Aggression - Attractive?

Jake LeMotta

Does aggression impress you?

I don't mean like this.

As in actual aggression


But rather

(yeah, I had to choose Tyson)
The potential for aggression that lies beneath the surface.

Some people refer to it as "presence".

Where does it stem from?
Why do we find it attractive?

johnnyskeleton

I once met a woman called "Amanda Hollyfield". I grabbed her head, bit her ear off and spat it out. She couldn't resist me after that!

Why do you think aggressiveness is attractive? Are you possibly confusing it with confidence/strength/power or something along those lines?

Jake LeMotta

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I once met a woman called "Amanda Hollyfield". I grabbed her head, bit her ear off and spat it out. She couldn't resist me after that!

Why do you think aggressiveness is attractive? Are you possibly confusing it with confidence/strength/power or something along those lines?

Good point - but I think confidence etc is the projection of aggression.

I think aggression defines interaction to a large degree.
To acknowledge someone, you must be aggressive.
To be friendly you must be aggressive.
To hold someones respect you must be aggressive.
To be "aggressive" you must be aggressive.

Aggression - most peoples interpretation, and probably its definition.. is the projection of an emotion which would stimulate defensiveness or combativeness in the receiver.

But I'm saying, aggression is the projection of oneself, to any degree - depending on what you want to achieve.

We're animals at the end of the day - animals don't think in terms of them selves being "confident" - they think in terms of their dominance and their ability to be dominant will be defined by their aggression.

One's "presence" is their demeanor's emission of a vibe which insinuates the potential for a great deal of aggression - without actually being combative in the least.

**
Just a theory - good to get other peoples points of view..

Jake LeMotta

Say for example the guy in the first picture - he won't command a fraction of the respect the guy in the second picture will - even projecting the level of aggression he is - because of both of their overall ability to be aggressive.

As an experiment - next time your around someone (this goes to anyone) better someone you don't know - try and focus on having your demeanor be as passive as possible - in other words, projecting ABSOLUTELY no aggression toward the receiver.
See the reaction you get..

Nevyn

So what behaviour studies books have you been reading?
or has it been premasicated pua ebooks?

Wibbs

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Say for example the guy in the first picture - he won't command a fraction of the respect the guy in the second picture will - even projecting the level of aggression he is - because of both of their overall ability to be aggressive.

As an experiment - next time your around someone (this goes to anyone) better someone you don't know - try and focus on having your demeanor be as passive as possible - in other words, projecting ABSOLUTELY no aggression toward the receiver.
See the reaction you get..

IMHO you're making a couple of fundamental mistakes. The guy in the first picture loses, simply because he succumbs to his aggression. The guy in the second is apparently OTT on the aggression front so people(women more likely as your "target") are either going to avoid or walk on eggshells.

Its not aggression its control that's much more important. Control over oneself. Also IMHO you're confounding aggression or lack thereof with passivity. A controlled man(or woman) seeks not to relinquish that control over themselves regardless of the situation. Even if it requires aggression. To go along with the boxing examples you favour, the best boxer is not always the most aggressive. The best is the thinker who remains in control. Ali a very good example of that. Someone like Gandhi helped break a very aggressive foe, by total non aggression. Mr. Christ of Galilee and Mr Buddha of India were very powerful men of their time, who had many followers and continue to do so were the same. Men who had supreme control of themselves. No aggression required. Indeed aggression is the sure sign control has been lost or your cause is unjust or invalid.

My 3 cents anyway.

Wolfe Tone

Personally I think replacing Tyson with Clint Eastwood as the "Man With No Name" would be a better illustration. I think that character satisfies what your on about, and what Wibbs was talking about. Or maybe I got the wrong end of the stick?

Jake LeMotta

Wibbs wrote: »

IMHO you're making a couple of fundamental mistakes. The guy in the first picture loses, simply because he succumbs to his aggression. The guy in the second is apparently OTT on the aggression front so people(women more likely as your "target") are either going to avoid or walk on eggshells.

Its not aggression its control that's much more important. Control over oneself. Also IMHO you're confounding aggression or lack thereof with passivity. A controlled man(or woman) seeks not to relinquish that control over themselves regardless of the situation. Even if it requires aggression. To go along with the boxing examples you favour, the best boxer is not always the most aggressive. The best is the thinker who remains in control. Ali a very good example of that. Someone like Gandhi helped break a very aggressive foe, by total non aggression. Mr. Christ of Galilee and Mr Buddha of India were very powerful men of their time, who had many followers and continue to do so were the same. Men who had supreme control of themselves. No aggression required. Indeed aggression is the sure sign control has been lost or your cause is unjust or invalid.

My 3 cents anyway.

Yes, for sure I agree with you there - but composure in a situation that may lend itself to a loss of it, indicates "strength" - potential aggression.

I think my use of the word aggression is causing confusion as it's generally interpreted as a loss of composure - as oppose to what I mean, which is the projection of oneself.

When you project yourself to any degree - my view at least - is that your being aggressive.
When your being friendly with someone - you project yourself to that level - you be aggressive - but I don't mean by that a loss of composure or to seek confrontation.

**
I'll try and use a metaphor.

A kid wants to throw a ball 5 feet.
To throw it at all - he must be aggressive.
So for 5 ft, he throws it with this degree of aggression.

He wants to throw it as far as he can
So he throws it with maximum aggression - this is what is generally interpreted as someone being "aggressive" - it's basically the dictionary definition I think - but I'm using it in a different way.

Jake LeMotta

Just want to throw out another idea on the same topic.

For two people to interact, they must do so on the same level - as such.
In other words, the must be at the same level in terms of the degree of their person that they are projecting.

So where one person who's strength of character is 100% say,and they might be very relaxed (say projecting with 20% aggression), and another person who's strength of character is 50% and they are being more aggressive (projecting say, 40% aggression) - so all in all, both guys are at the level of 20% projection of themselves - is that making any sense? (NO!!!! )

So they are interacting on the same level.

Example: some people feel the need to project themselves more aggressively to make their presence felt among others.

**
Sometimes also it's noticeable that the person who's character is at 50% may try and assert or overcome the person who is at 100%, as overcoming that person may make the lesser person feel stronger.

I think it goes along the lines of even being in the company of the stronger - being accepted by that person makes you feel strong.
(I know this sounds a bit much, what with the descriptions involving one person being "stronger" etc)

Example: The bully at school may target the smart kid in the class who he can overcome physically but feels intimidated by in terms of overall strength of character.
It's perverse, but people want power and they'll take it however they can usually.

**
Not necessarily overcome either; but being in the presence or being accepted in the presence of someone who has qualities or strengths you aspire to makes you feel strong also.

Example: Old guys like to date young girls because - I believe - being around that young person, being so closely accepted by them, it makes them feel young again.

**
Edit:
I just saw a really clever saying in someones sig and it applies to this as a whole I think:

"It's not who I'm underneath, but what I do that defines me"

miec

I think aggression defines interaction to a large degree.
To acknowledge someone, you must be aggressive.
To be friendly you must be aggressive.
To hold someones respect you must be aggressive.
To be "aggressive" you must be aggressive.

I would disagree with this, to do the above means to be active. Aggression is an emotion and a drive, you conjure it up or it conjures up and takes you over, whereas being active or passive is a way of being. An active person has drive and a sense of personal power, and like Wibbs said, they are in control. Yes someone might control their aggression and project it as you state but that is not attractive, in actual fact as a woman I find it extremely unattractive. The man who projects their aggression onto others is invading the other person's space and using controlling tactics to get what they want, that is not attractive or sexy, it's pathetic. The man that is active, in touch with himself, controlled and confident is very sexy, he has nothing to prove, he has his own personal power and doesn't need to use manipulation or bully tactics to get their own way - hence why Ali to me is attractive and Mike Tyson is someone I would avoid at all costs.

Jake LeMotta

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I once met a woman called "Amanda Hollyfield". I grabbed her head, bit her ear off and spat it out. She couldn't resist me after that!

Why do you think aggressiveness is attractive? Are you possibly confusing it with confidence/strength/power or something along those lines?

Actually, your right there.

It is the confidence/strength/self assurance that is attractive - but, I think our aggression defines our interaction as such.

Actually as the poster above me pointed out, maybe it would be a little more comprehensible if I referred to it as being "active" as oppose to "aggressive".
Though personally, I still feel its aggression being projected with various intensities, or perhaps projecting a sense of aggression, without directing it toward someone - but that's beside the point.

So on that note, we could say interaction is defined by how active we are...?

**
Okay, self assurance/confidence/strength - where does it come from, how do we develop it?

My personal take on it is that it's to do with our assurance of our place in society as a man or a woman.

For a man, it comes down more so to what he does.
Again, let's take Tyson. He was very sure of his place as a man - as to fight is effectively the epitome of masculinity, and with him being the champ, he was gonna be pretty confident - not to mention with his social status etc, his place as a man in society was very well defined.

For a woman, more so on how she looks - effectively on her ability to attract males. I may be hated upon for that statement but can someone tell me otherwise?

Any thoughts?

Jake LeMotta

On the point of self assurance actually, and on the point of how we find it attractive..

We tend to be more sure of ourselves in groups, for whatever reason.

Also, one thing I notice, walking down the high street say, almost invariably the girls I first tend to notice are the ones who, after I see them, I see some bloke walking beside them - their boyfriend obviously.

I think it's the assurance they get from being with a male who's caring for her as such, it lends to her personal sense of self assurance - shows through in her demeanor etc and for that reason makes her seem more attractive.
Just a thought.

caseyann

Aggression big no no,find it digusting.

smelltheglove

My take on this, without going anywhere near definitions is that your query is more related to what is termed 'the hardman' image and yes people do find the hardman image attractive at different levels.

a you have the guy that has the presence to command respect without ever losing control of his temper

b you have the guy who demands respect or he will lose his temper.

c you have the extreme the guy who wants to dominate and control

I have 4 people in my head that I can relate to each of these, that I thought of as soon as I read the thread. The first person is a lovely person that just has a presence, almost like people automatically respect him but know that they wouldnt want to get on his bad side.

For b I would relate this to 2 people. The hot headed guys, you may or may not like them but you try to respect them because you dont want to see their bad side, when they loose the rag.

For c, this is the guy you fear, yes sir no sir sort of guy because you know he will not hold back, kinda like Tyson as an example but lets say hes probably tame compared to the person this made me think of.

So I think to a lot of people a would be an attractive person because of presence and demeanor. B to some would be attractive for excitement, b can be a nice person but the alter ego would interest some but c, I honestly cant see why anyone would see this person as attractive, I think its only like minded people that want to be with these types of people or people who are weak and want to be respected, want to dominate who will only feel that power when they can command respect due to acquaintance.

Long explanation on my side I know sorry for that!

Eve_Dublin

I equate aggressiveness with stupidity. People who haven´t got the intelligence to argue their case with only words and have to throw a glass at their face instead. A man with self-control is incredibly attractive.

PeterIanStaker

Tyson is a convicted rapist. That agressive enough for you OP?

caseyann

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Tyson is a convicted rapist. That agressive enough for you OP?

lol :DI know and he/she called him aggressive puppy type

caseyann

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Just want to throw out another idea on the same topic.

For two people to interact, they must do so on the same level - as such.
In other words, the must be at the same level in terms of the degree of their person that they are projecting.

So where one person who's strength of character is 100% say,and they might be very relaxed (say projecting with 20% aggression), and another person who's strength of character is 50% and they are being more aggressive (projecting say, 40% aggression) - so all in all, both guys are at the level of 20% projection of themselves - is that making any sense? (NO!!!! )

So they are interacting on the same level.

Example: some people feel the need to project themselves more aggressively to make their presence felt among others.

**
Sometimes also it's noticeable that the person who's character is at 50% may try and assert or overcome the person who is at 100%, as overcoming that person may make the lesser person feel stronger.

I think it goes along the lines of even being in the company of the stronger - being accepted by that person makes you feel strong.
(I know this sounds a bit much, what with the descriptions involving one person being "stronger" etc)

Example: The bully at school may target the smart kid in the class who he can overcome physically but feels intimidated by in terms of overall strength of character.
It's perverse, but people want power and they'll take it however they can usually.

**
Not necessarily overcome either; but being in the presence or being accepted in the presence of someone who has qualities or strengths you aspire to makes you feel strong also.

Example: Old guys like to date young girls because - I believe - being around that young person, being so closely accepted by them, it makes them feel young again.

**
Edit:
I just saw a really clever saying in someones sig and it applies to this as a whole I think:

"It's not who I'm underneath, but what I do that defines me"

Couldn't have said it better for the aggressive type you prefer

Jake LeMotta

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I equate aggressiveness with stupidity. People who haven´t got the intelligence to argue their case with only words and have to throw a glass at their face instead. A man with self-control is incredibly attractive.

Do you mean to say, men with a good sense of composure and calculation i.e. a good presence of mind, that don't overly react to provocation?
I'd have to agree with you - same goes for women also.

Eve_Dublin

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Do you mean to say, men with a good sense of composure and calculation i.e. a good presence of mind, that don't overly react to provocation?
I'd have to agree with you - same goes for women also.

Violent, agressive men = thick in my opinion. I´m thinking about football hooligans and those numpties you see picking fights with people in pubs. I´d have some degree of pity for them actually....it must be frustrating to be only able to deal with your emotions in this way.

I usually equate men who can keep tabs on their temper as intelligent. They can argue their case without loosing it because they have the brains, the vocabulary and the mental ability to express their emotions verbally and of course intelligence in anyone is very attractive.

Same goes for women too. Absolutely. I think aggression is a when a person realises and in turn is frustrated with their own intellectual limitations.

I know myself that I get angry when I know I´m out of my depth in an argument, that I´m no match for them and instead of admitting defeat, I loose it (I´ve never resorted to violence....just a lot of temper tantrums, sulking, stomping around etc. hee hee)

miec

as to fight is effectively the epitome of masculinity

Hi Op, do you define being a man as being an effective fighter? Is that all you see to being a man? What do other men think of this viewpoint?

As for your statement that women look more self assurred when they are with a man that is hogwash. You can have a man in your life and be utterly miserable. Yes it is lovely being with someone but it doesn't define who you are, what goes on inside of you makes you who you are. So back to your topic of aggression = attractive, I disagree. The dictionary definition of aggression is:
(taken from dictionary.com)
noun
1.
the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2.
any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3.
the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4.
Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.
__________________

This is unrelated to confidence, self assurance, etc. So a man who fights well / is aggressive has to get his way by force, so even respect is obtained through fear. There is an argument for this but I don't agree with because in the end aggressor usually get taken down eventually.

Jake LeMotta

miec wrote: »

Hi Op, do you define being a man as being an effective fighter? Is that all you see to being a man? What do other men think of this viewpoint?

As for your statement that women look more self assurred when they are with a man that is hogwash. You can have a man in your life and be utterly miserable. Yes it is lovely being with someone but it doesn't define who you are, what goes on inside of you makes you who you are. So back to your topic of aggression = attractive, I disagree. The dictionary definition of aggression is:
(taken from dictionary.com)
noun
1.
the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2.
any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3.
the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4.
Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.
__________________

This is unrelated to confidence, self assurance, etc. So a man who fights well / is aggressive has to get his way by force, so even respect is obtained through fear. There is an argument for this but I don't agree with because in the end aggressor usually get taken down eventually.

Well, to be more precise, when a guy looks at another guy, as primitive and all as it is, one of the main criteria he judges him on is his aggression, his ability to basically, fight.
Composure in certain situations suggests a strength in this area, and that is an attractive point for males and females alike.

As regards the self assurance of a woman around a man, I've never known this not to be the case.
That's not to say that all women are weak and frail when they're single, but - and I'm perfectly open to criticism provided it's reinforced with reasonable logic - it definitely enhances self assurance and so on, to have that partner.

However, I do agree with you. It's equally possible that if that partner is not supportive etc, it can be miserable within that relationship and possibly even detrimental to self assurance.

minister poxbottle

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I equate aggressiveness with stupidity. People who haven´t got the intelligence to argue their case with only words and have to throw a glass at their face instead. A man with self-control is incredibly attractive.

try arguing or reasoning with a crazed methamphetamine addict and see how you get on

What you seem to be talking about is obvious aggression or throwing out an aggressive appearance... Tyson makes money from looking the way he does. While I doubt he's a kitten, he's got an obvious stake in letting everyone know just how dangerous he is. Thus the pictures we have of him. There's plenty of actors/sport stars who have a similar fashion/tattoos and don't get the reputation for aggressiveness.

But I think the main thing here is that some people wear their aggressiveness like a second skin, and very close to the surface. After living in Asia I've grown to appreciate that there are many less obvious signs of aggression which are more effective than that of Tyson or the like. Loss of control or giving away your presence before its useful is seen as a weakness. So people will make supreme effort not to lose control and obviously get angry. I can remember having an argument about my work contract in China, losing control, and shouting at my opposite numbers, while facing three people with completely calm faces and calm postures throughout. Needless to say their reaction/demeanor gave them an advantage in the negotiations.

Nowadays, I treat aggression with contempt. Its used too frequently by people. It has its uses but widespread use weakens your position. Unless of course you're like tyson who needs to be aggressive to make money. But other people, lose more by having their aggressive behavior so near to the surface.

Jake LeMotta

Deleted User wrote: »

What you seem to be talking about is obvious aggression or throwing out an aggressive appearance... Tyson makes money from looking the way he does. While I doubt he's a kitten, he's got an obvious stake in letting everyone know just how dangerous he is. Thus the pictures we have of him. There's plenty of actors/sport stars who have a similar fashion/tattoos and don't get the reputation for aggressiveness.

But I think the main thing here is that some people wear their aggressiveness like a second skin, and very close to the surface. After living in Asia I've grown to appreciate that there are many less obvious signs of aggression which are more effective than that of Tyson or the like. Loss of control or giving away your presence before its useful is seen as a weakness. So people will make supreme effort not to lose control and obviously get angry. I can remember having an argument about my work contract in China, losing control, and shouting at my opposite numbers, while facing three people with completely calm faces and calm postures throughout. Needless to say their reaction/demeanor gave them an advantage in the negotiations.

Nowadays, I treat aggression with contempt. Its used too frequently by people. It has its uses but widespread use weakens your position. Unless of course you're like tyson who needs to be aggressive to make money. But other people, lose more by having their aggressive behavior so near to the surface.

Gotta agree.
Dis-ingenuity is a far more effective counter to personality aggression than a reciprocation.

Eve_Dublin

minister poxbottle wrote: »

try arguing or reasoning with a crazed methamphetamine addict and see how you get on

In fairness, using physical self-defence if you´re physically provoked is a different matter. If the "crazed methamphetamine addict" (what are the chances!) physically attacked me, I´d try and defend myself physically. It´s them in the throws of aggression, not me. I´d be more scared than anything else.

Jake LeMotta

Hell, I've got it!
Dis-ingenuity coupled with aggression to the correct proportion when dealing with the specific individual is formula to attraction...

Like this guy..

Skip to 1:35

"WHATS UP YA'LL!!!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU_Npoz4AAk

Thus, the more aggressive we can be - like Tyson - the more attractive we are!

Jake LeMotta

Taken from a separate discussion:
Somewhat relative to the attraction of aggression/attraction of danger/"bad boys", if you will.

**
Jimbo replies:
There is nothing wrong with being "a player" women say they hate it but in reality they love players.
Women say they want someone who's caring and loving a big nice in fact NO, women saying that so they don't want to be with a play so they don't look like a complete whore.

Women want someone who one are unpredictable, fun, confident and sexual not someone who's loving and caring and when they'res a party he's stood in the corner of the room, or when a fight breaks out he's scared he bruises his knuckles, they want someone whos balls enough to stand up for themselves regardless, women get turned on by the fact a player has been around with many women for one he's sexual confident and two the player must know a few tricks, where as a caring and loving guy is (probably) boring, **** in the sack, no confidence, so when women say they want someone who's loving and caring they're lying what they're asking for is that your "a player" and they want you to seduce them.

**

Women DON'T want loving and caring guys wake up to that fact, when a woman says they want caring and love she's lying, she's probably slept around and enjoys the thrill of it, and wants to loose the whore stigma that goes along with sleeping around. Like I said women don't want loving and caring they want someone who's fun, unpredictable, a bit of danger to them.
So for future reference quit putting women on a pedistal, it's vile and women hate it, unless all they want is someone to feed their egos, and yes I've generalize women as a whole, as it is only a minority that actually do want someone who's loving, caring, boring, predictable

**
Simon replies:
Chicks want players. For all the reasons mentioned above.
Even if they don't know they want a player - they do.

Women don't know what they want.
Well for those of you who don't know or are in denial - now you know.

As for the love thing - well the chick falls in love with the player and the player falls in love with the hot chick, simple.

Nevyn

I think maybe you've been playing a little too much GTA.

johnnyskeleton

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Women want someone who one are unpredictable, fun, confident and sexual not someone who's loving and caring and when they'res a party he's stood in the corner of the room, or when a fight breaks out he's scared he bruises his knuckles, they want someone whos balls enough to stand up for themselves regardless, women get turned on by the fact a player has been around with many women for one he's sexual confident and two the player must know a few tricks, where as a caring and loving guy is (probably) boring, **** in the sack, no confidence, so when women say they want someone who's loving and caring they're lying what they're asking for is that your "a player" and they want you to seduce them.

What about, you know, someone who is unpredictable, fun, confident and sexual but who also isn't into racking up knotches on the bed post? You know, a normal human?

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Chicks want players. For all the reasons mentioned above.
Even if they don't know they want a player - they do.

Women don't know what they want.
Well for those of you who don't know or are in denial - now you know.

I've heard the "she wanted it but didn't know it" line in a different context. It never ends well for those "players"

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

As for the love thing - well the chick falls in love with the player and the player falls in love with the hot chick, simple.

Idiot falls in love with idiot.
Makes sense I suppose.

johnnyskeleton

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Hell, I've got it!
Dis-ingenuity coupled with aggression to the correct proportion when dealing with the specific individual is formula to attraction...

Like this guy..

Skip to 1:35

"WHATS UP YA'LL!!!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU_Npoz4AAk

Thus, the more aggressive we can be - like Tyson - the more attractive we are!

I thought all the girls like Ice Cube though?

Jake LeMotta

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

As for the love thing - well the chick falls in love with the player and the player falls in love with the hot chick, simple.

I'm going to bite simply because I have some experience of the whole "player" thing having met many of the supposed guru's.

I went down the Speed Seduction route to gaining confidence and skills to communicate effectively with women. Overall it took me about 8 years to gain a subconscious ability which many guys learn by the time they're 16. I would have been 26 at that time. During this period I started with the stupid and ignorant material often found on the internet, then some "professionals" with their self-help books in the bookshelf at the back of many bookstores, and lastly through networking found some of the American experts in all of this.

I went to seminars, bought dvds, practiced in bars, bookstores, libraries, the street, the pub etc. You name it I attempted it. And over time, it changed and began to work. And eventually I found the skills which women enjoyed in men who weren't particularly handsome, didn't have any sports skills, and lastly didn't have wads of cash spouting from his ass.

The point of all of this is that I've met the players which Jake seems so enamored with and very few of them are decent human beings. Most are on pernament ego trips, and its not for any real sense of worth that they do what they do. Most of the players I have met seem to have a gaping hole in their hearts/heads and seek to fill it by sleeping with many partners. (There's quite a few female players around).

Aggressive players are amateurs. They are the pinheads that read seduction.alt.fast and believe that by being nasty to women that they're fulfilling some basic need that women have. And over time, that belief takes on a life of its own. The truly effective "players" hold no aggression in them, seek to pleasure their partner, and seek to leave the people they meet better than they were before. Should be simple, but so many internet nuts have twisted it beyond belief.

I haven't read any Speed Seduction material in over 5 years. I don't need it any more, having learned the material, taken it to heart, and applied those things that suited me.

Now its likely, there will be a few posts remarking on this and the SS scene. That its a load of bollocks and such. But as with any scene, there is what is useful, there is what is hyped, and lastly there are the people who know extremely little about it, and yet pretend they do.

Jake LeMotta... Don't confuse confidence with aggression. They are light years apart.

Jake LeMotta

Deleted User wrote: »

I went to seminars, bought dvds, practiced in bars, bookstores, libraries, the street, the pub etc. You name it I attempted it. And over time, it changed and began to work. And eventually I found the skills which women enjoyed in men who weren't particularly handsome, didn't have any sports skills, and lastly didn't have wads of cash spouting from his ass.

The point of all of this is that I've met the players which Jake seems so enamored with and very few of them are decent human beings. Most are on pernament ego trips, and its not for any real sense of worth that they do what they do. Most of the players I have met seem to have a gaping hole in their hearts/heads and seek to fill it by sleeping with many partners. (There's quite a few female players around).

Aggressive players are amateurs. They are the pinheads that read seduction.alt.fast and believe that by being nasty to women that they're fulfilling some basic need that women have. And over time, that belief takes on a life of its own. The truly effective "players" hold no aggression in them, seek to pleasure their partner, and seek to leave the people they meet better than they were before. Should be simple, but so many internet nuts have twisted it beyond belief.


Jake LeMotta... Don't confuse confidence with aggression. They are light years apart.

Sure good points.

But I think there has been a slight confounding in certain area's.
Firstly as regards your point - notches on the bedpost - I couldn't agree with you more.
Someone for whom that is the goal as such, there's something NQR there - obviously compensating in some regard.

However, to meet (many) different girls (there's alot of nice girls out there), get to know them, their personality, enjoy there company and enjoy good sexual experiences, which I'd just like to highlight is a mutual thing - as some people seem to convey its purely for the benefit of the male; can you tell me if there's something negative associated with doing this?

As regards being aggressive - fact of the matter is females gravitate toward that alpha male that's strong and confident and the potential to be aggressive is attractive from the point of view that they feel secure in his company and from the point of view that he could, how can I say, "put it to them right", when it comes to the physical side of the relationship - which is, I believe, of pretty much paramount importance to females when it comes to relationships, no matter how much emphasis they put on want a "sweet, sensitive, honest guy, blah blah blah".

I think that, (being that sexually attractive partner - which is the basis for being a "player", as such) encapsulates confidence, strength, self assurance, empathy - could probably go on all day.

The point I'm making is that it's the likes of Mike Tyson, with his self-assurance, strength, confidence and potential for aggression - he makes a very attractive sexual partner - I believe.

Tyson comments regularly in interviews that the best fighters are the happiest fighters.
Guys who are just happy to be what the are and to be doing what they do.
I wonder what kept Tyson so happy and content, all them years of slaving in a sweaty gym and getting beat up in a ring?

Jake LeMotta

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

However, to meet (many) different girls (there's alot of nice girls out there), get to know them, their personality, enjoy there company and enjoy good sexual experiences, which I'd just like to highlight is a mutual thing - as some people seem to convey its purely for the benefit of the male; can you tell me if there's something negative associated with doing this?

This is the reason I spent literally thousands of euros learning how to do such.

As for being something negative.. It depends. You see, its not the concept or the reason thats seen as negative, but the manner in which it is done. I've gone out on my own just to watch other men go chase women in public settings, and there are a wide variety of methods to be used. Most of which are subconscious, but some are learned, and TBH a lot of them start off negatively. Its about getting a girl to have sex with them for a short burst of pleasure. Their own pleasure.

Believe me, I've spoken about this sort of thing with hundreds of people over the years. You wouldn't believe the amount of disgust and disbelief that some people have about men that learn to please women. And these would be the same people that not ten minutes earlier were complaining strongly about the dating scene in their own respective countries. :rolleyes:

As regards being aggressive - fact of the matter is females gravitate toward that alpha male that's strong and confident and the potential to be aggressive is attractive from the point of view that they feel secure in his company and from the point of view that he could, how can I say, "put it to them right", when it comes to the physical side of the relationship - which is, I believe, of pretty much paramount importance to females when it comes to relationships, no matter how much emphasis they put on want a "sweet, sensitive, honest guy, blah blah blah".

The alpha male belief is based on confidence. Its not about strength or aggressiveness. I've been an alpha male. I'm 6ft3", look like a lamp post, have the shakes, and would have seriously problems doing more than three press ups. And yet, I've had 8 air stewardesses pay for my night out, and later dated one of them for a few months.

Confidence is the key here. Everything else is just background noise, with the very important exception of Humor/Wit.

I think that, (being that sexually attractive partner - which is the basis for being a "player", as such) encapsulates confidence, strength, self assurance, empathy - could probably go on all day.

Every person is different and the desires they have in a partner are all different. You can influence those desires, and turn away the negative ones through the use of psychology, and nlp. TBH, most of the skills that a player have rests on the use of understanding and empathy.

The point I'm making is that it's the likes of Mike Tyson, with his self-assurance, strength, confidence and potential for aggression - he makes a very attractive sexual partner - I believe.

Good for you. Not my type though.

Guys who are just happy to be what the are and to be doing what they do.
I wonder what kept Tyson so happy and content, all them years of slaving in a sweaty gym and getting beat up in a ring?

You could ask the same of anyone who persists with the gym. Better yet, ask someone who was the opposite of they are now... and consider the shortness of time it took them to become "peaked". That takes serious willpower. Tyson doesn't impress me the most. He's been doing this for decades. Its the non-professionals who change their lives successfully that are the most impressive.

PK2008

How come women fancy Tony Soprano?

Apart from the fact that he's a serial killer, he looks like Fred Flintstone ffs!!!

PK2008

PK2008 wrote: »

How come women fancy Tony Soprano?

Apart from the fact that he's a serial killer, he looks like Fred Flintstone ffs!!!

People often decide that actors/actresses on tv or movies are attractive when they wouldn't touch similar looking people in their own towns. Its not their appearance. Its the role they're playing which is quite sexy, and yet should they ever be exposed to it in reality they'd run for the hills.

I used to go to strip clubs. Wanted to date the girls i met there, and eventually after years of visiting such places I did manage to date a few of them. After my second experience, I've sworn never to do it again....

Why? A fantasy is attractive. The Reality is something else.

Jake LeMotta

From the 2:00min mark forth.
May be interesting.

Nevyn

Why would you want to pattern yourself off an agressive abusive rapist?

Jake LeMotta

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why would you want to pattern yourself off an agressive abusive rapist?

Nah, I'm just making the point that, contrary to what chicks so strenuously insinuate - that they want a "nice guy", honest, loyal, loving, caring blah blah blah,
the thing that comes ahead of that, by a mile, is that guys ability to turn them on - someone's who's exciting, confident, a little dangerous even.

Women used to throw their panties at Tyson, cause he had those qualities.
Even though he was a complete pig and an animal toward women - as we can see in the above video, they still threw themselves at him.
Because he had that ability to turn them on so.

And that's No.1 when it comes to attraction.
Being honest and loyal and a "nice guy" and whatever - don't get me wrong, it's good if it's there - but without the former, it counts for very little.
Unless your a bloke who's just asking to be robbed of his money and have his woman cheat on him.

...IMO

Nevyn

I think you have a skewed idea of what a 'nice guy' is and of what displays of confidence are compred to dominance and agression. that or your a troll.

Jake LeMotta

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think you have a skewed idea of what a 'nice guy' is and of what displays of confidence are compred to dominance and agression. that or your a troll.

Well, if I may ask, how have you deduced what you feel my views are, as regards what a display of confidence is?

I don't believe at any point I mention specifically being aggressive toward a female is attractive.
I did however point out on many occasions that with men, often time, the potential for aggression that they seem to have - that little element of danger about them, that exists with the likes of Tyson, this is what they find attractive - it stimulates a sexual chemistry, as it's exciting.

Jake LeMotta

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Nah, I'm just making the point that, contrary to what chicks so strenuously insinuate - that they want a "nice guy", honest, loyal, loving, caring blah blah blah,
the thing that comes ahead of that, by a mile, is that guys ability to turn them on - someone's who's exciting, confident, a little dangerous even.

Actually just to augment that slightly - ironically, oftentimes guys that buy into this "loving, caring blah blah blah" sh!t that women go on about wanting, they generally become overbearing and clingy and that's the exact thing that makes alot of women run a mile.

Perhaps after a while, once the woman develops more deeply rooted feelings for the guy, that loving, caring persona can be more forthcoming.
But in the initial stages at least, it's excitment, fun, confidence, sexual appeal, spontaneity and a little danger even, that are the attractive factors.

And without the latter, the former possibly won't come to be at all...

Wibbs

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Women used to throw their panties at Tyson, cause he had those qualities.
Even though he was a complete pig and an animal toward women - as we can see in the above video, they still threw themselves at him.
Because he had that ability to turn them on so.

Nope, he had women throw panties at him because of a few things. There are a certain group of women who get off on writing to serial killers on death row. IMHO its not the monster they're attracted to, but the thought that they can change him into a better man, with their help. That does seem to be a strong governing factor with many women. Indeed its strong enough in society at large, what with us being an inclusive social animal an all.

The other reason is more mundane. He's rich. Very rich. And he's rich in America. A culture where rich is among the highest honour a person can aim for. A culture where not being wealthy leaves you open to losing your home, access to basic health services and social standing. In more socialist societies you do see a different take on this. Traditionally women were the more financially and more socially vulnerable(and still are when it comes to starting a family), so it makes sense for a woman in such a culture to strongly select for wealth in a partner. Tyson pushes that button along with the "I can change him" button very strongly.

Nevyn

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Well, if I may ask, how have you deduced what you feel my views are, as regards what a display of confidence is?

I don't believe at any point I mention specifically being aggressive toward a female is attractive.
I did however point out on many occasions that with men, often time, the potential for aggression that they seem to have - that little element of danger about them, that exists with the likes of Tyson, this is what they find attractive - it stimulates a sexual chemistry, as it's exciting.

Every example you have given shows abusive and agressive behaviour of a man to be something aspire to, some times displays of dominance are more about being a dick then anything else.


Women can be as dangerous as well and there are men who find that attractive. Again your views are very blinkered.

Jake LeMotta

Okay, put it this way.

Testosterone is the potent hormone that's associated with sex drive and aggression, right?

Testosterone levels of males increase around females, due to the sexual chemistry - stimulated by the female - maybe she's carrying herself suggestively, suggestive gestures, revealing clothing etc.
Effectively sexual suggestion or innuendo which appeals to the male's sexual desires and results in the production of testosterone.

As I pointed out, testosterone is also a stimulant for aggression, as we know.
So, when I guy becomes to some degree aggressive (we're not talking about the will to inflict physical harm or something, for those of you who may be inclined to blow that statement out of proportion)...

An example might be, slight lowering of the eyelids/squinting of the eyes/more intense eye contact - expressions which usually denote aggression (I'll happily provide pics or video evidence to demonstrate this - in fact - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I9i7WqYrfo - skip to 0:46 for an excellent example)

When females wish to attract males, these signals, along with many others, which denote aggression, are the indicators that she is effectively stimulating testosterone release in the male and therefore aggression - the indicator of this - is something that she finds attractive about him - as she knows she's having the desired affect.

Also to note; "aggression", the controlled type that we're referring to here, also couples assertive and confident behavior - masculine traits that females find attractive - therefore again, aggression is the attractive factor.

Jake LeMotta

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Okay, put it this way.

Testosterone is the potent hormone that's associated with sex drive and aggression, right?

Associated... not that its a definite response to the hormone. Testosterone creates many reactions in the body & emotions which aren't tied to aggression. And linking sex drive to aggression is rather limiting, don't you think?

I'm not a very aggressive person, but due to my metabolism and the chemistry of my body, I get testosterone surges. It hasn't resulted in me being aggressive. Its resulted in me being more aware of the conditions of my body, and an awareness of how emotions can be affected.

Testosterone levels of males increase around females, due to the sexual chemistry - stimulated by the female - maybe she's carrying herself suggestively, suggestive gestures, revealing clothing etc.
Effectively sexual suggestion or innuendo which appeals to the male's sexual desires and results in the production of testosterone.

Animals give off hormones to attract the opposite sex. Its part of the mating game. Humans do it. Dogs do it. Cats do it. etc. Its not particularly a mental thing, rather the body acting independently for the most part. However the mind comes into effect, to determine if the person will respond on a conscious level to the bodies hormonal surge.

On a side note, you can manufacture your own hormone mixtures and some can be rather effective. Fun too.

As I pointed out, testosterone is also a stimulant for aggression, as we know.

Nope. As you know. I disagree with your reasoning. Testosterone is a natural by product of the male body for a variety of reasons, and your continued campaign to link it to aggression is...

Also to note; "aggression", the controlled type that we're referring to here, also couples assertive and confident behavior - masculine traits that females find attractive - therefore again, aggression is the attractive factor.

Confidence is a mental construct built through both experience, and in some cases training.

But, hey, you're hung up on aggression. Personally, I find your focus rather disturbing, and somewhat dangerous. But as long as you're not hurting anyone... bully for you.

Nevyn

Ok so i will play along with your homoane ideas.

But the type of men women are attracted to changes due to the change in oestrogen levels in the body with one type when they are coming up to ovulation and another then they are post ovulations.

And what about women who are on artificial hormonal contraception?
They don't ovulate as thier bodies are in a state of chemical pregnancy so they would be only attracted to care taker males, if your assumptions hold true.

What about women who are post menopause?
Who are they atrracted to?

What about women who are high on the bell curve for naturally occurring testosterone themselves? How are they factored in?