Dating question I can't really answer

[TheRobin]

In a recent call-in show I hear Stef saying that a good question to ask a date is what they think the other gender brings to the table in a relationship (or to the world as a whole). (As in "What do men/women bring to the world/partnership/marriage?")

 

I find that question extremely difficult to answer for me, no matter which gender. Maybe it's just my huge lack of experience in dating (never had a  girlfriend so far and basically never had a date, am 30 years old atm), but I find it hard to think in terms of genders in such a manner. Like I don't think I would ever say that "men" as a whole bring (or don't bring) anything particular to the world/partnership and I wouldn't even know what that could be. And the same with women of course.

 

I don't know if anyone has any pointers/opinions on that please let me know. And/Or How would you answer that question when asked by your date?

[MMX2010]

I find that question extremely difficult to answer for me, no matter which gender. Maybe it's just my huge lack of experience in dating (never had a  girlfriend so far and basically never had a date, am 30 years old atm), but I find it hard to think in terms of genders in such a manner. Like I don't think I would ever say that "men" as a whole bring (or don't bring) anything particular to the world/partnership and I wouldn't even know what that could be. And the same with women of course.

 

Do you believe that the genders are biologically wired so differently that empathy between the genders requires obviously noticeable (to outside observers) personal effort OR do you believe that the genders are biologically wired so similarly that empathy between the genders requires no effort at all?

[TheRobin]

Do you believe that the genders are biologically wired so differently that empathy between the genders requires obviously noticeable (to outside observers) personal effort OR do you believe that the genders are biologically wired so similarly that empathy between the genders requires no effort at all?

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean. Can you give me an example of how it would look like if it required noticable personal effort?

 

Like, I've had a lot of trouble having any empathy most of my life and thanks to a lot of self-therapy and changes in my life I got to a point where I can feel emapthy again both for myself and others, but so far I haven't noticed a difference as to my approach to women or men. It's usually more a thing of whether the other person has empathy or not which will change how I feel about them (and how open/empathetic I express myself towards them).

[MMX2010]

Can you give me an example of how it would look like if it required noticable personal effort?

 

When I post links, my posts have to be vetted by moderators. 

 

So if you google "the rational male empathy" and click on the first link, that article gives a lovely example of "empathy between the genders requiring personal effort". 

 

(Basically, the author, (a man), suffered a stress fracture in his foot and was verbalizing how much it hurt.  Both his wife and daughter responded that "Men are such pussies..." without realizing either that their response was non-empathetic or that their similar complaints are met with empathy from both genders.) 

 

 

 

 

Like, I've had a lot of trouble having any empathy most of my life and thanks to a lot of self-therapy and changes in my life I got to a point where I can feel emapthy again both for myself and others, but so far I haven't noticed a difference as to my approach to women or men. It's usually more a thing of whether the other person has empathy or not which will change how I feel about them (and how open/empathetic I express myself towards them).

 

Do you notice that you've subtly altered my question from, "Do you think empathy between the genders requires noticeable personal effort?" to "Do you think empathy in general is possessed equally by both genders?" 

 

I'm not mad that you did it.  Nor am I surprised.  But did you notice the change? 

[hannahbanana]

I think there are two ways I could interpret the question proposed by Stef: the question is either meant to give you information as to what the other person thinks about a gender as a whole, and/or it gives you information as to what they expect in a relationship. And those two possibilities are also probably linked. For example, it could tell you if the other person has an obvious dislike or negative association with the gender, while also holding them to high relationship standards (ex. I want you, as a man, to be reliable and do whatever handy-man work there is around the house, but I expect that I'll need to nag and complain about it before you do anything), which is a big red flag. I think that might be why it is such a useful question to ask.

 

This may be difficult for you to think about this question because you've said that you don't really make generalizations or haven't had enough experiences to be able to notice trends in behavior. This isn't bad, I think, because the answer to the question can be basically anything, even if you just said what you did now in this thread. That response would say something about you, for your date to make of it what they will. I don't think there's one right or wrong answer (although some may be very obviously wrong ).

[J. D. Stembal]

In a recent call-in show I hear Stef saying that a good question to ask a date is what they think the other gender brings to the table in a relationship (or to the world as a whole). (As in "What do men/women bring to the world/partnership/marriage?")

 

I find that question extremely difficult to answer for me, no matter which gender. Maybe it's just my huge lack of experience in dating (never had a  girlfriend so far and basically never had a date, am 30 years old atm), but I find it hard to think in terms of genders in such a manner. Like I don't think I would ever say that "men" as a whole bring (or don't bring) anything particular to the world/partnership and I wouldn't even know what that could be. And the same with women of course.

 

I don't know if anyone has any pointers/opinions on that please let me know. And/Or How would you answer that question when asked by your date?

 

If you can't think of any answer, you probably shouldn't be dating as of yet. You are asking your prospective spouse how she envisions your relationship. The questions usually revolve around familial roles, money, children, religion, and philosophy.

 

I would date a woman who desires state interference to be removed from our daily lives and human interactions. I would date a woman who has a rational relationship with her family, or none at all. I would date a woman who is not only willing to have a male child rearer, but welcomes it.

 

You may have differing criteria, but those are mine.

[Kevin Beal]

I think this a super fascinating topic and I also have some trouble answering it, but that may be due to my lack of romantic experience as well. (I suspect that's a very big reason for it). I was reading an article today actually about this subject. It's really hard to find anything with the search term "what women love about men". It's usually shallow as hell, or ironic in how anti-male it is. But there is an article on PsychologyToday with that title, and here's what women said:

 

 

 

“I like the serene and effortlessly sexy way they carry themselves when they feel like they’re in control... Here are some examples: carrying a big load of groceries into the house, checking the oil of the car, arranging his fantasy football league, killing a creepy bug in the basement, opening a jar for me, or driving a stick shift. When he’s in this relaxed state of control, all I can do is melt and admire.”

 

“What do I like most about men? Their simplicity ....sex and food.”

 

“They tend to be less catty than females, and often present themselves in a way closer to that which they really are.”

 

“The way their hugs feel, so strong and protective.”

 

“Once they have made up their minds, they usually stick with it.”

 

“They can be so cute and funny when they really want to be!”

 

“They’re easy going and uncomplicated.”

 

“...Their boyishness. The sense of humor and play that some men have is by far what I like most.”

 

“Men are easy going and don’t sweat the small stuff.”

 

“Humor. Protectiveness. Strength.”

 

“I like that men are usually more forthright about their thoughts. I like that men can disagree with each other and that doesn’t seriously endanger their relationships. I like how men are more free to express their sense of humor. I like more than anything else, the combination of power (with the inherent potential to destroy) coupled with the man’s choice for tenderness.”

 

“Their confidence, strength, and tendency to be easy-going.”

 

“I actually love that men are ‘doers’: that they want to help you fix your problems and offer solutions. If I want to just bitch about something, I tell them that upfront, but otherwise it’s nice to have some fresh perspective about what to do.”

 

“I LOVE that men don’t gossip like women, and they tend not to make all sorts of generally baseless judgments about everyone and their business. You wouldn’t believe how much women can tear people down about all kinds of trivial stuff.”

 

“I envy many of the abilities that seem innate to men; the ability to not internalize, they often seem to have better control of their emotions, forgive quicker and easier.”

 

“I like that men are logical thinkers. That their world is usually black and white. I like that they are daredevils at times and over-protective at other times.”

 

“Their sense of humor, their masculinity and strength.”

 

“Their straightforwardness. Their focus on problem-solving.”

 

“They seem to forgive and move on very easily.”

 

“Their bodies.”

 

“...and a nice butt doesn’t hurt!”

 

“Men don’t understand how very much we need them. It is so in vogue nowadays to act like we are so independent, and have no need of men in our lives. But it simply isn’t true. We are lonely without you.”

 

I really wish I'd heard that last one from any woman in my life. I deeply resent that this is such a secret.

 

I might squirm in the hot seat if a date asked me straight up what I value about women, but the benefit of the written word is that I can ponder on it a while and rewrite things, so here goes:

 

• I value the awareness women tend to have around maintaining relationships and appearances. If it weren't for the women in my life, I'd be wearing sweat pants everywhere and socks with sandals. I'd also be neglecting positive relationships more.
• I value the fact that women understand other women and can help me avoid toxic female nastiness out there, or defend me against it. I don't know how to combat it, really.
• I value the deep intimacy that women could provide me. There are certain touchy subjects that I don't have any desire to discuss with my male friends, or I'd rather talk about it with someone I'm in love with and who I share my life with. Women seem to be able to talk about any intimate subjects with their girlfriends, but it doesn't seem to be nearly the case for guys with their "boyfriends". The fact that it's awkward to describe myself as having "boyfriends" is testament to that fact, I think.
• I value women's desire to have a nice living environment and have nice things. It's not something I would spend too much time thinking about without women being involved in the calculation, but it is definitely a big plus to have a nice living environment and nice atmosphere.

[Pepin]

To answer the question for myself...

 

I am split on an completely individualistic mentality where you don't assume anything, and a somewhat statistical mentality where I make guesses based on statistics I've read and patterns I've observed.

 

I really want to judge each person entirely as an individual, but most people seem to want me to make assumptions about them according to their gender.

 

To tell a story, a few years back I used to use the individualistic mentality pretty exclusively. I was training someone at my job, and they said something about a coworker being a lesbian. I was surprised and said "I didn't know she was a lesbian". They seemed confused and asked if I thought they were a lesbian. I said I didn't know. They laughed about it and pointed out all of the other lesbians I didn't know I worked with and said "these are the biggest dykes I've ever seen, I don't know how you can't see what they are so obviously trying to tell everyone".

 

After this, I began to realize that people are trying to tell you about themselves through how they dress and present themselves, and that it isn't wrong to make assumptions.

 

A girl who has short hair and dresses like a man is likely trying to signal to others that she is gay. A girl who wears a lot of makeup, always has sexy clothes on, and who watches too many romantic comedies is likely trying to signal to others that she is stereotypically feminine and will likely freak out if she breaks a nail. A man who wears sports jerseys too often is trying to tell you that he is into sports and not into talking about anything of substance. A female who wears a camo jacket and has mud boots on can likely be assumed to like off roading and hunting.

 

With various signals, we can guess certain things about the person. There are also some tendencies which just seem pretty true. Most men don't want to date a girl who is taller than them, and most girls don't want to date a guy who is shorter than them. Most girls find babies very cute, while guys tend to think they look like aliens. Why these things tend to be true doesn't matter, it just allows me to make some educated guesses.

 

It isn't that I am basing someone off a conceptualization, but rather that I am using it to make predictions, some which will be right and some which will be wrong. The point is to learn more about them as an individual, rather than deriving a person's identity through their characteristics.

 

Also, like in the story above, people are often confused when you don't assume stereotypes, and I don't like feeling dumb.

[Bouncelot]

10 or so years ago I was in much the same position. I was aware of the question, even had some ideas (first round draft) on how I would answer the female side, but I was completely unable to answer what I brought to the table. What I didn't understand then is that after years of self erasure, after being exposed to many toxic women, I had not been "allowed" to see myself in that respect.

 

That was part of the issue. The other part was I had not had enough intimate relationships to even understand what I really wanted from a woman, and why I desired them so much (beyond the physical). It took a lot of years of self discovery, and many dating mistakes to finally be able to answer that question for myself. It wasn't until about a year ago when I met my last girlfriend that we found ourselves discussing this very topic, that I was surprised to discover I now had my answer to that.

 

I think the path to the answer is different for everyone. For me I needed to make a few mistakes and bumble about a bit to get there. I don't have FDR to help me (Only discovered it 2 years ago); and it was only recently that I have started therapy.

[MMX2010]

 

I really wish I'd heard that last one from any woman in my life. I deeply resent that this is such a secret.

 

Rollo Tomassi explains it beautifully, in just three paragraphs: 

 

"The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you.

 

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

 

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her."

 

 

 

 

 

I might squirm in the hot seat if a date asked me straight up what I value about women, but the benefit of the written word is that I can ponder on it a while and rewrite things, so here goes:

 

• I value the awareness women tend to have around maintaining relationships and appearances. If it weren't for the women in my life, I'd be wearing sweat pants everywhere and socks with sandals. I'd also be neglecting positive relationships more.
• I value the fact that women understand other women and can help me avoid toxic female nastiness out there, or defend me against it. I don't know how to combat it, really.
• I value the deep intimacy that women could provide me. There are certain touchy subjects that I don't have any desire to discuss with my male friends, or I'd rather talk about it with someone I'm in love with and who I share my life with. Women seem to be able to talk about any intimate subjects with their girlfriends, but it doesn't seem to be nearly the case for guys with their "boyfriends". The fact that it's awkward to describe myself as having "boyfriends" is testament to that fact, I think.
• I value women's desire to have a nice living environment and have nice things. It's not something I would spend too much time thinking about without women being involved in the calculation, but it is definitely a big plus to have a nice living environment and nice atmosphere.

 

What strikes me most about your list is that you can get all but the Third item from men. 

 

The Roosh V Forum has many threads devoted to male fashion, so that scratches Item #1. 

 

Both Stefan and the Roosh V Forum speak extensively about identifying and avoiding toxic women, so that eliminates Item #2.  (You haven't lived until you've heard the phrase "Thousand Cock Stare"...) 

 

And you can just will yourself into #4.    Ideally, you'll become wealthier with age.  And when you live alone, you'll gravitate towards creating a beautiful environment for yourself. 

[MMX2010]

My answer to this dating question is controversial, but I can back it up. 

 

First of all, remember that my answers change significantly if I decide I want to have children. 

 

Secondly, the following two items are facts: (1) During the past sixty years or so, both government and media have spent so much money raising the self-esteem of women that the current generation of women (aged 20-45) are the second-most coddled, pampered, and entitled women in human history.  Their daughters will be the most.  (2) During the past thirty years or so, the prevalence of mental disorders among women aged 20-45, (such as depression, manic-depression, BPD, personality disorders, attachment disorders, NPD, and so on), has never been higher. 

 

Everyone reacts to these two facts differently.  Some dismiss the second fact as being caused by pharmaceutical companies advertising drugs like Prozac and Abilify.  Some dismiss both facts as being coincidental.  But I think the first fact actually causes the second fact.  In other words, depression in women has maximized BECAUSE women's freedom and expectations to make something of themselves, (i.e. without men), have also maximized. 

 

Give a woman freedom to succeed "without a man", and she inevitably experiences great anxiety that she'll never find "a good man".  Give a woman freedom to express herself, and she'll inevitably complain about smaller and smaller problems, in an attempt to find a man to solve those problems for her.  Give a woman freedom to vote, and she'll inevitably vote in larger and larger government to counteract her anxiety that she'll never find a loving, stable man to provide for her into her old age. 

 

Because of this, I experience condescension whenever I'm in a woman's presence.  When I'm not at peace, because I haven't fully embraced women's nature, my condescension is cold and/or angry.  But when I am at peace, because I've fully embraced women's nature and can laugh at it, my condescension is warm. 

 

It is entirely too much to expect a woman to realize that the condescension I feel is deserved.    That realization requires strength of character and independence of thought that would make women's current level of depression impossible.  So I think less than 5% of women can accept, if not embrace, my condescension towards them.  The rest will either respond warmly to my condescension, provided it is warm.  Or they'll reject it and try to "make something of themselves" without my influence.  My response to this is, "Good luck.  But please see the two facts which began this post." 

 

To respond warmly to my condescension is to sub-consciously acknowledge that her decisions and her thought-processes aren't leading to her own happiness, so she needs outside, objective input from a trusting male partner to help her achieve happiness.  She accepts that she needs to change some of her thoughts and actions but she neither knows how....nor which ones.  As a man, it's my job to provide objective input as to which ones...and how. 

 

In response to my input, a woman either changes immediately (good thing) or blatantly refuses (bad thing, and grounds for dumping), or refuses but eventually gives in (sort of good, but too much of that is grounds for dumping).  And as her changes take effective root, she becomes happier and hopefully grateful for my input.  (If she's foolish enough to think that she would've implemented those changes without my input, she's dumped.) 

 

Thus, the only virtue woman provide is pleasantness and happiness.  And the irony that we've expected so much more from women, but can't reasonably expect them to be any more than "pleasant" and "happy" is enough to make a man become extremely condescending.    Just make sure your condescension is warm and humorous, because cold and angry condescension doesn't benefit anyone. 

[Kevin Beal]

What strikes me most about your list is that you can get all but the Third item from men. 

It is also technically possible that women could be the emotionally stable one in the relationship, the one who takes charge and goes downstairs when you hear a noise that could be a burglar. It's technically possible that each sex could bring what the other does (except in a minority of physiological differences: e.x. pregnancy). But I think the generalities are important and prevalent enough to warrant description.

 

Men can also bring pleasantness and happiness, making the only virtue you say that women bring down to zero, right? That's the logic, isn't it? If the other sex can provide it, it no longer counts?

 

This is an important distinction to make for me, because I want to be able to say that men offer emotional stability and the other virtues I mentioned to relationships, and obviously that is generally true to a large enough degree to warrant description. But I can't say that if women are capable of those things, if I've understood you correctly. It's a double edge sword when you unsheath that standard.

 

This is not a logical proof, of course. Maybe we shouldn't say that men bring X and women bring Y unless it's impossible for the other sex to provide it. I'm just saying that I don't like the implications of it.

[MMX2010]

 

It is also technically possible that women could be the emotionally stable one in the relationship, the one who takes charge and goes downstairs when you hear a noise that could be a burglar.

 

It's not only technically possible, but it also happens often enough that one can compare the happiness levels in those relationships to that of other relationships.  Generally speaking, those women-take-charge relationships are much less happier, mostly because the woman doesn't actually enjoy being the emotional rock and because the man sub-consciously senses this and is constantly jealously looking out for more stable males who'll poach his wife. 

 

 

 

Men can also bring pleasantness and happiness, making the only virtue you say that women bring down to zero, right? That's the logic, isn't it? If the other sex can provide it, it no longer counts?

 

 

It's not "If the other sex can provide it, it no longer counts."  It's, "If the other sex is providing it at a level less than what you can provide, then it no longer counts." 

 

A woman's pleasantness counts if it's equally pleasant as mine.  But it counts only in the, "Well, at least you're not diminishing my level of pleasantness with your lack of pleasantness." frame.  So being equally pleasant to me is Zero Value, which is only beneficial compared to the large amount of Negative Value women who exist. 

 

A woman's pleasantness counts if it's significantly more pleasant as mine.  And it counts in the genuinely appreciative, "I'm glad she's more pleasant than me, because it helps me learn how to cultivate my own pleasantness.  Of, if it doesn't help me learn to do so, it gives me access to a level of pleasantness than I cannot provide for on my own." 

 

It's notable that few, if any, women think in these terms.  "Wait.  I have to provide him with something valuable that he, himself, doesn't possess, so that he'll actually appreciate me!?!?" is a revelation to the majority of women.  Instead, most women assume that they're automatically providing value to the relationship, (because modern society has inflated their self-esteem to very high levels).  And once they assume they're providing high value, they then attempt to extort as many resources as possible from men.  (In other words, the easiest way for women to "get what they want" from a relationship is to get the man to agree with her assumption that she's providing value.  Once a man agrees with that assumption, he'll then agree with all of her demands.  But if a man questions that assumption, she immediately dumps him, and finds another man who agrees with that assumption.) 

 

 

It's a double edge sword when you unsheath that standard.

 

 

It's both a double-edged sword and it's an amusing look into the causes of my condescension towards women.   

 

I don't know how much you read the Manosphere, but: (1) Rollo Tomassi is a psychology major who blogs about relationships.  (2) Roosh is a 30-something, independently wealthy world-traveler, who blogs about his experiences in foreign countries and advises men how to both make money and bang women.  (3) Roissy and Krauser are self-made men who've slept with hundreds (if not thousands) of women, and blog / sell books about banging women.  (4) Mike Cernovich and Victor Pride are self-made success stories who blog about mindset and self-improvement.  (5) Aaron Clarey, a.k.a. Captain Capitalism, is a forty-something self-made success story who gives no-B.S. economic advice to men, especially Millennials. 

 

These men don't agree on everything, but they firmly agree that a man MUST self-improve.  And their self-improvement advice, particularly on the psychology of relationships and the relationship expectations one acquired during childhood, is top-notch, scientifically-supported gold. 

 

So men in large numbers are embracing self-improvement, which is really humbly embracing the "I am the cause of my own problems." and "It doesn't matter that society has fucked me over royally, because I'm responsible for fixing the damage." paradigms. 

 

The amusing thing is that there is no corresponding movement for female self-improvement.  If anything, there's a very strong movement for anti self-improvement among females.  The fat-acceptance movement is comprised of women who get enraged when asked, "Have you dated any obese men lately?"  The tattoo-acceptance movement is mostly comprised of women.  And the constant accusations of "Misogyny!" are both never balanced out by accusations of misandry and are almost-always in response to suggestions that women self-improve. 

 

And MMX2010 said unto modern males, "Let there be condescension!", and there was condescension.  And MMX2010 saw that it was sometimes warm, sometimes angry.  So he divided the warm, amused condescension from the cold, bitter condescension.  And he called the warm condescension "healthy", and the cold condescension "poison".  Then he shook his head at the White Knights who altogether rejected the need for condescension.    

 

This condescension is necessary to prevent a man from accepting a woman's default assumption that she's providing value, and therefore empowers a man to question the nature and degree of the value that any woman provides. 

[Frederik]

My answer to this dating question is controversial, but I can back it up. [...]

 

May I ask what your history with intimate and platonic relationships with women looks like?

[MMX2010]

May I ask what your history with intimate and platonic relationships with women looks like?

 

If you browse the last two pages of Rainbow Jamz's topic, "How are piercings, tattoos, heavy makeup....?", you'll find a brief history of my long-term affair with an engaged woman.  (She wasn't engaged when I met her, but she became engaged to as time passed.)  The topic can be found under "General Messages", page one, about 75% of the way down. 

 

You will also read a brief synopsis of a marriage between a man who could be a great musician and a heavily tattoo'ed woman.  He used to be my best friend, but no longer.  Interestingly, I just learned yesterday that he hasn't been able to work a single day in over a month after I moved out, because he developed anxiety attacks.  When I first met him, (long before he even knew his future wife), the idea of him developing crippling anxiety attacks would've been laughably impossible.  But he doesn't realize that those crippling anxiety attacks are exactly what his wife feels about her own life, day in and day out - so he has literally (in my opinion) developed the same mental illness that his wife suffers from, in order to better empathize with who she is and hopefully heal her pain. 

 

I would almost never commit to any woman with mental illness, but if I did, I'd produce a tacit understanding which states, "You're mentally ill; I'm not.  So in all conflicts you do what I want, not what you want.  If you resist, there's the door."  He, (and possibly you, and possibly the majority of people in this forum), thinks that my Frame is cruel and heartless.  But by following my Frame, I'm never going to develop the same mental illnesses that a woman feels, just so I can better relate with her.  That level of self-sacrifice, strictly meant to turn a woman into a dull/normal functioning human being, is revolting. 

 

-------------

 

I've never spoken about the older woman whom I was seriously considering marrying.  That was my best relationship, but it came when I didn't fully grasp the reality of Rollo Tomassi's perspective - (nor Heartiste's perspective, especially on Dread.  Just google "heartiste dread").  I think I made two mistakes in that relationship, although I'm not sure about one of them. 

 

The mistake I'm dead certain about is that I expected a level of self-confidence, self-startership, and ability to confidently voice her displeasures.  If you have solid experience with women, and if you met her when I knew her, you'd pour a drink on my head while saying, "Dude?!  You really expected THAT WOMAN to have confidence, self-startership, and the ability to directly voice her grievances?!"  And I'd pour my own drink on my own goddamn head, while saying, "Shadddup...."    

 

The other mistake is under-estimating the value of dull/normal functional.  She wasn't a great woman, but she was a good one.  She was completely lacking that "chip on her shoulder" that so many women possess.  And she wasn't exceptionally smart, but she could (for the most part) follow on what I was saying.  I do, at times, miss her warmth - even if I do think that her warmth is a product of being sheltered, rather than of bravely facing the world (and its horrors) and staunchly choosing to be warm despite of this. 

 

But, on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with preferring an exceptional woman to a dull / normal one.  And if a man is brave enough to face being alone for the rest of his life in pursuit of an exceptional woman, then more power to him.  Right? 

 

------------------------

 

Right now, my plan is to put myself through Roosh's "Bang" program, Krauser's "Day Game" program, Mike Cernovich's alpha body postures (and perhaps Testosterone Replacement Therapy).  From there, my goal is to "spin plates", meaning that I see multiple women at a time, never promising exclusivity to any of them. 

 

I posit as fact, (and feel free to argue against it, if you disagree), that women are at their absolutely best relationship behavior in the first one through six months of it.  During this time, women are both riding the exceptionally high emotional wave of "having found this great guy" and are deeply insecure that you'll stop seeing them.  So the sex they provide is more passionate, and their devotion to being happy - (i.e. - not complaining, and not expecting you to solve their problems) - is maximized.  However, once that time passes, and once she is more secure that you won't leave, then the sex she provides is provisional to your doing certain tasks, and her devotion to being happy drops significantly. 

 

"Plate spinning" takes the above fact and pushes it to its logical conclusion - that maximum relationship happiness (from a MALE perspective) is accomplished by seeing multiple women at once, and repeatedly riding the emotional wave of the first one through six months.  If a woman presses for "commitment", she must either: (1) surrender her freedoms in exchange for following your leadership, or (2) refuse to do so, in which case she gets dumped. 

[Matt D]

What do I value most about women? 

 

1. Their wilingness to talk about a particular relationship problem I'm having with another person.

2. They tend to be very direct about the things they like or dislike.

3. The fierceness with which they guard the people who are most important to them.

4. They usually aren't afraid to ask for help.

 

...I'm sure this list will grow as I become more intimate with quality women.

 

In conjunction with the OP's question Stef also suggested asking your (female) date what her relationship is like with her father. For people who haven't healed their childhood traumas they often cannot separate their relationship with the opposite sex parent from the opposite gender as a whole. I know I used to be very cynical of women because I was raised by a narcissistic, petty, passive aggressive mother. Now that I've made friends with women who are quite different I'm able to see more clearly the value that women in particular can bring to the world.

[Frederik]

 

If you browse the last two pages of Rainbow Jamz's topic, "How are piercings, tattoos, heavy makeup....?", [...]

 

Reading what you've written somehow makes me feel bad. It seems our views about women differ greatly, and maybe even that strongly that I don't think it would be a good idea for me to engage in a discussion with you at all.

 

I'm sorry for that - I should have not asked that question.

[Kaki]

I have experienced that the more self-knowledge both males and females bring to the relationship the more equal they are in what they provide (in terms of empathy, curiosity, rationality etc.).

 

Isn't it the case that the more virtuous you are the more you will be looking for someone who is similarly virtuous while traits which are considered typically male and typically female take a backseat?

I would assume that women looking for men who are: "tall, strong and funny" are probably not bringing much self-knowledge into the relationship themselves, just like men don't, who look for women who are mainly hot. If one doesn't bring much in terms of self-knowledge it is easy to fall back to stereotypes, that would be my guess at least.

 

 

 

[MMX2010]

Reading what you've written somehow makes me feel bad. It seems our views about women differ greatly, and maybe even that strongly that I don't think it would be a good idea for me to engage in a discussion with you at all.

 

I can ask you two crucial questions that get to the bottom of your (and my) beliefs about women.

 

(1) In the past, do you think women were sweet, kind, and easily led by men because women have a sweet, kind, easily-led nature OR because women's very survival depended on their acting sweetly and kindly? 

 

(2) What percentage of women in your dating age range - (mine is 18 through 33) - do you consider would be good mothers according to FDR standards?  That means no BS standards like, "She did the best she could with the knowledge that she had." - but instead, "She maximizes the study of child psychology and peaceful parenting, to the point where any reasonable man would feel confident than any child she has, with any man she chooses, will experience a peaceful, joyous upbringing." 

 

The second question is super important, because if you severely over-estimate the percentage of fit mothers, then you'll be imparting an undeserved sense of respectability and honor onto women-in-general, which will in turn lead you to develop an undeserved sense of duty and self-sacrifice onto yourself and every other man.  (This is because all of the protections that women expect from men, such as extreme honesty towards her even though she's a stranger and "Don't have sex with me, unless you're sure I'm a legitimately special woman.", are null and void if she either never has children or never develops her personality sufficiently to become a good mother.  Worse, if she spends her youthful years engaging in promiscuous behavior, only to suddenly "acquire a sense of duty towards her future children" in her early thirties, she is both ultimately responsible for her promiscuous behavior AND is likely to pass on the damage of that behavior onto her children. To declare otherwise implies that youthful women are so weak in the brain, soul, and emotions that they need literally every man to look out for her future interests - and the word for that perspective is called "Patriarchy".) 

 

I won't answer the second question for you (or any man), but the higher the number you choose, the more you'll feel personally responsible for the negative experiences of women-in-general.  And it's up to you to either: (1) support the number you select with scientific evidence, or (2) significantly decrease the number you select to align it with the scientific evidence you find. 

[MMX2010]

I would assume that women looking for men who are: "tall, strong and funny" are probably not bringing much self-knowledge into the relationship themselves, just like men don't, who look for women who are mainly hot. If one doesn't bring much in terms of self-knowledge it is easy to fall back to stereotypes, that would be my guess at least.

 

I'm going to argue that a man's desire for a hot woman is not nearly as shallow as you (and Stef) make it out to be.

 

First: Roosh is a thirty-something, highly-popular Manosphere author who travels the world, bangs attractive chicks from foreign countries, and writes advice books outlining his experiences. 

 

The RooshVForum is a masculine safe space, (women, homosexuals, and transgenders are discouraged from posting), populated by men who (ostensibly) are devoted to learning "Game" - the series of psychological tricks and body language techniques designed to sleep with as many women as possible, with the quickest possible wait times from first meeting. 

 

Roosh proposed a thought-experiment, wherein each man is forced to reproduce with either a highly attractive 90 IQ woman, or a highly unattractive 135 IQ woman.  The reproductive act would involve no sexual intercourse, but the man and woman would share custody of the child - whose sex would be unknown. 

 

Many men put a lot of depth in their answers, leading to justifications that one wouldn't expect.  (For example, some men posited that the attractive woman is much more used to getting beneficial treatment from men, which makes her a more pleasant, less contentious wife - and that this, in turn, automatically makes her a better mother.)  This depth of consideration indicates that "merely wanting a hot woman" is not nearly as shallow as you make it out to be. 

 

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-43533.html?highlight=who+would+you+rather+reproduce+with

 

------------------------------

 

Second: Many articles (some scientific) also tackle the question of whether Conservative women are more attractive than Liberal women.  (I think the answer is Yes, but it's a complex question.  And some of the articles have such a condescending tone that readers will either enjoy or loathe.) 

 

http://www.livescience.com/23998-physical-beauty-conformity.html

 

This article explains one experiment, and concludes, "But the women rated as more physically attractive by their peers were more likely to endorse values like conformity and tradition rather than values like self-direction and universalism, which is linked to tolerance and a concern for others, the researchers said.

 

"Thus, whereas people hold the 'what is beautiful is good' stereotype, our findings suggest that the beautiful strive for conformity rather than independence and for self-promotion rather than tolerance," wrote the authors, led by Lihi Segal-Caspi of the Open University."

 

The author of the article is Megan Gannon, and here's her twitter page so you can see what she looks like:

https://twitter.com/meganigannon

 

She is of less-than-average physical appearance, and probably above-average in IQ.  And I couldn't help but notice that she uses the words "conformity, tradition, and self-promotion" to insult highly attractive women, while I would replace those words with "ease-of-being around successful males, alignment with the philosophical values of successful males, and aggressive flirtation designed to acquire the affections of successful males".  She also uses "independence and tolerance" to describe the purported values of less attractive women, but I'd replace those words with "ill-at-ease around males, reluctance to accept the values of males, and an intense focus on political questions that undermine male authority".   

 

I don't know whether "Liberal women are liberals, because they're ugly." is a valid thing to say.  But I do know that the depth of consideration in both instances is enough to prove that men wanting hot women aren't automatically shallow, because the value of a woman's hotness is a complex question. 

[MMX2010]

 

Men can also bring pleasantness and happiness, making the only virtue you say that women bring down to zero, right? That's the logic, isn't it? If the other sex can provide it, it no longer counts?

 

This is an important distinction to make for me, because I want to be able to say that men offer emotional stability and the other virtues I mentioned to relationships, and obviously that is generally true to a large enough degree to warrant description. But I can't say that if women are capable of those things, if I've understood you correctly. It's a double edge sword when you unsheath that standard.

 

This is not a logical proof, of course. Maybe we shouldn't say that men bring X and women bring Y unless it's impossible for the other sex to provide it. I'm just saying that I don't like the implications of it.

 

I can flush out the most disturbing of those implications. 

 

We're both familiar with MGTOW philosophy, and its relevant core tenet is that feminism both severely over-estimates female-oppression and severely under-estimates male oppression.  The two facts I mentioned earlier about the extraordinary social investment to raise women's self-esteem and the maximum prevalence of mood disorders in women are collateral findings of that core MGTOW tenet. 

 

The most disturbing implication is that, "A woman who is equal to you in every way is inferior to you - period."  This is because you became who you are despite the gender-specific attacks against you, while she became who she was while being bolstered with, "You go girl!" affirmations and the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

And so, for a woman to be equal to a man, she must be superior to him at one valuable thing.  (Ideally, blatantly superior without using that superiority against him.)