mr_engineer

@Tyler Robinson Most of what you're saying is correct. I don't disagree with it. What I said was a reply to you asking me to explain how men play a role in preserving women's femininity. What do your hormones have to say about going down a dark alley at night? Does that have nothing to do with men? Can men not change that situation? And believe me, men don't feel that way about going down a dark alley. You feel that way only because you're a woman and a lot of baggage and conditioning comes with it. Alright. Let's say you're in a relationship with a passive man, who takes no responsibility and who 'whines to you about everything', as you'd said in the other thread. Is that helpful for you to be in your feminine? Or, does that put you in a mom-role, which means that you have to be masculine? You probably haven't met a man who actually embodies a masculinity that fits with you. Maybe it's cuz you don't know yourself. I am getting a resentful vibe from you. I would like you to open your mind to the possibility that the issue of male passivity is even worse than what feminists think it is. And that if you meet a guy who is actually dominant, you won't be so resentful anymore.

This depends on who you are as an individual woman and what your individual definition of 'femininity' is. That's how you'd define 'masculinity' for yourself and that's what you'd seek out from men. First of all, masculinity and femininity can only be defined in terms of each other. For example, if the masculine is dominant, the feminine is submissive. If the masculine is physical, the feminine is spiritual. If the masculine is the giver, the feminine is the receiver. If the masculine is the leader, the feminine is the follower. If the masculine is the rule-setter, the feminine is the rule-keeper. None of these are hard-and-fast rules, you pick the qualities of the role you want in your life, depending on who you are and where you fit in. Compatibility plays a huge role here. This is seen very starkly in the romantic context, but also applies everywhere else. Individually and collectively. You could try.

Are you sure you know what dominant men want? Do keep in mind that men play a very important role when it comes to preserving feminine nature. You'd better know what role you have for men in this process, or else your endeavors simply won't work. There are very big connections between you wanting a dominant man and you talking about how feminism is de-polarizing men and women. 'Emasculating men and masculating women', in your own words. Some of the Tier-2 Stage Yellow big-picture systems-thinkers here can feel free to jump in on this one! You're not special to me. (Not yet . You could get there if you want.) You are just one of many women who say they want a dominant guy. So, no. I don't really care about your approval. There are a lot of other details about you that I could care less about. The socially responsible part of me thanks you for raising this social issue.

Sexual de-polarization is the biggest side-effect of this problem that you're talking about. And, on another thread, you said that you want a dominant guy. My point is that if we are to collectively resolve this, this would be your role. Or the role of any women who have been indoctrinated into feminism and are not happy with it, for these reasons. Especially you, if you want a dominant guy. I won't respond to the personal remark. And, about the issue of thanking you - I'm respecting your ability to be heard in society and I'm thanking you for using it in a mature and responsible way. It's basic respectful treatment. Not for your approval! This is a limiting-belief that rests on the lack of understanding of the difference between 'dominant' and 'dominating'. A 'dominating' guy would be doing so for manipulative reasons. He has control-issues, because of internal weakness. That's why he's very easy to manipulate for women. A lot of 'bad boys' fall into this category. But, a 'dominant' guy is someone who has his shit together. And women can't do anything to them. They are 'dominant' cuz they have their shit together, they take ownership of themselves and others and they are self-consciously at an advantage over women, physically and socially. Some may use this advantage responsibly, some may not. But, they're not weaklings. So, their 'dominance' doesn't come out of control-issues or 'dominating behavior'.

That's not really news to me or anyone here. Maybe you'd want to be the change you want to see in the world? You'd do very well to stop swinging your metaphorical 'dick'. Not very appealing to dominant guys.

If you were a guy saying this right now, you would get warning points. #Cancelculture. So, thank you for speaking on our behalf!

Maybe you want an open relationship. You can have a deep connection with her and get sexual freedom like that!! Monogamy makes sense if you want her in your life, to the degree that you want her to be exclusive with you. And you're willing to sacrifice opportunities with other women for it.

After some thought on why I didn't really care about the answer to this question 'why they're emotional', I realized that I care about the 'how' more than the 'why'. How are they more emotional, how does their mind work differently to mine? So that I can figure out how I should be communicating with them. From questions of how to approach them, how to not run out of things to say, how to escalate, etc. to proper conflict-resolution in relationships, ultimately it's all about communication. (Which is why being with a smart woman really, really matters to me) But thanks anyways! Doesn't hurt to know this.

It's just hardwiring, I guess. I don't know. What's your take?

You want to give me answers, without wanting my trust? What do you think I'm going to do with those answers that come from someone I don't trust?! Oh no sir. I don't act that humble with people I don't trust. Women don't like rude men. They're just willing to put up with someone who has a style that their daddy had, if they have low self-esteem. And, why are women emotional? Well, first of all, all humans are emotional. All mammals are emotional, in fact. The difference between men and women, is that men have a facts-first epistemology and women have a feelings-first epistemology. I.e. men's worldview is in terms of facts about the material world whereas women's worldview is in terms of feelings and emotions. This is why, in a moment of danger, men become very efficient at doing something about it whereas women slip into a fear/terror-space. Because women get the emotional response to the dangerous situation before they get the facts. Which is why they slip into catastrophization relative to it. Seems irrational to men, because we're able to see all the facts first. So, when the fear hits us, we're able to set it aside as a secondary concern and directly focus on the problem at hand. But, doesn't seem irrational to women!

My dude, I would like to kindly draw your attention to the logical inconsistencies of what you're saying. When did I 'demonize women for being emotional'?! I'm getting angry cuz I'm being targeted here for pointing out the inconsistencies in your reasoning. You want me to ask for answers?! Well, fix the inconsistencies in what you're saying first. Then I might consider that you know what you're talking about. Is this your first time having to earn someone's trust in your opinions?!

Repeating a lie is not going to make it the truth, give it up. That starts with hypotheses. I have explanations for your perceptions about women 'not being logical'. My experience with women says that they are very logical and pragmatic. Some smarter than others. Emotional is not the opposite of logical. Now, complaining is illogical. But, that's an assumption on your part. I never said I don't understand your perception of 'women are illogical'. I do understand it. And I disagree with it. Emotional is not the opposite of logical. If you assume that, yeah. I can see why you'd think that women are illogical. I've already called bullshit on your 'truth'.

It's not complaining, it's a call-out to everyone telling me to 'not be logical'. You gotta know why you're so against logical thinking, right?! I really love this excuse, that 'you're just complaining, you're just whining, you can't possibly know what works, cuz you're logical. You have to be illogical to know what works!!' Please make some sense, instead of scapegoating me as 'complaining because you don't understand'. You're the one selling this to me, I'm not buying it. To say that women are illogical and that logic cannot be used to make sense to them is kinda misogynistic, to be honest. And also not true. There are smart women out there, women with brains. You just gotta know how to filter out the morons. And a final point - the point of having a smart woman is to be able to communicate well and to be able to make a relationship work as a team-effort. You want a teammate, a partner who is smart, not stupid! This shit matters in the real world.

It's a reflection of what they have been and still are, to this day. The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle cost 30 million pounds. If they'd donated that money to the homeless or something, instead of kicking them off the streets to preserve 'royal honor', people would be saying much better things about them.

Do you see that you're being logical when you say this? When you draw a cause-and-effect relationship between 'logic' and 'women's attraction' or 'intuitiveness and emotionality' with 'women's attraction', that's logical thinking!! Why are you being too logical?!

I have a theory on why people say 'don't be logical about this'. The reality is that people don't have their shit together. Most people's minds are a mess. So, when you're being logical with them, they'll be scared that you'll see through them. Because they're insecure. Do I have to tell you how ridiculous it sounds, when you say 'don't be logical in your choice of woman to date, have sex with or marry'?! Cuz women are very logical about this stuff. If you aren't logical for yourself, no one will be.

Thank you. On the one hand, you say that it's not a high-yield technique. On the other hand, you say that 'this is what you can work on to be attractive to lots of women'. ???

Until the day the Brits have enough of it. And they say 'We don't want these tyrants on our payroll anymore, we will not stand for it or fund it'.

...if you're okay with getting beheaded for it...

On the one hand, you say that there is no 'magic pill'. On the other hand, you're saying 'don't be logical'. As if that's the magic pill. ??? Very enlightening, I must say.

And one final point about why I went on this spiel, so that all of you can understand - when I'm trying to get good with women, if I'm given ten things to focus on, I get confused. I want one thing to focus on. One 'high-yield technique', as Leo talks about in his video on the 3-step formula. For that, I need to know what women's priorities are! That's how I verify my idea of what that high-yield technique is going to be when I improve my game.

Thank you. A word on getting this - Your best shot at getting this is to look for guys who are intimate with you in a platonic way. If they're emotionally closed-off, that situation stands literally no chance of improvement. Cuz they're fine with who they are, they're 'alpha enough to not care', but you're not. So, if you need a stepping-stone towards this kind of relationship, I'd choose a guy who isn't quite there yet but is willing to be emotionally intimate, over an 'alpha' who is emotionally closed-off. Yes, your girlfriends will warn you against it, you won't be able to make them jealous, but it's a better investment long-term. It's very relevant to the thread. And, your answer is not unique to you. So, don't worry about your privacy! A lot of women share your priorities. When I push other women to give a clear-cut answer on what they want like I pushed you, they give the exact same answer! Suit yourself. Have a good one!

There can be sex without intimacy. It's called 'mutual masturbation'. Would you be fine with that? Or, does intimacy have to be a part of your sexual experience? What's more important?! Sex or intimacy?!

Nope. You can have intimacy with a best friend too. You can be vulnerable with them, be open with them and have them be with you. And that can be fully platonic, with sexual boundaries.