[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No such thing as an equal relationship, one always leads and it should be you. [/quote]
You can lead without dominating. You can follow without submitting.[/quote]
No, you cant.[/quote]
No?[/quote]
No, and I find the squirming in this thread to avoid the word “dominance” amusing.
Yall know that it works, you know that women want it, but for some reason it does not sit right.
Either it must be “playful” and “confined to the bedroom”, or conflated with other stuff, or arranged just so that she is effectively dominating from the bottom…
No.
Its ok to go out and conquer, its ok to try to take control of your environment, its ok swoop up a woman and take her along for the ride and its ok to WANT TO.
Its just not easy, especially not in todays society, which is why men are not born but MADE.
If you lead and she follows, you are dominating her and, since you probably do not have her on a leash in your dungeon, she probably stays because that is the way she likes it.[/quote]
I think this is another example of the manosphere/PUA’s tendency to view the world in black and white. I think leadership is the trait that women seek, not dominance. If you lead and she follows, then she is willing to follow - how does that make her “dominated”? What happens when she chooses not to follow in certain circumstances? Does she have to? Will someone’s fragile sense of self be threatened if she balks?
Women like men who are confident and strong. Feminine women tend to be flexible and agreeable by nature, which may suggest that they are pliable. However, I think men also seek strength and confidence in a partner. Strength and confidence in an agreeable and flexible woman suggest she is NOT dominated, but rather following by choice. Pliable only insofar as she is able to be without compromising her own values.
Dominated = cowed.
Even sexually there is room for female aggression, or at least one hopes there is. While I may not be a able to tackle someone to the ground who outweighs me by 80 lbs, I can certainly try - here is where the playful comes in, no? Because my aggression is met with male size and strength. Very sexy, that.
[/quote]
Yeah, thats dancing around the issue.
Also, if a woman tells you how to do it properly she is dominating from the bottom, which is no bueno…
“I listen to you, but I do not obey you” may be aggravating in the short run but it is sexy as hell and you know it.
It is the same as you trying to tackle him and fail, its “run up against big strong man and see if he can take it” just on an emotional level.
Which would be a nice way of explaining what a shittest is. [/quote]
I’m going to take this to the Feelings thread, so as not to further derail this one. Plus, I have feelings about it.[/quote]
So, you don’t like that women are essentialized this way. I don’t either, nor do I like the end idea of PUA, which basically turns women into dogs, always looking to please their master in the sense that one of the goals of their philosophy is to get women to seek approval and gain a sense of push pull gratification. But, it works and a lot of beta/nice guys seek it out. It will get you laid, but it’s not natural or who that, “nice guy” is.
So, how do we change how women essentialize men? Imo women tend to essentialize men in three big categories… The good guy, the bad guy, and the nice guy.
The good guy is outgoing and good, confident, doesn’t seek approval, doesn’t shy away from sexual tension and is generally positive, he likes putting people in a good mood and often people leave his presence smiling. He leaves a woman in limbo because he makes her question whether she is GOOD enough for him, and tries to live up to his standards.
The bad guy basically neglects women and uses push pull to take advantage. He is late, doesn’t call, treats her like shit and puts her in a position where, she thinks she can change him… This is what I noticed off the bat Spock is into.
Then there is the nice guy. This guy is viewed as a big vagina to women. He rarely has his own opinion and agrees with everything she says. He shows off the bat that he is attracted, leaving no room for a chase and women get bored. Or, he doesn’t sexually escalate once she’s become comfortable.
What’s messed up about this is, the comfort zone is where people can really get to know one another. But, if the guy doesn’t escalate past the comfort zone he’s friendzoned. So, as a result a lot of guys just hook up and find out later whether she is a bitch or not, and she finds out whether he’s a total asshole, or not. I’ve been saying we don’t really know one another, or get a chance to know one another until after we have hooked up… Hooking up itself is mostly facade, you don’t know a persons character with introductions, but with a BIT of time. You don’t know a persons cracks or weaknesses really until you’ve known them for a few months.
Why are men essentialized into these 3 categories? Do you do agree with them?