Are Fairy Tales and Romance part of the Feminine Agenda?

[STR8UP]

Quite regularly I am romantic, even to the point of acting out faery tales.

There is a big difference between acting out a fairy tale and LIVING one.

You, my friend, are doing the latter.

And yes, I have had plenty of relationships in my life. Even lived with a few women, believe it or not. The only thing I can't comment on is marriage. I like to learn from other people's mistakes.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Alright, I'll throw my hat in the ring. I think REALSMOOTHIE gave a pretty good outline of marriage from a pragmatic, historical basis. I'd only add that I think this 'arranged alliances' purpose of marriage lasted up until the Victorian age, not the 1940s-60s. If you read the Art of Seduction by Robert Greene and pay attention to the introduction in particular, there's a very good outline of the covert, psychological and sociological aspects of how women have historically manipulated exactly the marriage conditions REALSMOOTHIE described in very calculated ways. Essentially, seduction became a very sophisticated art as a response to exactly the powerlessness women found themselves in. So while I'd agree that seeing marriage as some grand scheme for women to control men, I think it's equally misguided to believe that women are above subterfuge and psychological manipulations. In fact I think the best social convention women have ever established was to condition men to believe they're random, fickle, indecisive creatures given to the whims of emotions beyond their control. The combination of the female prerogative (she can always change her mind) and the Feminine Mystique (women are always unknowable) has been their tools of the trade for centuries. Make no mistake, women are VERY calculating, and consistently more so than men in general. They've had to be.

But that's marriage, not romance per se. There will always be an element of fantasy and idealism that can never be realized, but always be sought after. Women (and really any gender) will always be happier in that discontent, because it makes the times that it's gratified all the sweeter. The idea of Romance just happens to be women's food of choice. In fact it's very similar to shopping; it's not the buying that gets them off, it's the act of shopping, it's prolonging that purchase to better savor the experience. It's foreplay. Forestalling the climax to heighten the experience.

When I was 26 I had a workout partner named Dean. Dean was drop dead gorgeous, unbelievably cut and women would flock to the guy regularly. Dean was also a male stripper at one of the strip clubs that had a male revue night once a month. The guy made money hand over fist and was always a crowd favorite. I was dating a stripper named Angie at the time so I was pretty familiar with the club owners. One thing I noticed about the most successful male strippers was that they were almost universally the ones who sold a story to the women in the audience as part of their act. Dean used to do a Fireman skit that would drive these women (young and old) into a frenzy. Another guy would do the hot executive fantasy in an Armani suit and give away flowers to the ladies, classy, but building up to him stripping down to a thong. The guys without an act never made as much in tips. It wasn't as satisfying for the women as the fantasy aspect that Dean and a few others would sell. Women get off differently than men. For a guy, a hot stripper in nothing but a g-string grinding out a lap dance is enough to get him aroused. Women need that ungratified fantasy to get them aroused.

It's the anticipation. I could go into detail about how all the most traditionally romantic behaviors women associate with romance originated in courtly love contests with suitors trying to out do others with poetry, sonnets, acts of devotion, etc. but these are the behaviors, not the motives that prompt them. Women need a build up. Yes, romance has an unbelievable potential for manipulation, but it's that nagging, itching, sexual anxiety that, as much as they'd like to protest the opposite, is what they enjoy the most. Uneducated men simply don't make this romance-to-anxiety connection and the prospect of being romantic gets distorted and borken down into simple acts - "if I bring her flowers, she'll be inclined to ƒuck." This is the AFC who thinks comfort and familiarity are the path to intimacy - wrong!

On several threads I've made a point of guys encouraging and propagating a woman's anxiety. Whether that comes by way of perceived sexual competition, uncertainty of sexual satisfaction, teasing, flirting, neg hits or positioning her into qualifying for him, the point being a sustaining of the discomfort of that anxiety. It's the discomfort that heightens her arousal, peaks her interest and makes her pursue.

Far too often this is a principle that's entirely lost on damn near EVERY AFC. AFCs think that perpetuating anxiety is counterintuitive because they believe in the filtering social convention that women want comfort, rapport and familiarity in order to become sexual. They swallow the "friends-first" mythology and so, deductively, they spill out their life's story as fast as possible in an effort to make her as comfortable as possible (and get sexual as fast as possible). The AFC isn't perceived as Romantic for exactly this reason. There's no fantasy entertained, no anticipation and his attention is worthless because she doesn't have to earn it. He gets frustrated because he's doing all the Romantic 'things' but she still isn't sexual, and most likely sees him as a friend, all because he's gone wholly over into the comfort and rapport stage by preempting the anxious, sweaty, nervous, uncertain arousal stage that she love every moment of, but will never admit to enjoying.

It's discomfort, not comfort, that makes for memorable romance. How often do you hear women complain of how the romance faded after marriage, while the man complains about how the sex drops off? The anxiety that made marathon sex so great, bourn from an urgency of anxiety, is replaced with comfort, certainty, familiarity, routine, etc. That's not to devalue those qualities in a relationship, but it is to highlight the vital necessity of maintaining a woman's anxiety levels within an LTR. What she seeks in Romance after an LTR or marriage is established, is a return to that heightened, anxious state of arousal that made her wet in anticipation for her Man. That's the heart of romance that guys need to cultivate with their wives and LTRs.

 

[SharpGame]

"Is romance a way to manipulate men?"

Well what is your definition of romance? I define true romance as a woman's reaction to a strong man who is able to shape his own reality - so much so that she feels safe enough to allow herself to slip into a fantasy type mindset. If you define romance in this manner, then there's nothing wrong with being called "romantic" because your actions are congruent with correct DJ principles.

It's when weak men (AFC's) twist the definition of romance that we start to get into trouble. If women are completely reactive to men, as has been suggested here many times, then it stands to reason that their perception of what romance is is also reflective of our own behaviors.

For example, one man leads his woman through a field, stops a moment to pick a flower for her, and hands it to her for no other reason than he wanted to share something special with her. Another man follows his woman, picking as many flowers as he can hold, then chases after her and presents his gift with the secret hope that it will improve his chances with her.

From the woman's point of view both men are being "romantic", but only one is being a real man worthy of respect. The other changed the definition of romance to mean buying his woman's affection - allowing her to become corrupt with power over him.

So yes, romance can be a way to manipulate men, but only if you give them that power in the first place.

 

[Tazman]

Make no mistake, women are VERY calculating, and consistently more so than men in general. They've had to be.

When I began to entertain this idea my success in dealing with women skyrocketed. They are a lot more skillful than I gave them credit for, I actually began observing them more often out of sheer intrigue. They'd have you believe that they're just passing by without a care in the world, but just like us guys when we're trying to covertly check them out, they're doing the same thing (although outright sex might not be on the forefront of their thoughts).

My ignorance was partly due to the fact that I didn't see (recognize) any of this before, hence all the women who admitted they had feelings for me that I never saw. They do it in subtle ways that give them a kind of "escape route" in case the feelings aren't mutual.

It's the discomfort that heightens her arousal, peaks her interest and makes her pursue.

When I began implementing this it felt uncomfortable, almost counterintuitive, but the results got me hooked because it brought things out in some women I didn't think I would see unless I behaved the way I thought they wanted me to. It truly does work.

 

[potato]

I think that some miss the point of being romantic. If two men performed the same romantic act, say giving a woman a flower, the results are sure to differ. That difference being the attraction, or not, that the woman otherwise holds for each of the men. If a man fails at romance, it’s not because women are manipulating him, it is because he is trying to be romantic with a woman who does not find him attractive, for whom holds no interest for her.

Attempts to attract women by romantic deeds are sure to fail. However once a couple has decided, either explicitly or implicitly, to carry on with each other, romantic acts are the game they play with each other.

Consider these two cases. Guy 1 sees girl 1 who sparks his interest. Being that girl 1 is in close proximity, eventually girl 1 sees guy 1 who seems to be looking at her with interest in his eyes. She thinks that he is kind of cute and gives him a little smile. Seeing that she is giving him her attention, he rolls his eyes, with a smirk to boot. She follows suit and pauses for his reply… A little more of this and it comes a time when one either escalates or stops. So guy 1 grabs the nearest flower he sees, even if it’s just a dandelion growing up through the crack in the sidewalk. He approaches girl 1 and hands her the flower with a smile upon his face. She too smiles and gladly accepts the flower, treasuring it far beyond its real value. She’ll say “Well hello there.” And on it goes.

Guy 2 sees girl 2 who sparks his interest. Being that girl 2 is in close proximity, eventually girl 2 sees guy 2 who seems to be looking at her. She thinks nothing of it and turns away. Guy 2 wonders what he can do to get her attention. He sees a nearby flower seller and runs over and buys roses. He then approaches girl 2 and hands her the flowers with a look of hopeful anxiety upon his face. She tells him, “thank you, they are beautiful.” She’ll be nice to him, just because but in her head she’ll wish he just went away.

Do you see the difference? With the first couple, the flower is just a part of the play. With the second couple, the flowers were the game.


I don’t understand those who insist that frequency of sex diminishes in long term relationships. If you have a healthy relationship the frequency should hold up and variety should increase with familiarity with each other. It’s like a musical group, the longer a group stays together, the more each individual gets to intuitively understand the other, the better the music tends to become. It only becomes discordant when the interrelations between the members become dysfunctional.

 

[STR8UP]

But that's marriage, not romance per se. There will always be an element of fantasy and idealism that can never be realized, but always be sought after. Women (and really any gender) will always be happier in that discontent, because it makes the times that it's gratified all the sweeter. The idea of Romance just happens to be women's food of choice. In fact it's very similar to shopping; it's not the buying that gets them off, it's the act of shopping, it's prolonging that purchase to better savor the experience. It's foreplay. Forestalling the climax to heighten the experience.

Awhile back when I was talking to the 22 yr old about her coming to visit, she was telling me how much she needed an "escape". So I told her that if she were able to make it up to visit, that i would see to it that she had an escape, and that I would plan a surprise for her.

Holy sheeite.....that opened the floodgates.

She kept pestering and pestering me to tell her what the surprise would be, until one day I caved and told her what I had planned. I only did this because it was at a point where the chances of her making it up this way were slim to none, but it was a mistake. I basically blew my load and was left with nothing. Her response was positive, but less than ecstatic. I don't think it completely killed it for her (she asked if she was still going to get the surprise when she was here a couple of weeks ago), but I didn't do myself ANY favors by telling her. It was the MYSTERY that captivated her and made her excited.

For a guy, a hot stripper in nothing but a g-string grinding out a lap dance is enough to get him aroused. Women need that ungratified fantasy to get them aroused.

Why do you think women prefer romance novels to porn?

What she seeks in Romance after an LTR or marriage is established, is a return to that heightened, anxious state of arousal that made her wet in anticipation for her Man. That's the heart of romance that guys need to cultivate with their wives and LTRs.

Which is why it is of utmost importance to remain a Man in her eyes. As long as you can maintain the spark through that "anxiety" whether it be from her realizing your value, her realizing you are willing to walk at a moments notice, etc., you CAN perform romantic gestures SPARINGLY and they will increase her attraction toward you. If she doesn't have that spark, they work AGAINST you.

 

[ketostix]

I think that some miss the point of being romantic. If two men performed the same romantic act, say giving a woman a flower, the results are sure to differ. That difference being the attraction, or not, that the woman otherwise holds for each of the men. If a man fails at romance, it’s not because women are manipulating him, it is because he is trying to be romantic with a woman who does not find him attractive, for whom holds no interest for her.

Duh Captain Obvious, we're saying romantic gestures don;'t cause attraction. What you're failing to appreciate is attraction can be lost too. So romantic gestures can actually even decrease attraction during a relationship.

I don’t understand those who insist that frequency of sex diminishes in long term relationships. If you have a healthy relationship the frequency should hold up and variety should increase with familiarity with each other. It’s like a musical group, the longer a group stays together, the more each individual gets to intuitively understand the other, the better the music tends to become. It only becomes discordant when the interrelations between the members become dysfunctional.

You never understand any of the myraid of ways women can fukk up relationship and be disfunctional. There's a lot of things you don't understand about male/female relationships because you're not a male to have ever been in one. If I ever have any lesbian friends or someone has a sex change and becomes a lesbian looking for advice I'll send them your way.

 

[sodbuster]

potato,why are you here? You sound like most of the married women who try to "advise" me. Either you are a woman or your woman is telling you what you can say here.

 

[Mr. Me]

Are Fairy Tales and Romance part of the Feminine Agenda?

These existed way before feminists came on the scene. If anything, it can be said that feminism has sought to stamp out the traditional "prince charming and the maiden live happily ever after" scenario.

Women SAY they want candlelit dinners and walks on the beach, but is that what they really want?... then the man goes out and tries to DO those things for her and shoots himself in the foot in the process.

Women want to be romanced by men they want romance from. Our modern day Romeos shoot themselves in the foot when they attempt to woo a woman romantically before she's accepting of it. They come on too strong, too fast.

Who is usually the one who initiates a breakup or divorce? The WOMAN. You would think that the power of happily ever after would create a gravitational pull that would be hard to break away from, no?

If the "happily ever after" plays any part in a breakup, it's typically that reality doesn't match the envisioned fantasy of "happily ever after" of the hopeless romantics and many get dismayed and give up on their relationships and terminate them.

They're called "hopeless" for a reason.

Hopeless romantics are in love with the notion of being in love.

It's quite a boon for women to sell men on the fact that true love exists, but to reserve the right to promptly exit a situation that no longer suits them!

Guys are to blame when they commonly neglect, disrespect, belittle or abuse their women and create an environment where the woman loses her love for the man. He's content to stay home every night and sit on the couch and scratch his ass and burp after dinner, but she's not wanting a lifetime of that - so she gets out.

In true love, there's an acceptance of reality, the ups and downs, but there is not any of the above mentioned abuses. Instead, there is a seeking to create an environment where both partners flourish.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I agree with Mr. Me.

Women don't use romance to "manipulate" men--and romance is NOT defined as AFC behavior.

The guys who generate the MOST attraction are the ones that demonstrate the DJ mentality while simultaneously CREATING a "fairy tale romance" for their women. It's not enough to act disinterested or ready to walk away at a moment's notice, just as it's not enough to do romantic things. If you look at fairy tales, the male love interest often appears to have ONEitis; however, his actions display admirable qualities, such as courage, strength, and confidence. It's somehow tacitly understood that he's in charge of the relationship, even if he showers her with affection.

I say stupid s#it to my girlfriend like, "Let's quit our jobs and run away together. We can find an island and become coconut farmers, and have lots of coconut farmer children." She EATS IT UP, and plays right along. Deep down, she knows it's not going to happen, but just the hypothetical thought is romantic to her. If I said things like, "I love you right now because you're demonstrating high interest in me, but I can walk away at any time because I have a lot of options, so you better behave bla bla bla," it would NOT raise her attraction level. Don't worry so much about saying romantic things and having them read as AFC.

As for girls with unrealistic expectations, I will say that a new trend in weddings is to have "disney" themes, where the bride wears a replica of some disney heroine's dress, thus finally living out her childhood fantasy. The trend of extravagant "destination" weddings also plays upon the ever-growing need for fantasy in young women today. Is it unnecessary and a bit childish? Yes. Will it harm us men? Probably not.

Women aren't leaving marriages because they're not being spoiled; they're leaving by and large because they don't respect their husbands. Where a previous generation's women might have just "stuck it out" and transformed into a bitter, nagging housewife, women today have the financial means to leave a marriage, and usually without much social repercussion. This is NOT done as some kind of scheme, and it DOES sadden a woman to see a relationship fall apart, no matter how cold and calculating she appears. She is just doing what previous generations of women would have done, given the opportunity.

What's fashionable may change, but women will ALWAYS be attracted to the same qualities in men. This is why the metrosexual trend failed.

Of course, there will always be women that deliberately sabotage their relationships, and that is often out of our hands. You can't win 'em all, but you can learn to avoid the losers.

 

[STR8UP]

I agree with Mr. Me.

Women don't use romance to "manipulate" men--and romance is NOT defined as AFC behavior.

Women don't use romance to manipulate men, or women don't use it CONSCIOUSLY to manipulate men?

And romance IS defined as AFC behavior if it is used in the wrong context.

If I said things like, "I love you right now because you're demonstrating high interest in me, but I can walk away at any time because I have a lot of options, so you better behave bla bla bla," it would NOT raise her attraction level. Don't worry so much about saying romantic things and having them read as AFC.

This is a horrible example.

That's like saying to your g/f "I know that chick over there wants me, I could have sex with her if I wanted to". Who says something like that and expects results? You don't SAY it, it's IMPLIED.

As for girls with unrealistic expectations, I will say that a new trend in weddings is to have "disney" themes, where the bride wears a replica of some disney heroine's dress, thus finally living out her childhood fantasy. The trend of extravagant "destination" weddings also plays upon the ever-growing need for fantasy in young women today. Is it unnecessary and a bit childish? Yes. Will it harm us men? Probably not.

It isn't the $15,000 UNNECESSARY wedding, it's the attitude that goes along with it. A woman who wants an expensive, extravagant wedding that is technically beyond the couple's means, is a PRINCESS, and she will likely to continue to live out the princess fantasy into the marriage. Then what happens when reality sets in and she realizes that the pinnacle of her existence has passed with her GRAND wedding? Lets have some kids! that buys you another four years or so, but it's still a disaster waiting to happen.

Women aren't leaving marriages because they're not being spoiled; they're leaving by and large because they don't respect their husbands. Where a previous generation's women might have just "stuck it out" and transformed into a bitter, nagging housewife, women today have the financial means to leave a marriage, and usually without much social repercussion. This is NOT done as some kind of scheme, and it DOES sadden a woman to see a relationship fall apart, no matter how cold and calculating she appears. She is just doing what previous generations of women would have done, given the opportunity.

You are completely discounting the effect the feminist movement has had on warping the minds of young women, brainwashing them into thinking they can have it all, and that none of it comes with a price.

Do women leave bad relationships today that they would have stuck with in the past? Sure, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

What's fashionable may change, but women will ALWAYS be attracted to the same qualities in men. This is why the metrosexual trend failed.

I'm not so sure that the "metrosexual trend" failed.

You CAN have a clue how to dress yourself and still retain every ounce of masculinity. Trust me....not much has changed in the past few years as far as that goes.

Every thing you "believe" is a lie. We are slaves to a deadly game of DNA survival. And the byproduct of it's best solution is a lot of angst; or the equivalent release and result of chemical interactions.

Problem is, a good portion of our population has a hard time assimilating this fact.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I think 'feminism' needs to be defined and stickied at the top of this forum.

When we talk about a girl that wants to be pampered by her husband and have an extravagant "princess" wedding, we are NOT talking about a feminist.

A feminist is a girl that buys her OWN drinks. I don't believe feminism is anywhere near as relevant to our society as it once was--if anything, we are in a period of BACKLASH against feminism.


As for the romance issue--clearly, we are going to have differing views because our perceptions of this stuff are so subjective.

I'm not concerned with the thought of women unconsciously plotting to give themselves the upper hand.

I'm not concerned with the unproven theory that human interactions are governed by the all-encompassing need to reproduce genetic material, thus invalidating a woman's supposed "love."

I'm only concerned with how I live my life, and the women that come into it. Reframing relationships in a negative light and seeing women as opportunistic vultures is not going to do you any favors. I don't have any desire to mistrust women, and if a woman leaves me, I don't feel like a victim.

I honestly don't even encounter these spoiled "princess" girls in my life. I have no patience for drama, and I am out the door the minute any of that s#it starts. I have always gone for the same types of girls--attractive, fit, well-educated, easygoing girls--and, where I once might have pursued girls that fell outside of those characteristics, I realize that it is counterproductive in the end. If you're consistently dating drama queens, it is usually due to your own selection.

 

[KontrollerX]

"When we talk about a girl that wants to be pampered by her husband and have an extravagant "princess" wedding, we are NOT talking about a feminist."

No, that kind of woman can be a feminist too and here's how...

She expects her husband to do all this give her all his time, money, love and affection and has no desire or inclination within her at all to do the same for him.

Feminism is supposed to be about equality.

It isn't.

Its about reversing the power balance in favor of women.

It may of started as an equality movement but it has gone much farther than that as unchecked power always does.

Pvssified males out there only help it to get worse by going along with it.

 

[ketostix]

"When we talk about a girl that wants to be pampered by her husband and have an extravagant "princess" wedding, we are NOT talking about a feminist."

No, that kind of woman can be a feminist too and here's how...

She expects her husband to do all this give her all his time, money, love and affection and has no desire or inclination within her at all to do the same for him.

Feminism is supposed to be about equality.

It isn't.

Its about reversing the power balance in favor of women.

It may of started as an equality movement but it has gone much farther than that as unchecked power always does.

Pvssified males out there only help it to get worse by going along with it.

Yeah feminism isn't really about women paying their own way. Feminist still believe in marrying a wealthier man and then taking his resources in a divorce. Feminism is all about women acquire more power and controll of resources pure and simple.

 

[Tazman]

My ignorance was partly due to the fact that I didn't see (recognize) any of this before, hence all the women who admitted they had feelings for me that I never saw. They do it in subtle ways that give them a kind of "escape route" in case the feelings aren't mutual.

Out of curiosity, what were these particular subtle signs given to you?

Things that seem like small "coincidences", like walking out of their way to pass by you, staring at you then looking away when you look back, rubbing their legs/thighs when they know you're looking, wearing more provocative clothes (at least more than you're used to seeing them wear if you're around them regularly), etc.

It can be confusing sometimes because some women will actually give you the impression that they "dislike" you because they like you. I remember one time I was in the checkout line at a grocery store and saw this cute little cashier. She was being friendly toward everyone, greeting them as she rang them up, and it didn't matter what race, age, job, etc.

When it was my turn she immediately looks down letting her hair cover her face and didn't say hi or anything, just took my money, gave me change and that was it. Needless to say I was pissed, I couldn't understand why she acted like that when I hadn't said anything or even looked at her for more than a couple seconds while I was in line.

I never did find out about that one in particular but I've known women to do these kinds of things then all of a sudden they're super nice leaving you confused as to their previous behavior. Some women go to great lengths to preserve their ego.

 

[MaddXMan]

Fairy tales became more 'feminized' with the retelling & the advent of Disney movies back in the day - more romantic and dramatic. Go back to the original versions, fairy tales were violent and brutal morality tales. For example, in the Rapunzel story, the knight falls from the tower into brambles that put out his eyes and he wanders sightless. Read the originals and you will see how PC they have become. 'Romance' had little to do with them.

 

[Vulpine]

SNAP!

Wait... does the broad that kisses frogs have warts all over her mouth in the original?

How about Bo Peep? Little Red Riding Hood? Goldilocks? Little Miss Muffet?

Wow... I really want to arm myself with this sort of "myth-buster" information! *scampers off to the library giggling*

 

[slaog]

These existed way before feminists came on the scene. If anything, it can be said that feminism has sought to stamp out the traditional "prince charming and the maiden live happily ever after" scenario.

Women want to be romanced by men they want romance from. Our modern day Romeos shoot themselves in the foot when they attempt to woo a woman romantically before she's accepting of it. They come on too strong, too fast.

If the "happily ever after" plays any part in a breakup, it's typically that reality doesn't match the envisioned fantasy of "happily ever after" of the hopeless romantics and many get dismayed and give up on their relationships and terminate them.

They're called "hopeless" for a reason.

Hopeless romantics are in love with the notion of being in love.

Guys are to blame when they commonly neglect, disrespect, belittle or abuse their women and create an environment where the woman loses her love for the man. He's content to stay home every night and sit on the couch and scratch his ass and burp after dinner, but she's not wanting a lifetime of that - so she gets out.

In true love, there's an acceptance of reality, the ups and downs, but there is not any of the above mentioned abuses. Instead, there is a seeking to create an environment where both partners flourish.

Mr Me gets it!

Romance isn't the problem the problem is real men are being turned into AFC's and there is less romance these days.