career driven

likes sex a lot

[-John-]

but, if embracing your inner "manliness" makes you feel better about yourself, go for it. why not. sounds fun!

 

I'm glad John provided you the answer you were so obviously looking for when you started this thread- desperately seeking someone to confirm that it's okay to be "masculine".

 

Two points:

 

(1) A man should embrace his "manliess," since that is his nature. As I said earlier in this thread, the last few decades of increasing liberalism, as well as early feminism, has turned "masculinity" into a bad word. Many people's reactions in this thread only prove that.

 

(2) It is okay to be masculine! Again, men, don't let society tell you that it's something to be ashamed of. Also: don't make the mistake of confusing masculinity with destructive qualities -- like too much aggression, etc. (I see why dramallama said that a better title for this thread would have been "What is a gentleman?") Women want a gentleman: assertive, confident, dominant, protective -- but also agreeable and reasonable. (Again, the jerks, like the pushover guys, finish last eventually.)

 

Once more guys like myself learn these facts (as I have just in the last several months), then they will no longer come to forums like this one complaining about how women constantly ignore them: it's because you need to embrace your masculinity, which women, deep in their primal subconscious, will always respond to.

[bulletproof]

The fact that women consistently ignore me, ironically, is just more empirical evidence that I am right. I tend to exhibit those "beta male qualities" (as hrtlsngl7 called them) because I have social anxiety. Women are more attracted to alpha males -- men with more masculine qualities like confidence, assertiveness, and dominance. Why? Because women want a man they can feel "safe" with and feel "protected" with.

 

By the way, I am not saying this. All of this is backed up by decades of psychological and social science research. I think the link I posted above is a pretty nice analysis.

 

In any case, I'm not surprised that women here would deny these facts. That's why I said from the outset: they will never openly admit it, since these dynamics are mostly working in their subconscious.

 

I am not disagreeing that biology plays a factor, but it's just one factor of many. Upbringing, genetics, socialization, all of these things come into play. The reason people disagree with a lot of what you're saying is because you've conveniently eliminated the idea of the individual. It's easy to package everyone neatly into gender stereotypes and say these are all the answers and everyone is the same. My guess is that you don't do well with women for precisely this reason- you are looking at them as females only, not as individuals with thoughts, feelings and preferences that may differ from what your studies say. I also agree that it is your shyness and lack of confidence and assertiveness that's hurting you, but that is true for both men and women. Nobody wants to date someone who's self-esteem is suffering, male or female. Women need to be assertive in their own lives, too, and create a strong persona that's attractive. This isn't limited to males.

[dramallama]

John, I think you need to see roles in a relationship/marriage/raising children as less "male roles and female roles" and just see them as practical roles that BOTH people can share equally.

[-John-]

My guess is that you don't do well with women for precisely this reason- you are looking at them as females only, not as individuals with thoughts, feelings and preferences that may differ from what your studies say.

 

Nope. I have looked at EVERYONE as individuals throughout my entire life, including women. I have always been a sensitive, unassertive person -- and have observed women choose the assholes every time. It was only when I woke up and realized why this is: it's because those assholes display masculine qualities (albeit in a destructive, ungentlemanly fashion), which women are subconsciously attracted to.

 

After I made this realization (only recently), it was like everything finally clicked for me. Again, I know women will deny it, but they can't help liking what they like: a confident, assertive, dominant, protective, masculine male. They pick the jerks (the ungentlemanly ones), and then after years of being burned by these jerks, women learn to be more discerning: pick the masculine ones (which their subconscious wants), but only those who are gentlemanly in their expression of masculinity. God, if I had known this stuff years ago, I would be so much better with women.

 

I also agree that it is your shyness and lack of confidence and assertiveness that's hurting you, but that is true for both men and women. Nobody wants to date someone who's self-esteem is suffering, male or female. Women need to be assertive in their own lives, too, and create a strong persona that's attractive. This isn't limited to males.

 

That's not what I am saying. Of course lack of confidence is unattractive in women as well as men. What I am saying is this: it is assumed that men are the ones who are supposed to take the confident, dominant role in romantic overtures and gestures, while women choose which romantic overtures from males to respond to.

 

That's why you consistently see men advised on this forum to "get more confidence" or "be more assertive" in order to have more success with women. However, women who have trouble with men are often given different advice: they are told to "send signals" to men to let them know you are interested. It's almost as if the very idea of a woman asking the man out on a date, or asking for his number, has never even occurred to them. Why? Because it's assumed that the female romantic role is to "send signals" to the male, which is an invitation for him to approach the female.

[velvette]

I have never dated a jerk, nor would I be interested, no matter how much testosterone he possessed. conscious, subconscious, whatever--I am stating a fact. and when I look around me towards successful relationships, I see men and women who are compassionate, understanding, and sensitive to each others' needs. NOT macho men with clingy women! perhaps our environment is just drastically different, but you can't summarily say ALL women like manly men but just "deny" it.

 

I'm not saying I'd go for wimps, but it's obvious from the replies here that most women care more about a guy's overall character than how manly he is. character translates to integrity, morals, intelligence, etc. NOT how much facial hair he has, or how dominant he is. meanwhile confidence and assertiveness are attractive qualities regardless, it does not make a man 'manlier', it makes him more attractive. JUST like it does for a woman! is a woman 'manlier' because she's assertive and confident? no, she's just got good self-esteem, and people of both genders can (and should strive to) have that!

 

 

I do agree that, it is almost a rule that men should do the asking out. but that's only because our society is still sexist, not because it ought to be a rule. and anyway, people break that rule all the time. my best friend asked her boyfriend out, and is going to give him some rings this summer.

[-John-]

You say this...

 

perhaps our environment is just drastically different, but you can't summarily say ALL women like manly men but just "deny" it.

 

...which is then followed by this...

 

I'm not saying I'd go for wimps

 

So, ask yourself, what is a "wimp" (for a male)? It is, as I have repeatedly said before, a wuss, pushover guy, which you admit you do not want. A woman, on the other hand, can get away with displaying those same submissive qualities, which is why their opposite are masculine qualities. It is not a stigma for women, while a male who displays those submissive qualities is looked down upon with much greater condemnation. It is his shame. It has nothing to do with facial hair (don't know where you got that from).

 

it's obvious from the replies here that most women care more about a guy's overall character than how manly he is. character translates to integrity, morals, intelligence, etc.

 

Sort of. They want manliness and masculinity (assertiveness, dominance, protectiveness), though they are unwilling or unable to admit it. But they also want that masculinity expressed in a constructive and loving way: in other words, a gentleman.

 

This is what younger women don't understand yet, but after being burned by the jerks, they eventually come to learn with experience. Their primal subconscious is still attracted to masculinity; but their intellect (with the help of being burned by jerks) learns to discern the men who express their masculinity constructively and lovingly, the gentlemen. Of course, many women never learn this, and become bitter and resentful, thinking that ALL men must be jerks (you see this all the time).

[velvette]

I'm saying I don't "go for" a 'manly' man OR a 'wimpy' man. it's not either this or that, A or B. I don't like guys because they are MANLY or because they are WIMPY, but because of who they are as people. and by the way, I have had a crush on a very much wimpy guy, but it's not like I had a crush on him BECAUSE of his wimpyness. manliness/wimpiness had nothing to do with it!

 

I am a 'younger woman', and I have never been burned by a jerk. ;P and I am in a loving relationship thank you very much!

[-John-]

I don't like guys because they are MANLY or because they are WIMPY, but because of who they are as people.

 

Your intellect picks and chooses the people. But your subconscious -- indeed most females' subconscious -- respond with attraction to masculinity. It's just natural.

 

Again, this is all psychology and social science. Fascinating stuff, actually.

 

So, this wimpy guy you have a crush on: How much female attention does he get?

[velvette]

hey, he just needs one female. he's actually very well-liked. if you want to talk about popularity in relation to manliness, I can tell you there's this guy I know just DRIPPING with testosterone, always assertive, dominant, and loooves the ladies. however, most normal females steer clear of him, as he's clearly got issues with being a wannabe player. so he gets no steady girlfriends, because nobody can take his... manliness.

 

I just find it quite patronizing that you say this is "all psychology and social science", as if that proves anything. social science works on a general level, not an individual level. as for psychology, it's not a hard science. you can't take a theory and blanket-apply it to the world. you're telling me that you know better about what I like, than myself. on the pure basis that I'm female, even though you don't know me. gee, I sure feel agreeable now (not). ;P

[-John-]

I can tell you there's this guy I know just DRIPPING with testosterone, always assertive, dominant, and loooves the ladies. however, most normal females steer clear of him, as he's clearly got issues with being a wannabe player. so he gets no steady girlfriends, because nobody can take his... manliness.

 

Wrong again. There's nothing wrong with manliness. His problem is that he is expressing his masculinity in overtly destructive and negative ways, which women will see right through if it's blatant enough. He needs to express his masculinity in constructive, positive ways: to be a gentleman.

 

I just find it quite patronizing that you say this is "all psychology and social science", as if that proves anything. social science works on a general level, not an individual level. as for psychology, it's not a hard science. you can't take a theory and blanket-apply it to the world.

 

We humans like to think we're more complicated than we really are. Deep down, we still have some basic, primal drives that we can't help. Most women being predominantly attracted to assertive, dominant, protective men is just "one of those things" that is embedded in our psychology.

[bulletproof]

Nope. I have looked at EVERYONE as individuals throughout my entire life, including women.

 

I am basing my opinions on your prior posts, and it sounds to me like you saw females as this elusive group of people that you placed on a pedestal in your mind and rendered unapproachable. That is not viewing someone as an individual. Now you have simply swung in the other direction.

 

That's why you consistently see men advised on this forum to "get more confidence" or "be more assertive" in order to have more success with women. However, women who have trouble with men are often given different advice: they are told to "send signals" to men to let them know you are interested. It's almost as if the very idea of a woman asking the man out on a date, or asking for his number, has never even occurred to them. Why? Because it's assumed that the female romantic role is to "send signals" to the male, which is an invitation for him to approach the female.

 

You unfortunately see that advice given because so many guys here are looking for cold approaches when they barely know a woman. Real life does not often work that way- there is usually no question of asking for numbers, approaching, etc., because people meet in natural situations such as work, school, etc. and begin spending time together, usually on the same page as each other.

 

In other words, life is not remotely as black and white as you've painted here. I think it will be interesting to see if your perspective changes after you've had some dating experience.

[-John-]

I am basing my opinions on your prior posts, and it sounds to me like you saw females as this elusive group of people that you placed on a pedestal in your mind and rendered unapproachable. That is not viewing someone as an individual. Now you have simply swung in the other direction.

 

True. I did view women that way. But no longer. In fact, I'm beginning to realize most of the women whom I did put on a pedestal were not worthy of my attention. My awakening has been awesome in that respect. Women do not like guys who put them on a pedestal because -- say it with me -- it makes them look like wusses.

 

I think it will be interesting to see if your perspective changes after you've had some dating experience.

 

Ironically, it's because I have learned these facts that I might actually now attract a female and finally have some dating experience -- instead of someday becoming a 40-year-old dateless man still posting on this forum.

[velvette]

certainly human beings are simple enough creatures, and I'm not claiming to be complicated. on the contrary, you're trying to give all women - and therefore me - attributes that some of us simply do not possess. that doesn't simplify matters, it actually complicates things on an individualistic basis. it's like saying, all kids love candy! and if one kid doesn't like candy, instead of admitting there must be exceptions (quite a lot, actually), you wave your hand and say "oh that kid must still crave candy subconsciously, even if he won't admit it--because biologically this psychologically that!".

 

my boyfriend did put me on a pedestal at first, and still does to some extent--and I like it. ;P it doesn't make me think of him as a wuss, but rather it makes me feel loved and appreciated.

[-John-]

it's like saying, all kids love candy! and if one kid doesn't like candy, instead of admitting there must be exceptions (quite a lot, actually), you wave your hand and say "oh that kid must still crave candy subconsciously, even if he won't admit it--because biologically this psychologically that!"

 

Terrible analogy. But I do still contend that most women are attracted to those masculine qualities. The "exceptions" come from the intellect picking and choosing which male to respond to based on maturity and experience.

 

I refuse to put women on a pedestal any longer. (1) It's not healthy for anyone to do that (male or female), (2) women are not attracted to men who do this (if they are not already dating them) because it makes them look weak and like wusses, and most importantly (3) a true gentleman should never put a woman on a pedestal, since he is confident and sure in himself.

 

By the way, I thought dramallama would have come more to my defense here, since she is the one who suggested these articles to me some time ago, which pretty much say the same thing I've been saying:

 

link removed

 

I've done other research on my own which confirm them, but those were good too.

[Jake]

My research has also unfortunately come to the same conclusion that John has come to. What John is describing are very good qualities that a guy should have in order to maintain a stable relationship. I now see gentlemen as the middle of the "spectrum" or "perfect" as far as what a man should be.

 

Players, jerks are on one end of the spectrum that's full of spontaneity, drama, humor and sex.

 

Shy, wussy, passive-aggressive males are on the other end and tend to have sensitivity, romance, intimacy and attentiveness (a.k.a "clingyness").

 

What I've described I realize are rather huge generalizations and are not necessarily the "ends" of the spectrum but humor me for a second longer.

 

 

Now I can think we can all agree that either personality is "too much of one thing" and the volatility of those personality traits make it hard to maintain the relationship for the long-term road. I realize any women can argue that the perfect gentlemen described is not her "ideal" man and how dare say I know what she likes better then her own self? This, I can't argue with because naturally, I'm not her. Still bare with me for just a little longer, note, how I put guys on a varying spectrum of personalities? Guess what I'm going to do with women now... Yep they're on a varying spectrum as well. Everyone is different, everyone was in a unique household that was not perfect or "ideal" to grow up in as a child because our parents weren't perfect either!

 

People are not perfect and so there's somebody for anybody. So in fact, I can still argue my point lol! The sad truth is that if the world was perfect, men would be confident in being a gentlemen and women would confident in being a lady but the truth of the matter is, the world is broken and full of broken people. That's why there's expressions like, "he/she completes me", "she/he is my better half," and so on.

 

Overall, the best thing anybody can do is strive to find that middle spectrum, to find your weaknesses and work on them. To gain that confidence, assertiveness, happiness, kindness, maturity, stability, humor, gentleness, sensitivity, strength, knowledge and loving of oneself so when the time comes you're ready to meet that special someone. I've also found that a strong long-term relationship in of itself also continues to mold a person to be better for their significant other and themselves as a whole. So "self-improvement" never really ends at the beginning of a relationship, it's just getting started.

 

Okay, I've dove off the deep end here, sorry for my blabber, I'm done lol!

[velvette]

Terrible analogy. But I do still contend that most women are attracted to those masculine qualities. The "exceptions" come from the intellect picking and choosing which male to respond to based on maturity and experience.

 

I refuse to put women on a pedestal any longer. (1) It's not healthy for anyone to do that (male or female), (2) women are not attracted to men who do this (if they are not already dating them) because it makes them look weak and like wusses, and most importantly (3) a true gentleman should never put a woman on a pedestal, since he is confident and sure in himself.

a terrible analogy for a terrible generalization (that you seem to think applies to EVERYone, not even 'most' women?). and the people who don't neatly fit into your generalization, you STILL lump in since "oh, they just used their conscious to choose, but their subconscious remains the same". I was 18 when I chose my first boyfriend. I had neither maturity nor experience, but I chose the guy who was nice to me, who cherished me--NOT the other guys chasing me who exuded confidence but didn't seem as smitten. I was his first girlfriend too, so he had no knowledge about "playing it cool" or all those other advice books. his friend, who read a lot of those 'advice books', is able to easily get women--but unable to keep them. he gets into a new relationship every couple months, since after he snags a girl (only a certain type, too, who happens to like that sort of confident manly man) he doesn't know what else to do! he wasn't being himself when he got with them, so it's hard to maintain a relationship based on a facade.

 

what do you mean by 'pedestal' anyway, perhaps we are just disagreeing on the definition of the word. yes, it's bad for anyone to think another person is better than themselves, to compare them to angels or whatever. but it's nice to be thought highly of, respected, and loved. I feel more beautiful/wanted/perfect with him, than with anyone else. he knew he wanted to marry me before we started dating, and he told me I'm absolutely perfect (yes, even four years later). I really *like* that, and I don't want to settle for a guy that thinks I'm replaceable or less than awesome. he thinks I'm perfect, with all my faults, and if that's not putting-on-pedestal I don't know what is. (mind, I think he's a pretty awesome person too, and haven't seen any better guys in my life) HOWEVER, I can see my life experience has been quite different from yours or that of a lot of people.

 

I've read that article before, and some points are good but most of it is just a heavy generalization (not to mention extremely sexist). great, as long as you remember that it's a *generalization*, meant to boost a guy's self-confidence. females and males are really not that different. most of us just want a best friend to share life with, who we happen to be also attracted to.

[Cheetarah]

When I think of pedestal, I think of glorifying and idealizing an individual. Elevate them above the common person. And I agree this is not a healthy thing to do - It's like handing your power over to someone. One of my exes did this with me and the thing with putting people on pedestals is that when they undoubtedly 'act human', it shatters the ideal and expectations that you've had in them, and ultimately this trust based on false idealizations. I was either on the pedestal or on the floor, no middle ground.

 

In -John-'s defense, he does tend to use the word 'most'. However, -John-, when you're given something that contends with your 'most'(hence, not all) statement, you pass it off as intellect vs. subconscious choice. So you're using the worst most but it appears simply for argument's sake, rather than accepting that there are women out there who are not attracted to assertive, dominant and protective men.

 

A study can NEVER conclude that 'all women' do this or 'all women' do that. There will always be exceptions to the "rule". You are not going to have any good dealings with women unless you stop talking in absolutes. People will resent you for trying to tell them how they feel when you're not living their lives.

 

And to entertain your idea of intellect vs. subconscious choice, say it is. Say that's the case, devil's advocate. Wouldn't you rather a woman pick you PRECISELY because she's attracted to your gentler, quiet nature, and attracted to you just the way you are, rather than based on what you're capable of being?

 

most of us just want a best friend to share life with, who we happen to be also attracted to.

 

Absolutely.