Societal divisions/cliques - the empowerment of men vs women

FunnyHow?

Strength in numbers - or so they say.

I know guys, most guys actually - and I am of the male characterisation myself - they would rather walk on hot coals, than go to a social gathering or setting, by themselves.
Alone.

"LONER!!"

The most foul and feared label.

Well - of course that doesn't apply to only males.
Women probably more so.

Why is that the case?
I guess for women - there's the obvious - physical vulnerability.
Completely understandable.


I suppose - putting that to the side, in terms of practicalities such as, you know, not being body snatched - if a guy is identified as being alone at a social gathering, I think there's perhaps an instinctive "creeper" label attached to him - which strongly negates his potential engagement with a sexual partner (female).

But the same would not be said for a female; if said female had a good body and presentation - just to illustrate the realities.
Hell - a pretty girl could simply stand alone at the bar, and wait for the guys to approach, "queue up", if you will - whilst she takes her pick.

Now, we could dispute the miniscule details - but essentially, that's how it appears to work.

Picture a guy doing the same?
Stood alone at bar.
lol
Is he gonna wait for a queue of hot temptresses to approach and proposition him?
It could be a long wait.


From that point of view, we see the clear illustration of the divide between men and women.
Stating the obvious - but highlighting it, in perspective of what's to come:


Part 2 to follow:

FunnyHow?

From this outlay - it's clear to see that - the leverage of the female is, come "approach" me - they incite approach.
Dressing provocatively etc.

And just to highlight - this is no anti-feminist proposition.
Forever was, and forever will be - I make no bones about that.

The "leverage" of the man, however - does not seem to be as clearly defined.

Typically, in Ireland - there's certainly the "jack the lad" culture?
Go out with mates, make lots of noise - I dunno?
I'll be honest - it's not particularly relevant to my ultimate end point but, I'm trying to characterize the scene as it currently seems to be.

What I'm alluding to here is, the "clique" culture - seems to be the premise or basis upon which Irish males base their ability to integrate with the superior gender.
Outside of Ireland?
Apparently main land Europeans have their own thing going on - but I'm not familiar with that.

Now - of course their are exceptions, so I will expect the occasional, "Oh no my friend Jim - he's so super cool. Goes out by himself, meets new people chats all night, girls all over him even though he's a huge loner...." etc etc.

I'm speaking, in general terms.

Alright - what's my point here?


Cliques.

In broader terms.
Subcultures.

In even broader terms - whole cultures.
Religions.
Communities.
Masses of people who adhere to similar thought and behavioural concepts - becoming more specific through the culture, as subcultures etc, develop.

In terms of their establishment - was their initial purpose - just something as simple as, the will/desire to effectively, assist in engaging with the opposing gender?
Adhere to a mentality, that allows one to be part of a group - for there is security in that group.
Those outside that group, part of no other one, alone and isolated, shall be shunned and labelled as outcast and strange - no?
In general terms - does that, or does that not, seem to be the case?


Now - hypothetically - purely on paper, what if - there were a means to establish a male role, not identical to, but with a similar end product - to that of the female.

That end product - the formulation of a male "leverage", as it were.

Picture the loner at the bar, waiting on the hot temptresses to approach and proposition him.

Purely on paper - if there were a means to have this fantastical imagining, to come to a realistic fruition.


In theory, if that began to transpire on a grander scale - the dissolution of the "clique" based culture.
The disbandment of "clique" divides - divides of upper and lower class cultures, belief patterns within cultures, national divides, religious divides.

The promotion of a greater sense of human, and humane - integrity.


All starting with a dude stood alone at bar.

Theoretically.

The greatest structures started with a single brick.

FunnyHow?

So - hypothetically - we're talking, the male establishing a means to equalize social roles with females.

Can this be achieved?


He's certainly not going to start donning male counterpart short skirts to provocatively allure women.

Nobody wants that.


What then?

What - could - tantalize, is that the correct word?
A female, to an equal extent as the prototypical female can "tantalize" the male?


And I'll leave that question to hang for a moment.
Just see how this fantastical construction sits with ya'll.

FunnyHow?

I think it's important to note also that - whilst being an outsider/isolated/loner, can be at one end of the spectrum in terms of attractive appeal - being a part of a "clique" culture, and being, if you will, a foremost member, can and does seem to be a highly attractive feature.

I think that's plane to see often times, perhaps particularly amongst youth groups, where individual mindedness has not yet had the opportunity to fully come about?

Or perhaps the self assurance it yields in terms of being around a group of people who provide just that.


The bottom line being - transcending the necessity for that situation.

Female culture - whilst not necessarily promoting individuality - as noted above, can, or has the ability, to assert a very individualized presentation of oneself, without personal compromise.


The point being - if male culture can reach something similar, could the implications be as profound as I've alluded to?


And what specifically, SPECIFICALLY - is it, that gives rise to that individuality, confidence in oneself, autonomous confidence, as it were.


I mean, every second thread on this forum, and probably the majority of sub-forums with remotely similar discussion all carry the same catch phrases:
"Be confident, be yourself etc etc" - which is subjectively prone to massive ambiguity, and lacks any real definition.

FunnyHow?

I think it's fair to say that - stating the obvious here but - well, obviously, it's sexual/physical appeal, that yields that autonomy.
Going back to the "hot girl at the bar" analogy.

Would you agree??

Releases the necessity of the "clique" culture, as a means to compensate for - what?
Perhaps a lack of personal solidarity, a lack of personal leverage in terms of physical and sexual appeal.

So - right there - seems to be the defining issue, pertaining to male culture.
I would say contemporary but - more than likely, always was.....

FunnyHow?

A prime example of a means to circumvent this imbalance of leverages is, as we all know - Islamic culture.

If of course it's not taboo to mention that.
I certainly don't want to be accused of bigotry, nor do I advocate it.
I lived in an Islamic community for many years, worked with Arabs, trained in a gym with Arabs, actually shared an apartment with Arabs - I do not consider myself an authority on their state of affairs - but, this information is not coming off the cuff, or by way of some partial media informed musings.

When there is such a disproportionate state of leverage between genders, there can often come - unpleasantries.
That's just a fact, that I don't dispute.
Their general sentiment is, "all women are cheating, lying, manipulative individuals of incredulously low moral fibre".

As a means to balance out the ascendency, as oppose to devising means to raise, their own empowerment potential - the culture is instead aimed at, diminishing that of those whom they seek.

Not to dance around the subject - we're all grown ups here - the end goal of man, is ultimately, sex with women.
And of course, in this imbalance of leverage or "appeal", embodied by each gender, there comes the potential for all those unpleasantries.

Thus - the oppressive nature of the culture.
The "clique", en masse.
And because it's so, "popular" - it's become accepted.


However - consider a situation where, very simply put, as oppose to, oppressing the opposition - there was a move toward, equalization via, development of the self, in some capacity?

Now - this is all theoretical.

The means to this end - we have no idea.

But - theoretically - let's just hypothesize this being the case.


In a farcically straight forward analogy - your neighbour has a lovely Mercedes.
You are driving a ten year old Nissan.

Instead of forcing your neighbour to constantly wear a car cover, so as not to raise your ire, and inspire jealousy and resentment - which may be inevitable - hmm?
Which is the comparison to Islam (covering, etc).

Instead of that, you go out, and get yourself, I dunno - what's a popular car these days?

A Lamborghini.
I see Conor McGregor drives one - they must be pretty flash.

So, now that you no longer have this sputtering road worn work horse car in your driveway, and have instead replaced it with a V8 loaded beast, with chrome rims and snarling bonnet vent - that very pretty, admirable Mercedes in your neighbours drive - I mean, for sure, it's nice - still.
You wouldn't decline a spin in it.

But it not longer induces that intolerable vexatious animosity, resentment, frustration - cause that's the way these things work.
You, got the Lamb.
Mercedes no longer draw your attention.

FunnyHow?

Alright, farcical analogy concluded.

I feel that sufficiently illustrates my point.

In terms of specific culture disbandment - as oppose to a focus on oppression, a focus on personal development - will be a alternate means, to - theoretically - the same end.

But realistically - the ends will be
1) functional, effective, and not misery inducing and oppressive

versus

2) the latter, as it currently stands.


So - all this wonderfulness - depends on - what??


The ability of men, to devise a source of leverage, to equalize with the female, in sexual terms.

In folk speak, "ability to hook up".


Now, you might think - if this, fantastical and unrealistic imagining, were to ever come to reality, what?
We'd see a sharp population growth?

I doubt it.

Standards go up - less of the popularized idea of men lusting after whatever women will have them.
That's my opinion at least.

FunnyHow?

I do think it's important to note - perhaps imperative to note that - among primarily males, and to a lesser extent, females, there is this subculture....

Now - how to define it exactly, maybe a challenge.

I have little doubt its purpose is, again - ultimately, the impetus to promote appeal to the opposite gender.
Embody something which they, in the most misled sense, feel is attractive.

"Bad dude" culture, perhaps?
Prominent amongst lower income brackets, but seen across all, particularly in youth.

The will to promote an image of being, intimidating, perhaps?
For there is a sense empowerment is inherent in that?


I have little doubt, this is ultimately a means to compensate of personal or character deficits - for often these, "bad dudes", well - they take a true ass whoopin', certainly not like the figurative, "real man".

But ultimately a means to attempt to compensate for a lack of true leverage - true attractive leverage or embodiment that is infallibly attractive, pertaining to the opposite gender.


And perhaps that is because there is not a well defined characterization of, what is - truly attractive.

Misled.

But - non-the-less, and very prominent subculture in and of itself.

42.

FunnyHow?

Then of course with that clique/culture - or group/gang mentality - you must also factor in the manifestation of strong egocentric tendencies, more often than not, with negative consequences.

And let's face it.
This is ultimately aimed at inciting a "confidence", which is lacking - as is also the case with the addition of the dissociative property of alcohol.

Again - we see this in social settings, more often then not, where the underlying intention is, engagement with the opposing gender.
As referred to in Irish terms, very much a "jack the lad" type of presentation.

Often times, egocentricity is coupled with the inherent need to undermine others - thus inciting a personal feeling of being the, "alpha dog".

In other words - negative consequences of what is effectively underlying personal incompetency, in some capacity.

Due to the group nature of these actions - opposing genders will often validate this negativity, very simply because, "everyone's doing it".
And buying into that - establishing a connection with the clique "ring leader", as it were, the transference of egocentricity also transpires; in and of itself, this validation translates as empowerment (albeit at the cost of non-clique affiliates) to those administering it.


And finally - within an established subculture or clique therein - comes, somewhat of a comfort zone, which contributes directly to the inhibition of the impetus toward personal growth.

"I had to get a change of environment, get myself out of that comfort zone..." - etc etc.





More to follow:

FunnyHow?

So - the underlying principle behind all this ridiculousness seems to be - the development of male leverage, (not to mince words), in the sexual sense, as have females.

So we've established that - female leverage is, the allusion of, "come approach me".

So what would be the nature of male leverage to counter to this?

"No - I'm not gonna approach you!!"

I don't think that would really translate.
I mean, I see guys try and pull that stunt all the time to little/no benefit, apart from perhaps saving a marginal amount of face when some lassy is really playing games.

But inherent in that in itself, is an acknowledgement of their agenda - and that donates empowerment to the female, which detracts it from the male.


There has also been some fleeting references to "PUA" strategies - lol.
I don't even know what's going on there but, I wouldn't encourage anyone to put any kind of stock into it.
"Negging" and so forth - which, in a sense, directionally - plays right into their hands.


"Come approach me" - that's the female leverage.


Conjured, fabricated - indifference - to this presentation?

Pretend you don't notice them?
Act like you're oblivious to their existence?

lol - guys probably been doing that since the dawn of time also.
And how's that worked out?
I'd wager - not so well.

Chicks have an inbuilt mechanism for sensing fabricated indifference.

But they also can't deny when there is, genuine - indifference.


I think that's what goes down when dudes have girlfriends.

In their minds they're thinking, "I'm tied down - I have my partner established", and naturally, they pay less attention to other females.
And then of course you hear guys say - "just when I get a girlfriend, all them other girls that were semi-interested in me - suddenly they seem so keen on me" - right?


So right there - there is something - which, "tantalizes" the female, that can be administered by the male, right?
But not really voluntarily.

Get a girlfriend, to hook up with other girls more easily - lol - ??

Not a particularly sustainable strategy.

FunnyHow?

But let's stick with the principle.

Indifference.
Genuine indifference - to the hot girls, that everyone simply CANNOT ignore.

Let's revisit my laughable analogy above - hmm?
The Mercedes versus the Ford.
And then, the Mercedes, versus the LAMB.


True indifference, may transpire - if, the male, was, truly more developed in areas that pertain to sexual attraction, than the female in question.

I'm not claiming this has realistic translation potential.

This is all, super hypothetical.

But I like playing around with hypothesis so - let's stick with it for a moment.


Area's that pertain to sexual attraction.

Let's flip that back.

Area's that pertain to indifference.

If indifference is the male version of "tantalizing" the female - then, it has a proportionality to attraction.
Make sense?

Much like the female leverage is, being provocative, dressing alluringly, "come 'approach' me".
Bang in "provocative" into the thesaurus - and the first result you will get be, sexual appeal.
Attraction.


And then compare the two end results there - if someone is truly indifferent - truly oblivious to your presence - that can be kind of provocative in itself, can it not?
Kind of, "make you crazy" - provocative.

Tremendous leverage, in a way.

Leverage - just like an attractive female has leverage via her alluring presentation, which typically and historically - has been the sole form of social leverage.
i.e. woman being the dictators of when a sexual transaction will or will not transpire.

Would that be fair enough to say??

As above - there are exceptions but, few and far between would also go in tandem with that.


Therefore - the male version of being "provocative", is being, indifferent.
And both are, as outlined - forms of leverage, in the sexual transaction.

FunnyHow?

So - genuine indifference.

How could a male establish that?

Get a girlfriend - lol.
That marginally increases that presentation but, not particularly powerfully or, ultimately, not entirely effective.


Well - one person to another.

What forms of indifference are there?


Personal indifference - I think would be fair enough to say would be one.

"I'm busy, got places to go, things to do, people to see".

How could that be established?

Perhaps by determining and exploiting interests in various endeavours.
I think that's what most people do anyways, as you mature and make your way through life.

Well, some people don't but, the lesser one is accomplished in that sense - they tend to be regarded as "lower class" - and I'm not judging anyone.
Would that be fair enough to say?

People with no work, no jobs, no interests, no contribution to society.

FunnyHow?

And I think in that sense - personal indifference - the male denomination tend to do fairly okay.

Historically, role of women in society, whether that was just how things unfolded, or whether male induced repression played a factor - but in terms of "personal" indifference, historically at least, maybe women fell a little shorter than men.


More contemporary generations, that is of course being modified - or having the opportunity to be modified, as there is a precedent of women establishing themselves in the work place etc.


Curiously - one thing that is notable, or apparent from my own point of view at least is that - some women endeavour, to - have babies - curiously enough, and it seems that, from a point of view of almost, self validation, they feel this action asserts themselves in some capacity.

As in, being a mother - gives them a well defined purpose.
And actually lends itself to establishing this particular component of indifference.


Now this might really seem like I'm slating the hell out of a certain, but not entirely miniscule, subculture - but it is what it is, and for the purposes of this outlay, I'm merely highlighting it.

A girl - not even a woman - maybe still in her teens - with kids.
An individual whose not done raising themselves, put in a position of such tremendous responsibility as being self delegated the welfare and prosperity of a child.

And having kids at such a young age, and in a state of such lack of personal accomplishment - it's almost considered, "trendy".

Much like the embodiment of certain behavioural characteristics, such as traveller culture emulation, by those who do not originate from traveller backgrounds.

Why?

Because it's empowering.
As alluded to previously, the embodiment of something which is potentially considered intimidating perhaps?

And empowering in this sense - empowerment orientated endeavours, can also be labelled as, "trendy", amongst these sub-cultures.

The will for a sense of empowerment - egocentricity - engaging in what is "trendy" - alluding to a very bizarre, almost counter good sense and rational, type of subculture.


In any case - the ultimate point being - these counter rational behaviours, are means to, or intention toward - the establishment of personal validation.

As - synonymous with indifference/attraction - excelling in this area, is a form of leverage.

Having babies and bad behaviour - perhaps compensation for a lack of personal validation in this life.
Compensate for the lacking of ability to be indifferent to society - on a personal level.

FunnyHow?

Other points of indifference?

And here's the irony.

Men, typically - seem to do significantly worse than women, in these areas.

So - they excel in the initial area of personal indifference via more progressive lifestyles pertaining to personal interests, but....


Let's put it this way - and I'm going to try and word this carefully as, I'm aware this can be a sensitive, emotive and inflammatory topic for many:

Women might, stereotypically speaking at least - might be perceived as, having the lions share of leverage pertaining to the sexual transaction, but, can also, "fall in love" or "get heartbroken", more easily than men - when it comes to, "relationships" - that which goes beyond the superficial, or where a relationship begins to extend beyond the carnal aspect.

That is to say - they show vulnerability in the face of male personal development.
But males will, "typically", show vulnerability in the face of female sexual leverage.

Fair enough to say?

In practical terms - a female may often dictate the concession of a sexual engagement.
But a male will often dictate as to whether that relationship is sustained, in the longer term.

Now I know - many many exceptions, but, historically, that general outline, may not be entirely out of place.

As we evolve, perhaps we're seeing a shift in that, as, as alluded to previously, women are becoming more developed and cognizant in areas of personal interest and therefore, personal indifference.

However - in the areas which they have formerly excelled, the other areas of indifference that pertain to physical attraction - men, for the most part, are still a ways behind here.

FunnyHow?

And the following two areas, that do pertain to indifference, completing what is, in my opinion, the overall picture, are:

1) Physical indifference

2) Presentational indifference.

FunnyHow?

So - if men excel in personal indifference (generally speaking), and tend to have the edge regarding the leverage incited by this denomination - which is more so the key factor in, say, more, long term engagements - what area do they, generally speaking, tend to fall down on?

Initiating the sexual transaction?

Short term hooks up.
If you will - superficial relationships - more so, just about sexual gratification.

And why is this the case?

Primarily because, women (generally speaking) vastly excel in establishing leverage in the areas pertinent to physical and presentational indifference.

In areas of physical attraction and visual attraction - women, again a generalization - in fact, everything relative to this topic is a generalization from here forth; women do far better in presenting a sexualized appearance of themselves.

It's almost inherent in female culture.
Look at some kids in middle school.
Boys are learning to kick football, play rugby, shave their heads, and generally accentuating their "I'm a rough tough dude" type of thing they have going on.

Chicks are, even at that age - refining their presentation with clothes that specifically cater to an enhanced appearance. Getting their hair did etc etc.
And competitive sports seem to take a back seat role to, basically - just making sure their bodies are in shape, shape that could be considered sexually appealing in nature.

However - womens bodies also develop slightly differently to mens.
I don't need affirmation of this.
It's a biological definition.

Their hips widen out and they develop breasts.
This almost automatically incites a sexualized physical presentation.
Therefore - for women, provided they keep in reasonably good shape - the physical attraction/leverage/indifference, basically looks after self.


For guys on the other hand.

For a sexualized physical presentation - basically, gotta work out quite a bit, eat good etc etc

Women don't have to go through a fraction of that hassle.
However - biologically, testosterone - if anyone is familiar with hormone therapy used in bodybuilding etc - you basically know, stuff makes you WANT to work out.
Oestrogen - not so much.


That being said - plenty of big ass dudes with big arms and a big chest, 110kgs strong - but, when they see a hot girl, they fold rather easily.

Therefore - despite all this working out and "being jacked", supposedly excelling physically
- the pertinent topic - indifference, in still very much lacking, and they can still get wrapped around a pretty females finger pretty easily.

FunnyHow?

Like this guy.

Super jacked but..... something's just not clicking for him on the indifference/confidence/attraction spectrum:

FunnyHow?

That being said - dudes that, generally - reasonably good shape, appear okay, but a member of a prominent "clique" and may be, prominent members therein, as such (not that they have a ranking system but rather, well regarded within that clique) - that clique affirmation is normally enough to provide enough support or backing, confidence, ultimately cater to negating certain social insecurities of that individual - such that they can yield a reasonable sense of indifference - and males in that position, tend to be more successful with the opposing gender.

Certainly more so that if one were to remove their social network backing, expose their insecurities, deplete their conveyance of indifference - then success rates would plummet.

FunnyHow?

lol - that video gets me every time.
Some of the comments are gold:

"lifting will make me more c-confident... r-right guys...?"

"I wish I was at home eating oats
the music is too loud
my feet hurt
i'm lonely"

"how to get no girls at a pool party"

"hey, that's like me at parties/clubs, except with no muscle" - I'm sure this one resonates with plenty of you guys - lol.

Anyways - fun time over.
We're coming full circle in terms the "confidence" - "what is confidence" - "how do I BE confident" etc.

All good questions.

Confidence is largely based on, how other react to us.
If we get consistently good reactions - out confidence tends to grow.

Like - and I'm going to do the unthinkable and use myself as an example here.

Sometimes I walk up in the nightclub, and I'm like, "ohfukohfukohfukohfukohfuk - don't know anyone - look like an awkward loner" etc.

Then I like to chill, get a drink, cruise about, and get a sense of how others are reacting to me - conveyed of course through body language, eye contact, subtlety's in these areas which, are generally speaking, fairly evident - provided, you know, you're not an autist.

And when I see girls eyes go a little wider, or sometime looking down, conveying shyness, sometimes giving direct looks and obvious smiles etc - I understand where I stand, juxtaposition if you will, of them to me - in terms of my leverages, their leverages, and striking up a (with sexuality as the base) conversation, is the most natural thing in the world - because it's apparent the reaction will be favourable.

No "playboy'esque" suave, no well though out chat up lines.
Depending on how I feel, sometimes the most asinine braindead crap known to man.

But - enough about me.


The point here being - it's these latter two points of attraction - two point which lend themselves tremendously to visual and sensory stimulation, inciting a sense of sexual desire - perhaps where, there was none.

Perhaps some chick is just hanging with her friends, no intention of meeting a dude - but the effect of visual stimulation is enough to get her keen with interest.


As men - we can relate to this readily.

A glamorous looking girl in high heels, dressed provocatively.
We may be thinking about the soccer match, or who's getting the next round, or what a trout our wife is and it's good to be out of the house - mind a million miles from potential engagement - but then our senses are hit with something like this:





And what - are we seeing here?

**Drooling mouth reply** - "A hot girl"

When we explore specifically what 'makes' her hot:


1) A high level of presentational refinement (re: presentational indifference)

2) The body. What specific aspect of the body? The aspect, that men check out first and foremost when determining whether a chick is hot or no (and perhaps contrary to popular belief, women check out on men with equal cognizance and regularity - oh yeah, believe it).
The - again, not to dance around the subject - the ass (re: physical indifference).
Glutes - if you want to be technical.

The ass (and I will continue using this reference, as it is the most relatable one - so pardon me if that impinges on anyones tender sensibilities), the ass - is the focal point, of physical attraction.

Let me say that again.

The ass - is the focal point of physical attraction.

For women - but, again, supposedly contrary to popular belief - for men alike.

FunnyHow?

And I just gotta slot in this in quickly.

Dudes - who focus on a 1) high level of presentational refinement, and are overly concerned with their 2) ass, culturally - in just about every culture on that planet, it's almost instinctive perhaps - they'll be labelled something.

We all know what.

"That dude likes dudes".

And I'll leave that to sit with ya'll for a bit.

Pat Mustard

It is a bit difficult to follow your overall train of thought.

I wonder if you could help us out and phrase your overall point in a nutshell?

FunnyHow?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It is a bit difficult to follow your overall train of thought.

I wonder if you could help us out and phrase your overall point in a nutshell?

The point is expansive, and the logic is not short - but when I am through with what I feel is a more comprehensive explanation of what, in my opinion, is tremendously profound and pertinent to almost every topic on boards, I.e. man/woman relationship issues of some incarnation or other; when I felt I have outlined all pertinent matters on the topic - and I will then offer up a synopsis.

johnnyskeleton

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It is a bit difficult to follow your overall train of thought.

I wonder if you could help us out and phrase your overall point in a nutshell?

He thinks that all social structures arise from the desire to mate and it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone bucked the trend.

Pat Mustard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He thinks that all social structures arise from the desire to mate and it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone bucked the trend.

MGTOW* etc?




*Men going their own way

FunnyHow?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He thinks that all social structures arise from the desire to mate and it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone bucked the trend.

Firstly, I don't want to disrupt my flow.

Secondly, I don't want to get side tracked.

But, I simply have to outline - as a matter of opinion - "mating", just happens to be another one of the uses of sexuality.
But reproduction/posterity, is the farthest thing from what I'm alluding to in any capacity - lol.

Professor Moriarty

FunnyHow? wrote: »

Firstly, I don't want to disrupt my flow.

Secondly, I don't want to get side tracked.

But, I simply have to outline - as a matter of opinion - "mating", just happens to be another one of the uses of sexuality.
But reproduction/posterity, is the farthest thing from what I'm alluding to in any capacity - lol.

I'm not going to read all of your posts. In fact, this^ post is the only one I'll read. If this thread is a representation of the debate inside your head then you need fresh air.

B0jangles

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It is a bit difficult to follow your overall train of thought.

I wonder if you could help us out and phrase your overall point in a nutshell?

FunnyHow?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not going to read all of your posts. In fact, this^ post is the only one I'll read. If this thread is a representation of the debate inside your head then you need fresh air.

Okay - I really need to resist the impetus to reply to these, cause, like I said, they're disrupting my flow, and the flow of the thread.

Not to mention that lame ass oversized spoof picture by the poster after you.

Not read?
That's perfectly fine.
I would never wish to force information down anyones throat.


Now - I shall resume - hopefully, with a minimum of lame insertions from here forth.

FunnyHow?

Okay - so in my most recent posts, I had alluded to, basically, men, who focus on aspects of personal development, which are, normally - in pretty much every culture I'm familiar with at least - neglected by men, or the importance of the development is certainly not emphasized - men with such priorities, would be very much regarded as deviating from the norm; being unorthodox, and more often than not - would be suspected of having homosexual inclinations.


Now - homosexuality has become a hugely sensitive subject, with this push to have it acknowledged as acceptable, and even normal.

And I'm not against that. In contrast to historical views on homosexuality, it's a huge step in the right direction.

But I'm not here to offer views on that topic, one way or another.

That being said, I do intend to explore matters pertaining to leverages stemming from sexuality, endeavours of personal development as mentioned previously that carry gay connotations etc - and basically, I want to address the P.C. crowd right off the bat.

I will refer to matters of homosexuality - in the objective sense.
From a detached point of view.

I neither condemn nor endorse it.
Them views are merely conincidental.
I intend to refer to it, in an almost scientific manner.
In a drastically oversimplified sense - much the same way that, scientifically we could say, an object accumulates heat, when it is exposed to waves of radiation.

It's an objective observation.
There is no endorsement, or condemnation.

I have spent time outlining this prelude, as I WISH THERE TO BE NO QUESTION ON THE MATTER.

If you (you the reader), has beef with the very clearly outlined and impartial material I shall present on the matter - then REFER BACK TO THIS POST WITH ALL YOUR GRIEVANCES.

FunnyHow?

So basically - all this talk about "leverages", who is better than who, regarding the male and female - I mean, it doesn't ring very true with what we were brought up to believe relationships should constitute, does it?

When I drew the comparison between you outdoing your neighbour by buying a Lamborghini, to show up his Mercedes - can you imagine a relationship being based on something comparative?

"Okay I'll date you, cause I feel secure knowing that, ultimately, I am hotter than you are".

I mean, just so we're on the same page here - something like that would typically be regarded as, not normal, in perspective of contemporary cultural values - wouldn't it?
Does anything think otherwise?
Anyone think that, no, that's perfectly normal?

I mean, don't get me completely wrong.
Generally speaking, you're gonna see people of similar levels of sexual appeal or attractiveness, dating or being partners with one another.

Do you ever see someone particularly unattractive, with someone hugely attractive?
Well, sure you do. But in them situations, there's normally more to it than immediately meets the eye, like the lesser attractive person being wealthy, or perhaps agreeing to provide the more attractive person with lifestyle accommodations they may struggle to find else where, such as - security, children, a family?
Perhaps even indulging their rebellious side, by hailing from a lower class background; such an individual dating a girl from a well enough to do background - I think that's reasonably prominent in Irish culture.

And more often than not, in that more minimal group - it's an attractive female, with a less attractive male.

And why is that?
It's because - sexual attraction, is primarily a female feature - a source of leverage, primarily for females, and less so for males.

Are there exceptions?
I'm sure there are.
But they are just that.
Exceptions.

FunnyHow?

I suppose the underlying point here - is something that I clearly outlined from the top.

In terms of attraction, there are three areas.

1) Personal
2) Physical
3) Presentational

And to some extent, they're all inter-dependent.

By example - guys I know that keep themselves in outstanding physical shape - they normally have well constructed lifestyles outside of, "working out", also.
But that aspect isn't critical.

What is critical, is firstly, understanding these three areas.


Now - from the top - what I've said was, and what most rational and level headed people will agree with is that, females, typically - have greater leverage in terms of permitting a sexual transaction.

They may "send signals", lead a guy on, pique his interest or get his attention - but ultimately, it's the male that will proposition, and the female that will make the judgement as to whether he may or may not follow through.

i.e. - in the capacity of sexuality - females, "have leverage".


And like I said, with predominant cultural norms all over the world, that's pretty much a global phenomenon.

I mean - does anyone know a country where the women are running around propositioning the men?
And the men are turning down openly offered sex, from the women?

FunnyHow?

In terms of them three areas - with development in each, comes - indifference toward others.


And first, as far an indifference goes, let me put that in perspective.

Did you ever meet someone who's, really clingy, needy.
It's almost aversive.
Not almost.
It's straight up aversive - a very unattractive quality.

And - it's an arrow right through the heart of passion; passion in this sense being the potential manifestation of sexual chemistry.
Kills it.

So - if that highly unattractive characteristic is on one end of the spectrum - what's at the other end?

What effectively the opposite of clinging on to someone out of desperate need for their company, or for something they have?

Pushing yourself away?

Well sure - in one sense.
But that kind insinuates that in another way, they have something, and you must display a force of will to attempt to not convey desire for it - which, whilst not as bad as outright desperation, kind of clearly gives the game away in itself.

The opposite, of that clingy, needy presentation - is - you guessed it!

Indifference.

Like one is effectively oblivious to your presence.

And if that clingy needy quality is synonymous with aversion and weakness, then that at the other end of the spectrum - indifference, by definition of what spectrum is - must be synonymous with, attractiveness, and strength, solidarity - and low and behold, boards.ie's holy grail - CONFIDENCE.

So the gist is that, in your opinion, women hold all the cards and you think more 'average' guys can level the playing field through acting indifferent to them.

Seems like a very long way of saying that men should play hard to get.

You are WAY overthinking this stuff, to a level that isn't healthy.

the_syco

You seem to be arguing against no-one?

It all just seems like an overly long, overly complicated stream of consciousness that isn't especially insightful or useful.

FunnyHow?

Candie wrote: »

So the gist is that, in your opinion, women hold all the cards and you think more 'average' guys can level the playing field through acting indifferent to them.

Seems like a very long way of saying that men should play hard to get.

You are WAY overthinking this stuff, to a level that isn't healthy.

That is, an insanely inaccurate generalization and mischaracterized simplification, of what I outlined in the most clear and concise possible fashion (and that doesn't mean it's complicated just cause another poster isn't catching on. Work on your comprehension skills. Complexities, by definition, are not straight forward).

In regards to the bolded text - I mean, I covered that at great length, in relation to what is and what is not, indifference.
And by the logical outlay I presented, to "act", "indifferent" - is paradoxical - because true indifference is not an act.

Fabricated indifference..... I'm not typing it all out again.
Go and read back, if the mood takes you.


Unhealthy??

From my point of view, it's hilarious that you attempt to attach that label to this presentation as, to me, unhealthy is, personal compromise, attached to or buying into subcultures that are degenerative by their very nature, and vastly reducing ones bank account and neuronal well being by getting "sh1t faced" regularly, in a desperate attempt to pass oneself off as supposedly "confident" - all as a means to try and initiate a sexual engagement - or engagement of any kind - with a member of the opposing gender.

And that's what Irish culture is all about.

But you're talking to me about "unhealthy"?


And no - the overall point here is not trying to "game" the system with some false fabrication in an attempt to "level the playing field".

The overall point, is far more profound.

The overall point, is an attempt at disbandment of longstanding, unhealthy, and yet perpetuated societal and social norms, that have become accepted and glorified, simply because, "everyone's doing it".

The overall point - is to raise the standards of societies, and promote individuality and single mindedness.
Raise quality of life.


But - I make absolutely no mistake in assuming that you guys would have the least ability to gain comprehension of that - without first understanding the fundamental premise, of HOW, this is to be achieved.
And I of course expect no other reply at this point than, "you think this can result in a cascade that can ACTUALLY alter cultures? You must be kidding" - followed up with something similar to the profoundness that you have already illustrated - "you're way overthinking this mate - go out and have pint!!".

Anticipate the response?

All the way, from the next postal code.

FunnyHow?

the_syco wrote: »

You seem to be arguing against no-one?

lol

That would be true, if there were any arguing in the posting.

I am outlining, not arguing.

Outlays, by definition, are not debates or arguments.

That's the beauty of definitions.
They eliminate dispute, and possibility of doubt.

Professor Moriarty

FunnyHow? wrote: »

That is, an insanely inaccurate generalization and mischaracterized simplification, of what I outlined in the most clear and concise possible fashion (and that doesn't mean it's complicated just cause another poster isn't catching on. Work on your comprehension skills. Complexities, by definition, are not straight forward).

In regards to the bolded text - I mean, I covered that at great length, in relation to what is and what is not, indifference.
And by the logical outlay I presented, to "act", "indifferent" - is paradoxical - because true indifference is not an act.

Fabricated indifference..... I'm not typing it all out again.
Go and read back, if the mood takes you.


Unhealthy??

From my point of view, it's hilarious that you attempt to attach that label to this presentation as, to me, unhealthy is, personal compromise, attached to or buying into subcultures that are degenerative by their very nature, and vastly reducing ones bank account and neuronal well being by getting "sh1t faced" regularly, in a desperate attempt to pass oneself off as supposedly "confident" - all as a means to try and initiate a sexual engagement - or engagement of any kind - with a member of the opposing gender.

And that's what Irish culture is all about.

But you're talking to me about "unhealthy"?


And no - the overall point here is not trying to "game" the system with some false fabrication in an attempt to "level the playing field".

The overall point, is far more profound.

The overall point, is an attempt at disbandment of longstanding, unhealthy, and yet perpetuated societal and social norms, that have become accepted and glorified, simply because, "everyone's doing it".

The overall point - is to raise the standards of societies, and promote individuality and single mindedness.
Raise quality of life.


But - I make absolutely no mistake in assuming that you guys would have the least ability to gain comprehension of that - without first understanding the fundamental premise, of HOW, this is to be achieved.
And I of course expect no other reply at this point than, "you think this can result in a cascade that can ACTUALLY alter cultures? You must be kidding" - followed up with something similar to the profoundness that you have already illustrated - "you're way overthinking this mate - go out and have pint!!".

Anticipate the response?

All the way, from the next postal code.

I'd say you're a great man to go for a pint with.

FunnyHow?

So - the point to focus on here - the latter two aspects:

Physical and presentational.

You can call them confidence.

You can call them indifference.

Because - by the illustration - those things are one and the same.


I think what is most profound to note, is actually - what I have already explained.

Women bodies - they grow almost naturally, into a sexualized form.
That's what those hormones will do.
Now - do women have to work at keeping themelves in shape?
Sure they do.

But relative to sexualized form and therefore - leverage, not really to a fraction of the degree men do.

However - this is in keeping with the fact that, the male hormone, testosterone, is far more potent and affords greater energy so - effectively - that strikes the balance right there in itself.



Now - finally - let me address a core issue.

As far as physical attraction and therefore, indifference (as they are, what? Yes - one and the same) is concerned - we're talking specifically the body.

This is separate from personal attraction - that's, relationship material.

Physical attraction - purely carnal.
Getting down with the get down.
Exchanging bodily fluids, etc.
(Again - there is a necessity to highlight this sensitive material. And I do acknowledge that, sexuality is sensitive, and potentially, highly inflammatory. But, in this instance - we must confront that).

And the core of physical attraction - is what?

The ass.

Does that sound farcical?

I suppose because that particular reference is used in relation to so many farcical descriptions.

Something, ridiculous?

"lol - yeah, MY ASS!!" - etc.


And like I said - you best believe - that women check out guys asses, with just as much regularity and determination, as guys do women.
Not necessarily purely out of attraction - but, it's an indicator of leverage.

"Oh - look at that guy! Who does he think he is? He thinks he's hot stuff?"
And an examination of the ass - will determine exactly, whether he is or is not, hot stuff.

Development of this area - is associated with, tremendous, TREMENDOUS leverage.

In a sense - the key to physical attraction/confidence/indifference - is the ass.


The next post - will not be a separate point, but rather direct continuation of this one.

FunnyHow?

THAT being said - I have never, NEVER, heard a female claim that she digs on a mans ass.

"Contrary".

"She's a contrary Mary".

It seems to be a long standing insight, that women, can often times be paradoxical, and contradictions of themselves.

Now - that MAY be - and this is not well defined, but I'm indulging here, and only here, in a little personal speculation: but that may be because, I mean, we all want to be in control.
We all want to be in the position of leverage.

Women are no exception.
On an intuitive, perhaps even unconscious level - I mean, what would they stand to gain by giving the upper hand to the opposition?

Every interview or question to a female, inquiring as to what part of the male body they find the most attractive, or which turns them on most of all - 99% of the time, the answer will be, "arms".

lol

And sure enough - what seems to be the male go to work out exercise?

Bicep curls.

Or bench press.
Shoulder press.

Upper body - basically.

That seems to be the masculine area to work out.

And I agree - if you want to impress other guys - work the hell out of the upper body.
Hit that chest. Smash them arms. Work those abs.

I don't know - I would honestly have to say - I don't know a single guy, whose workout is primarily focused - on his ass.

And I don't know any female, whose workout, is primarily focused, on their arms, chest, traps.
In fact, I'll go one further and say - I don't know any female, whose workout does NOT focus, primarily, on her ass.

Lot's of cardio - weight loss.
Women are more prone to laying down fatty deposits.
But I think that is also relative to the way their bodies fill out more naturally than males also.


And, here - we're talking about males that even work out at all.
Plenty don't.

And men and women whose bodies aren't in sexualized shape - of course they will have relationships, but those relationships, whilst of course will have a sexual element - will not be based on sex.
Provision of security, companionship, the practicality of having a partner?
Sure.

Many many relationships are based on that.

And - the statistics don't lie - do they?
Or is someone gonna claim that they do?
That the statistics are a big fat lie?

That more marriages fail than succeed?
And that women make up the vast percentage of those that initiate the divorce?
That due to sexual frustrations, and impossibly unmet sexual needs, inevitable negativity can form - potentially abusive relationships etc etc.


Is sexual frustration and repression, comprised of merely, not having sex?

If it were, it would be a fairly easy fix.
If it were, I think prostitution would be a line of work held in much higher regard than it is.

Sexual frustrations and repressions, are due to desires, that CANNOT be met - because there is not a basis there, FOR them to be met.

But that's merely an aside.


Back to physical attraction/confidence/indifference...

FunnyHow?

On to, presentational indifference.

Women dress and present themselves, to look good.

Men dress and present themselves, to look tough/masculine.

Yet - it is aesthetics, that yields attractive leverage.
And in consideration - the "trend" (because that's all it is), to appear "masculine", can often conflict directly with that positive aesthetic.
Directly diminish applicatable, real, translatable, male leverage in the sexual transaction.

As alluded to previously however - a dude who looks, "fancy", perhaps?
Would that be a correct description?
A dude whose got his hair did, clothes that complement him, and not just comply with societal norms of what is or what is not, masculine?

"Poof".

And listen - I don't like using that terminology, but let's face it.
That's one of the more gentle references.


What is ironic here is that, I personally believe, based on my observations, homosexuality, actually arises out of, a concession for the possibility of having leverage on women.
Basically giving up on the idea, giving into women as being, pre-eminent forces in the sexual realm.

For that reason, there cannot BE a sexual transaction with them.
As, for a transaction to transpire, there's give and take, and in the mind of a homosexual, there's nothing to give.

Men typically - are the givers - sexually.
There must be an element of strength, and forcefulness.
This must exist, to experience sexual chemistry with a woman.

Without it - perhaps the impetus is to attempt to compensate for this deficiency, via engaging with a partner that does not require that forcefulness because - to some extent, the alternate, they inherently possess that themselves.
i.e. another man.
Thus - there is the possibility for chemistry manifestation, where that does not exist with a woman.


I've concluded this in large part, due to an observation that, that faith in ones own self, can be diminished, via many personal observations, in large part due to childhood influences, or influences that initiate there at least, when one is at their most impressionable; lacking the consciousness to differentiate between these behaviors, and have experience only of their direct caregivers - no ability to put their behavior into perspective.

Believe it or not, but I've just seen it too many times to deny, this can often be brought about, by mother figures, that detest the leverage that cognizant masculinity has on them.
Through a lifetime of resentment, they acquire a behavioral model such to reject and repress, the expression of this masculinity.
Their child, merely gets caught in the cross fire.

And the repression of that masculinity, that strength and faith in oneself, in ones own leverage ability and potential relative to the opposing gender - renders a weakness. The weakness that one typically associates with homosexuality.

The slur words - they all allude to that exactly.

"Poof, bitch, hoe, f@ggot" etc.
Again - I take no pleasure in reciting these.
They are merely an illustration of my point.


Now again - I already made abundantly clear, that we would be addressing this sensitive topic.
And any grievances in regards to that - please refer back to that post.

FunnyHow?

In terms of a lack of actual leverage:

Let's regard, actual leverage, as - competency, in some capacity.

If competency is at one of a spectrum - what generally resides at the other end?

From what I'm seeing - it's, complexes.

What I would refer to as inferiority/superiority, complexes.

Generally, speaking, a feeling of inferiority in some capacity, and oftentimes an outward presentation of a will to alleviate that inward feeling.
That would be, the manipulation of others reactions, such to incite a sense of empowerment.
That sense of empowerment, would directly compensate, for the inward feeling of inferiority.

Some other dude that was supposedly on authority on all things psychology - he referred to these complexes, collectively as - egocentricity.

The will to incite a sense of personal empowerment.


And if this egocentricity, resides at one end of the spectrum, and competency lies at the other end - there would of course be the direct insinuation that, egocentricity in and of itself, is indicative of incompetency in some capacity.
And a means to compensate for a lack of it.


And again - without doubt, it has been my observation that, men who have homosexual inclinations, or are outright homosexual - they do exhibit what would be commonly referred to as, "bitchiness".

A high level of bitchiness?
Chip on shoulder type bitchiness?
An outside sign of underlying homosexual impulsivity?


In terms of outright homosexuality, bi-sexuality - technically - heterosexuality with strong homosexual impulses - there seems to almost be this "bromance" culture becoming popularized.

And with that, I believe what is referred to as, "meterosexual" disposition, there is undoubtedly associated feminine inherent behavioural characteristics, not associated with the strength and forcefulness that is a requisite for, the aforementioned, manifestation of sexual chemistry with a female.

FunnyHow?

So in that sense - the will to manipulate reactions, or attain reactions, such to inflate ones own sense of oneself which, as we've established, is an attempt to provide feeling of compensation, for something that is inherently lacking.


Relative to the plethora of information I've outlined before broaching this sub-topic however - how does one tie into the other?

Indifference - how is it relative to homosexuality?

Well - egocentricity, associated with homosexuality is on an end of a spectrum opposing, competency - right?

And neediness, desperation and clinginess, is on an end of a spectrum opposing, indifference - right?

And indifference is equitable with confidence, strength, solidarity of self - all attractive characteristics.

Therefore - we can see the direct correlation between these two spectrums.


By that application of rational; and actually - allow me to briefly pre-phase by outlining that - faith in oneself, confidence - ultimately comes about by, doing something, and getting positive feedback on it.
With repetition, this becomes habit - and that expectation of positive feedback, becomes confidence.

But to get that initial positive feedback that leads to confidence, there must be strength and a competency, present.

Therefore - competency, leads to confidence.

I think that's that intuitively apparent for most.


In terms of the first of out three attractive facets - personal indifference.
This is established by having an interest and engagement in an endeavour - such that it consumes our times etc - therefore, we become more indifferent to the activities of those around us.
We got our own thing going on - what others doing doesn't matter or affect us as much - right?

This interest and application in a given endeavour - would lead to a proficiency in it.
That proficiency - would be a, competence.
Hmm?

The development of personal indifference - we've already outlined, leads to the embodiment of attraction.

Given the feedback that we get, relative to becoming attractive - we would develop a, confidence.

Therefore - a competence, lends itself highly to - being, attractive, sexually.

Agree?


When we think competence - I guess we tend to think of high ranking professionals.
For myself, many such individuals, whilst excelling in that competence pertaining to personal indifference, can fall down grossly on the latter two facets.

i.e. sat behind a desk all day, busy with academics - there is the neglect of physical and presentational indifference.
The two most pertinent to immediate of "flash" sexual attraction.

FunnyHow?

Relative to homosexuality.

The point here is that - theoretically - and this particular aspect is completely hypothetical but, the point is, relative to this logic:

With development in those three key areas, personal development, and understanding the leverage that can be exerted over females in the sexual sense - having this affirmed via actual experience; actual experience - seeing those reactions - and confidence and strength may develop such that, a chemistry - that was previously unattainable due to a pre-conditioned deeply seeded belief that male leverage is a thing of myth - that that belief would be modified.

The aforementioned strength and confidence pertaining to females and leverage and their ability to exert that influence, would come about - the possibility for the sexual chemistry would be incited, and the desire for consortation with males as means to this end, would be less of a priority, and ultimately, not a priority at all.

Based on focus and development of the three facets of indifference, and understanding that it is just that, the establishment of indifference in and of itself, ultimately - that yields that attractive leverage.

Pat Mustard

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd say you're a great man to go for a pint with.

Mod:

I think that you've made your point now so perhaps we might move on, if that is possible considering the meandering nature of this thread.

FunnyHow?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

I think that you've made your point now so perhaps we might move on, if that is possible considering the meandering nature of this thread.

I'm going to acknowledge that I appear to be outlining several, what may appear to be, disconnected points of view.

But much like the assembly of a machine, the fabrication often consists of several different parts - and may not appear to take relevance until the end product is presented.

In other words: I assure you, I am not, "meandering".

FunnyHow?

So - we were discussing the final element pertaining to out attraction/indifference spectrum.

Presentational indifference.

Put it this way:

The period of time women spend making themselves look hot, versus the period of time men spend doing so - hmm?

How could men possibly develop indifference in this regard - when they basically exhibit complete disregard for it?

It's like - the intention is - to not even play that game.

"Ignore and perhaps it's relevance to me will not apply" - something like that?

Shave the head - even better.

Picture your favourite looking beauty model.
Now picture her with a shaved head.
Quite the difference.

Grooming is a tremendously attractive feature.


One thing I will say is that - regarding the homosexual perceptions of a man who pays close attention to his styling and presentation; there can be an element of condescension, via other men, toward the dude.

However - this can be almost entirely mitigated, via strong development, in the former two areas of indifference.
Personal, and primarily, physical.

Dude might have the most feminine hair style in the world (and that's of course not necessarily the aim here - but just by example), but no one will mess with him if he's physically imposing.


In fact - regarding the three areas pertaining to indifference - as I have them listed, I also believe that is the order of priority regarding their development.

Personal first - because ultimately, so much depends on this.
I mean, it's fundamental.
Our happiness with the state of our life, our interests.

Personally speaking - and I realise my personal experiences certainly don't translate as empirical data - but I can say that, relationships, sex etc (which is the entire underlying point of this shindig) - they're as necessary, as food, water, sleep.

In a sordid description - that itch, it has to be scratched.
We can't dilute the explanation.
That's just how it is.
And if it don't get scratched how it was meant to (i.e. men + women), I do believe perversions and alternate means to the same end, may manifest.

But - the point being - just like eating a meal, or getting a good nights sleepj; as restorative, as necessary, and as beneficial as they are, in and of themselves, they don't contribute to a personal sense of fulfilment or gratification.

That's where our personal endeavours and interests come in.

True happiness can not be found in relationships exclusively, in sex exclusively - despite the fact that, in so many ways, our entire lives revolve around it.


What I'm saying is - one isn't going to prioritize getting their ass in shape/workout, ahead of, basically, how they structure their life, apply themselves to expend energy and attain satisfaction through activity/work etc.

As I alluded to early, often times, getting that ass in shape, will be a part of the structure - therefore, effectively, secondary to it.

I'm simply outlining the order of priority.

And - one might be fancied or dolled up to the last - but, I assure you, if the ass is only average, the level of attraction and attractive leverage, will also be corresponding.

Therefore, as critical as presentation is, it comes secondary to our physical development.

And there, we have the order.

1) Personal application/competence/indifference - attraction

2) Physical, development/competence/indifference - attraction

3) Presentational, development/competence/indifference - attraction.

FunnyHow?

But like I was saying - the number of dudes with basically, "cool" hairstyles??

Extremely minimal.

And when I say, "cool" - what's the inference there?

To be cool, laid back, chill, easy going - not clingy, agitated, needy.

"Cool", is effectively an synonym for - wut??

Yes sir - "indifference".

One has a hairstyle complimentary to themselves; that is an element of presentation such that - it's attractive.

Apply the logic - attractive/competent/confident/indifferent.
A greater sense of attractive leverage - meaning, less succumbing to those who are also developed in that capacity.


As a means to make the concept more - relatable - I am going to use, a rather, "crude", expression.
And again - 1000 pardons to the faint hearted.

"Put the pussy on a pedestal".

Can apply for women just as much as men, though, by percentages, the men definitely come up short.

When one is so, "in awe", with lust, love?
Desire for, essentially - another person, that they become almost subservient toward them, first in their own mind, then externally, behaviourally.

And - like I said - this, is an arrow through the heart of passion - of sexual chemistry.

Why?

Needy, clingy etc
All the reasons as outlined before.

It's on the polar opposite end of the scale to, indifference.

"She's so beautiful - I don't deserve her. She's perfect".

How does one transcend that feeling?

Become, equally or more competent in the areas that pertain to ones attraction for the individual in question.

And we're back to the Nissan - Mercedes - Lamborghini, analogy.

All of a sudden - "what I have, it's nicer than what you have. I'm not quite so enamoured any more".

Indifference comes about - first, in ones mind, then externally, behaviourally.
And that, as previous, is leverage/attraction.


It's almost ironic - the less you want something, the more you can have it.
The more desperate you are to have it - the more unattainable it becomes.

Don't you find that ironic?

It's a complicated world.

Pat Mustard

FunnyHow? wrote: »

It's almost ironic - the less you want something, the more you can have it.
The more desperate you are to have it - the more unattainable it becomes.

Although desperation is an unattractive quality, it is overly simplistic to suggest that indifference is a good strategy for men to attract women.

It seems more likely that confidence is what is required, not indifference.

If you think that indifference is a workable strategy, head into a nightclub and see what happens. People don't want to engage with other people who are indifferent.

FunnyHow?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Although desperation is an unattractive quality, it is overly simplistic to suggest that indifference is a good strategy for men to attract women.

It seems more likely that confidence is what is required, not indifference.

If you think that indifference is a workable strategy, head into a nightclub and see what happens. People don't want to engage with other people who are indifferent.

You address a key point here - a kind of query that would be on the minds of many - so from that point of view, I will most certainly provide clarity.

In a sense, we don't want to mistake indifference, for simply ignoring people, or "false" indifference - which I see people attempting to present with constantly, and it's ultimately conveyed more so as just that, ignorance - or, contempt even.

"Indifference" - it's not a, "strategy".
It's not like you roll out of bed and decide, "today, I will convey indifference".
It is something that happens as a product of, personal development.

To redefine that, that whole PUA bullshinanigan - supposedly, that's a "strategy".
You gear your own behaviour in such a way as to supposedly influence others.
That's all I know about it - but, like I said from the top, I wouldn't put any kind of stock into it.

Indifference - is effectively the product of building, through work on identified areas pertinent to attraction, oneself, into a more attractive version, of themselves - so they, as previously alluded to, become less and less enamoured with others, who already have a good sense of personal development - and as I alluded to also, in many ways, there are inherent inequalities between men and women in this sense.
But that's not to say that with work and the correct application - that those inequities can't be evened up.

That's effectively the whole point of everything I'm saying here.


Will extrapolate, to provide a more well defined outlay - but later - cuz the sun is shining and there'll be plenty of time after.