Tag Archives: dating

2055. Romance — His Side of the Story


Romance to women is payday for living graciously important lives on behalf of their man. Romance to men is pre-conquest attention and what leads up to and includes foreplay. The gap is huge and requires relationship experts to close it. Although not instinctive to men, women can make it intuitive to them.

Not needful of romance, men don’t easily comprehend the criticality of it in their lives. Even worse, they have great difficulty making sense of it. Thus, men routinely leave women adrift in a sea of puzzlement, anxiety, and doubt about the worthiness of their man.

So, in reality, the male’s shortcoming about romance brings out each woman’s need to improve her man, which is the same as putting the hook of marriage in her mouth. As a man shines brightly as marital candidate, his shortcoming as a romancer makes him even more eligible. She invites herself to change him after the altar. Tsk Tsk! Far better to teach him before conquest.

Men are not eager to participate in romance. They take or find various exceptions:

  • Men suspect they should but can’t master the art sufficiently well to meet female expectations. They can see that certain things make their woman feel romanced. They pick up bits and pieces of the art from other women. But they also pick up the lack of conviction to practice it routinely or steadfastly. They feel guilty for awhile and then forget it.
  • Womanly viewed romance includes the willing exchange of feelings. Just the event thrills women but not men. They have all manner of reasons for not exposing their feelings. The most influential being that they are born that way. Another is that disclosure makes them competitively weaker, which goes against their primal nature.
  • Men dodge romance partially because women push them where they are not ready to go. As women participate, they seem to suck men into faster relationship development than men like. Scary resistance sets in as women try to get commitment before a guy is ready for it. Thus, romancing a woman can become a virtual trap or opportunity to fail or both.
  • Her romantic impatience pressures him to change into her model of what a romancer should be or do. Not being inclined to feel guilty about emotional matters, men simply forget to try very hard.
  • In this day and age, the road to frequent and convenient sex elsewhere is too easy to waste time on female-expected romance. (Dating is virtually extinct on college campuses, and men are the cause but not responsible.)
  • Even if they do romance a woman, they feel vulnerable to being compared to other guys with other women, much like performance in bed. That’s a threat to their competitive reputation with men, which threatens their sense of significance. So, they just try to get by with the minimum of whatever is required to bed her.
  • Because they lack sufficient skill, soft-heartedness, and perceptiveness about romancing women well, men see little opportunity to earn self-admiration.
  • Romancing a woman does not make a man love her more. More devoted to her, yes. But giving or receiving romance plays but a very minor role in his love. His love is based on respect for who she is and what she does plus her likeability to have and be around. Likeability being based on her attractiveness in his eyes and what comes out of her mouth.

Men don’t inherit romantic skills at birth. Women, however, have all the reasons for men to initiate romance, and so they blame men. Blame makes it worse; it excuses women from responsibility for how men treat them. If men don’t know how, why, or when romance is expected, how do they learn? They need to be taught.

Just the term romance reminds men of foreplay and what it leads to. Of course a few other passing signs of attention and affection are necessary to gain a woman’s acceptance. But for the most part, the lead up to and foreplay are a guy’s notion of romance—including husbands of many years.

Many, many men are romantic at heart. Yet, except for greater willingness to try to do right things by women, they haven’t much incentive to express romance. They might embarrass themselves. They might be in the wrong about a woman’s willingness to accept their fumbling for proper words. They are naturally resistant to expose themselves, because it can be used against them and threaten their role as dominant member of a couple. They are even more resistant if women in their culture are typically critical or mean-spirited.

The romantic-at-heart man has many female-friendly traits and habits. Generally, women adore him for it. He has learned the enjoyment of masculine soft-heartedness, which reduces the hard-headedness among females he deals with. He teases young girls and it brings out their prettiness and confirms their importance to themselves. He is sensitive to female sensibilities, eager to find attractiveness in others, appreciates loveliness in natural things, honors her modesty as priceless trait, and proves himself friendly toward others. Mean-spiritedness is either lacking or suppressed among women he deals with.

In the end, the more alpha the male, the less willing to share his innermost feelings. Romantic-at-heart alpha men depend on their actions rather than their words to convey their devotion. Immortalized by Hollywood’s western heroes of yesteryear. Alpha non-romantics specifically hide their feelings behind facades that make body language practically unreadable. They use their hard-headed nature to suppress any soft-heartedness that may creep into their thoughts. Their women can expect romance to mean foreplay, period.

However and forever, the romantic man is still an ardent member of the male gender and fits in with the others. Generally, he also is super-reluctant to expose personal feelings for many manly reasons. 1) He refuses until and except as he detects a woman’s willingness to not laugh, reject, or disdain what he has to say about his deeper feelings. 2) His competitive nature says don’t reveal his full hand to competitors, and each woman is a competitor until conquered by him personally. 3) Even after conquest, to expose his feelings reflects weakness and makes him vulnerable. It lasts until his woman breathes sufficient cooperation into their lives and it converts his spirit from competition to harmonizing with her. 4) His dominant nature says don’t enable a mate to interfere with his dominance, and women have been known to try when they are aware of his deeper feelings. Women are also known to use all the leverage they can muster from receiving new information. In fact, it’s a constant urge residing in each woman’s heart; she can improve him. To do so, of course, is to tamper with his sense of both dominance and significance.

Concluding, men have natural and learned tendencies to not be eager and perhaps even avoid being romantic as visualized in female dreams and expectations. It confirms men as immovable but subject to ever present irresistible force by females. It never ends. She wants better pay for her graciously important life and expects it in romance dollars. His romance earning power is often so poor that he qualifies for under-employed romance insurance, which women provide out of their soft-heartedness, self-gratitude, and patient hope for better romancing ahead.

 

23 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

2049. Submissive #07 — Submissive is More Honorable


I continue with the list of situations that make women more aware of what’s happening mentally between the sexes. Let me know if the subject is beginning to drag. I have other subjects that I can intersperse. There’s probably 4-6 dailies left in the submissive series—re-titled out of respect for that female blessing endowed at birth.

Nearly synonymous, I often interchange dominance and submission. It depends on which term seems to best fit the situation but in most cases it means the same thing to the woman on the receiving end of typical male expectations.

14. Competition in marriage favors the primary leader—the husband. Cooperation favors the rest of the team—wife/mother and children. Sustaining her team successfully without challenging his role and self-prescribed authority generates peace in the home, which he expects her to deliver. [Guy adds: From such generated peace with husband not interfering, relationship experts generate harmony. It’s a natural urge and it brightens the female future.]

15. The mutual exchange of spouses pleasing each other, combined with going along to get along, smooths out stormy marital ripples. What is the best model to produce it? Women visualize this model, one head of the family leaves room for one neck to turn the head. There’s much to be said for it for three reasons: 1) It works pretty well as a strategic model and discourages wife from wandering deeply into husband’s domains. 2) It proclaims her role to be subordinate and submissive and thus sounds okay to husbands to talk and even joke about it. 3) It casts her in the role of indirect leader rather than trying to lead husband directly by challenging his authority. [Guy adds: Even that model can be improved upon. I’ve described it elsewhere as a family rank structure. It embellishes the influence of the neck and softens the head’s need for dominance. It’s too lengthy for here, but if you’d like to see it let me know. I’ll put it aside for a few days.]

16. During dating, courtship, and engagement, women lay the groundwork to win or lose in the marital power game. As the relationship expert, a very feminine female knows intuitively how to expect and handle a man’s sense of dominance and his expectation for her submission. Unfortunately, not all women listen to their hearts; for various reasons they automatically give in to their man’s expectations. [Guy adds: When women forget or forego living by what their heart tells them, they weaken their political power in the home. For example: She knows that she deserves to be treated respectfully—first as person, second as wife/girlfriend/fiancée, third as prospective mate. When she lets the first sign of disrespect pass without mention, she opens the gate. More will follow. His disrespect poisons their relationship. The only antidote is to squelch it unflinchingly at the first instance and until it stops. Do whatever it takes. Of course, if he doesn’t stop after just a couple instances, he’s nowhere near Mr. Good Enough. Evidence of disrespect means that his respect is insufficient to generate more than just a little love in his heart. So, turn him into Mr. Dumped, because he will never become her Mr. Right even after decades of marriage.]

17. Each woman knows to compete to prevent conquest before she is ready for it. However, she isn’t aware of one part of the male nature. Her discouragement of his initiative wins his respect, which is the foundation of his love. After conquest, however, competing with him weakens her likeability, the very thing he expects to keep him in pursuit. [Guy adds: Directly resisting his dominance is to challenge him. He expects and accepts it before but not after conquest. Unfortunately, women have indirect ways of resisting submission after conquest, but it sours their own attitude and weakens their likeability.]

18. Her boyfriend’s dominant attitude is offensive, domineering, and borderline unacceptable. Red flags wave. What to do? She needs a boyfriend or potential groom. She may be desperate! This one may be her last chance! There have been so few possible candidates lately! What to do? [Guy adds: If she cannot stand to be that dominated before marriage, why should she expect him to be anything but worse after marriage? Men don’t change to please their woman except before conquest, and even that can be faked.]

Can you use some more wife-promoting situational awareness? Come back tomorrow.

 

3 Comments

Filed under courtship

2046. Submission #04 — From Discord to Harmony


Submission is founded on male self-serving biblical interpretations and expectations of male dominance. The harmonized married life starts with this simple cause-and-effect loop. Wife uses her submissive spirit to calm husband’s desire that she always submit, which weakens his need to use dominance to get his way, which makes her indirectly more influential, which further reduces his insistence on her submission, which enables him to let his dominance fade in favor of cooperating more with her, which enables her to continue moving around the loop until their decision-making process is sufficiently harmonized.

The numbered situations and pointers continue below. They provide a keener understanding of how such things work to wife’s advantage and to enhance husband’s ability to work as a team and appreciate her as a more valuable partner.

4. Submission is what men think they expect, which doesn’t mean they know what they want. It is a manly argument that men use to win their point, to act and appear dominant, to defend their seemingly invaluable role as provider-protector. They take the simple and easy approach. Submission is biblical and sounds natural and is therefore used as a male expectation. Women are far more detailed and precise in what they expect out of men, themselves, and a teamed-up couple.

5. Men expect female submission because it prevents challenges to the manly role of provider-protector, the man upon whom others depend. However, he’s the man upon whom also falls shortcomings in effectiveness. When women arbitrarily submit unto their husband—at his insistence rather than their own preference—they forgo their influential position and, incidentally, lose some of their man’s respect.

6. If men do not have to defend or prove themselves, they can be amenable and much less inclined to seek or require submission. Guess, who is most likely to prompt men to want to defend or prove themselves?

7. Women are foolish if they accept submission as men demand and claim it as privilege or natural right. Your best strategy is to ignore the subject in all its shades and even descriptions from the pulpit. Refuse to accept what you hear and don’t talk about it. Don’t get honked at what the pastor says and take it home. First, involving yourself in the subject does not advance your agenda. Second, it has the effect as getting in husband’s face, which puts him in competitive mode to defend his faux or real beliefs. In the final analysis, submission is not relevant to your future life anyway, so why accept it? Your in-born submissive and cooperative spirits, when used wisely, can neutralize husband’s dominance. Calm his insistence on submission, and you can subdue his dominance.

8. Some men are more controlling and domineering and expect more submission than others. They are easy to detect. When dating she watches. During courtship she explores. When engaged she validates. When married she works—very indirectly and patiently—to change it. All the time she dances around and watches for red flags. The greater his support that women submit, the greater her workload will be to convince him otherwise both before and after marriage, but that is another talent she inherits at birth.

Can you use some more wife-promoting situational awareness? Come back tomorrow.

6 Comments

Filed under courtship

2041. Single Women Don’t Pay — II


Ladies and gentleman, your dialogue at part I pleases me. It adds value to the blog. So, thanks. I never made this point. Men are born expecting to pay for dating and courtship. It’s in their heart to step up to that plate. I hope to show you.

Your dialogue at 2040 reveals the experiences and expectations that exist in your memory, your present, and your future. It’s quite normal. But blog contributions remain mostly outside those thoughts. My standpoint comes from how men and women are born differently. How their natures differ, how hardwired and thus default conditions lead them until they learn something else that seems to keep or merge them more comfortably into whatever life they have.

To inject myself into your dialogue, let me state something new. Out of its roots, the male nature applies pressure such that men expect to pay in the cases under discussion. That’s right. Deep in their heart of hearts, men know they should pay for everything—but they’re neither dishonest nor obligated (more later). Nature guides both sexes toward that conclusion. Let’s see if I can make it make sense to you all.

As women go so goes society, which means that males adhere to female values when women insist. Nature mandates it. While men dominate society, they do whatever women require for men to have frequent and convenient access to sex. Being competitive, the male nature expects access to be costly, and the male desire for efficiency pushes men to seek cost-relief all along the conquering way. Consequently, the primary reason that guys expect gals to pay comes out of the male drive for efficiency, which means that he starts with the expectation that he had to pay and expects to pay if she is worth it. That implies that she’s worth less if he insists or even appreciates it when she pays. It also implies that her sexual assets are more easily available, which slows her earning of his respect, which makes it easier for hit and run fun.

Let’s go back to primal urges cited throughout the blog.

  • Men are driven to compete with Nature, other men, and to control human events. Dating pits them competitively against Nature, the female kind. Women need a brighter future. Single women look for a mate but not just anyone. They want and naturally screen for someone they can lean on when times are tough. A responsible man they can depend on. One who won’t abandon them. So, dating puts them in a highly competitive mode. Can he qualify for her? Is he worthy of her? Is he dependable and responsible? What does it say when he expects her to pay? To her, he’s responsible to win her but ducking out of paying seems irresponsible since he’s obviously unwilling to pay up front to confirm his leader role. In which case, how chintzy will he be if they continue? Tightwad husband? Weak leader? Who wants that?
  • The essence of dating is that the guy competes to earn his way into her bed first and maybe her heart later. He wants himself embedded in her heart before she ever becomes embedded in his. If he’s not fully dedicated for her first and bed second, then how does he make it easier on himself? He gets her to pay. If he’s dedicated to capturing her for herself more than sex, he’s more than eager to pay for everything—at least in his heart whether he has the finances or not.
  • If he fails to get her into bed, she defeats him. He earns no self-admiration that way plus his significance takes a hit. He isn’t likely to risk that for some money, except as anecdotal evidence encourages him.
  • His primary motivation is to earn self-admiration. The dating man earns it by achieving what he’s after. If he expects her to pay and she does, he wins. If she refuses, he loses that round. If he loses, he either loses interest in her or he decides to win her favor some other way. Either way she wins. With less interest in her, he’s worthless. With more interest in her, he’s more interesting too. If she pays as he was after her to do, the satisfaction of achieving subdues his motivation. He no longer seeks the same thing. He either pulls back or sets new goals.
  • Fears—rejection and failure among them—seduce him to avoid investing himself for access to sex with her. Spending money is small compared to his time, effort, thought, and convenience, which earn him a lot more in her heart than does his spending on her. Paying advances his agenda with least time and effort. It’s natural that he would seek that easy way to success, but it does little to buy his way into her heart.
  • His nature alerts him to this. If she’s willing to pay, she’s willing to accept him more easily into her bed. So, why not take a shortcut to finding out how productive their dating will be? He’s a producer trying for results. She’s a processor more interested in keeping things going.
  • There’s dishonesty wrapped up somewhere in human nature that causes men and women to do things contrary to what their hearts advise. Now men are hardwired to follow their hard-heartedness; but they are hard-hearted because women (except for sex) don’t rank as high as masculine interests. So, men feel little or no obligation to always pay unless they are so smitten about their date that sex gets pushed onto the back burner. He can’t afford to lose her.
  • Women, however, are not so easily excused from dishonesty. When women pay except in emergency, they shortcut their patience, amplify their fear of losing a potential mate, weaken their obligation to defend sexual assets, and help convince guys that women don’t have high expectations for mates. In short, when women don’t listen to their hearts, when they try to convince men that they are who they aren’t, the consequences work to a woman’s disfavor.
  • He realizes that anytime he can get her to pay, his job becomes easier and men are deeply involved with efficiency of effort. Paying on dates is an efficient way to keep the doors open to where he expects to take her. Paying symbolizes investing of himself but it’s not really an investment that generates hugs, kisses, affection, and all those other things that women crave from their man.
  • Modern women have started paying for or toward dating costs. Men learn to take advantage of it. However, men don’t truly appreciate it, because it doesn’t make them favor the payer more but seemingly less. Men learn to expect more out of her for less investment by him. IOW, he pays minimal price but people appreciate what they win more than what they are given. In fact, men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. If men pay for dates, they earn what they achieve. Moreover, by not paying, men don’t go whole hog investing themselves to win a date’s favor. By not investing himself spiritedly and honestly, he fails to brighten her future to the extent she expects. Therefore, when women pay they allow men to act less masculine, which in the final analysis within the male mind makes him less self-respectful aka less significant.
  • No doubt some men seek their date to pay in order to confirm they are at least that important to the gal. It’s not a very masculine way of looking at it, but in today’s social marketplace there seems to be an abundance of men who need confirmation in both that and other ways.

Now the sexes are designed beautifully different. I conclude that men are born with the hardwired expectation that duty calls them to pay for dating and courting. Of course, an expectation is not obligatory. But women benefit when men are made to live up to what’s resident in their hearts. When women set the standard, men step up because they won’t give up what women have to offer.

Now, this doesn’t answer the questions you all have generated in your dialogue. I will get to them soon, trying for today.

OPINION TIME. When she’s not more important than his money, she’s not respected enough for him to be a good husband. She should find it out before the altar. Pay up to get her up for a date is a major way to screen a guy for candidacy for marriage. She may tolerate his cheapness in courtship, but she will have a miserable marriage. If a man puts his money before his woman, he’s a moral failure.

 

7 Comments

Filed under courtship

1305. RANDOM THOUGHTS—Group 43


  • The way to a woman’s happiness is far easier than for men. First, forget happiness as a goal. Second, pursue what makes her feel important. Third, find gratitude in what she does and the people in her life. Fourth, stay focused on her gratitude including gratefulness for the problems only she can resolve and frustrations only she can overcome. She only has to recognize her gratefulness for happiness to flood her spirit.
  • Why is the way to female happiness far easier than for men? Women are born soft-hearted and men are not. The difference enables women to more easily find gratitude in what they do and in those with whom they associate.
  • When prospective parents know the sex of the fetus, they switch their thinking and emotions onto the child and away from the mother. Give prenatal glory to the small-c creator, and both mom and child will benefit the most.
  • Her femaleness makes her a sex object. Her appearance makes her a sex target. Her virtues slowly exposed morph into the promise that a hunter-conqueror needs to want her to the exclusion of other men.
  • Dating is for uncovering likeability. Courtship is for exploration. Engagement is for confirmation. Marriage is for exploiting their respective strengths and fulfilling their mutual hopes and dreams.
  • When women think of all men as dolts, idiots, etc., they more easily see what’s not admirable about their own man. When women think that men are good and worthwhile, they more easily admire their man. (Admiration builds a man’s ambitions and fertilizes his sense of personal responsibility.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture & Politics

766. Beware Red Flags — Part 2


She has to make choices. I caution against being guided by her dreams about life with a man, his pledges of commitment, or perhaps their mutual intentions. She will do better deciding beforehand the choices to be made—regardless of who the man is—in these critical stages:

·        Dating is for fun. Courtship is for involvement. Engagement is for mutual examination. Church-going is for generating and improving devotion to each other. Does she know how she will handle each? How much time she will need? More importantly and when necessary, can she convince him of her rightness?

·        Pre-conquest is for generating his respect for her and shaping his thinking into more closely matching hers. Does she see this as her opportunity to shape forever their relationship?

·        Conquest is his reward—aka return on investment—for investing himself in her hopes and dreams. Did she remain chaste long enough for him to even learn her hopes and dreams? Will she yield on lust, intentions, promises, commitment, or devotion? Can she tell the difference?

·        When she yields sex, it releases him from his quest to conquer her. He changes to having an owner’s expectations, but will it be to her advantage or disadvantage? Can she tell ahead of time? For sure?

·        Marriage to him adds another mission to his life. Does she know what she has to give up in exchange for his independence?

Love-aholics and women desperate for a man can’t keep a man. Foolish women, much like adolescent girls, let love dominate their thinking. Love can’t be relied upon to successfully pick and keep a mate who will stick through thick and thin, raising kids, and providing comfort. For example, where do in-laws fit in? That’s next.

13 Comments

Filed under courtship

677. Nature in Action


♦       In the marital marketplace, female virtue adds the greatest value to her. Character virtue adds the greatest value to him. Both are difficult to appraise and appreciate without lengthy engagement.

♦       She shapes their relationship to meet her expectations. Dating for other reasons wastes her time and his money, because ultimately she’s after a lifetime partner.

♦       Her purpose for dating is all about pleasing HER, but she works through him. With charm and indirectness she triggers his curiosity, stimulates his imagination about her, and generates mutual hope about what they can become together. He’s just after fun and games and doubtless sex, and it pleases her to divert him into pleasing her in other ways.

♦       Some people prefer the certainty of misery to the uncertainty of change. (Not original but source long forgotten.)

♦       Parents plant faith in toddlerhood, reinforce it in the tweens, and encourage it to blossom in the teens. Since faith knows no vacuum, what parents don’t implant, someone else does.

♦       Think of yourself as victim, and you’re freed up to await help from others.

♦       Authority imposed with hot temper kills respect. Also, hot temper flare ups don’t build respectable respect but fearful respect.

♦       If she has limited or constricted ability to be grateful, unhappiness follows her easily.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dear daughter