A prime example why even "be a man" advice falls short in the matrix

[reset]

Because men are raised to do that. When you're younger and you start feeling all these things towards the opposite sex you just say it's "love". Your natural instinct may be to pull their pig tails or make fun of them, whatever. But then when you try to make sense of what you're feeling you look at society around you and think "oh I like a girl now so I'm going to give her a gift or write a love letter" because that's what we're saturated with.

The first girl I had a crush on in Jr. High when I was like 12 I wrote her a love letter. Where the hell did that idea come from? Did I just come up with that on my own? I don't remember why I did it but I must have picked it up from some sitcom or love song.

So what you do doesn't work but you can't understand why it's not working because that's what you've been told works. So you never develop a genuine polarity type connection with a woman because you continually do the wrong thing. And you grow up to be an adult and you STILL don't understand what's happening so in a way you still have the emotional maturity (at least regarding women) of that kid who couldn't make sense of what was happening.

We're raised to not see a woman for what she is but to idealize them on the spot. At least, if you don't have the proper male influence to counteract the BS you grow up with. That's why it's called AVERAGE (FC). The exception is the guy who gets the girl is the exception, he either never jacked into the matrix or pulled himself out at some point.

For myself it's been beaten out of me. I wouldn't dream of doing any of these behaviors towards a woman. My thing is after a point my emotions take over, even though I do my best to play it cool and NOT be or act needy. The last time around it caught up with me. I was going through the motions and they were becoming habits but I was ignoring that emotional immaturity that was beneath the new outside habits.

 

[Interceptor]

Most of the things that do build genuine attraction in women are often called counter intuitive.

Now, why is that?

And also, what is the earliest interaction any male can remember?

Interactions with his Mother.

Second, what type of behavior did we often perfom for our Mother as boys?

Accomodating, supplicating behavior.

We would 'behave' and get a 'reward".

We would eat our 'spinach" and be thought of as a 'good little boy".


Sure, not all of us have had these exact expereinces.

But what I am trying to get at is that most of these programmed behaviors started early.

And to continue into adulthood, demonstrates the 'boy psychology" in many many males now adays.

They are not Men.

They are certainly NOT 'Realized" Men.

Sure. A lot of them have technical Degrees.

An expensive house, expensive car.
Good , decent parents.


BUt damn, they are MISSING Masculinity and a strong connection to their Masculine Power and their SEXUALITY. Not necessarily sexual desire, but SEXUALITY.
They may have trouble connecitng with other men.
They may fear competition.
They may fear confrontation.
They equate being assertive, with being aggressive.
They look down on masculinity.
They have poor male role models, and/or NO Mature Masculine Role Models.
They have never been in a Trial by Fire.

I can go on.

But the point is , there is a 'disconnect';. And incongruency,.

Something is MISSING.
And women NOTICE this.

 

[jophil28]

The chump who fawns over women does have a place in the dating culture. I will explain..
He is the guy who a certain type of woman will date eagerly.
"Eagerly" does NOT mean that she is attracted to him however.
What this type of woman is doing taking advantage of the guys willingness to worship her and treat her like a prize. What (single) woman would pass up the free dinners and the flowers and the smarmy Hallmark cards, not to mention the huge ego-gasms and the endless opportunities that she has to brag to her G/fs about how this guy uis "infatuatued "with her. BUt she is ultimately unsatisfied (BUT stays with the AFC) and continues to scan the landscape for the BBD.

The scenario above commonly follows a woman's LTR breakup. These women seem to then date "controllable" men who are willing to 'fawn and adore' their way into her heart. Unfortunately he does not understand the "rebound guy " dynamic or the woman's motivation which is .. EGO repair from external validation. EVentually she will find the BBD. dump the chump, and he is left heartbroken and disillusioned with women..

 

[reset]

They have never been in a Trial by Fire.

But once they do, it can be a great thing, those trials.

 

[iqqi]

Thanks for explaining, Interceptor. And great job.

I don't know if I agree with you about the mommy thing leading up to the matrix entrapment.

However, back to the man in love with love discussion. I hope it makes sense now, MNIN. (ROLLS EYES).

I am fully aware that not everyone will understand what we are saying. Just like a lot of people just don't get a lot of things. As a man, if you met a woman, and she was in love with you immediately, and sent you a text like every day saying she misses you and that you are so sweet and handsome... how would you react?

If you thought "Hey great! This chick digs ME." You'd be incorrect, most likely. She digs the idea of a great guy possibly =ing a great LTR. But she doesn't even know YOU. YOU could be ANYONE. How is this attractive?

Some people have no self worth, and will gladly fill a position. Are you one of these people?

Here are some real life examples I have been through.

I met a guy who immediately begin texting me daily.

"I miss youououou. You are so sweet! I can't wait to see you."

I wanted to throw up! First of all, I am NOT sweet. LOL, you all can testify to that. SO wtf was he talking about? And what did he miss? He didn't know anything about me, to miss me. What he was obviously missing, was someone, anyone. And I'm sorry, but I could never be someone's anyone.

Still, he was cute, and I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. I went to the movies with him. He wanted to hold hands, and smile at me, and cuddle. Gross! Not always, but DAMN, I don't even know you! Once again, I felt like he was on a date with a Girl (Any Girl! Woo Hoo!), and not Iqqi. All that saccharine gloob was the biggest turn off ever. I couldn't even look at him after that.

Another example. I was dating this guy over the summer. He asked me to move in with him, he wanted to be exclusive, yadda yadda yadda. I didn't even know him like that! The kicker was when he tried to surprise me with something that TWO days ago I had told him I hated... he didn't remember! I came to find out, he didn't remember ANYTHING I had told him about me specifically (and that wasn't a whole lot at this point either).

Our conversation could have been this:

iq "I am totally scared of dogs ever since my uncle was mauled and killed by one last year."
guy hears "blah blah blah, heavenly I love you blah" Wow, she is beautiful, and she is here with me, and she is so cute when she looks at me like that...
iq "Hey, are you going to eat that anchovie? I love anchovies..."
guy heres "blah..." wow, she can have whatever she wants, I wonder if she will be my girlfriend, I will get her a dog tomorrow, she will LOVE it, and it will be like our child together, I bet no man has ever got her a dog before, I am so romantic....
guy "Lets get a dog tomorrow!"
iq "uh. I just told you I am terrified of dogs."
guy "oh. when?"


THAT, my friends, is totally unattractive! He was desparate... the worst part was, he had girls that were interested in him! He just wanted LOVE. LOVE LOVE LOVE, but what kind? I don't know. All I know, was I couldn't stand to be around him after a minute of that.

Don't fill positions!

I personally don't mind being single, as opposed to being someone's void filler.

 

[Interceptor]

I don't know if I agree with you about the mommy thing leading up to the matrix entrapment.

Understood.

But I may have to remind you that you have never experienced growing up as a boy.
And vice versa, of course. Right?


And I have to emphasize that the disconection men and women often feel is partly because it is hard to visualize ourselves in their shoes.

Meaning, for example, I recall a long time ago I had a hard time understanding something I heard a woman say once:
"I love all my girls. They are my best friends. But I would never trust any of them. They're all b*tches."
:crazy:

Things like this are hard for a Man to deeply understand. As we mature, and gain more experience with women, and gain more wisdom and self realization, mature masculine Men can go into a very very deep understanding of the psyche of women.
And we start to formulate theories, and a deeper understanding of WHY women may believe or desire something, or WHY they believe something that is in fact a rationale for something else.
We recognize potential motivation for Women's beliefs, deep rooted beliefs an their actions (or Non Action as it were)according to those beliefs.



Or other experiences women have , like issues with their mothers, issues with masculine role models, feeling uncomfortable with sexuality at a young age, issues with 'hiding' their TRUE self, issues with male sexuality,issues with weight/body image, issues with wanting men to NOT do what they want...there are many things that do not seem logical to us, and is hard for many men to conceptualize.


"Women do WHAT?!"

"Women believe WHAT??!!"

"Nawwww..can't be!"




Things like this should reinforce the notion that sometimes we have to look deeper at our issues, and try to place ourself in the other's shoes, so we may be able to understand the situation, and eventually even empathize with it.

So that's why I bring this up.

A LOT of Women don't really "agree" with certain experiences that ONLY a BOY could possibly have.
It makes sense.
Because they have NEVER lived as a boy, or Man.
Just something to think about.

 

[aliasguy]

Extra points for the Interceptor.

 

[Interceptor]

I met a guy who immediately begin texting me daily.

"I miss youououou. You are so sweet! I can't wait to see you."

I wanted to throw up! First of all, I am NOT sweet. LOL, you all can testify to that. SO wtf was he talking about? And what did he miss? He didn't know anything about me, to miss me. What he was obviously missing, was someone, anyone. And I'm sorry, but I could never be someone's anyone.

This is a perfect example of PROJECTING.

THIS is EXACTLY what is the NORM nowadays.

The poor guy is projecting his ideal character traits on IQQI, and which Iqqi herself confirms that she knows she's not that way. SO what does that mean?
In an instant, you, me, and Iqqi KNEW EXACTLY what was happening.
this guy was in a fantasy world, and seemingly made no effort to truly get to KNOW Iqqi on a deeper level.
So what happened?
She got TURNED OFF!
Turned off by a guy who WAS NOT "seeing" HER!

This guy was infatuated by a "Vision" and "idealization", NOT IQQI!
So, fvck, that pissed her off, man.
And I don't blame her.
She's like "Hello? Do you even know who I am?"

But the guy is a little immature, and not experienced, and goes into that common "Projection" mode, and fvcked things up with her.

She now feels ignored by a guy, who's living in this dream world.

Total turn off.

No masculinity or sexuality at ALL, the poor guy.

An example, for fun.....
What if the guy saw the REAL Iqqi, and then sent her something like this instead?:


"Iqqi, you can be a cold b*tch. But I know why. I'm gonna break that ice of yours, and I will melt you. I like you. I like what I see in you. Let's get together. Call me now"


What I'm trying to show is that the guy is assertive, he recognized the real Iqqi, he made an effort (assuming beforehand) to get to know her, he didnt judge her, and he was mature and experiienced to understand her (he understands Women) INSIDE, and he still wants HER, not an 'image' of her, and he is showing her he is INTERESTED in a mature, manly way.


Anyway, just illustraing the example Iqqi brought about some guys who are clearly looking at an image of a woman, NOT the real woman herself.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

That makes no sense. Why doesn't that surprise me.

Think about women who you could meet online who want to spend weeks emailing before meeting. A lot of them are more interested in the romance of exchanging emails than actually meeting face to face. Their IL is only on the email exchange, not the guy. Same could be said about women who only text instead of meeting up.

 

[iqqi]

LOL at Interceptor.

That was funny. And a good breakdown of what we are trying to get across.

 

[My Name is Nobody]

However, back to the man in love with love discussion. I hope it makes sense now, MNIN. (ROLLS EYES).

OK I agree it's lame he was "in love" with you after all this. But just because he texted "i miss you" doesn't mean he "was in love" with you.

Did he actually say "I LOVE YOU" or did he just text you alot?

Did he ask you to live with him out of NOWHERE or did you b!tch to him about not having a place to live so he offered you to stay with him until you find a place?

I've seen it a million times a woman b!tches about her problems until the guy offers to help and she turns it all back on him.

So he texts you alot calls you and acts AFC.. I highly doubt they were in love with you like you claim. I bet there is alot to this story you are leaving out. Like all the b!tching and B1tching most women do to the guy until he offers to help them out.

I'm suuuuure this was all him and none you. I'd love to hear HIS side of the story.

 

[iqqi]

Is this what you do, rationalize your own AFC behaviour? Do you sit around and make up excuses for your AFC ways, like you are trying to do for the hopeless shmucks I described?

OK I agree it's lame he was "in love" with you after all this. But just because he texted "i miss you" doesn't mean he "was in love" with you. Did he actually say "I LOVE YOU" or did he just text you alot?

Cmon, kid! What does it matter. It was all the same thing!

Did he ask you to live with him out of NOWHERE or did you b!tch to him about not having a place to live so he offered you to stay with him until you find a place?

Well... now that you mention it... it wasn't out of the blue... I mean, I did just DO him.

Power of the pvssy! Woo hoo, girl power!!

Other than that... yeah, it was out of nowhere.

I've seen it a million times a woman b!tches about her problems until the guy offers to help and she turns it all back on him.

Don't really know what to say 'bout that there, sounds like you shouldn't surround yourself with b!tches that b!tch? Or supplicate them? That way you won't get mad when they turn it around on you?

I personally don't like to tell men I don't know well about my personal problems. That's just me, though.

 

[My Name is Nobody]

Is this what you do, rationalize your own AFC behaviour? Do you sit around and make up excuses for your AFC ways, like you are trying to do for the hopeless shmucks I described?



Cmon, kid! What does it matter. It was all the same thing!



Well... now that you mention it... it wasn't out of the blue... I mean, I did just DO him.

Power of the pvssy! Woo hoo, girl power!!

Other than that... yeah, it was out of nowhere.




Don't really know what to say 'bout that there, sounds like you shouldn't surround yourself with b!tches that b!tch? Or supplicate them? That way you won't get mad when they turn it around on you?

I personally don't like to tell men I don't know well about my personal problems. That's just me, though.

I bet you b!tched and b!tched about your problems to this guy and made him feel sorry for you and he offered to help you out. All women B!tch and B!tch that's all they do are you saying you don't B!tch?

Girl:"wahhhhhh wahhhhhhh I don't have a place to live I am all alone I'm broke and I have nothing!!!! I don't know what I am going to do..."

AFC: "I'll help you out you can stay with me I won't let you go on the street"

Girl " OMG you are a psycho you want me to live with you and i barely even know you!!!!!!!!! FREAK!!!!!"

 

[jophil28]

remember?


Interactions with his Mother.

Second, what type of behavior did we often perfom for our Mother as boys?

Accomodating, supplicating behavior.

We would 'behave' and get a 'reward".

We would eat our 'spinach" and be thought of as a 'good little boy".


Sure, not all of us have had these exact expereinces.

But what I am trying to get at is that most of these programmed behaviors started early.

And to continue into adulthood,

THIS is exactly how and where it all started.
We were trained to accept that if we wanted something ,then oftentimes we needed to 'please' mommy first. She would say ," If you pick up your room, I wll take you to the park."
The belief was formed very early that to get what WE wanted we should give mom what she wanted ,when she wanted it ..
How many of you guys reading this can NOW say "NO" to your mother without feeling guilty, or waiting for the sky to fall ?? How many of you feel that 'helpless" feeling when she is in her "mother " mode - critical, demanding and moody? Yeah, I know how that feels ...

We also were trained to associate obedience with direct emotional rewards.
What about the way that she would give you a kiss and a hug and lavish praise on you when you did what she wanted. Many times she was at her most affectionate AFTER you had done something to please her.

Do you all think that it is possible that this conditioning continues to drive our behavior ?
Have we merely substituted peer group women for good ole mom ?

 

[bigjohnson]

I'm guessing this is from a single mom household? I don't know about you guys but my dad did in fact marry the prom queen right after he got out of the US Marine Corps. That's a level of manliness that's hard to live up to.

At least he set a good example.

 

[reset]

Well my Mother wasn't really around so I spent my life trying to get her affection through other women, and making sure that they were the type of chick that would be just as emotionally unavailable as her.

My dad never recovered from her leaving. I don't think he was un-masculine. He tought me a lot of things about life but when it came to women I never grew up seeing him interact with them or anything. Had to learn on my own.

So the mother thing is a big part of it... and having a masculine example is a big part of it.... good things there's this place.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Getting back to the OP - I've been discussing with friends and collegues the idea of how society decides when something is considered rude and when something is considered acceptable and how they originate. With regards to this cell phone scenario consider these conditions:

Why is it we're asked to silence our cell phones before a movie? There's even a PSA on the screen to do so before a movie begins.

When you are in any high school or university class a teacher will either implicitly ask that students silence their cell phones, or will already expect that students will know to do so since it is not only a distraction, but a sign of disrespect. Why?

In most large Churches today this is also the case. Why?

I was sitting down to eat sushi this week and on the back wall of the bar I notice a little iconic sign of a cell phone in a red circle with a line drawn through it indicating no cell phone use at the bar. Why?

These are just a few, but I'm sure there are other instances where cell phone use, while not illegal, is frowned upon. What makes these circumstances any different from the demonstrational date video in the OP? Why would the same young woman who would automatically and as a matter of course silence her cell phone for a college teacher's lecture not give a man the same courtesy on a date? What is different about the circumstances of a date that a man should be expected to tolerate a behavior that a woman wouldn't think twice about in a movie theater?

 

[jophil28]

Why would the same young woman who would automatically and as a matter of course silence her cell phone for a college teacher's lecture not give a man the same courtesy on a date? What is different about the circumstances of a date that a man should be expected to tolerate a behavior that a woman wouldn't think twice about in a movie theater?

Perhaps this is a simple example of the mindset of women these days. I have seen and heard of many examples of women's behavior which seems to suggest that women think that they are NOT obligated to have respect or regard for men , for men's feelings or for men's comfort .

I have gotten a strong impression that women would never offend or inconvenience their girlfriends, their sisters or their children BUT they will readily trample over men's feelings as if men do not count enough to be treated with the same courtesy.

HOw many of you have been insulted or humiliated by some woman in public who would scream blue murder if, instead, her words were used by you to insult her.
It appears that women believe that they have a license to say and act in any way that they please towards a man with no protest from him.

I just do not undersatnd it either, RT.

No wonder "there are no good men out there" - in fact there are a lot of good men "out there", but we are avoiding that kind of woman.

 

[reset]

It appears that women believe that they have a license to say and act in any way that they please towards a man with no protest from him.

That's just because men hadn't fought back. I wonder how long this whole concept of a "men's movement" has been around, which so suave is a part of. Eventually more men will get tired of it and things will change.

Everyone's concerned with how to please a woman. Didn't it used to be the other way around?

But yeah avoid those women and it's not your problem.

 

[Mr. Me]

bet you b!tched and b!tched about your problems to this guy and made him feel sorry for you and he offered to help you out.

You're expressing AFC thinking here, as if that's the norm. If a woman I've recently met is telling me problem after problem, and not mentioning how she's competently resolving these issues, it's NOT my problem and though I may empathize (depending on whether her problems are of her own making or not), I certainly wouldn't offer help. Get entangled with a problematic person? Nuh-huh! I'm not a "Rescuer". In fact, if she's a train wreck, I'd drop her from my social circle.

what type of behavior did we often perform for our Mother as boys?

Accomodating, supplicating behavior.


THIS is exactly how and where it all started.

And then, we could say, further being behaviorally trained in the classroom for years by mostly female teachers.

However, having a mother and female teachers is something we've had going on for some centuries. But men used to be men. So there must be something that is affecting the role modeling.

Could it be the dads whose jobs entailed long hours and got home right around the children's bedtime, therefore not being around much? Or they'd come home and just veg in front of the TV, not providing anything in the way of how to interact with their women? The rise of divorce creating more than ever single mom households where the bitter divorced women also spoke ill of their exes in front of their children, conditioning their children to believe in a tainted picture (an ex mother-in-law told my then grade school age children that I was the "son of Satan"! Nice, huh?) The change in perception of dealing with women, due to feminism, that parlayed itself into many different facets of interaction between the genders? As an example of this, the rise of the "sensitive man".

Why would the same young woman who would automatically and as a matter of course silence her cell phone for a college teacher's lecture not give a man the same courtesy on a date?

I have gotten a strong impression that women would never offend or inconvenience their girlfriends, their sisters or their children BUT they will readily trample over men's feelings as if men do not count enough to be treated with the same courtesy.

This is an excellent point, and of course, it goes both ways. I think what's interesting is that this becomes a litmus test. If a woman (or man) were to respond to this question by asserting why it's NOT the same thing, i.e., they argue, "In a lecture hall, we're there to hear the lecturer for educational purposes, and it would be disturbing to others if cell phones were consistently ringing. But the date is simply having a dinner!", then they're telling you their phone will stay on, as they're looking for that out. So that tells you about them.

Imagine you're told instead, "Yes, we're on a date together and I do want to give you my full attention and not be distracted by my phone. I'll turn it off." Then you have someone on the same page.

It appears that women believe that they have a license to say and act in any way that they please towards a man with no protest from him.

Equality without Responsibility. Responsibility without Accountability. Society has permitted it, sadly.

A man cheats on his wife, he's scum. (And he is).

A woman cheats on her husband, it becomes The Bridges of Madison County and becomes a number one best seller, featured on Oprah and a big box office film hit.

A man murders his wife, he's a bast@rd. (And he is, and worse).

A woman kills her husband, she's the victim.

A male teacher has sex with a teenage student, or just touches her in the wrong spot, he's a sexual predator, gets marked for life as a molester and gets a life time prison sentence.

A female teacher has sex with a younger male student, we get she has a mental problem, she doesn't get put away as long, and when the kid becomes legal, apparently she marries him and everything's okey-dokey.

On the less severe end of the spectrum, when she shows up half an hour late for a date and ditzilly says, "Oh gee, I'm never on time!" and the guy whose just happy she's there says, "That's okay!",

When she throws a hissy fit and the guy says "oh, women have their little emotional episodes..." and excuse her behavior away,

When, according to statistics from the Labor Department, women take off from work 20% more than men do, but expect to be seen as an equal for that job opening, I guess I could go on...

in all these instances, they're given a pass of sorts, as the consequences for their actions isn't the same as those of men. Society has different, lesser boundaries for women.

It's actually an insult to women, or at least should be. Isn't society, in effect, saying, "we're letting you slide because we know you're not capable. Men are capable and so, we deal with them in full force. But not women"?

Believe it or not, MOST men ARE dogs. (This is the female version of no quality women exist).

Wouldn't it be, if men are dogs, then correspondingly, women are the b!tches?