Why Doc Love Cant Tell You Women Are Unromantic

rjherche

Don Juan
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
If we start losing power, over our situation and of them, they'll cleave unto the more powerful option that comes their way, the option that makes them feel better.
Yeah yeah, thread resurrection. But I'm bored and this is a good point.

But if you listen to Doc's show (full disclosure: I am a fan of his), you will hear him say occasionally that there is no such thing as conditional love. Girls will put you on your ass if you aren't doing the right things, or if they become resentful that you have lost things that attracted them to you (in many cases your status/power/whatever).

As far as women being unromantic, well, many women even with a good giving nature are taught to be relatively passive. But there a lot of decent girls out there who will do stuff for you... but in terms of buying things, taking you out, cooking for you, whatever, you can't expect it to be more than an 80/20 .

So I agree with the op, I just don't think that he fully understands what Doc teaches. Because I admit, Doc can be scatterbrained... the dude is old (mid 60's), he seems to contradict himself at times and since he is selling a product, he will often be more of a hardass than he needs to be.
 

reset

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
2,200
Reaction score
58
Everyone knows women respond to power.

But it's their PERCEPTION of power. This site, is about becoming more powerful. As a man.

If the only way to get a girl is to become rich then most of the dudes on this site should just give up.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
80
Reaction score
5
If this is true, that's why social proof, value, etc means absolutely nothing to men if the girl isn't at least cute when he first meets her. I think few guys would have the stomach to do intimate things with a physically repulsive woman who was rich and powerful, for example. Or if they did, they'd have about a dozen cute girls they'd be doing on the side. I think it was Henry Kissinger who said power is the ultimate aphrodesiac. If it is, I definitely think men are immune :D
 

Blue Phoenix

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
28
Location
Another Dimension
The Deacon said:
Gawd, this post has really opened my eyes. It's a waste of time to be romantic. I only had any success while being completely pragmatic. I didn't think of buying her chocolates or writing her poetry, all I thought of was "show the woman she's nice, but she's not the only one."

You know, there's a reason they call hopeless romantics hopeless. Women will dump Mr. Sensitivo for Mr. Hockey Player unless Mr. Sensitivo also happens to be Tupac Shakur.
I agree! :up:
 

Master Bates

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
10
Ha, I made a thread sorta similar to this last fall. I was reading the book Travels by Michael Crighton and there's a chapter where he's discussing romantic relationships between men and women with a friend, and who are the real romantics, men or women:
Here I am in the locker room with my friend David, who has been a
Hollywood bachelor for two decades, who has gone out with so many
models and actresses that he's good friends with the people who run
the model agencies-here's David, suave man of the world, telling me
that men are the romantics, not women.

"No, no, no, David," I protested. "Women are romantic. Women want
flowers and candy and all that stuff."

"No, they don't," David said. "Women want the respect and
admiration of a man, and they know flowers are a sign of respect
from a man. But they don't care about the flowers; they don't moon
and ooh and aah and sigh, except for our benefit. They don't have
any of those romantic feelings men think they do. Men have the
romantic feelings. Women're much colder and more practical."

I disagreed.

"Okay," David said. "We're sitting in the locker room, right?"

"Right."

"Have you ever had a locker-room conversation about women--you know,
the way women think we do, talking in explicit detail about we did
with our dates the night before?"

"No," I said. "I never have."

"Neither have I," David said. "But you've been accused of having
such conversations by a woman?"

"Yes, sure." I couldn't count the number of times a woman had said
she didn't want me talking about her to my male friends.

"You know why women think we have these explicit conversations?
Because they do, that's why. Women talk about everything."

I knew this was true. I had long ago learned of the frankness of
women among themselves, and of their tendency to assume that men
were equally frank, when, as far as I could tell, men were actually
quite discreet.

"You see," David said, "each sex assumes the opposite sex is just
the way they are. So women think men are explicit, and men think
women are romantic. Eventually that becomes a stereotype that
nobody questions. But it's not accurate at all."

David insisted on his view: women were stronger, tougher, more
pragmatic, more interested in money and security, more focused on
the underlying realities of any situation. Men were weaker, more
romantic, more interested in the symbols than the reality--in short,
living out a fantasy.

"I'm telling you," David said.

"What about the idea of the nurturing female?" I said.

"Only for children," he said. "Not for men." He shook his head
sadly, "Did you ever wish a woman would send you flowers?"

The question caught me off guard. A woman send me flowers?

"Sure. Send you flowers, a nice note, thanks for a lovely evening,
the whole bit."

It seemed such a strange idea. But as I considered it, it seemed as
if it would be terrific.

"I'm telling you," David said, "we're the romantics. Work it out."
 

LonesomeLoser

Don Juan
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
First of all if this is true, I find it kind of depressing but probably the same way I would if I was Neo and experienced the "real world" outside the Matrix for the first time. Not a very nice place.

But could someone clear up some things to me? WHY have women always portrayed themselves as just wanting flowers and poetry, instead of a rich guy with a big c0ck? Did they believe this themselves? Were they told it was the way they were "supposed" to be so they played the role best they could?

And how do you explain women who stay with guys who don't work and mooch off the women, and get lazy and just want to watch tv? Is it because he has "value" at that point? What value could he possibly have with no job and being a couch potato?

And this may be a seperate topic but I think its related: do women always CONSCIOUSLY decide that guy A is more desirable than guy B because of his social proof, value, etc? Or is it more of an instinctual thing? If you asked her why she finds the guy with the value more attractive, would she even know why? Okay I know she may not give an honest answer, but in her mind would she know why?
 

Mr. Me

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,357
Reaction score
84
Doc Love doesn't tell guys to go romance women. Romance only comes into the picture once you're in a relationship, and even then, it's used as a spice. And even then, it's not the only factor in a LTR he preaches about.

So I don't get your premise about what Doc Love has to do with this.

If you define romance as the emotional aspects of human behavior that leads to feelings and connectedness, which occurs through words, gifts, empathy, and transparency, then you know that women are utterly devoid of any romanticism.
I think that's an incorrect definition of what romance is.

Rather than *leading* to feelings, romance works when the feelings are already there and romantic overtures are then desired by the female.

It's the guys that try to romance women before the women are receptive to those overtures that get dumped. They show up with flowers, wax romantic poems and notions and take them to candlelit dinners and are summarily dumped.

Point is, regardless of what is factoring her attraction for the guy, women like to get some romance from the guys they want to be romanced from.

Instead, it is men who are the romantics
That seems so. Here's my theory, maybe this is closer to what you're looking for:

Men are mostly like puppy dogs and women are mostly like cats.

So men are like: "pant, pant, please pet me! I like you! Play with me! C'mon, c'mon!!!"

And dogs like to have their penises licked too, BTW.

And women are like: "Meow. Purrrr. Cuddle. SCRATCH. CLAW. Okay, I've had enough. Bye."

Which is why most women prefer cats and even start accumulating them. Not dogs.

The women who prefer dogs tend to be dominating or tomboys. Have you noticed that? I have. Coincidence? I think not!

So, instead of being like dogs, women mostly prefer men who act like cats. Unpredictable. A challenge. But someone who'll show affection every now and then for a few moments. If they feel like it.
 

reset

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
2,200
Reaction score
58
Mr. Me said:
So, instead of being like dogs, women mostly prefer men who act like cats. Unpredictable. A challenge. But someone who'll show affection every now and then for a few moments. If they feel like it.
bingo
 

bigjohnson

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,441
Reaction score
37
Pretty close to right although maybe for the wrong reasons. Most women will stick with a guy through tough times for a while out of a combination of inertia, social pressure and lack of better options but most will eventually find a rationalization to bail out. Often they will begin sabotaging the relationship in hopes the guy will do something rash and give a 'reason' for them to justify their desire to leave.

In some cases the lost wallet factor will cause them to stick it out but not often. It's a matter of how much attention and admiration their sticking it out is buying them and how they value this relative their other needs.
 
Top