Why do the " Bad Boys" get so many women?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itullian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What about your own egotistical trends?
I find that the people who are often squashed the most are the ones in need of an ego, not the ones overdosing on it (which I would say for over half the people around my age).
I don’t mean to offend you or hurt your feelings but your language sounds very egotistical when you talk about ‘real dominance’ or ‘timidly submitting’. Especially the ‘real dominance’ sounds like something a sociopath could say.
My response was to someone who thinks men are satisfied with an illusion of control. I say, to heck with that. Just for once I’d like to be the ruler, the master, and ditch being the humble servant for at least one person.
I’m puzzled because I know you not to be that kind of person but at the same time I can’t pretend I haven’t seen what you have written. I’d suggest that you look for an old-fashioned relationship in which the man is the head of the family (even somewhat authoritarian), but not cross the lines of bondage/sado-masochism, which are not healthy.
There are extremes sure but rest assured to everyone that I’m not one to go that far. I may sound like an Edward Cullen but I’m not. You are right that the feeling of power isn’t the end-all but is it so wrong to desire/enjoy it as part of the perks, part of the package? Frankly, as much as I respect assertive and strongheaded women, I can never fall in love with them because there’d be no room for me. I don’t see the point in protecting someone who can already protect herself. I am tired of being the small person. That’s not my calling but I know there are girls out there who think it’s theirs and they’re the type I can fall in love with. What’s wrong with wanting to be their lord and protector? I don’t even wish that for all the women (heck, all the people) in the world. I just wish it for myself and the type of girl I desire.
 
When you said that too many people out there are incapable of validly marrying. o:
That and the fact that I’ve yet to meet a woman who would have noble reasons for marrying me.
I see!

Well, the fact that so many people out there are incapable of validly marrying doesn’t make you, yourself, personally, any less of husband material than you already are! It ‘only’ means there are plenty of secular people who don’t intend their marriages to be permanent (as in really permanent, ‘indissoluble’, meaning no divorce) or exclusive (which includes no emotional affairs, no porn etc., not just outright physical cheating) or open to children. Some of these people just don’t have such a desire (and the lack of such a desire doesn’t invalidate marriage) but others wouldn’t marry if they had to accept it (and now this is a huge problem for validity). Then you have also those who don’t have the sufficient use of reason to marry (this means below the level of a healthy 16 year old as per canon law, so don’t panic!) or sufficient discretion (can’t make out the most essential duties of marriage) or who just can’t accept permanence or exclusivity or openness to children for psychic reasons (even if they would like to, they can’t, they have a block they can’t overcome).

Obviously, you also have people who are not free to marry because of a previous bond. The older you get, the more such people you’ll meet. I’ve made jokes that I used to look at a woman’s eyes when I was younger, legs when still young and somewhat hormonal, nowadays I’ve got to look at the ring finger first. But there’s no reason to panic anyway. It’s just that you can’t jump head first (and some people don’t wear their rings — obviously especially those looking for an affair; a divorced person will likely not feel obliged to either). This means you can’t overcommit, you need to get your information before you make the important decisions.

Please note that ‘these people’ are not enemy, in fact, they could use compassion, help, support. It’s just that you can’t marry them. And before you commit you’d better know that you can marry the person you’re committing to.
 
I see!

Well, the fact that so many people out there are incapable of validly marrying doesn’t make you, yourself, personally, any less of husband material than you already are! It ‘only’ means there are plenty of secular people who don’t intend their marriages to be permanent (as in really permanent, ‘indissoluble’, meaning no divorce) or exclusive (which includes no emotional affairs, no porn etc., not just outright physical cheating) or open to children. Some of these people just don’t have such a desire (and the lack of such a desire doesn’t invalidate marriage) but others wouldn’t marry if they had to accept it (and now this is a huge problem for validity). Then you have also those who don’t have the sufficient use of reason to marry (this means below the level of a healthy 16 year old as per canon law, so don’t panic!) or sufficient discretion (can’t make out the most essential duties of marriage) or who just can’t accept permanence or exclusivity or openness to children for psychic reasons (even if they would like to, they can’t, they have a block they can’t overcome).

Obviously, you also have people who are not free to marry because of a previous bond. The older you get, the more such people you’ll meet. I’ve made jokes that I used to look at a woman’s eyes when I was younger, legs when still young and somewhat hormonal, nowadays I’ve got to look at the ring finger first. But there’s no reason to panic anyway. It’s just that you can’t jump head first (and some people don’t wear their rings — obviously especially those looking for an affair; a divorced person will likely not feel obliged to either). This means you can’t overcommit, you need to get your information before you make the important decisions.

Please note that ‘these people’ are not enemy, in fact, they could use compassion, help, support. It’s just that you can’t marry them. And before you commit you’d better know that you can marry the person you’re committing to.
Sorry, I am a bit confused. /sweatdrop
It’s just that, it is fairly difficult to find a good, Catholic, intelligent, wholesome and assertive woman to marry nowadays. D:
 
I find that the people who are often squashed the most are the ones in need of an ego, not the ones overdosing on it (which I would say for over half the people around my age).
Perhaps. But overdosing on ego leads to pride and pride is a very popular downfall.
My response was to someone who thinks men are satisfied with an illusion of control. I say, to heck with that. Just for once I’d like to be the ruler, the master, and ditch being the humble servant for at least one person.
You don’t need control to have authority. In fact, it is very satisfying if people follow you because they want to, not because they feel compelled to or have no other options. A need for control comes from insecurity. A secure man or a secure ruler doesn’t feel a need for control.
There are extremes sure but rest assured to everyone that I’m not one to go that far. I may sound like an Edward Cullen but I’m not. You are right that the feeling of power isn’t the end-all but is it so wrong to desire/enjoy it as part of the perks, part of the package?
I would say it’s part of the package if you enjoy it proportionally to what it really is or should be. For example nothing wrong in, say, Prince Charles enjoying some perks of being Prince of Wales and British royal. Or a US President enjoying the fact that he can surround a rancho with 100 agents and make sure nobody disturbs his bicycle ride. But ‘dominance’, I believe, crosses the line. When you enjoy seeing people bow down in half to you, something is amiss there. Let’s say, if you ruled over a city in the middle ages, would you like your subjects to love you and would you like to take care of their needs (genuinely, not to compel gratitude or make them owe you), or would you rather they feared you and knew better than to question you? Before the French monarchy went bad, a mediaeval French king told his subjects to speak freely because it pleased him to rule a nation of free men. And then came the stupid, egotic regime that led to the revolution.
Frankly, as much as I respect assertive and strongheaded women, I can never fall in love with them because there’d be no room for me. I don’t see the point in protecting someone who can already protect herself. I am tired of being the small person. That’s not my calling but I know there are girls out there who think it’s theirs and they’re the type I can fall in love with. What’s wrong with wanting to be their lord and protector? I don’t even wish that for all the women (heck, all the people) in the world. I just wish it for myself and the type of girl I desire.
You can’t become bigger by making other people smaller. In fact, you become bigger by making others bigger. You want the best for your future wife, rather than being your mere shadow. This is different from agreeing to live in a relationship in which the woman is wearing the breaches (which I utterly couldn’t stand either).

As for ‘lord and protector’, protector comes first. In the middle ages people became lords because they were protectors, and at any rate the first duty of a lord was to protect. Then maybe to provide. You want to make your people strong, so they can tackle life itself and everybody else, not weak before you so you can rule them. It really is the same with a wife and children. You will need to encourage them to unfold their wings and fly high, which will often mean flying well out of your control. You will then be proud of what you helped them achieve and if they are good people, they will remember to be grateful to you. And I’m pretty sure they’ll earn some reasons for you to be grateful to them as well (as those relationships are highly mutual).
Sorry, I am a bit confused. /sweatdrop
It’s just that, it is fairly difficult to find a good, Catholic, intelligent, wholesome and assertive woman nowadays. D:
Yes, it is. 🙂 But I suggest you don’t skip the ones that don’t appear particularly assertive (the right man can make a woman very shy anyway and vice versa) or even highly intelligent (intelligence isn’t always obvious and people can sometimes be very sensible and interesting persons without a high IQ). As in I’m not saying you should drop your standards but rather open your horizons a bit and examine more possibilities without skipping potentially interesting people unnecessarily on superficial grounds. 🙂

Otherwise think where a good, Catholic, intelligent, wholesome and assertive woman would go (college and a Catholic NGO in spare hours?) and go there. Basically, a hunter needs to learn to think like his prey, you know. :p;)
 
Yes, it is. 🙂 But I suggest you don’t skip the ones that don’t appear particularly assertive (the right man can make a woman very shy anyway and vice versa) or even highly intelligent (intelligence isn’t always obvious and people can sometimes be very sensible and interesting persons without a high IQ). As in I’m not saying you should drop your standards but rather open your horizons a bit and examine more possibilities without skipping potentially interesting people unnecessarily on superficial grounds. 🙂

Otherwise think where a good, Catholic, intelligent, wholesome and assertive woman would go (college and a Catholic NGO in spare hours?) and go there. Basically, a hunter needs to learn to think like his prey, you know. :p;)
Asides from those 5 majors, I have a few minor requirements, such as she should at least share in some of my interests and hobbies. o:

I can’t look for one in church obviously and it is tricky to find Catholic NGOs.
 
Asides from those 5 majors, I have a few minor requirements, such as she should at least share in some of my interests and hobbies. o:

Yes, that’s understandable. You need something to talk about and you need something objective to form a sense of connection.
I can’t look for one in church obviously
Charitable organisations, pro-life groups, nothing in sight? Just don’t go there merely wanting to catch a girl and sign off. Find something you can enjoy and commit to on its own. And if not, then studies are still your first priority right now. Make the most out of them, even if it means staying single for a couple of years yet. I learnt the hard way.
 
Yes, that’s understandable. You need something to talk about and you need something objective to form a sense of connection.

You can! After mass or in parish initiatives or Catholic student groups and other ministries.

Charitable organisations, pro-life groups, nothing in sight? Just don’t go there merely wanting to catch a girl and sign off. Find something you can enjoy and commit to on its own. And if not, then studies are still your first priority right now. Make the most out of them, even if it means staying single for a couple of years yet. I learnt the hard way.
Problem is, it is very rare for both major and minor requirements to show up especially given my generation. D:

Catholic student groups are not found within campus. This is because the university I’m studying in is a state university and the campus where I’m in is thus filled to the brim with liberal-progressives and even more than a few anti-Catholics. Making one is not going to be an easy thing. Parish initiatives and other ministries look promising but I lack the time to participate in one.

There are, but finding those is not an easy job. Even in cosplaying, finding that woman is extremely problematic.

I’m focused on my studies and yet afraid of not getting a job after graduation. D:
 
Perhaps. But overdosing on ego leads to pride and pride is a very popular downfall.
Yeah well, they’re not falling fast enough and more people are suffering for it.
You don’t need control to have authority. In fact, it is very satisfying if people follow you because they want to, not because they feel compelled to or have no other options. A need for control comes from insecurity. A secure man or a secure ruler doesn’t feel a need for control.
I think we’re using different definitions here. When I first responded to that statement, my definition of control was synonymous with authority. That did not mean I would force people. Heck, I will not appreciate a woman like that. I want someone who would serve me willingly and happily. That’s what makes it so hard.

Not all women want to be the servants either and I don’t blame them! However, that doesn’t mean people should drive those who do into a near-extinct species! (Neither should they squash the hopes of the men who dream about them.)
I would say it’s part of the package if you enjoy it proportionally to what it really is or should be. For example nothing wrong in, say, Prince Charles enjoying some perks of being Prince of Wales and British royal. Or a US President enjoying the fact that he can surround a rancho with 100 agents and make sure nobody disturbs his bicycle ride. But ‘dominance’, I believe, crosses the line. When you enjoy seeing people bow down in half to you, something is amiss there.
Again, I think we’re having a semantic misunderstanding. Dominance for me is simply being the big guy watching out for the little person who in turn has her own way of caring for the big guy.
Let’s say, if you ruled over a city in the middle ages, would you like your subjects to love you and would you like to take care of their needs (genuinely, not to compel gratitude or make them owe you), or would you rather they feared you and knew better than to question you?
You want me to be honest? A bit of both actually. I mean, I always thought that the general purpose of a ruler was, you know, tied to the rules. I certainly would like to care for my people but in order to do that, there has to be some rules. If the consequences of violation frighten the people, then so be it.

Translating that into a relationship, I would want to love and care for a woman but that woman in turn must have the humility and sensitivity to know what rubs me the wrong way while I in turn can use the resulting security and peace of mind to focus on providing for her.
As for ‘lord and protector’, protector comes first. In the middle ages people became lords because they were protectors, and at any rate the first duty of a lord was to protect. Then maybe to provide. You want to make your people strong, so they can tackle life itself and everybody else, not weak before you so you can rule them. It really is the same with a wife and children. You will need to encourage them to unfold their wings and fly high, which will often mean flying well out of your control. You will then be proud of what you helped them achieve and if they are good people, they will remember to be grateful to you. And I’m pretty sure they’ll earn some reasons for you to be grateful to them as well (as those relationships are highly mutual).
I’m all for mutuality. It’s when the other party (and I’m not just talking about romantic relationships anymore here but also other types now) declares the infamous, “I don’t need you anymore.” speech that I start doubting my own willingness.

I don’t want to be against strengthening other people but if strengthening someone only leads to that kind of that attitude, I’ll only regret it. I don’t want to invest in any kind of relationship where I lose my worth, where I’m discarded once I gave everything I had to offer. In fact, that’s exactly what narcs do with all the people in their lives.
 
Why do the " Bad Boys" get so many women?

Because they’re soooo cute!! 😉
 
I think we’re using different definitions here. When I first responded to that statement, my definition of control was synonymous with authority. That did not mean I would force people. Heck, I will not appreciate a woman like that. I want someone who would serve me willingly and happily. That’s what makes it so hard.

Not all women want to be the servants either and I don’t blame them! However, that doesn’t mean people should drive those who do into a near-extinct species! (Neither should they squash the hopes of the men who dream about them.)
I still think you’re focusing too much on someone serving you. Remember that Our Lord served us when He was on earth. He actually washed the feet of his Apostles. He didn’t come here to collect praise, veneration, homage etc.
Again, I think we’re having a semantic misunderstanding. Dominance for me is simply being the big guy watching out for the little person who in turn has her own way of caring for the big guy.
I’m not sure I’m buying that, honestly. Dominance has a clear negative connotation to me (tyrannical power, basically, the power to break the other’s will, to own him or her) and I’m very much inclined to wonder about the reasons why you want it and focus so much on it. I fear for you, honestly speaking. From my perspective, you’re in danger of going down the dark path.
You want me to be honest? A bit of both actually. I mean, I always thought that the general purpose of a ruler was, you know, tied to the rules. I certainly would like to care for my people but in order to do that, there has to be some rules. If the consequences of violation frighten the people, then so be it.
That’s true but then the purpose of ruling is not that you get an ego boost when people behave subserviently.
Translating that into a relationship, I would want to love and care for a woman but that woman in turn must have the humility and sensitivity to know what rubs me the wrong way while I in turn can use the resulting security and peace of mind to focus on providing for her.
The bolded part sounds scary. You need to be a grown man and responsible for your emotions. Hold the reins of them, reign yourself in. You don’t need a woman walking on eggshells around you and speaking to your children in a hushed voice to avoid doing this or that, ‘or else dad will get angry.’ Is that what you want? It can be ego-stroking in the short run but ultimately, it’s evil. And it doesn’t signify strength in a man but his weakness rather.

As for humility and sensitivity, you need some too and you may need to lead by example.
I’m all for mutuality. It’s when the other party (and I’m not just talking about romantic relationships anymore here but also other types now) declares the infamous, “I don’t need you anymore.” speech that I start doubting my own willingness.
You may be needed, and continually needed even, without mechanics of fear or dependence. People, especially your family, including especially your wife and children, may grow to need you because they love you, not because they can’t do anything without you. As I said, don’t limit them so they can be small enough to be needing you. Rather help them grow. They’ll love you for that.
I don’t want to be against strengthening other people but if strengthening someone only leads to that kind of that attitude, I’ll only regret it.
Think of others, not only yourself. Your desires may be legitimate, at least to the extent you don’t make them obsessive or otherwise unproportional, but that doesn’t justify using harsh or even cruel methods, such as imposing a fear of yourself on your immediate family. You will be an unhappy man if fear is what makes your family want to please you.
I don’t want to invest in any kind of relationship where I lose my worth, where I’m discarded once I gave everything I had to offer.
But would you like your future wife to be in a relationship (with you) where she loses her worth?

Instead, you need to learn how to avoid being exploited. But not how to dominate others.
In fact, that’s exactly what narcs do with all the people in their lives.
You mean narcissists? They enjoy the fear and powerlessness of others relative to their own perceived strength and power. Don’t go that route just because you need some affirmation. Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t like to be done to. In other words, don’t treat other like a narcissist just to avoid being treated like that yourself.

By the way:

www.escapeabuse.com/npd.pdf
 
There is, but then that requires him to be certain of his intentions, which is practically impossible for a Catholic person nowadays (too many people out there are incapable of validly marrying). From a man’s perspective, I have an impression that women sometimes want too much certainty and commitment too early, as in in some cases a woman seems to think that before a man first approaches her (having only her appearance and a short observation of her behaviour as a guide), he should already be decided as to his intentions with regard to her (i.e. committed to the idea of having a relationship with her). This is probably a minority position because a man so bold and open risks being labelled as a ‘creep’, which is quite a popular way of thinking too, in contradiction to the first one. At any rate, first contacts or initial stages of relationships are very hard to theorise about and I think that in reality the perceived attractiveness of the person approaching trumps everything else (including the manner in which he or she did the approaching).

Just in order at least to try and get something useful from the above reflection, I think it could be a good idea if people in general made the effort to relax a bit, get some perspective, question their preconceived notions and expectations, allowing also some tentative contact, where you can really just get to know about the person without making commitments you’re not in a position to make as of yet. On the other hand, lack of commitment means people shouldn’t be reaping the fruit of romantic commitment (e.g. getting cosy together, kissing, reciting love poetry, whatever), at least in so far as they’re calmly considering their options and still open to other people.
.
When I talked about being honest about your intentions, I wasn’t at all saying the guy had to immediately ask a girl for a relationship… Asking a girl out for dinner or coffee, is NOT asking her to be your girlfriend/wife. Its just saying I’m interested in you a bit to get to know you a little better, and we will see…So to speak. I guess I’m just speaking this way based on previous relationships where I thought I knew these guys super well because we were such good friends before getting involved, and we went from friends to committed relationship in lightening speed. And I found out the hard way that being friends and being in a relationship are just too different things/animals.

Now I guess I’m at the point where I’d almost like a guy to be upfront about being slightly interested in me, but still at the point of getting to know me better… There’s a level of honesty there, and yes there are honest intentions there. Intentions can go from I’m interested in you enough to ask you out for coffee/dinner. we will do this for awhile, with the intention that hey maybe we will become boyfriend/girlfriend. (I think it would take far more than one or two dates to make that kind of decision). That’s an honest intention. Its not lifetime committment.

And of course there’s tenative contact before that… Which is normal too. So no I’m not looking for someone who is going to jump into a relationship. If anything I’m at a place where I can see the value of dating casually. Not in the way the world does where there’s sleeping around and all kinds of affection etc. Like you said if your dating casually a lot of the goodies of romantic relationships shouldn’t be there… But in terms of using dating as a means to get to know someone’s character…The problem with just playing the friend card is that friends are suppose to be there, its not a temporary relationship thing. Whereas dating IS temporary when you think about it. Its always tenatitve. And so being honest about this is where I see you know allows you in someways to guard your heart a bit better.
 
When I talked about being honest about your intentions, I wasn’t at all saying the guy had to immediately ask a girl for a relationship… Asking a girl out for dinner or coffee, is NOT asking her to be your girlfriend/wife.
Of course. But if you ask a girl out for a dinner or coffee, you are not at all making your intentions clear (other than that you want to get to know her).
Its just saying I’m interested in you a bit to get to know you a little better, and we will see…So to speak.
Yeah, I agree, but then that’s not making your intentions clear.
Now I guess I’m at the point where I’d almost like a guy to be upfront about being slightly interested in me, but still at the point of getting to know me better…
I see. So that’s what you meant by being upfront. Well, from a man’s perspective, I’ve tried that, even going as far as verbally stating that initial interest in a very clear way. At the end of the day the woman can still claim she didn’t know you were interested or didn’t know where things were going or something like that, that she always saw you only as a friend, even if she had previously participated in the flirting. I guess in some cases this is smokescreen for her losing interest in you, on the other hand, I suppose in some cases she really is clueless like that. So basically until you get things sworn into the record you don’t know anything for sure.
There’s a level of honesty there, and yes there are honest intentions there. Intentions can go from I’m interested in you enough to ask you out for coffee/dinner. we will do this for awhile, with the intention that hey maybe we will become boyfriend/girlfriend. (I think it would take far more than one or two dates to make that kind of decision). That’s an honest intention. Its not lifetime committment.
I agree but from a man’s perspective (again) this has a lot of potential to end in a situation where after the flirting the lady finally claims she was always seeing you as only a friend (regardless if she had initiated the flirting before), so few things are clear there, unless perhaps we resort to a couple of tentative generalisations from life experience.
And of course there’s tenative contact before that… Which is normal too. So no I’m not looking for someone who is going to jump into a relationship. If anything I’m at a place where I can see the value of dating casually. Not in the way the world does where there’s sleeping around and all kinds of affection etc. Like you said if your dating casually a lot of the goodies of romantic relationships shouldn’t be there… But in terms of using dating as a means to get to know someone’s character…The problem with just playing the friend card is that friends are suppose to be there, its not a temporary relationship thing. Whereas dating IS temporary when you think about it. Its always tenatitve. And so being honest about this is where I see you know allows you in someways to guard your heart a bit better.
While I still cringe at the word ‘casually’ (I used to be very tense about it, especially before my mid twenties), I agree with you. But a lot of these conclusions crumble down when it comes to practical life situations. People will jump head first and start or ask for a relationship quickly, people will give others the ‘let’s just be friends’ line merely to avoid commitment while enjoying the flirting and still regarding the other as a potential mate, others will agree to be friends with the hope they will have a shot at changing that sooner or later (which they typically will). Many will go back on their decisions. Few are consistent, if any. I could tell you some stories. I guess everybody just wants to find a person he or she feels comfortable with and moves at a similar pace.
 
You know what I mean.:yup:

The jerks, bullies, rowdy, smooth talkin’ ones never want for women hanging all over them.:love:

While the nice guys are sitting there thinking “what the heck, I thought girls wanted nice guys.” :doh2:

C’mon guys, let em hear it, vent a little.:sad_yes:

C’mon girls, why do you go for them?:hmmm:
:flowers:
Conversely, a lot of guys are attracted to “bad” girls.

If you think of it in terms of the longer term, then bad boys and bad girls become a lot less attractive.
 
You mean you have girls you’ve gone on dates with and they’ve said they didn’t know you were interested in them… Wow just Wow. But then again… I will say maybe said girls were interested in the beginning, and later on changed their mind. Surely you’ve had the same thing.

Its really hard to navigate the ins and outs of relationships. There’s something to be said for getting to know a person casually before even dating them. I’ve been thinking that maybe some of what I said is impatience too, although I was pretty burned by what happened with my one guy friend. But then again learned some harsh lessons. We did the friends but maybe interested thing for quite a while… Thing is I went through periods when interested and periods then not. Everyone kept on telling us we were perfect for each other and finally realized we did have feelings so dated. I ended it because I realized neither of us had strong enough feelings for each other to really make it work and by that time we had been good friends for about a year, and dating for 3 months… What happened was both went out of town, he didn’t have a cell, I did. And while he called me to tell me a few days before that he was home safetly (in his ex’s car at that). But even though I was driving eight hours by myself to go to my mom’s we were both seminary students I was Protestant then… And he knew that was a long drive. He never bothered to call (even though he knew I had no way of reaching him by phone and mom didn’t have email.). I kind of though wouldn’t you want to make sure your girlfriend is safe??? He didn’t contact me for quite a while, and the thing is one thing I realized was I didn’t even miss him…So I broke it off. Realizing that God does give you a choice, and others don’t always know what they are talking about. :lol:

He was actually kind of mad at me for awhile for breaking it off and was quite a jerk to me, until he met someone else…The person he eventually married, then he actually apologized for everything…Said that he almost did a similar thing to the fiance making her feel not wanted etc, but realized didn’t want to screw up again… He also apologized for being a jerk after we broke it off… Yes I was the ex girlfriend who was absolutely thrilled when the guy met someone else… Funny thing is it didn’t take him nearly so long to ask future wife out, which is why I kind of think the whole He/She is not that into you has some real merit…😉
 
Originally Posted by Havard
I don’t think Havard meant to say that “fighting into the right size jeans” is what it takes to be an alpha female.

…Which is why he ended his statement with “she MAY develop more alpha traits.”

But you have to admit that alpha females do tend to be the more beautiful, confident ones. Of course, that’s not all it takes by any means, but it tends to be a part of it. I think that’s what Havard was getting at, and I’d have to agree.

Though I know I’m very late with this response, considering this post was from a few dozen pages ago lol. 😃
 
And I’m trying to tell *you…*I’m not reading intent into what you’re saying. I don’t think you mean any harm. I don’t think you’re trying to make anyone into an anorexic. I’m trying to explain that you’re really and quite seriously off-base on how the emotional life of girls works and what kind of advice helps them.

I am saying this: Do not ever ever tell a shy or less-dominant girl or even a girl who wants to rise in the social ranks of the circle she is in that what she needs to do is “exercise physically a lot” or to “lay off fatty foods” or to “try to exercise leadership skills.” Just please do not say things like that.

I cannot believe you are arguing about this. If you ever say something like that to a real person and it doesn’t hurt the girl, it is very likely that it is going to wind up being a painful experience for you. I’m done with the subject, but consider yourself warned.
Honestly, I see how this whole thing with telling girls to “look better” and “get thinner” is taboo, but there indeed IS some truth to it.

Exercising and eating healthy is great for your self confidence. And the way you look and present yourself to the world, does matter. Whether it’s fair or not, it does matter, and it does have an impact on people’s perception of you.
 
My tip for any ladies is to bring a brother or dependable male friend along on one or more of your “dates” with a guy. Men can read other men in less than a few minutes. You’ll know if the guy is okay or squirrel central.
Whoa, now hold on a sec.

Bring a big brother or another male friend on the few first dates with someone?? :confused:

Ummm, awkward and very inappropriate IMO. Ladies, please don’t do this unless you want the guy to turn around and run the other way! :nope:

I’m pretty sure I would have been very angry if Brian had brought along his sister or “female friend” on our first date to make sure I was “ok to date.” Good grief!
 
Wow. The things Lost Wanderer is saying make me cringe. His attitude is identical to that of the only abusive boyfriend I ever had. He seems so insecure with himself, and until that is resolved any woman who ends up with him will only suffer for his insecurity.

Frankly, Chevalier, if it wasn’t for our irreconcilable religious differences you would be the kind of guy I always dreamed of marrying (and am marrying 😃 ). You are spot on in what it truly means to protect and love a woman. You understand that real love is bringing out the best in each other with loving support. If you have a woman she is very lucky. If not, the one you find will be.
 
Indeed. Is it too much to wish for a wife who doesn’t:

a). Nag my brains out
b). Criticize me instead of having confidence in me
c). Talk too much
d). Assert herself needlessly
e). Give into the egotistical trends of Generation Me
a) Some women nag, some men nag. Some are overall pessimistic… this is especially a trait to beware of among Catholics who have the “all the world is my enemy”-kind of thinking.

b) Confidence must be won. I know its hard for men to grasp this, but if a woman knows that she is truly loved, respected and that her husband is willing to lay his life and interests down for her, she will have confidence in him no questions asked. But there are few such men. I know men who expext pious submission from their wives while their wives repeatedly experience that the husband places his own needs and interests before those of her.

c) thats subjective. Women in generel have more intelligence when it comes to conversation and communication than men. Men being more object oriented and women being more people oriented, the sexes will probably never be equal in this aspect, and it will always be a challenge for normal people. I say normal. I loved man who is very interested in psychology and who talks a bunch. Other women envied this trait in our relationship and wished their men talked more. I personally would not marry a man who were not fascinated with people and loved conversation.

d) good point, but then again, most succesful people are those who are very out there. Like men, women are expected to fulfill different expectations in different setting in life and this can be confusing.

e) Most young men and women do that to some extent. It can hardly be avoided altogether… People are insecure in our societies which are full of rolemodels you can never truly resemble, and so they attempt to at least prove to themselves that they are desirable… besides. If you are surrounded by ego-centric people who use other people for their gratification, then you often feel like you have to join, look out for own interests, or die.

By the way, sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. But you chose your words poorly.
 
You mean you have girls you’ve gone on dates with and they’ve said they didn’t know you were interested in them… Wow just Wow. But then again… I will say maybe said girls were interested in the beginning, and later on changed their mind. Surely you’ve had the same thing.
Yeah, on both accounts.

Its really hard to navigate the ins and outs of relationships. There’s something to be said for getting to know a person casually before even dating them. I’ve been thinking that maybe some of what I said is impatience too, although I was pretty burned by what happened with my one guy friend. But then again learned some harsh lessons. We did the friends but maybe interested thing for quite a while… Thing is I went through periods when interested and periods then not. Everyone kept on telling us we were perfect for each other and finally realized we did have feelings so dated. I ended it because I realized neither of us had strong enough feelings for each other to really make it work and by that time we had been good friends for about a year, and dating for 3 months… What happened was both went out of town, he didn’t have a cell, I did. And while he called me to tell me a few days before that he was home safetly (in his ex’s car at that). But even though I was driving eight hours by myself to go to my mom’s we were both seminary students I was Protestant then… And he knew that was a long drive. He never bothered to call (even though he knew I had no way of reaching him by phone and mom didn’t have email.). I kind of though wouldn’t you want to make sure your girlfriend is safe??? He didn’t contact me for quite a while, and the thing is one thing I realized was I didn’t even miss him…So I broke it off. Realizing that God does give you a choice, and others don’t always know what they are talking about. :lol:

He was actually kind of mad at me for awhile for breaking it off and was quite a jerk to me, until he met someone else…The person he eventually married, then he actually apologized for everything…Said that he almost did a similar thing to the fiance making her feel not wanted etc, but realized didn’t want to screw up again… He also apologized for being a jerk after we broke it off… Yes I was the ex girlfriend who was absolutely thrilled when the guy met someone else… Funny thing is it didn’t take him nearly so long to ask future wife out, which is why I kind of think the whole He/She is not that into you has some real merit…😉

That’s quite a story! Though what shows first of all is that you were able to draw quite a couple of lessons from it for your benefit. The last thing you mention, that is, the, ‘he/she isn’t into you,’ is also something I’ve thought about. I have this kind of rule or sentiment (or both at the same time) that I prefer ladies who are interested to ladies who are not. And I generally prefer not to approach those who are disinterested or ambivalent towards me. I sort of always pay attention if I’m getting any reaction or not. If not, it’s likely that I’ll stop trying or that it will eventually dissipate anyway. I’m glad to hear you were happy for your ex when he found a woman he married. That speaks well of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top