Backbreaker -
First, you like to use your line about all the things you've done and accomplished, how it's so much more than the average person... dude... I don't care. I don't know you and some dude DHVing himself on an online forum because he thinks he is all that is distasteful. I am not going to qualify myself to you but you need to consider that as little as I know about you, you know less about me. You have no idea what things I have done, how well I do with women, and could be very likely taking your foot and shoving it in your mouth. I mean if bragging about yourself online makes you feel better, please keep going. But I think it's sad when it has to come to that.
You are emphatically wrong about the concept of an ideal. Just look at science man. Why do you think they have ideal fluids, ideal gases, ideal simple machines? Nothing that is "ideal" actually exists. The ideal gas that has its corresponding ideal gas law is not real. No gas behaves like that. The ideal fluid that follow Bournolli's equation, that doesn't exist in real life either. None of these "ideal" things exist and yet there have been very well respected, almost God-like scientists, who have spent years of their life developing these relationships, formula's and descriptions of things that are not real.
Why would they do that?
Because when you study or think about something in its ideal form, it makes it easier to understand the real thing and makes it easier to make predictions about the real thing. PUA people do this to a much lesser and more ambiguous extent with the generalizations they make about "the stripper" or the "HB9" or "HB10" and how to pick them up. Those are all ideals and the reason why some guys get so frustrated with all of this stuff is because if you're just some social robot that is doing things just because some dude in a book or an internet forum told you to, not only are you probably going to come off stilted and uncalibrated, you're going to find that not all people are the same and thus, not all people react the same way to the same thing.
You seem to really like the humanities, so you're probably familiar with John Stuart Mills. Personally, I think his Utilitarianism philosophy is more impractical and useless than you think whatever concept you have of my ideal is, but remember what he said about the value in the difference of opinion, even if a well respected group has reached what they would call "consensus"? He was an adamant defender of the value of a difference in opinion.
And really, nothing I've said is out of line with the principles of this site. This is a site called "So Suave", it's supposed to help men get better at relating to women sexually and relationally. I'm not saying that I think the theories of attraction everyone has developed are full of crap. That the caricature of positive masculinity expressed by the senior members of this forum are wrong. In fact, I haven't said one word about what it means to attract women at all. I've just extended the definition of what a man is in to a realm that you don't feel comfortable with.
Do you remember what Thomas Hobbes said in his landmark book Leviathan, about what the state of nature is and why a "social contract" is a necessary thing? This is why our governments are structured the way they are... because enough people have realized that when everyone goes out in the world just fending for themselves, bad things happen. And yet what you're proposing is the natural relational corollary to political anarchy. You're saying that the only thing of chief importance in the world is yourself, by virtues of the actions that you wish to take.
Now, in your other post about what it means to be a man, you said that among other things, a man needs to be an innovator, someone with the gumption necessary to figure out what it is that he wants out of life and have the tenacity to go out and get it. I think that's a pretty understated view of what a man is, personally, because it neglects so many other important qualities that a man should have, like character, dependability, strength, confidence, self respect, and honor. However, let's use your definition for a while.
You also seem to have a strong interest in business. What sort of business would you have if you began one with a purely present mind oriented mind frame and gave absolutely no regard to what the long term consequences of your decisions would be? You based your decisions solely upon what the attracted your attention the most at any given moment. Your business would fail, and you'd probably screw up quite a few people in the process. Your employees would lose their jobs, any benefits they had, orders or services could go unfulfilled, you could go in to bankruptcy and default on loans and other financial obligations you had. It sounds like you could actually end up causing more harm from cavalierly running a business in that manner than if you had exercised some concern for the future and the consequences of your actions... or if you had just not even acted at all. Which is the better outcome? A man is someone who realizes that because he is a powerful individual and that others depend on him, has a responsibility to seek out the best interests of those under his purview. The prototypical example of this is embodied in a good king or other chief head of state.
I do not believe that a purely self seeking mindset is compatible with the description of a real man. Obviously, in order to be a strong leader, a man must take care of himself and sometimes that means putting himself first. But the corollary to that is that a man must also be able to place himself second in order to serve the greater good. As much as you claim to have read about history, this is something that I would expect to just be blatantly obvious to you... I have a minor in history and off the bat can think of so many different instances where it took a man setting aside his personal interests for the greater good that was absolutely necessary in order for something greater than him to take place... and that was what made him a man. Think of all of the blunders in history that have taken place when men weren't willing to do that, and the extent it cost their society, country, and sphere.
As I said in my very first post here, I have absolutely nothing against women and am glad that they have been emancipated to the extent they have been over the last 100 years. I don't believe that any form of public discrimination against them is wise or appropriate. At the same time, I believe that men and women serve 2 fundamentally different purposes in life, and so do you, or else you wouldn't have said that women are less likely to become entrepreneurs, using your mom as an example because she can't even handle the risk of not having enough money to pay her tithe. If you read anything other than that in what I said, you need to go back and read it again. I also have not made any statement that suggests I see women as purely sexual objects either. My chief complaint with the rampant sexuality among both men and women is the degree to which it affects a woman's ability to pair bond. Now, if I just saw women as singularly sexual objections, why in the world would I care if their pair bonding ability was compromised??? You're totally missing the point, and I don't think it was too obscure.
In addition to believe that men and women serve fundamentally different social roles, I also believe that men and women, as even Pook alluded to, function best in mutual love. I am not talking about anything AFC, beta, or anything like that. It escapes so many people that it is possible to be an alpha and still love a woman. I think you get this because you chose to marry. This is a precipitous thing to say though because people tend to either take it out of context or apply it incorrectly. Since the man, ideally, should be the leader in everything he does ESPECIALLY regarding his woman, he can't place the woman's interests ahead of his own in general because it would impair his ability to lead. His mission must be the priority. This does not mean that the man can never place himself second, as I was saying before, in order to serve the greater good of his relationship or marriage. If he is really an alpha man, he won't screw anything up in any of the other spheres in his life because he decreases for a moment in order to help increase one of members of his sphere that is lacking. It's just a more meta level version of spinning plates. When one of them slows and is about to fall, you have to give it more attention than the others or else it will fall. And the thing about plate spinning is, that if someone is really doing it, the focus isn't on the person spinning the plates, but on the plates themselves. It's ultimately the plate spinner that is making everything happen, he's ultimately the one that's in charge and overseeing everything. But it's his overall creation, all of the plates together, that represent that which should be most supreme in him. And if he begins to neglect the machine he put together simply because he wants to get in the pants of some chick at a bar, he's not really a man, he's just an opportunist.
The fact that I believe ought to have a specific standard they expect in women does not mean that I am advocating a woman's subjugation. That is an error in thinking.
