Israfil

It never fails to amuse me how much you live up to your Alias.

What should be clear?

Whichever way you choose to frame other people, there's evidence that supports that claim. You can generalize this statement to every belief you have. It's called confirmation bias. This kind of idealization of what a concept is is so far away from the truth that it hurts to see. You are watching a guy talk about his particular experiences and views about women and assuming it is true. That's akin to listening to someone who prefers dogs over cats describing a cat's appearance and behavior to you. The bias plays an important role in how he portrays the animal. In the given case, the average dating coach is not particularly interested in your relationship success, but in how to convince you that he has what it takes to give you success and keep you coming back whatever the result may be. People who talk about "female nature" and "male nature" often have little to no psychological or philosophical knowledge to sustain their analyses. Although some generalization is possible, the amount of cultural and geographical differences in the female population is so large, that it is shallow and unproductive to approach dating psychology in such a way. We have been through thousands of years of human life, living in various environments that pose different threats and needs to us. Nevertheless, we were practically genetically identical throughout this entire time, displaying very different behaviors and cultural values, even comparing societies that lived under the same geographical conditions. Social conditioning and cultural manifestations are accepted by anthropologists and biologists alike as the most prevailing factors in defining behavior in people. The point is that there is nothing inherently negative or positive to any of the genders' psychology necessarily. The crisis and problems we are facing between men and women today, and therefore, the "dark traits" people exhibit, are the fruit of the mode of socialization that is pervasive in our current society. The way we influence and build people's personalities has way more to do with dysfunctional relationships than an inherent evil trait in all of us.

This thumb is so manipulative it disgusts me.

Nervousness and anxiousness usually lead to unconscious behavior and that tends to lower the average of emotionally mature responses you get from someone. Mentally unstable people are usually emotionally unstable too.

Firstly, I would struggle to see any of the replies directed at you as a personal attack—advice or recommendation at best. And you even dismissed actual arguments as personal attacks. Secondly, the "intellectual discussion" you are trying to have is based solely on your biases. Socialization shouldn't adhere to idealistic rules you are stating they should follow, but it is a process that happens materially and can only be properly understood in practice. That's why anthropologists observe as people live, record their habits and rules, and report back. As long as you keep refraining from genuinely engaging with people, you will keep repeating this pattern of trying to describe the behavior of people, or worse, trying to prescribe how people should behave based on an ideal created over internet content. There's nothing "intellectual" about your arguments. You're simply using sophistry to justify your social inadequacy. That might be a good defense mechanism but is not exactly intellectual work. Thirdly, be open to the possibility that people on a self-development forum are interested in helping you develop yourself. Your defensiveness is only detrimental to both your social and intellectual development. Your refusal to engage with comments that challenge more deeply your convictions might be holding you back in the endeavor of constructing a more coherent worldview. May you find peace, man.

Stress is one of the greatest stimulants that are available to us endogenously. If you're depressed, you might unconsciously seek stress as a way to self-regulate. My caffeine abuse in my late teens was exactly this.

If done playfully, without excess, you can get more attention. But I'd say 9/10 people that would ask that question just would come out as weird or condescending. I'd advise you to not try this.

I wouldn't rewrite your entire post just to make a point about it. My point still stands. Nothing in the particular behaviors you described is necessarily masculine.

What I meant is that the characteristics you mentioned - authenticity (1), a realistic approach to dealing with the world (2) and not having a victim mentality (3) - are not necessarily "male characteristics". Also, "action" and "reaction" are labels you can arbitrarily place in behaviors. Every "action" can be reframed into a "reaction" if you argue differently.

I read all this, but I've met very feminine women doing those things. This doesn't seem like necessarily masculine.

"Wrong view of whats a man" is supposed to mean what, exactly?

This one is related to arousal. Higher heartbeat rate due to nervousness or sexual arousal. It "tricks" the brain into thinking that the girl is into you.

In Europe? Maybe. Many people get grossed out by armpit hair or even pubic hair. I do agree. But porn is a hiperstimulus. Seeing a pair of breasts is not.

I'd say those "tribal" people are much less sexualized than we are. The sexual act is way more respected than in most modern western societies. The bias of confusing technical material progress with development is one I see too frequently here. Also, the argument that the normalization of nudity decreases the arousal of observing a breast only proves my point. The social dimension of clothing norms, in this case, nearly nullifies completely the natural arousal of seeing a breast. Many other bodily changes that also indicate sexual maturity, such as the development of body hair is seen as neutral or even unattractive to most people. Attraction is a matter far deeper than "see big boob, get big dick".