What Do Women Want?

[Danke]

What do women want?


A real man doesn't know....


...'cause he doesn't care!

 

[M House]

I have an idea, if you're game.

You say "obviously," whereas I have no idea what is obvious or why it is obviously so. I "know" you to be a board member in good standing -- we have crossed paths in a thread or two. It might be enlightening, again if you're game, to review what actually occurred to leave who I presume to be a Good Guy with such a bleak estimation of All Women.

Why, for instance, did you agree to again keep company with someone who, apparently, at least one of you previously thought made an unsuitable companion for you?

I guess it's tough to kill all my optimism for them. I mean she is cute and pretty funny. It's tough to give a solid review. However, I'll update if anything happens here different from what I've experienced from her before. I've known her for 5 years and well she's since had two awful boyfriends. 5 years ago I asked her out and she declined with the typical excuses "We're too similar" or something strange and stupid like that. Obviously, her excuse didn't mean that and gave no explanation of the issue. Anyway, she's eyeballing some other guy now so I'm not expecting much of this and hope she sticks around a bit just cuz she's fun.

 

[Acala]

Experience

This implies that 'sick, controlling bitches' are somehow uncommon. How do you know that they don't make up a significant part of the female population?

I have never done a survey. I only know what I have observed from my experience. Specifically, before I reclaimed my gonads, I met very few women who were interested in me and when I DID, they were controlling bitches. Now, interested women are everywhere. I conclude from this that only a small fraction of women want to control their man and most women want the man to take the lead. And the women who want to be in control are not happy themselves and will not make ME happy. Just anecdotal evidence.

 

[cheapseats]

The ideal situation would be for two almost entirely unselfish people to be attracted to each other. That way, each person will generally go along with the first idea that comes up, but whenever either person really insists on going to one restaurant over another, going to a certain play, movie, etc., or doing whatever else, their partner will know, "They're usually very flexible, so this must be important to them," and oblige. In that sense, two almost entirely unselfish people seem like they'd be perfectly compatible with each other...but I guess it usually doesn't pan out in terms of sexual attraction?

Indeed. What could be sexually stimulating about entirely unselfish people? To be entirely unselfish, in my view, one would have to have zero self-esteem or zero smarts. Nuthin' appealing about that.

Much better, two ENTIRELY selfish people who know how to make deals and take turns, hastening to add that selfishness does NOT preclude kindness, philanthropy, diplomacy or graciousness of any kind. On the contrary.

There was a wonderful story about Paul Newman and his ONLY wife Joanne Woodward -- though I can vouch only for the length of their marriage, not the verity of the story.

Reportedly, the famous and successfully married Hollywood couple was at the race track, again. He was an avid car racer, as you probably know. She supposedly always HATED his car racing -- which COULD be argued to stand to Reason. Endangering life and limb by driving in circles super fast DOES seem a trifle reckless.

Joanne Woodward was knitting in a lawn chair beside their trailer while her beloved Good Guy husband zoomed round and round the track. Someone asked her why, since she so disapproved of his racing, she bothered to come and watch him.

"That one race?" Nodding toward the rack, she continued, "That's FIVE ballets."

 

[M House]

I think the problem is women are looking for some sorta "love" that doesn't exist. I mean if you thought it was love every time a hot girl made you think of sex, it'd be confusing too.

 

[Acala]

Perfect example

This is a perfect example.

She wants you just as a friend because you have given her the impression that she has you in the bag. You are not a challenge for her. You don't scare her. She knows she can get away with crap around you. You don't make her feel like you are in charge. When she says jump, you do. You compliment her too much. You go out with her and listen to her talk about her other boyfriends like you are some kind of eunich. So you don't get her hot. And it is probably too late to change that now. She "might" sleep with you to teach her boyfriend a lesson or because she feels sorry for you. But probably not, and if she does it will be a one-time thing and then she will turn you down again.

If you are to have ANY hope of a real relationship with her, you need to man up. Next time she calls to get together with you, say "No. It is a waste of my time to sit and listen to you talk about your lame relationships. Call me when you get a clue" and hang up. She will probably not call you again. But if she does, she just might get the idea that she does not have you wrapped around her finger anymore. She will test you to see what is going on. And if she DOES call you again, YOU decide where you will go and what you will do and if she doesn't like it, tell her to take a hike. If you can convince her that you don't give a crap if you ever see her again and that if you do it will be on YOUR terms, she will suddenly find you attractive. It will be an uphill battle because you got off on the wrong foot, but it might be doable.

You don't have to be a dick, but you need to be real clear that you have the wheel.

But here is the trick - and the REAL liberating aspect of this - in order to convince her that you don't give a crap if you ever see her again, you must BELIEVE that yourself. She is treating you with disrespect. She is treating you like you are her girlfriend. Think about that. Stew in it. Let it make you angry. Keep stewing in it until you REALLY don't care if you ever see her again and make sure it comes out in the things you say and do. It is the only hope you have with her.

Your only chance of success is to really not care if you have success.

And the next time you go out with a new girl, get it through your head and hers that she is going to play by your rules or play with someone else. If she does something that you don't like, get in her face about it. Tell her you won't put up with that shit. If she wants to do something you don't like to do, tell her no. Make sure she knows that you are the boss of your own life and if she wants to be with you, you will be in charge. Once you have that established, then you can use your power as captain to make sure she has fun.

 

[cheapseats]

I guess it's tough to kill all my optimism for them.

Unambiguously, a good thing.

I mean she is cute and pretty funny.

Hold that thought.

It's tough to give a solid review.

Speaking from my OWN experience and the countless experiences that I have observed, NOT casting aspersions on you, but I think it is typically not so hard to give a solid review as it is to discover the Truth.

However, I'll update if anything happens here different from what I've experienced from her before.

As The Web Weaves . . . I like it.

I've known her for 5 years and well she's since had two awful boyfriends.

The Bad Boy Syndrome is well recognized to exist.

5 years ago I asked her out and she declined with the typical excuses "We're too similar" or something strange and stupid like that.

I take that to mean that you are ALSO kinda cute and pretty funny.

Obviously, her excuse didn't mean that and gave no explanation of the issue.

Maybe it does. Maybe it means you're cute and funny and okay to hang around with until Mr. Excitement appears. Or Mr. Millionaire. Or whatever. She declined your overture, AND gave what you deem to be a lame excuse. The Fifties stand-by of "I have to wash my hair" never made any sense, either. Nor, I have a headache. Who wouldn't WANT great sex to take their mind off a headache?

Anyway, she's eyeballing some other guy now so I'm not expecting much of this

Good thinking.

and hope she sticks around a bit just cuz she's fun.

Bad thinking.

It's fine for it to be "just fun" just til she finds another guy, if it's fun for BOTH of you. But if you're available to be the fun go-to guy between boyfriends, don't call her on HER bullshit. Her M.O. seems pretty straightforward.

Just Friends or Friends With Benefits, I have heard people swear by both of them. But it is what it is, in that case. If one half of the party is carrying a torch for the other, it is true that the one who does the leading on is a shit, but it is up to the torch carrier to snap out of it.

 

[Mini-Me]

Indeed. What could be sexually stimulating about entirely unselfish people? To be entirely unselfish, in my view, one would have to have zero self-esteem or zero smarts. Nuthin' appealing about that.

We might be using different definitions of "selfish," though. Self-interest, self-esteem, and wanting to fulfill your own desires may be "selfish" in the sense that it requires concern for yourself, but in the negative sense that I'm using it, "selfish" means having little concern for others' wants and needs (unless they coincide with your own) and having no problem with fulfilling your own desires at the expense of someone else's. Actually, I came across an essay recently that delves into two different meanings of "selfish," as they appear in the political sense.

Much better, two ENTIRELY selfish people who know how to make deals and take turns, hastening to add that selfishness does NOT preclude kindness, philanthropy, diplomacy or graciousness of any kind. On the contrary.

There was a wonderful story about Paul Newman and his ONLY wife Joanne Woodward -- though I can vouch only for the length of their marriage, not the verity of the story.

Reportedly, the famous and successfully married Hollywood couple was at the race track, again. He was an avid car racer, as you probably know. She supposedly always HATED his car racing -- which COULD be argued to stand to Reason. Endangering life and limb by driving in circles super fast DOES seem a trifle reckless.

Joanne Woodward was knitting in a lawn chair beside their trailer while her beloved Good Guy husband zoomed round and round the track. Someone asked her why, since she so disapproved of his racing, she bothered to come and watch him.

"That one race?" Nodding toward the rack, she continued, "That's FIVE ballets."

That's a cool story...although I'd say that if one race = five ballets, Joanne Woodward may have been wearing the pants. What if Joanne Woodward was more submissive, though? If she wasn't strong/dominant enough to challenge Paul Newman and make shrewd deals like that, would Paul have ever gone to any ballets with her? I'd like to think he would have. In the sense that I'm using it, a negatively selfish person is someone who would take full advantage of a less selfish person, not bothering to ever compromise without being forced to (and who might have trouble compromising even then, constantly butting heads with the other person).

 

[M House]

Seats you got a point but I don't really give a fuck. I'll call her on it for sure, and this has happened before actually. All she did was avoid me, then. I'm kinda expecting the pattern to never stop. I'm not sure what I can do about it cuz well this to many people is the way relationships are supposed to work.

 

[cheapseats]

Your only chance of success is to really not care if you have success.

I was taught that one of the keys to hardball negotiation is a readiness/willingness/ability to walk away from The Deal.

 

[cheapseats]

Seats you got a point but I don't really give a fuck.

But then you are free to enjoy her when and how she makes herself available, without drawing negative conclusions about All Women.

I'll call her on it for sure, and this has happened before actually. All she did was avoid me, then.

If you think she thinks she's pulling a fast one on you, by all means, disabuse her of THAT idea. But otherwise, call her on WHAT? You already KNOW how she rolls.

I'm kinda expecting the pattern to never stop.

Not if you continue your half of the twisted tango, it won't.

I'm not sure what I can do about it

Know that she's a foul-weather friend, but cute and funny.

cuz well this to many people is the way relationships are supposed to work.

But not you, I think. Which is why, even if you're having a fun time with that cute girl who shows up between boyfriends, you'll also keep YOUR eyes peeled for Something Special. I'm guessing.

And when you FIND someone special, you might wanna consider NOT fielding the next phone call from the cute, funny User.

 

[M House]

Seats it's not quite like that. Anyway my prediction, on how things will go with my female.

1. Already brought up the relationship issues 2nd time she took me out.

2. Next "date", "hang-out", "seeing each-other", "hook up", etc. whatever the females define these things to be I'll just mention its been 5 years of hanging out with me. Point out, no matter who she likes I did actually ask her out 5 years ago and neither of us have had any successful relationships. You know maybe she doesn't want keep this up our lives are limited actually.

3. You know how they are.....whatever happens is up to them. Women have controlled relationships for along time. It's not my job for me to tell them how they want to run their game.

Most likely she'll feel awkward and avoid me more. Just the way it is. I mean I can get mean about it, but from experience that does nothing. It's just kinda the way some seem to want it.

 

[cheapseats]

We might be using different definitions of "selfish," though. Self-interest, self-esteem, and wanting to fulfill your own desires may be "selfish" in the sense that it requires concern for yourself, but in the negative sense that I'm using it, "selfish" means having little concern for others' wants and needs (unless they coincide with your own) and having no problem with fulfilling your own desires at the expense of someone else's. Actually, I came across an essay recently that delves into two different meanings of "selfish," as they appear in the political sense.

Yep, a healthy relationship requires compromise. Bummer.

That's a cool story...although I'd say that if one race = five ballets, Joanne Woodward may have been wearing the pants. What if Joanne Woodward was more submissive, though? If she wasn't strong/dominant enough to challenge Paul Newman and make shrewd deals like that, would Paul have ever gone to any ballets with her? I'd like to think he would have.

Joanne Woodward is indeed a formidable woman, but no one will mistake her for having been the pants in the Newman/Woodward success story.

As to negotiation, I can COMPLETELY understand how she finagled one car race = five ballets. The car race is ALL DAY in the blazing heat, whereas the ballet is two hours in a poshly appointed theater. The car race is dangerous = bona fide anxiety that is NOT offset by the discomfort of a suit and tie. Yada yada. I'm sure it was a deal he was delighted to make -- he was CRAZY about her.

In the sense that I'm using it, a negatively selfish person is someone who would take full advantage of a less selfish person, not bothering to ever compromise without being forced to (and who might have trouble compromising even then, constantly butting heads with the other person).

Yeah, but now we're talking about Assholes and Human Carpets.

 

[Acala]

You are getting it

I think you are seeing the possibilitites here.

I think the problem here is that there's a fine line between dominant and selfish/controlling. On one hand, you have the guy who always puts the girl first, who gets walked all over or dumped for being "too nice." On the other hand, you have the guy who is so selfish and controlling that he always puts himself first and makes his partner's wants and needs seem unimportant...leading his partner to either depression and low self-esteem or the, "We always do what you want to do!" blowup, depending. It just seems difficult to be dominant without being selfish..

It may seem difficult, but it isn't. You take control and use your control to take care of her interests. Women want to feel cherished. When you establish control and then from that position do things that make them happy, it means much more to them than if you are just a windsock that always goes along with their every whim. In the later case it means nothing to them. It is like the guy who sends flowers to his girlfriend every day. After a couple weeks, she will be disgusted. The guy who only sends flowers once in a while gets a much bigger response.

The ideal situation would be for two almost entirely unselfish people to be attracted to each other. That way, each person will generally go along with the first idea that comes up, but whenever either person really insists on going to one restaurant over another, going to a certain play, movie, etc., or doing whatever else, their partner will know, "They're usually very flexible, so this must be important to them," and oblige. In that sense, two almost entirely unselfish people seem like they'd be perfectly compatible with each other...but I guess it usually doesn't pan out in terms of sexual attraction? It's unfortunate, because two selfish people are obviously incompatible, and while a selfish and an unselfish person are compatible, that kind of situation will lead to the long-term subjugation and resentment of the unselfish person..

You are still thinking that men and women are the same. They aren't. A perfectly equal relationship would be great if there were not hard-wired gender roles in human beings that make it contrary to human nature. In lesbian relationships you would think that the partners would be equal, wouldn't you? You would be wrong. In lesbian relationships there is a dominant partner. One partner becomes the "man" and the other is the woman. It is hard wired in the species. You need to accept that. Equality between the sexes in the area of political rights is good and proper. But equality in relationships is contrary to nature. Being dominant is a burden that comes with being a man. It isn't easy if you have grown up thinking that being nice means letting other people have their way.

I like your Tonga Hut vs. Joe's Crab Shack example, because it seems to walk the line between dominance and selfishness pretty well. After all, by wanting to go to the Tonga Hut, you're being no more selfish than your date wanting to go to Joe's Crab Shack. In fact, by trying to turn down your idea (the first idea) and suggesting her own instead, your date is presumably being a bit more selfish, so there's not really anything wrong with saying, "No, maybe another time." Still, I have my own problem here in that I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're generally unselfish like me: I'm ordinarily so flexible that if I ever said, "I would rather go to Joe's Crab Shack," it means I really, really, really want to go to Joe's Crab Shack instead. In other words, if I suggest going to the Tonga Hut and my date wants to go to Joe's Crab Shack, my first instinct is to think, "She must have a much stronger preference for Joe's than I have for Tonga Hut...and Joe's is good too, so hey, let's go there." If this became some kind of habit, I'd realize, "Wow, my girlfriend is selfish as hell," and I'd get rid of her, unless she's already dumped me. I suppose the ideal kind of girl/woman* is the kind who is unselfish but isn't submissive to the point where she'll let you dominate her into depression without ever letting you know she's unhappy..

Now you are getting it. But keep this in mind: she WANTS you to take charge. Really. Trust me. She doesn't want you be a selfish dick that always ignores her needs and desires. But you are NEVER going to be that anyway, so no need to worry. But she does want to surrender control to you. And this is exactly why women have rape fantasies. Women are hard wired to be sexually submissive. If you ignore this FACT in favor of some feminist model of relationship equality you are going to have endless problems.

And remeber, just a gentle dominance will do in most cases. Of course some women really like the rough stuff and they may not be for you or me. And dominance can be loving. Parents totally dominate their children, unless they are horrible parents. But it is the most loving, unselfish relationship known to humankind. Not that you should treat your woman like a child. Just making the point that you can be dominant AND loving and unselfish.

After your example though, I suppose I do see a workable solution: As a man, it's a good idea to always come up with the plans first. If your girlfriend rarely objects and offers alternatives, it must mean it's important to her when she does, so you should acquiesce and go along with her ideas instead. However, if she does this early on in the courting process, it's best to say, "Maybe another time," and keep her idea in mind for the next date...and if she butts heads with you, it means she's selfish, so steer clear. Of course, this "dominant but not selfish" solution only works for making plans, not other situations like favors, but...it's a start. .

Keep thinking about it. You are getting it. But watch out with the favors. Here is an example. Suppose you are both sitting on the couch reading books. She says "will you go get me a cup of tea?". And the correct answer is: "Why? Did you break your leg?" (unless of course she really DID break her leg). But, if YOU say "would you like a cup of tea?" and she does, go for it. Or even better is just guessing that she would want one, making it, and bringing it to her unasked. In the first instance, if you bring her tea you are just her slave boy. In the second two, you are her loving man who obviously cherishes her because you are in control and you choose to use your position to take care of her.

See?

 

[RickyJ]

What Do Women Want?

You know, who really cares what they want? And who really cares what men want as well?<P>
We ALL want the same thing, happiness, whatever our definition of that is.

 

[cheapseats]

I'll just mention its been 5 years of hanging out with me. Point out, no matter who she likes I did actually ask her out 5 years ago and neither of us have had any successful relationships. You know maybe she doesn't want keep this up our lives are limited actually.

That is ALSO possible. Some people DO realize later that they let a good one go. And some of them DO make lasting pairs. I know two such.

But now it seems that you ARE receptive to this being more than intermittent fun in the sun, if her priorities are perhaps changing.

You make yourself a little vulnerable, but a lot more alive.

You know how they are.....whatever happens is up to them.

Yes and no . . . yes and no.

Women have controlled relationships for along time.

I am confident that I could produce millions upon millions of women who would disagree. What I do think is that the Love Relationship features much bigger in the emotional and practical lives of women than it does in the emotional and practical lives of men. As a result, women create more drama in their relationships, whereas men create more drama out in the world.

It's not my job for me to tell them how they want to run their game.

Bottle this, and sell it in Washington.

Most likely she'll feel awkward and avoid me more. Just the way it is. I mean I can get mean about it, but from experience that does nothing. It's just kinda the way some seem to want it.

You gain nothing by being mean. Even if she would respond favorably, who then wants a woman who responds favorably to meanness?

But this I see again and again. Absence may or may not make the heart grow fonder, but unavailability is like catnip.

 

[M House]

Though Acala has a point what are you supposed to dominate them on? The dating/relationship has changed to where I pretty much just see women crashing around and occasionally hitting a guy they can stand. It's great and all, but if they don't give you a chance you're obviously not gonna be able to take charge on anything. They've done this with this sorta quasi dating/relationship scheme that goes on now. I mean you can be placed in one of many self made poorly defined categories that mean shit in the big picture. However, how would you say put any sorta dominance on a girl you're "seeing" or "hanging-out" with or perhaps one you just "hooked-up" with?

 

[M House]

Seats women control relationships period. They decide who they are going to date, marry, have sex with etc. If they truly don't like a guy, they just leave. They don't accidently fall on a dude who traps them in a relationship. There's nothing that can be done about this sooner people realize they are being fed girl shit, it can hopefully end.

 

[cheapseats]

I think you are seeing the possibilitites here.

I think perhaps you are only seeing one possibility, based on your own experience.

It may seem difficult, but it isn't. You take control and use your control to take care of her interests.

It most certainly IS difficult. Anyone who presumes to CONTROL another is BEGGING for trouble.

Women want to feel cherished.

EVERYONE wants to feel cherished. Is not the bulk of grousing about women predicated on the very real appearance that some women DO, in fact, care more about the size of the man's wallet than the caliber of his character?

When you establish control

you will spend the rest of your time MAINTAINING your imagined control. Control is illusory, or it is compulsory. Or you've got yourself a Gutless Wonder, which means your control is meaningless.

and then from that position do things that make them happy, it means much more to them than if you are just a windsock that always goes along with their every whim. In the later case it means nothing to them. It is like the guy who sends flowers to his girlfriend every day. After a couple weeks, she will be disgusted. The guy who only sends flowers once in a while gets a much bigger response.

This could have been a line in Swingers.

You are still thinking that men and women are the same. They aren't.

True, that. Equally true, however, is that men are not all the same and women are not all the same. One size/type/style does NOT fit all.

A perfectly equal relationship would be great if there were not hard-wired gender roles in human beings that make it contrary to human nature.

Also if there were any such thing as perfection or equality.

In lesbian relationships you would think that the partners would be equal, wouldn't you? You would be wrong. In lesbian relationships there is a dominant partner. One partner becomes the "man" and the other is the woman. It is hard wired in the species. You need to accept that.

If it is true that one of the lesbians assumes a dominant role, then it is NOT a matter of the hard wiring for dominance occurring in strictly the male species.

Equality between the sexes in the area of political rights is good and proper.

THERE'S a relief.

But equality in relationships is contrary to nature.

A relationship requires a Chief Executive Officer, like any other enterprise. Otherwise, when the shit hits the fan and it's evacuation time, at the absolute critical moment, the two would have to sit down to a democratic pow-wow as to which direction to flee.

Being dominant is a burden that comes with being a man.

Being A MAN is the burden that comes with being a man. You confuse dominance with an ultimate authority that is predicated on competence and built on respect.

It is not that a good boss dominates his people but, rather, that his people defer to him.

 

[cheapseats]

Seats women control relationships period.

PEOPLE try to control PEOPLE, period -- that is why we are all typing our hearts out about Freedom & Liberty.

I dare say, I haven't heard a chorus of women saying that what they want is for MEN to gain true Liberty so that men can turn around and DOMINATE women.

They decide who they are going to date, marry, have sex with etc. If they truly don't like a guy, they just leave. They don't accidently fall on a dude who traps them in a relationship.

And men don't? Men don't decide who they will date, marry and fuck? Men don't just up and leave when they decide they've had it with a woman? Tell that to John McCain's crippled wife. Or Fred Thompson's first wife . . . the one he knocked up in high school and whose family launched Sugar Daddy Fred's political career. Who are the men who accidentally fell on women who trapped them into a relationship?

There's nothing that can be done about this sooner people realize they are being fed girl shit, it can hopefully end.

If there is nothing that can be done about it, everyone is a hapless victim. I don't buy that.