Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The emphasis is on always.

There is a difference between what is registered by the feminist ideology (with best intentions) and how the attraction chemistry actually goes. The latter does not change in a couple of generations. Would you really get excited with a guy with no dominance trait?

by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 01:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know about what excites other women, so my opinion on the matter isn't relevant. But I doubt that a man whose self-esteem is dependent upon the subservience of their "partner"  is likely to be the sort of rounded human being many women would prefer

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If guy's self-esteem is dependent on anything, women will notice that.

As for the behavior of the other side - I really notice that I know more than before.

by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The other side?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's no way I could put up with some guy trying to tell me what to do. My husband would be considered meek by some people, but he's actually just smart. I fell in love with his kindness. He's NOT a fighter, so that role falls to me (for example, in dealings with any employers who try to get away with being unfair to him.)

Can't say I didn't look for alpha males when I was a lot younger, but didn't find any I could live with, and I didn't know myself and my needs back then, either. Once I wised up, I looked for kindness.

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher

by Wife of Bath (kareninaustin at g mail dot com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 05:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are reasons for long-term and situational attraction factors to differ. And interpretation of the 'essential' alpha qualities can be wide. Trying to tell what to do might signal needy weakness to you, while kindness - a royal strength.

The last decades show increasingly one-sided social media influences on young women, narrowing their emotional (or economic) focus, making them reluctant to wise up, compromise. Especially pop music videos, the clubbing atmosphere 'subtly' scream "Attract alpha" to them. The internet, smartphones give women more power and potentially a global scope of options - with the default behavior influence pretty narcissistic. And then we have fashion, cosmetics industries, women magazines, with apparently similar effect of their agenda. No wonder if the primal triggers are more involved then before, especially when most guys cannot keep accessing them.

by das monde on Tue Jun 17th, 2014 at 04:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Social media influences on young women, IMO, have not become any stronger today than they were in the early twentieth century. They may be more easily accessed, but the newspapers and magazines and, more to the point, the societally-enforced rules (in schools, churches, workplaces, homes) were very influential, compelling even, a century ago.

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher
by Wife of Bath (kareninaustin at g mail dot com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2014 at 04:55:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're very likely mostly talking about culture there, but it's impossible to disentangle.

If you want to say that in the culture you operate in that certain traits generally denote a high value mate, then fine. Don't go ascribing them to nature, and don't overgeneralise: you can't tell the difference. It's just-so stories.

Would you really get excited with a guy with no dominance trait?

I might, in theory: would depend on the guy wouldn't it?

Humans are complicated little apes with a whole pile of social and sexual strategies available to them, and the choice of which ones are used depend both on nature and nurture. We tend to think that the ones that we're used to are the natural, proper ones.

Frankly, I think the culture we operate in is so utterly fucked up about sexuality that there's very little sense of it to be made: did you know that there exist quite a lot of people who define themselves by which bits they (would) like to rub on which other bits? It's a very strange basis for self-identification.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having some basis of comparison, I have to say that Western feminism adds to fuck up of sexual strategies massively.
by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is yet another layer of "so-so" story, adding to confusion and statistics to failed delusions. Would be pretty good for population control, I might guess.
by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 04:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that's not an answer. In what way is it a just-so story?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 05:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rather unkindly, feminism offer suggestions (for both sexes) in unhelpful directions, without empirical or real psychological basis. So nice guys do not know what women actually want - nor women themselves (in a predictive sense). That's a social game we play - not everyone has to grasp everything.
by das monde on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 05:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
hhahahahahahaha,

Sorry, that's funny

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Jun 15th, 2014 at 05:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
24 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
112 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments

Occasional Series