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

[90_hour_sleep]

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.

 

that's an awesome point. for me...i see a problem in seeking out an idealized partner in crime. the theoretical premise makes sense (ie. find someone who you are on very agreeable terms with...which will in turn minimize problems), but i don't see it translating accordingly in 'reality'. noone can ever live up to your ideals completely...because they're your ideals. i feel that relating to another person on these terms is detrimental to any future development. disagreement is at the core of any relationship. and i don't mean that in the sense of petty arguments...speaking more to major differences in perspective. it's these differences that actually promote growth. and without growth...the relationship won't thrive. you'll inevitably grow apart because you've never effectively learned how to move forward as a unit.

 

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.

 

to each his own. people are not defined in terms of absolutes.

 

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.

 

i get that vibe too, john. although...i wouldn't go so far as to say you won't have ANY good dealings with women...only that if you're not willing to make concessions...to listen and validate a woman's (any person, really) perspective, regardless of whether or not you agree...your interactions may tend to be strained. i have to agree with mintiya that a woman will indeed resent you if you attempt to tell her what she feels...even if you're indicating that it's on an unconscious level. relationships 101: never presume to know what another person feels. you will essentially invalidate the feeling...and this leads to barriers.

 

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?

 

just the way you are...authentic you. it's a good question.

[Cheetarah]

90, my friend How are you?

 

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.

 

i get that vibe too, john. although...i wouldn't go so far as to say you won't have ANY good dealings with women...only that if you're not willing to make concessions...to listen and validate a woman's (any person, really) perspective, regardless of whether or not you agree...your interactions may tend to be strained.

 

This was a bit of an absolute on my end, wasn't it? I'll correct myself.

 

"You are not going to have many good dealings unless you stop talking in absolutes" (lol)

 

Like 90 says, validation is very important. Validating doesn't mean "Yes dear, I agree", it's "I hear what you're saying. I don't share your viewpoint, but I see and understand how XYZ feeling is important to you and I respect that."

[90_hour_sleep]

 

This was a bit of an absolute on my end, wasn't it? I'll correct myself.

 

"You are not going to have many good dealings unless you start talking in absolutes" (lol)

 

Like 90 says, validation is very important. Validating doesn't mean "Yes dear, I agree", it's "I hear what you're saying. I don't share your viewpoint, but I see and understand how XYZ feeling is important to you and I respect that."

 

i think you did it on purpose.

 

you gave yourself the opportunity to show some humility. it's not all about being right...is it?

[-John-]

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.

 

Exactly. Again: a gentleman is a man who expresses his masculinity in positive and constructive ways. That's what I am aiming for in my life -- to develop and embrace my masculinity, but do so constructively and positively, which the jerks can't do.

 

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.

 

I have admitted there are exceptions. But people are more alike than they are different. Psychologically, this is what most women are attracted to -- dominance, confidence, assertiveness, being able to feel "protected" and "safe" with a man -- and, you know, that's okay.

 

Personally, I'm tired of complaining about that dynamic, and instead will work with it.

[Sim54]

Velvette, I really like the way you write, and the way you hold your own. It's rather assertive and quite dominant and very sexy!

Oh, I'm a man, I shouldn't be attracted to that. Oh, and I opened up and praised a female! Now I'm in trouble, she's gonna thing I'm a doormat or something.

Quick, what should i do?!

Run away, act cool, pretend I don't care, and tell her what to do! That's it.

 

;-)

[-John-]

Some comments from women in a different thread:

 

 

 

This one was a little disturbing, but not surprising:

 

It just so happens my boyfriend, with whom I am madly in love, IS a bad boy.... Does he mistreat me? Sometimes, but not horribly so...and always just enough to make me love him more.

 

Others:

 

Confidence, sarcasm/playfulness, a strong spine, and the ability to be dominant, these are essential for attraction.

 

I will say that women like any man with masculine qualities (confident, leadership abilities, assertive, decisive etc) who can be nurturing and supportive as well.

 

That last one is, once again, the definition of a gentleman.

[Cheetarah]

Velvette, I really like the way you write, and the way you hold your own. It's rather assertive and quite dominant and very sexy!

Oh, I'm a man, I shouldn't be attracted to that. Oh, and I opened up and praised a female! Now I'm in trouble, she's gonna thing I'm a doormat or something.

 

Simbad, we're going to put you in the isolation room, this is not acceptable behavior.

 

John, you've glazed over some of our questions. Benefit of the doubt that maybe you missed them since it is not very gentleman-like to ignore, I'll post them again-

 

what do you mean by 'pedestal' anyway, perhaps we are just disagreeing on the definition of the word.

 

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?

[-John-]

what do you mean by 'pedestal' anyway, perhaps we are just disagreeing on the definition of the word.

 

I define putting a woman on a "pedestal" this way: showering her with gifts and compliments, catering to her every whim and wish, giving her everything she asks for, and never saying "no" to her; treating her like she's God's gift on Earth. Little girls receive this kind of behavior, and I'm beginning to think many women grow up thinking this is how they should still be treated as adults.

 

But most women, ironically, don't like being treated this way. That's why they always ignore the "nice guys," who engage in this "pedestal-type" behavior. Women want a dominant man, someone who will take charge, stand up for himself, and stand up to her. Women frequently talk about how they see these guys as weak, doormats, push-overs, and they eventually get bored of these men.

 

 

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?

 

Apparently, what I want is irrelevant. I have to work with how the world is and how most women's minds operate. So I'm learning more about psychology; more specifically, the psychology of attraction. Very interesting stuff. Most people -- men and women -- can't control what they're attracted to. For most women, it's certain masculine qualities that trigger their attraction -- something deep in their primal nature.

 

Fine. I will work with that. I'm tired of complaining about it and will improve and develop what I should have anyway: my masculinity.

[Cheetarah]

I'll leave the first part for Velvette as that's her question.

 

Apparently, what I want is irrelevant. I have to work with how the world is and how most women's minds operate. So I'm learning more about psychology; more specifically, the psychology of attraction. Very interesting stuff. Most people -- men and women -- can't control what they're attracted to. For most women, it's certain masculine qualities that trigger their attraction -- something deep in their primal nature.

 

Fine. I will work with that. I'm tired of complaining about it and will improve and develop what I should have anyway: my masculinity.

 

Ok, so you've talked about what women are attracted to, based on the psychology of attraction. What are men supposed to be attracted to, based on this science?

 

In many circumstances I'd recommend 'rolling with the punches', but in the case of your identity, who you are - I can't see one solid reason to compromise it to appease anyone else. Attracting women based on a guise? Never compromise your core for someone, John. If they won't take you as you are they are wrong, wrong, wrong for you and don't deserve you, and in the long-run your relationships with them are going to fall apart because there's not a whole of genuine there to sustain it.

[Unknown1607307972]

What is meant as a real man?

 

I mean I like a man who is a man, but that doesn't mean he should be dominant over me nor should he take charge over me. To be confident and assertive is a great thing, I don't need a man to constantly appease me. However I am quite a firm person and I don't want to be dominated over, that is something I find a turn off as I feel degraded. A man is my equal, he should be a man in his own way, he should stand up for what he wants, but not in a way that oppresses me because being female does not make me submissive. Compromise is the key with both genders. I am not the stereotype gender role example of a woman so the stereotype of a man would clash with me.

[velvette]

Velvette, I really like the way you write, and the way you hold your own. It's rather assertive and quite dominant and very sexy!

Oh, I'm a man, I shouldn't be attracted to that. Oh, and I opened up and praised a female! Now I'm in trouble, she's gonna thing I'm a doormat or something.

Quick, what should i do?!

Run away, act cool, pretend I don't care, and tell her what to do! That's it.

 

;-)

haha, you doormate you! now I'm going to openly applaud you but, unbeknownst to all (save -John-), in my subconscious I'll have relegated you to nothing but a weak wuss. better tell me what to do soon! ...not.

 

 

I define putting a woman on a "pedestal" this way: showering her with gifts and compliments, catering to her every whim and wish, giving her everything she asks for, and never saying "no" to her; treating her like she's God's gift on Earth. Little girls receive this kind of behavior, and I'm beginning to think many women grow up thinking this is how they should still be treated as adults.

 

But most women, ironically, don't like being treated this way. That's why they always ignore the "nice guys," who engage in this "pedestal-type" behavior. Women want a dominant man, someone who will take charge, stand up for himself, and stand up to her. Women frequently talk about how they see these guys as weak, doormats, push-overs, and they eventually get bored of these men.

thank you kindly for answering my question. glad to see you use more of 'most' instead of 'all, except for exceptions which still subconsciously prove me right anyway'. if you define pedestal as catering to each and every whim of a person, then I agree, nobody ought to be treated that way. it isn't a healthy relationship. however, when you love someone (or just majorly have a crush on them!), you WANT to do extra-nice things for them, within reason. I don't look for guys who purposefully stand up to me, I mean ok they might make good debate partners--but not boyfriends. a boyfriend is just a male best friend (to me), and as such we can agree to disagree. there's no "proving women are wrong/weaker" to make himself look more dominant, there's no power struggle at play in a healthy relationship. and why shouldn't he shower me with gifts and compliments, if I do the same for him too?

 

I have never talked about guys with my girlfriends as being weak, doormats, or push-overs (we have better things to talk about). oh, and my best friend is head-over-heels in love with a guy who's supernice to her, as is my other friend. there is one friend that prefers guys who are cold and gives her little (she is actually not attracted to nice guys!), BUT she has low self-esteem and all of her relationships have ended in heartbreak. it's almost like she seeks out relationships which will fail. cheating, disrespect, loveless. it seems power plays lead to unbalanced, unhealthy relationships.

 

I see you've quoted a lot of random sentences supporting your logic. I could just as easily go back and quote just as many sentences (from this thread alone!) supporting MY logic. but of course you would point out that my quotes are ineffective since "it's all subconscious".

 

 

Apparently, what I want is irrelevant. I have to work with how the world is and how most women's minds operate. So I'm learning more about psychology; more specifically, the psychology of attraction. Very interesting stuff. Most people -- men and women -- can't control what they're attracted to. For most women, it's certain masculine qualities that trigger their attraction -- something deep in their primal nature.

 

Fine. I will work with that. I'm tired of complaining about it and will improve and develop what I should have anyway: my masculinity.

I LOVE reading psychology books but I would never assume people can be so easily defined, or claim to know how most people's minds operate (how boring that would be!). while book knowledge is very useful, it can get tiring to always pretend to be something you're not. you already have masculinity, you should be more concerned with improving and developing your overall personality than how manly you are. I mean, I could certainly 'improve' on my girlyness, but it wouldn't necessarily make me a better person. instead I can work on being honest, hardworking, and understanding--which would indeed make me a better person to be around. I'm already a girl. I don't need to prove anything about being a girl. you're already a man; same thing.

 

 

 

Ok, so you've talked about what women are attracted to, based on the psychology of attraction. What are men supposed to be attracted to, based on this science?

I'd like to know your answer to this, and I also agree with the rest of Mintiya's reply!

[-John-]

I can't see one solid reason to compromise it to appease anyone else. Attracting women based on a guise? Never compromise your core for someone, John. If they won't take you as you are they are wrong, wrong, wrong for you and don't deserve you, and in the long-run your relationships with them are going to fall apart because there's not a whole of genuine there to sustain it.

 

I don't see it as "compromising my identity." I see it as developing my identity -- and at long last, I might add. Masculinity is (or should be) an integral part of my identity anyway, because that is my nature as a human male. I want to be a BETTER MAN to improve myself (be more assertive, dominant, etc.). Greater success with women will just be the inevitable benefit of that effort.

 

I see you've quoted a lot of random sentences supporting your logic. I could just as easily go back and quote just as many sentences (from this thread alone!) supporting MY logic.

 

Like I've repeatedly said before, I'm not surprised that women would deny it. Our Western, increasingly liberalized culture has turned "masculine" into a Bad Word, so of course modern women would not openly admit being attracted to masculine qualities, even if they don't consciously realize that's what they're attracted to. I noted the comments in that other thread because that's an occasion where the truth came out.

[-John-]

And to answer this question...

 

Ok, so you've talked about what women are attracted to, based on the psychology of attraction. What are men supposed to be attracted to, based on this science?

 

In their primal brains, men are primarily attracted to physical characteristics; women are primarily attracted to personality characteristics (dominance, assertiveness, cunning and intelligence). From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense, as it was the man who had to display those qualities if he was to be respected in the social group or tribe. Women didn't need that much intelligence to get attraction from males (no offense), so physical characteristics became the primary attraction "trigger" in the primal male brain.

 

Now, of course we have our intellect to pick choose other qualities we are looking for in a mate. But when it comes to attraction, we have surprisingly little control over that. Men are attracted by physical characteristics; women are attracted by masculine qualities (assertiveness, dominance, etc.).

[velvette]

I see you've quoted a lot of random sentences supporting your logic. I could just as easily go back and quote just as many sentences (from this thread alone!) supporting MY logic.

 

Like I've repeatedly said before, I'm not surprised that women would deny it. Our Western, increasingly liberalized culture has turned "masculine" into a Bad Word, so of course modern women would not openly admit being attracted to masculine qualities, even if they don't consciously realize that's what they're attracted to. I noted the comments in that other thread because that's an occasion where the truth came out.

 

I see you've quoted a lot of random sentences supporting your logic. I could just as easily go back and quote just as many sentences (from this thread alone!) supporting MY logic. but of course you would point out that my quotes are ineffective since "it's all subconscious".

if you quote my whole sentence, you'll see that I've already guessed you'd refute it in that way. I'm not surprised that you dismissed my argument in that way! so all the women you quoted *supporting your logic* know exactly what they want and aren't hiding anything subconscious, but conveniently, when any women go against your logic, immediately they are 'denying' something. give me a break.

 

'masculine' is not a bad word at all. but strive to be a better PERSON, rather than clinically separating the sexes and wanting to be a better MAN. I am thinking it is a lost cause, you reply to so little of what I actually said, instead quoting the one thing where I could've already predicted your response.

[-John-]

I am thinking it is a lost cause, you reply to so little of what I actually said, instead quoting the one thing where I could've already predicted your response.

 

That's because, to be honest, I'm growing tired of this conversation, and am now done with it. I'm quite comfortable with where I stand and the new facts that I've learned. I am nurturing my masculinity, becoming a better man, and will be more successful overall (not just with women).

 

And, more importantly, I will not be condemned to become a 40-year-old dateless man still posting on this forum.

[velvette]

I suppose desperate times call for desperate actions, and I in no way wish you ill will. on the contrary, I hope whatever you do works out for you, even if it won't work for everyone! though, it is dangerous to think of generalizations as 'facts'.

 

it's a funny thing though, I read that sexist men do better in the workplace than men who believe in equality. men who view women as lower, who take pride in their masculinity--often sit in higher ranks. what a world! I maintain hope for true equality, someday.

[Nerdyjock]

it's definitely subjective - but MY Definition of a "real" man?

 

A real man is a guy that has the perfect balance of sensitivity and ambition. He goes after exactly what he wants, and he has a soft side. Perfect combination in my eyes.

[Nerdyjock]

it's a funny thing though, I read that sexist men do better in the workplace than men who believe in equality. men who view women as lower, who take pride in their masculinity--often sit in higher ranks. what a world! I maintain hope for true equality, someday.

 

I don't doubt this finding; but when it comes to scientific data you have to start dissecting the variables. How did they define "doing better in the workplace"? Do they mean making more money? More satisfication with their job? Happier in general? More promotions? More raises? etc. I think the answer to that really twists the interpretation of that finding.

 

On the contrary, middle/older aged white men in middle and upper class make up the highest suicide group in the united states. It would be interesting to see if there is any relationship between these two. Yea I know it's random that I brought up this, but it seemed relevant depending how the study you referenced defines "doing better in the workplace".

[Sim54]

Masculinity is not gender specific, and nor is femininity. Ultimately, we are all both masculine and feminine, with our core residing in one place.

I read somewhere that the most attractive qualities in anyone are kindness and intelligence. Kindness doesn't mean niceness, but if you look at the etymology of the word kind, it has as it's base the word kin, also found in kindred. In other words, to be kind is treat another as if they belong, as if they are your kin. We all seek acceptance, and it is being welcomed into the fold, so to speak that draws us to another. i feel that this sits below mere behavioural traits, and whilst certain masculine and feminine traits are more attractive than others, we as a species should not keep harkening back to way the way things were, but keep allowing evolution to move us along, not just biologically, but socially and intellectually as well. As we mature individually, and as a species (we still haven't come close to fulfilling our potential as a species) then we can make new choices about who we pair up with that go beyond simple knee jerk emotional or biological stimulation, and instead choose someone for other reasons, intelligence for example, or companionship. I know many women who don't go for dominant and masculine men.

 

If a woman is capable of taking care of herself and enjoys being dominant, then she isn't going to choose a guy so he can take care of her. It's not difficult to see this.

 

It's so much more interesting to talk individually, rather than make sweeping statements. I would say that above all, authenticity trumps most other things in the attraction stakes. Be yourself, what that is. But first take the time to really discover WHO you are, so you can express that.

 

Peace.

[hrtlsngl7]

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.

 

Yeah, I'm trying to work on my communication skills BrokenSmile. Yes, I am truly looking 4 a sounding board. I just like -John-'s answer. It wasn't the answer I was looking 4 and really I'm interested in female perspectives. I'm not gonna validate whether the qualities that -John- stated were what every woman want. It is just in line with the traditional role that men were playing from a male perspective.

[hrtlsngl7]

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.

 

-JOHN-was simply going w/ research, his experience, and his resolution about how he wants to be percieved by females. Females seem to be offended or dislike his view/assertion of masculinity and attack him.

[hrtlsngl7]

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

 

Very to the pt., Quirky I find that "doesn't fully understand women" part VERY interesting.

[hrtlsngl7]

4 us men, life is pretty black and white. We have to make quick decisions to get what we want. Such as a seeing REALLY beautiful woman who we know nothing about (but want to know) in public. We have to think of something witty & clever to say on the spot to break the ice, develop some unawkward conversation on the spot, and somehow get some valid contact info...if we haven't been rejected already. We have all of 30-120 seconds to do that b4 the woman walks away, FOREVER. We don't have time in that instant to figure out who she is as an individual and all that. -THEN call/contact in the appropriate amount of time that doesn't communicate us as clingy or desperate. We to make quick decisions in a yes/no black/white situation. Woman aren't going to approach us.

[Sparkly Eyes]

hmmm real man...I think he is

 

Very confident and secure in himself. (not threatened by confident, intelligent women for example)

Generous and caring about the community he lives in and his family and friends. ( This one is really important!)

Has goals/passions that don't only revolve around himself and he is not afraid to go for them.

Is physically active. (Can't think of a couch potato as a "real" man)

Loves women and intimacy and knows (or cares to learn) how to please a woman.

 

haha, I think I just described my dream "real" man!

[hrtlsngl7]

Velvette, I really like the way you write, and the way you hold your own. It's rather assertive and quite dominant and very sexy!

Oh, I'm a man, I shouldn't be attracted to that. Oh, and I opened up and praised a female! Now I'm in trouble, she's gonna thing I'm a doormat or something.

Quick, what should i do?!

Run away, act cool, pretend I don't care, and tell her what to do! That's it.

 

;-)

 

You have the right to remain silent. Turn in your balls in and put your hands on the vehicle. *kidding* Stop sucking up Simbad54 she's in a 4 year relationship. How Velvette writes is as if the research -JOHN- has done is invalid because SHE is the exception to the rule supposedly making the info completely invalid. She also seem to have feminist qualities which isn't the majority of females in the population. ACADEMIC quantitative research (which I'm assuming -JOHN- has done) samples a wide cross-section of the population to be able to hit as many of the spectrums/possibilities of opinions and come up with what the average opinion. Velvette nor ENA isn't a large enough sample of people to be viable because it doesn't include all the other people on the internet and those who are not on the internet. -JOHN- has to use this research as he cannot do QUALITATIVE research which is personally interviewing 1000+ woman on how a man should be then responding accordingly. It's just not feasible.