Sunday, February 6, 2011

"Men Do That Too" -- MDTT

Christianity Today has this article up where it discusses whether or not women are too picky in selecting a man. It is based on the ever controverisal Lori Gottlieb book, "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough ", which oddly enough is now being marketed as a Christian book. Got me!

Before I get to my main point, this part is good:
"According to Gottlieb, the problem is that women are no longer satisfied with companionship, security, and stability. Instead, we believe we deserve it all, and that includes a soul mate who is exciting, passionate, masculine, and has the same emotions women do. To make matters worse, we start to believe that no matter how great a guy is, there must be someone better out there."
Caveat: "She does not advocate resigning yourself to a life of misery with a man you find unpleasant, but rather, adjusting your expectations and being happy with a more realistic version of Mr. Right."

What I found most interesting, was the following:
"Unfortunately, there is little acknowledgment that men should not be picky about the women they date. It is accepted without question that men choose women based on age and physical beauty. I can’t help wondering where the book is that tells men that they need to “settle” for a woman who is kind and caring but might not look like a supermodel."
This is what women always have to do when something 'negative' is suggested of them, such as being "too picky", they have to deflect it back to men. Of course men can have similar faults, but the book is not talking about men; it is addressing women. Just because the author does not counter every female fault with a male fault, does not make for a downfall of the book. Had the purpose of the book been to equally critique men and women and we found the author being bias towards women, then such a criticism might be fair.  Even if Gottlieb equally suggested that men are "too picky", what would be the point as men are not going to be reading that book; all it would do is just reinforce to women what they already believe. They just want to believe more than anything that the problem isn't them and are disturbed that Gottlieb didn't try to make them feel better or lessen the blow, by equally calling out men.

It's like they can't sit still for one minute without having to say "men do that too". Much like NAWALT was coined from "not all women are like that", I propose MDTT for the equally used "men do that too".  Yes, yes, we get it, "Men do it too" and "all women aren't like that", but instead of whining about it and pointing the finger every time, just sit back and accept that women aren't perfect with no stammering or 'but, but, but-ing...". Don't deflect back to men and accuse men of starting it (whether they did or not is pointless), the point is improving and restoring women, and books such as "Marry Him", make an honest attempt in doing so.  Don't worry about what the men are doing, but what you are doing. 

66 comments:

Simon Grey said...

"Don't worry about what the men are doing, but what you are doing."

Pure gold. It's futile for women to focus on what men are doing (or even what other women are doing), because when all is said and done, you can only change yourself.

Also, it doesn't matter if men do what women do. The morality of a given behavior is independent of practices to the contrary.

AnonyMouse said...

The purpose of MDTT or NAWALT is not to communicate information or even to present an argument - rather the purpose is to shut down debate. Feminism is a pseudo-Neitzcheian cult centered on a will-to-power ethic. Pointing out the faults of women or feminists removes power from them, and thus must be silenced.

True Femininity said...

Couldn't agree more, Laura!

Anonymous said...

Why should women marry someone they don't find exciting?

I can't think of any reason.

Women can have companionship, children (through adoption or sperm donation), friendship and a career without marriage.

Why add marriage to the picture unless it improves a woman's life.

King Alfred said...

Nice post, Laura.

We see here again the threadbare complaint that men are only interested in looks, and something must be done to stop this terrible injustice:

"Unfortunately, there is little acknowledgment that men should not be picky about the women they date. It is accepted without question that men choose women based on age and physical beauty. I can’t help wondering where the book is that tells men that they need to “settle” for a woman who is kind and caring but might not look like a supermodel."

Men NEED to be picky about the women they date, if dating is taken seriously as an attempt to find a wife. Nothing else in life demands this same degree of seriousness and discernment. Regarding the "accepted without question" statement, only "alpha" males looking for a trophy wife focus exclusively on looks. As for age, if a man wants children, a young potential wife is always more attractive than an older one, all else being equal. That's just a basic fact of biology.

What planet is this woman from? Billions of men marry, but precious few of them marry "supermodels." Men don't need books to tell them they can't all marry supermodels, and will therefore have to "settle" for real women.

The simple truth is that men ARE attracted to women for their beauty, and are ceaselessly shamed for their attraction to beauty. But, there are many kinds of beauty. I read somewhere that a pretty face may be enough to catch a man, but not enough to keep him. A man wants a wife who possesses abundant beauty in the areas that really matter to him. Physical beauty is nice while it lasts, but is never more than the icing on the cake. If a woman wants to attract a man and keep him, she needs to worry about more than just what she is slathering on her face with a putty knife. So, before women put the entire blame on men (again!), they would do well to look into the mirror of the soul and discern what is staring back at them. True grace and beauty cannot remain hidden behind an ordinary face, and true ugliness cannot long remain hidden behind a pretty face and a nice figure.

Some women need to start BEING beautiful instead of only LOOKING beautiful. And, in fairness, sometimes it takes us men some time to recognize inner beauty, while external "beauty" is readily apparent to all. Maybe we men would see that inner beauty sooner if it were displayed more frequently.

Terry @ Breathing Grace said...

This resonates, Laura. No sooner than I gently suggested that a wife try to look her best for her husband, I was hit with:

Well is your husband as fit and muscular as he was when you married him?

It never fails. People, even Christian people, deflect from their own resposibility by bringing up what the other person is or isn't doing.

Last time I checked, the Scripture said "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you", not "only go as far as they're willing to go."

Laura Grace Robins said...

King Alfred,
Great thoughts. I wanted to say something along those lines, but did not have the time to get into it.

Terry,
Great example. Right, so you can just let yourself become a slob, if your husband his. "He started it!" I think deep down it shows how much women want to follow a man's lead. "Well, he did this, so I can do this."

Anonymous said...

"Maybe we men would see that inner beauty sooner if it were displayed more frequently."


It's women's fault that we focus on looks!

When will people take responsibility for their own actions?

A Light Shines In The Darkness said...

I seen this book but haven't read it, so I don't know what the author is referring to when she says women are being too picky. I've been told frequently that I'm too picky when it comes to guys, but I think I might use a different scale than most women... I look for things like maturity, job security, intelligence, level of respect toward others, ability to protect, religion, etc.

I don't think these are bad things to be picky about. A lot of women simply have a list of physical features that they want their future spouse to have, but I'm pretty sure that marriage will end in divorce before five years are over.

And I agree that it is extremely childish to do something simply because someone else is doing it. When did people stop using their own brains and consciences?

MarkyMark said...

Pardon me, but I thought that the book was targeted at WOMEN-duh! Therefore, I see no need to tell men to have realistic expectations also, because they won't be reading the book anyway...

Anonymous said...

The writer of the Christianity Today blog, Bonnie Field, also got Gottlieb's numbers wrong.

In the blog she claims it was hard for Gottlieb to date Jewish men because only six percent of men are Jewish. Incorrect. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the entire Jewish population of the US is only 2.2 percent: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

I actually interviewed Gottlieb and read her book -- I think actual number of datable men for her, she claimed, was more like .006 percent (after factoring in age, marital status, etc.).

-- Days of Broken Arrows

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately, there is little acknowledgment that men should not be picky about the women they date. It is accepted without question that men choose women based on age and physical beauty."

There is a dead elephant in the middle of the room which needs to be acknowledged before any progress on this issue will ever be made - the fundamental asymmetry of the mating dance, in which the man must be the "designated initiator", turns mate selection and pursuit into a sick and gruesome ritual which misses the entire point.

Simply calling the process "dating" subtly redefines it. Never before in history have men been forced to approach relative or complete strangers and assess their mate potential entirely in a completely contrived situation in which "romance" has taken over from compatibility as the goal and what one is assessing.

When communities still existed, there were dozens of mechanisms to put young single people together in low pressure settings where they could get to know each other without going on a "date." After they got to know each other a bit and had some sense of how much they shared common values, they might spend some 1-on-1 time together - that would be when they went on a date.

As long as women follow the purely passive-attractive strategy, the process will sort people out into a hierarchy of men from most aggressive to least aggressive and women from most attractive to least attractive. The most aggressive men will go for the biggest prize in terms of social status - which means the woman that the greatest number of other men would find attractive and ascribe him status for being able to "bag."

The reason I have no pity at all for less attractive women who get left on the shelf is because they refuse to take any risks in the game and instead demand that men play by a different set of rules than they do. Even the plainest of women can get her heart set on "Prince Charming" and if "Mechanic Charming" would attempt to garner her interest dismiss him quite cruelly.

Aggressive men are no more likely to change their natures and start preferring plain women over pretty ones than any woman is to start preferring plain, unexciting, and financially less successful men over good looking, affluent, socially successful men.

We are probably headed into a world where the terms "have" and "have not" apply as much to spouses as to financial success.

Jennifer said...

Well-said, Simon Grey (and Laura). Excellent and valuable insight, Alfred.

"The purpose of MDTT or NAWALT is not to communicate information or even to present an argument - rather the purpose is to shut down debate"

So is AWALT.

Anonymous Protestant said...

There is a group of people who often say "Those others did it first!".

We commonly refer to them as 'children".

Adults should eschew acting like "children".

MDTT is childish.

1 Corinthians, 13 verse 11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Anonymous said...

Assuming that men are only in it for beauty and youth is sexist towards men. I should think you would support a message asking men to "settle" for good virtuous qualities.

Anonymous said...

"Why should women marry someone they don't find exciting?

I can't think of any reason."

I can. The "someone" that women usually find "exciting" is a wife beater or serial rapist. When women "marry someone they find exciting" I have to hear that "{x} number of women were raped,beaten or killed by their husband or boyfriend this year" and am accused of being the "exciting" type myself, before being instructed to cough up money for women's poor choices lest I make myself out to be a heartless misogynist.

Reason number two is that excitement wears off, then women rip their family apart because they don't find their husband "exciting" anymore and I have to pay for her bad decisions. Not too mention the poor chump she married for "excitement", he's ruined.


"Women can have companionship, children (through adoption or sperm donation), friendship and a career without marriage."

Not with my sperm. And I seriously doubt with any sane man's in the near future. That'll work out great for you, though, if you want a bunch of kids crazy enough to donate sperm to the next batch of aging harpies who want to treat men like we're a cafeteria instead of living breathing human beings with feelings and aspirations just like you.


"What planet is this woman from? Billions of men marry, but precious few of them marry "supermodels." Men don't need books to tell them they can't all marry supermodels, and will therefore have to "settle" for real women."

BINGO.

How many 50 year old never married men do you see going "Oh, I'm saving myself for a Norwegian bikini model."? ZERO. Even though many of us COULD hold out that long we aren't stupid or childish enough to believe the entire world revolves around us and we're so special that we deserve EVERYTHING we want. We settle for what we NEED. I know women say "I need a man who {x}" but those are WANTS. I'm talking about basic NEEDS here; Can she cook? Can she take care of children? Is she responsible? NEEDS, not WANTS.

90% of us don't wind up with supermodel wives. I guess women take that to mean we're losers who can't get them. The REAL reason is because we only care about meeting our NEEDS, and a supermodel wife qualifies as a WANT,not a need.

Scott said...

In college I had a Victoria's Secret model tell me, while looking over at my date, that I "needed a girl more like her". Oh she was hot as fire. I never gave her a thought as her "person" was so unattractive. I bet she is not modeling anymore. I was also well "onto" feminism at this time so most women were unattractive to me already. I never even considered any interaction with her. I got married at 23 to the girl I was at the party with. We have been married for 17 years and have 4 children.

Anonymous said...

Good article. Men can't critique women because they will always point out that men do it too and then start talking about men and deflect from themselves. American women are "exempt" from criticism. This is why men never speak up. Its a waste of time. My sister does this everytime.
Walter

Anonymous said...

"Why should women marry someone they don't find exciting?"

Any woman who gets married for "excitement" is a bad, BAD marriage prospect for a man. No matter how "alpha" he is, the excitement will die down eventually, and Little Miss "Excited" will fall out of "love" with him, and cash out via divorce.

No thanks.

Double Minded Man said...

a great post and some good comments on here as well.

The whole, why doesn't this also address men is annoying. Its not always supposed to address everyone. If a book is written for Evangelicals, its not meant to address Catholics. Might as well complain that its not addressing Muslims for all the sense that argument makes. And as one commenter pointed out, its childish. Other's faults do not excuse your own. Or put another way, two wrongs don't make a right.

Its a near constant theme on your blog too. Where you try to address women, but female commenters will point out that MDTT or "why don't you address the men" That of course isn't the point of your blog, and there are many other groups out there, esp. in Christian circles, who focus upon the wrongs of men.

Double Minded Man said...

I posted the following over there:

I can’t help wondering where the book is that tells men that they need to “settle” for a woman who is kind and caring but might not look like a supermodel.

Have you checked out Proverbs? It was written for a young man and spends MUCH time advising on the qualities of a good wife, as well as much time on the type of woman to avoid (wife or otherwise) Proverbs is a much more widely read book than Gottlieb's will ever be.

CSPB said...

The MDTT and other deflection is rampant. Meaningful dialog is impossible. A man can't state an opinion without some woman misinterpeting it. This happens even when a man is not saying anything critical of women. It is enough that his opinion is different to provoke a hissy-fit. Sure NAWALT, but over 99% seem to be. Wherever there is more than one woman present, it is certain to happen.


I don't remember things being this bad 20 years ago, but I was quite clueless of these dynamics back then too.

Anonymous said...

It's a waste of breath to condemn the "beauty focus" in either sex. The traits we find "attractive", correlate statistically with health and fertility. Beauty is not just a shallow trait we can just "morally" decide to ignore -- if the biological attraction just doesn't work, game over.

That said... only a fool (or a millionaire) holds out for a supermodel. Most men eventually marry normally-attractive women. You can call it "settling", or you can be less pejorative and call it "being realistic".

The current problem of marriage, however, is not that men won't "settle", it's that WOMEN won't. Since the collapse of the old morality, many Alpha males regularly use average women for convenient short term gratification (although they only marry Alphas), whereas Alpha females virtually NEVER do this with average men.

So... having had a few Alpha encounters....the average girl has a distorted perception of her own attractiveness, and believes that she can land an Alpha permanently: "Next time I snag a guy that good, maybe I'll be able to hold onto him..."

The average guy, by contrast, has been snubbed by every Alpha woman he's ever met, and therefore is under no illusions as to his ability to hold (or even just attract) one. He is perfectly willing to date the average woman -- and is utterly mystified as to she rejects him so vehemently, so rudely, so cruelly, as if by asking her out, he insulted her somehow... He knows he's not an Alpha but he knows he's not Alpo either... why is she so offended?????

As always, Biblical morals are the solution. Under such a system, the Alpha men and Alpha women would marry each other and remove each other from the market. The average women would then be under no illusions as to their ability to attract Mr. Alpha, and would soon warm up to any decent Mr. Beta that came her way. Wedding bells ring, problem solved.

Anonymous said...

"Since the collapse of the old morality, many Alpha males regularly use average women for convenient short term gratification (although they only marry Alphas), whereas Alpha females virtually NEVER do this with average men. "

So only "alpha" women ever get married?

Every married woman on the planet is an alpha woman?
I see. Thank you for the amusing post!

Jennifer said...

Another problem I see here is limiting men to either "alphas" or "betas". Try getting rid of the labels, that could help.

CSPB said...

@Jennifer

Labels don't determine reality. Labels describe reality based on generalizations. Men generalize and then consider exceptions.

Women personalize in order to avoid generalizations.

Since the Alpha and Beta labels are part of the GAME subject and this has been entirely developed by men to describe the how the world, relationships and society work, it is non-sensical to advocate elimination of labels.

Anonymous said...

It’s really women who classify men into alpha and beta, though they don’t use these terms. Basically, if a girl thinks a man is attractive enough to date or sleep with, he’s “alpha”, and if not he’s “beta”.

Most young women in their prime only see about 20-30% of men as being attractive enough to date or sleep with, or “alpha”.

“Beta” men, the average guys who are neither attractive nor creepy, are essentially invisible to most women in their 20s, especially those who have slept with “alpha” males.

Remember Karen Owen? She wasn’t looking for engineering or accounting students to sleep with for her project; she was going for the jocks that all the other girls lusted after too. While ignoring average guys.

Though Owen probably never used the words alpha or beta to describe men, she still ranked them in an attractiveness hierarchy (which meant that most guys were completely off her radar).

So what does this mean? Well, in the casual dating market, the most attractive men (like the Duke athletes) will use average looking women like Karen Owen for sex, which leads the Karen Owens to think they’re 10’s when they’re really 6’s. So a lot of female 6’s like Owen will think they’re too good for male 6’s like, say, your typical welder or accountant.

Anonymous said...

In a relationship like marriage, men and women's actions affect each other.

If you just look at a wife's actions (presumably to tell her how bad she is) you will not get the whole picture. You also won't get the result you want.

People affect each other. If men and women "do that"--that's the whole picture, and that's what you need to look at.

I mean, why look at only half the picture?

Jennifer said...

Anon 8:17,

that makes more sense.

"Since the Alpha and Beta labels are part of the GAME subject and this has been entirely developed by men to describe how the world, relationships and society work, it is non-sensical to advocate elimination of labels"

It's not nonsensical to me, not when you're trying to look at the bigger picture. I don't approve of Gaming anyway, but I guess those labels make sense in it; not so often in life, though. The first half of your post sounds especially accurate. Regarding that some generalizations are true, but I find it better to personalize.

CSPB said...

@Jennifer

It is not “Gaming.” Actually, Nevada has a Gaming Commission to oversee gambling. But I guess any man approaching a woman or marrying her is taking a gamble. The problem is that the odds have changed dramatically in the last generation.

It is about “having GAME” and “applying GAME, “ which is amoral, meaning such knowledge can be used for good or for evil. Often women that really don’t understand GAME, say it doesn’t work or they disapprove. If a woman doesn’t understand the nuances and that it is amoral, why would she get the term right. Calling it something else is actually attempt at shaming, which is another female behavior that is explained by GAME.

And the comment about women classifying Alpha and Beta is accurate but I still think it is men that applied the labels to describe what happens with the male "haves" and the "have nots."

Anonymous Protestant said...

Anonymous wrote:
In a relationship like marriage, men and women's actions affect each other.

This is true. However, it is not relevant to the article.

If you just look at a wife's actions (presumably to tell her how bad she is) you will not get the whole picture. You also won't get the result you want.

In a marriage, the man can control only his own actions, the woman can control only hers. Although this reality does not stop many from trying to control the actions of the other. Therefore, while husband and wife do clearly affect each other, each one is unable to control the other's actions.

People affect each other. If men and women "do that"--that's the whole picture, and that's what you need to look at.

It is an elementary part of solving problems to break the problem into component parts that are easier to solve. It is axiomatic that one person in the marriage can control only his or her actions. Therefore, in order to solve problems within a marriage, it is logical to break the problem(s) down into things that he does and things that she does. He can control his actions and words, she can do likewise.

In a Christian marriage, each partner should be "giving 100%", not 50% as in so many marriages today.

"Men do that to" is nothing less than an attempt to deflect blame for part of a problem away.

I mean, why look at only half the picture?

Indeed. I agree, but you probably did not mean to write what I am agreeing with.

Anonymous Reader said...

Jennifer wrote:
I don't approve of Gaming anyway, but I guess those labels make sense in it; not so often in life, though.

This statement is ignorant. "Game" is applied psychology, that has been developed in a heuristic manner. "Game" works regardless of whether you or any other woman approves of it or not. There are other labels than "Alpha" and "Beta" (omega and zeta have been used). But that doesn't matter. What matters is this: "game" provides a model for interactions between men and women that enables a person to make predictions about behavior that more often than not are accurate. "Game" thus is a model, however, imperfect, for a piece of reality.

Deny reality all you want. It's still there whether you like it or not.

Jennifer said...

I don't approve of all levels of GAME, CS, because I've heard it explained at length to be controlling and undetectably so; Alte said it should be used in limited means and David Collard said he might warn his daughter of it, because it's so insidious and potentially powerful. Doesn't sound good to me. And in any case, you hardly need GAME to know about shaming language; I do hope some ppl don't imagine that GAME holds all the answers to the heart of every member of either sex.

But what you describe as "having game" sounds somewhat different; I've heard that referred to for years. And I can understand having the labels in reference to GAME.

While we're on the subject, I've heard men in that aspect referred to as alphas, betas, and omegas, but there was some other term used on Alte's blog, that sounded like bassa or something. Do you know what it was? If so, what does it mean?

Anonymous said...

"So only "alpha" women ever get married?....Every married woman on the planet is an alpha woman?"

Don't be silly. That's not what I said at all. Go READ the post. In particular,

"...only a fool (or a millionaire) holds out for a supermodel. Most men eventually marry normally-attractive women. "

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CSPB said...

Jennifer,
It is just the Greek alphabet. Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta, All the way to Omega.

There are definitions in various places for all of these as labels for men (not Epsilon) but it gets really complicated and hard to remember or understand. Just think of Alpha as the strong guys and beta as the wuss or wall flowers. It is a spectrum. You will notice the Alphas (but certainly will not be attracted to all of them) and with a bit more awareness, you will notice the "greater Betas." Those are the good guys that are a bit shy but are quality and would probably suit you well. They are less fussy, but don't have quite the same skills to relate and enable attraction. So you will have to be a bit more patient and because they would be quite so smooth and able to put you at ease or sweep you off your feet. This also means you may have to approach and strike up the initial conversation. That is the trade off!

Jennifer said...

Thanks CS, I was wandering what "zeta" meant for a guy. (I'm guessing omegas are at the bottom of the food chain?)

Ach, I knew a guy who was just gorgeous, good to his mom, smart, an athlete, and a strong Christian. And a charming romancer when he wanted to be. But I DID have to start the conversations! I wonder if he's a beta?..Thanks, this has been an interesting topic.

Anonymous said...

"Most young women in their prime only see about 20-30% of men as being attractive enough to date or sleep with, or “alpha”.

Do you know any young women in their 'prime'?

Because the ones I know are happy to talk to any guy who is nice and not aggressive. Personality, kindness and empathy mean a lot to young women. I went ot a women's college and the girls I knew were looking for someone they could be friends with first and foremost. They were turned off by the alpha behavior you describe.

The men posting here sound like guys who have never really gotten to know any young women, so they spend their time making things up and resenting women.

Anonymous Reader said...

Anonymous
"Most young women in their prime only see about 20-30% of men as being attractive enough to date or sleep with, or “alpha”.

Do you know any young women in their 'prime'?

I'm not the person you are replying to, but yes, I do.

Because the ones I know are happy to talk to any guy who is nice and not aggressive. Personality, kindness and empathy mean a lot to young women. I went ot a women's college and the girls I knew were looking for someone they could be friends with first and foremost.

I am quite familiar with this. Let's Just Be Friends is something that many, many men hear quite a lot in their 20's.

They were turned off by the alpha behavior you describe.

Uh huh.

The men posting here sound like guys who have never really gotten to know any young women, so they spend their time making things up and resenting women.

Yawn. Code Purple, so soon?

http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Anonymous said...

Because the ones I know are happy to talk to any guy who is nice and not aggressive. Personality, kindness and empathy mean a lot to young women. I went ot a women's college and the girls I knew were looking for someone they could be friends with first and foremost.

I am quite familiar with this. Let's Just Be Friends is something that many, many men hear quite a lot in their 20's.


Well, if you are looking for Let's Just Go to Bed, it's no wonder you are having problems.

Yes, many young women do hope to be friends with a man before proceeding with intimacy of any kind. I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

"I am quite familiar with this. Let's Just Be Friends is something that many, many men hear quite a lot in their 20's. "


It's too bad they don't try to be friends, and see where it leads. Sounds like they want one thing, and one thing only, and they take off it they don't get it.

CSPB said...

@Jennifer,
A woman would be well advised to seek a man with a suitable mix of Alpha and Beta. This will be different for every woman. There should be some aspects of dominance in the man but exercised in a respectful way. So a “greater Beta,” is still more Beta, but has some suitable Alpha traits. These Alpha traits may be a bit underdeveloped, which is why the woman may need to do more of the work in the initial approach. Then she should encourage him to be a bit more dominant. So when he asks where do you want to go out to eat? Answer, you decide. It is a subtle support of him so he can grow into more of a leadership role. Women are happier with this type of dynamic.

@Anonymous,
This “friends first” mentality is such BS. If it going to be a good pairing, it is “attraction first.” A good dating friendship can develop when there is attraction. The “friends first” then attraction then marriage only exists in the land of Skittle pooping unicorns. I think any man encountering a woman like this should walk away, regardless of her Christian-ness. She will attempt to assert her false reality on him and if he accepts it, he will be in the “friend zone” and very few men make it out of there. This is why the Game concept of “frame control” is so important.

A man should not let a woman take the "frame." She can have her boundaries but she should not be allowed to determine reality or the path of the relationship. Such a woman clearly has fear of sexuality and a delusional belief in reality. Attraction need not be acted upon but it must be present. Otherwise it results in checklist comparison between two people. Checklists do not make a good foundation for a marriage, but of course this doesn’t negate that a woman can have some absolute requirements.

Now I know some women will attempt to refute this by citing a sister’s friend’s cousin’s grandmother, where they reportedly were just friends and is worked out so well and they have such a happy marriage and have been married for 45 years. Right, like we know the whole story and there is no rationalization involved. Like I said, this “friends first” does exist in the land of Skittle pooping unicorns, but in real life successful marriages only exist where there was initial attraction.

This is another case of what women say and what works are two different things. Which is why men should never listen to women on these things. The other full of BS statement is that she wants a “nice guy.” NO, she wants a REAL guy that is good. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Anonymous said...

"This “friends first” mentality is such BS. If it going to be a good pairing, it is “attraction first.” A good dating friendship can develop when there is attraction. The “friends first” then attraction then marriage only exists in the land of Skittle pooping unicorns."


Really? I've been married 25 years, and we were friends for four years before there was any dating.

I guess some guys cannot wait that long. I could, and it paid off.

Many women need to time to feel attraction. They also need to feel safe in the relationship, and they need to feel they trust the guy. Then attraction occurs. For men, it is different--they are often attracted by physical beauty. But it's not the same for many women, and knowing this may help you in your dating life.

The Date-Me-Immediately mentality will not get you anywhere.

And of course women should be able to control the reality of the relationship. How crazy to think you can control her reality, dude.

CSPB said...

@Anonymous

Of course a man need not control a woman’s reality. I never said that. He needs to control his own reality and keep the frame. His life is his adventure. She can come along or walk away. No, a woman should not control the reality of the relationship. Who put her in charge?

Friends can find attraction, no problem. But saying to a man, we need to be “friends first” is BS. Attraction happens just when it happens. But saying it must happen and only happen from “friendship first” and therefore any man must become a “friend first” is baloney. Yet attraction is foundational and friendship can be developed.

I am saying what I am saying. I am not saying what I am not saying. Therefore you cannot automatically assume that flipping it opposite is my belief. Life doesn’t work that way. You twisted my advice about a man not letting a woman determine his reality into a man controlling a woman’s reality. Clearly I did not say that. Many men are oblivious about how subtly a woman uses his words against him, but I am not.

I truly couldn’t care less about “date me immediately.” But I will not be “friends first” in hopes that someday I can date a certain woman. She can decide or not. If I happen to already be friends with a woman that is entirely a different situation. Please don’t conflate the two.

Anonymous said...

"I truly couldn’t care less about “date me immediately.” But I will not be “friends first” in hopes that someday I can date a certain woman. "

That is called Closing a Door, Because I Have to Have It My Way.

Your choice, but you are missing a lot of good friends (and possibly more)

When someone accusing me of twisting their words, I need to thank them. It's a great compliment to know my words hit home!

Anonymous said...

"Because the ones I know are happy to talk to any guy who is nice and not aggressive."

Talking <> dating.

"Personality, kindness and empathy mean a lot to young women."

Yes, they probably do want kindness, empathy etc. in a man... but if and ONLY if they already find that man attractive. Sure, women like guys who are attractive, and nice, and kind and all that. But the attraction is the most important part. Without it, none of the rest matters.

Jennifer said...

"There should be some aspects of dominance in the man but exercised in a respectful way"

There will be no dominance towards me. Plenty of times he can pick his own restaurant, but other times if I want steak or a burrito, I'll speak up.

Anonymous said...

Talking <> dating.


Oh, please. this explains a lot.

You think that every woman that talks to you is dating you?

I guess I just dated my dry cleaner, my attorney, and several dads in the school parking lot.

Anonymous said...

""There should be some aspects of dominance in the man but exercised in a respectful way"


They obviously have no idea what women want, Jennifer.

Any guy that shows dominance towards me gets shown the door.

Imagine some guy you are having coffee with, just getting to know--and he starts acting dominant. Over someone he hardly knows. Most women would be "goodbye". How sad that the poster thought dominance over a near-stranger would ever be appropriate.

No wonder the guys here think that it's a "date" if a woman talks to them!

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, if kindness, empathy and all that mean so much to young women, then how do you explain the success of pickup artists and players? How are guys like that able to sleep with so many young women, if kindness and personality are so important to them? Are guys like Roosh and Krauser just “nicer” than most other guys? Are they not as “aggressive”?

NAWALT, of course. But quite a few are, apparently.

CSPB said...

“That is called Closing a Door, Because I Have to Have It My Way.
Your choice, but you are missing a lot of good friends (and possibly more)”

I’m not missing out on anything. Wow you are adept at twisting!

I have no problems with being friends or making new friends. All I said is that I will not become friends with a motivation to eventually date. Nope. Not going there. That would not be honest and I do not need to buy into anothers paradigm.

Anonymous said...

As a woman, I think I can speak with some authority regarding what women like in men.

Of course there are some twisted sisters. However, most healthy women need to see kindness, empathy and goodness before there can be a serious attraction.

Anonymous said...

"You think that every woman that talks to you is dating you?"

No, of course not. The "<>" symbol means "does not equal", and is the opposite of "=".

Jennifer said...

"Incidentally, if kindness, empathy and all that mean so much to young women, then how do you explain the success of pickup artists and players?"

Sure: it's a fallen world, and the words "your desire shall be for him and he shall rule you" wasn't just for husbands and wives. Fallen women desire dominance and jerks.

Anonymous said...

"Do you know any young women in their 'prime'?

Because the ones I know are happy to talk to any guy who is nice and not aggressive. Personality, kindness and empathy mean a lot to young women. I went ot a women's college and the girls I knew were looking for someone they could be friends with first and foremost. They were turned off by the alpha behavior you describe."

What women say they want is irrelevant. The women who proposed to infamous Satanic rapist Richard Ramirez probably said the same thing "I just want a nice guy I can be friends with.",in fact, the woman he married DID say that.

Women are not attracted to these qualities, they are attracted to "alpha" qualities and then they rationalize that decision by SAYING their mate has these "nice" qualities. Perhaps they even believe it, but the saying "What does she see in that guy?" doesn't exist for no reason. Often the guys women are attracted to are complete douchebags personally.

It doesn't matter. Any guy can have any woman he wants, even if his hobby is killing kittens and making children cry, she will say he is the "sweetest,kindest guy on earth",rationalizing her attraction to him.

Part 1

Anonymous said...

The only things a man needs are money, status, or power, or to display the outwards signs of these.By that,I mean a swaggering,pompous numbskull gets the girl even though there's 50 "nice" "friendly" guys sitting in the room at that time. She will say he's "charming" or "confident",and the nice guys she SAYS she wants who are sitting right there will be invisible to her because they are not displaying "alpha" behavior.

Similarly, a dork from the tech department can have a roomful of women drooling over him,all he has to do is pay a very attractive woman, an 8 or 9 to hold his hand and stare longingly into his eyes all night. This is called "social proof" but what it means is that while men independently assess a woman's quality as a mate, a woman often looks to the choices of other women to determine mate quality. More proof that women don't actually know what kind of man they want.

"Any guy that shows dominance towards me gets shown the door.

Imagine some guy you are having coffee with, just getting to know--and he starts acting dominant. Over someone he hardly knows. Most women would be "goodbye". How sad that the poster thought dominance over a near-stranger would ever be appropriate."

You don't understand what the term "dominant" means in this context. It means "socially dominant" not "imposing" or controlling. A more appropriate definition,more readily comprehensible,might be "charismatic". A charismatic person dominates any room, they are socially dominant, but they don't force anyone to do anything, people GIVE them control over the situation because they are always "on the ball".

That is what "dominant" means in Gamespeak.

"They obviously have no idea what women want, Jennifer."

Oh yes we do. Better than women do,in fact. The way we know is through observation. We don't listen to what women SAY they want, we watch who they choose.

Who do women choose?

The wealthy,the powerful, and/or the socially dominant. Every time. This is true of every woman. You guys don't compare "lists" that often I guess,because the same key words always come up "confident","masculine","strong" "kind/charitable to women", these are all ways of saying dominant and wealthy,even the common female attraction to older guys ("mature",another key word) is really just another way of saying dominant and wealthy. An older man has the respect of his community and has acquired a lot of resources.

It's all biological.It can all be explained in Game terms. We have classified and catalogued the female libido. You are no longer a mystery to us. That is why I can say with 100% certainty that 99% of women will never date a homeless midget,no matter what a good friend or how nice he is.

Part 2

Jennifer said...

"confident","masculine","strong" "kind/charitable to women", these are all ways of saying dominant and wealthy"

No, they're not. What you describe is exactly what I meant by people foolishly assuming that Game or any set of rules could define/figure out any member of either sex. You've become more lost than ever by pandering to shallow tactics. Fallen, foolish women value money and power above all else; Christian women, if they pay attention to their teaching, know better. Security is good, but money is temporary and doesn't offer emotional security.

"The women who proposed to infamous Satanic rapist Richard Ramirez probably said the same thing "I just want a nice guy I can be friends with.",in fact, the woman he married DID say that"

The most Satanic example of a low, stupid, unworthy woman you can get. With women like that, it's no wonder influential men think thus. But there's another factor here.

The fact is that "powerful" numbskulls will always get SOME woman or even a swarm of leeching, shallow hangers-on. Just like a tramp will always get some lustful men tripping around her. But if your only goal is to get some woman, no matter her own values, this is no problem...at first. Enjoy the hookers, but don't be surprised if they take your money and sleep around; it's a double-edged sword. A quality woman, on the other hand, is a diamond and a many-faceted one at that.

Jennifer said...

"What you describe is exactly what I meant by people foolishly assuming that Game or any set of rules could define/figure out any member of either sex"

Heh, no wonder men with Game think women are easy to figure out: it's all about seducing women. When I heard of it for the VERY first time, I thought it was far more complicated, but it's basically part of the seduction game that's been going on for all time. If all you want is to get in women's pants, and how to get them to let you is the only part of their psychology that concerns you, no wonder you think it's easy to figure out. It's the deeper stuff that's not so easy. Seduction is good if you're married, but if you're single and looking for anything remotely more than sex, good luck with the vastness of the rest of the mind and heart. A guy on the Spearhead even made a remark about how artful seduction doesn't even guarantee a long-term shallow relationship. Basically, you can still get screwed (pun intended). But then, "just sex" relationships tend to end up like that anyway, and that's part of the secret of all humanity that so many STILL haven't figured out: people are wired for more than sex and NEED more to thrive.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer, these guys don't want to believe that kindness, empathy or goodness can matter to women, because they don't want to show it.

They won't believe that friendship can lead to love bcause they don't want to be friendly. Takes too long, you know? And it might end up be a waste of time (ie, no nookie)

They want to believe that only rich, powerful men get married so they can feel resentful. They close their eyes to the 99% of married men who aren't these things.

They want to enjoy their resentment towards women, and I'm the last one to stand in their way. I'll spend my time with my DH instead, who was my dear friend for long while before we ever dated. He is not rich or powerful, but that has never been a problem at all!

Anonymous Reader said...

Jennifer, Anonymous, thanks ever so much for a fine display of mendaciousness, cattiness, gossipiness, outright dishonesty and other oh-so-Christian attributes. You are both truly a credit to your religion. If anyone wonders why some of us don't go to church, it's because every time we do, we encounter some broad like Jennifer or Anonymous, full of shaming language for men, but totally oblivious to their own nastiness.

Me, I'm heading over to see if Dalrock has a new posting up. Reading this thread is about as interesting as some random junk at Feministing or Jezebel...

Jennifer said...

LOL Wow. I've been nothing but honest, Anon reader, and I'm sorry you think disagreeing with what my own sex wants is catty. You seriously think Anon and I are not honest about what we want? And you get angry because we don't buy into what you've been taught we want? It's funny that you believe so heavily in the saucy whispers that go from one smooth-talker to another, yet accuse us of gossiping. The fact that you have a hissy fit at our disagreeing with seducing women and call us "nasty" for it makes your reference to church a joke.

"If anyone wonders why some of us don't go to church, it's because every time we do, we encounter some broad like Jennifer or Anonymous, full of shaming language for men"

No dear one, just honest language about any man who may think that seducing shallow women and acting in a shallow fashion wins them anything really rewarding. If you feel shamed, it should be due to your own conscience.

"but totally oblivious to their own nastiness"

Oh I AM sorry. And here I thought I was discussing the faults of both shallow and foolish men AND women. Did I hurt your feelings? I forgot, to get the approval of men like you, we're only allowed to put down and criticize women.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"Heh, no wonder men with Game think women are easy to figure out: it's all about seducing women. When I heard of it for the VERY first time, I thought it was far more complicated, but it's basically part of the seduction game that's been going on for all time. If all you want is to get in women's pants, and how to get them to let you is the only part of their psychology that concerns you, no wonder you think it's easy to figure out. It's the deeper stuff that's not so easy. "

You are so right Jen..

And you have been honest, I agree.

I have read many of your comments, and, I believe that they are from the heart.

" mendaciousness, cattiness, gossipiness, outright dishonesty and other oh-so-Christian attributes."

Shaming language anyone?

Pot.. kettle.. ! heh heh heh..

Jennifer said...

Thanks Kathy :) And for the record, I have no problem with Game teaching men (or women) how to approach others of the opposite sex; this initiates meetings, which are the first step on a road to marriage. It's the casual seduction I don't like, and treating such things in this way ultimately causes men and women to suffer. This is why both Alte and CS said Game is ammoral.

filrabat said...

Any woman relying on "social proof" has very little capacity to think for herself. That or else she has to work through fear-of-rejection issues. Either way, she's not a healthy bet.

Besides, "social proof" is NOT proof. In fact, it's the root of rumors, slander, character assassination, "moral panic", general stereotyping of "others" and in worst cases demagoguery against "out-crowds" (think Old South 'race baiters', Ahmedinajad's anti-jewish polemics, etc.).

The most one can say about "social proof" is that it provides potentially valuable evidence. Even then, that's just one item in your evidence portfolio. For this reason, I hate the term "social proof"..more accurately, it should be called "social testimony" (and often fairly flimsy testimony at that).

CSPB said...

@Jennifer
I think you are confusing the word amoral with immoral. Amoral means neither moral or immoral.

Jennifer said...

"Amoral means neither moral or immoral"

I know, depends on how it's used.