2321. Likeability, Loyalty, Devotion, Love, and Conquest


Her Highness Cinnamon at 2319 spurred me to clearer thinking, which enabled me to better describe the interrelationship model built with five terms vital to becoming a successful couple or mates.

Note this. I describe how their inborn natures motivate men and women to interact as a compatible and successful couple. People are not always loyal to their own nature. When they are motivated that way, to act as very masculine men and very feminine women, they fit together within this model.

Likeability — Think of likeability as the sub-flooring in a successful couple’s relationship; it enables and supports whatever compatibility develops. It may or may not include love by or of either or both. They might just be good friends.

  • Her likeability equals all those things about her that attract and keep a man’s most important self-interests compatibly tied to her self-interests. It prompts him to be with her and want her around for many of his endeavors.
  • His likeability equals all those things about him that attract and keep her most important self-interests compatibly tied to his self-interests. It prompts her curiosity and imagination to explore how they can enjoy more togetherness.

Loyalty — Loyalty is the breeding ground for exclusive attachment.

  • His loyalty arises out of conviction that she’s so precious in his sight and mind that he—without conscious pledging—kind of backs into putting her first among others and likes himself for doing so. Being faithful is not a conscious pledge to self but depends on his previously developed conscience. IOW, he’s not going to overextend himself as exclusively faithful without other reasons that depend on her avoidance of conquest. It’s out of her multiple refusals that he determines risk about the likelihood of her being faithful to him.
  • Her loyalty arises out of conviction that he’s good enough to mate with. He’s good enough and close enough to being Mr. Right that she can finish the job over their future together. She’s anxious to be both emotionally and physically faithful, as it is to her the glue that will guarantee lifetime togetherness.

Devotion — True devotion automatically brings exclusivity.

  • His devotion equals her likeability + his loyalty to her. The evidence shows up in his actions that please him by pleasing her.
  • Her devotion equals his likeability + her loyalty to him. The evidence shows up in the multitude of words and ways she uses to convince him that she can be his exclusively.

Love — A woman’s ability to love can be her downfall if she misuses it. Energizing a man’s ability to love poses the most difficult challenge for women.

  • Her love equals her devotion + self-love and her ability to share it. She knows her love is intense and true. She can both capture and hold him forever. Excess eagerness to expedite and make her devotion work for her, however, disrupts her common sense. Impatience appears as desperation. Overdoing things makes her tiresome. Constantly milking him for attention and affection becomes childish. All of which weaken her likeability and discourage his loyalty.
  • His love equals his devotion + her devotion. That is, devotion reciprocated. In spite of her pledges of love and promises about his future improving with her alongside, his questioning about her devotion doesn’t end until he’s convinced he’s likely to always be the only one for her. His nature tells him he’s both qualified and the most eligible for her. And that doesn’t happen until he sees and confirms her devotion through her actions. Her words do not convince but they may help by keeping his morale uplifted when around her.

For the most part, sexual relations are a sideline and adjacent to the model. However, the issue of conquest lurks in background and shows up in foreground. The level of his loyalty for life depends on how she handles the conquest issue.

Her continuous delays in yielding enable his loyalty to grow from trying ever harder to bed her. In the process of trying, he uncovers more and more of her virtues, those qualities that he admires, which make her worth more, and which enhance his loyalty.

Her yielding stops the growth of his loyalty. He has whatever it took and that’s all he needs to know about her. He need try no harder to conquer. He has proven himself capable. The lack of finding out more about her keeps his loyalty and her likeability from growing very much or as fast as before conquest. Or, his loyalty may collapse. There’s no way of telling until it happens either. That’s why a man’s ability to love poses the most difficult challenge for women. His loyalty is an unknown until after conquest.

Conquest triggers an on-off switch. His nature makes him free. He’s hardwired to pursue someone else with his primary, unique, and polarized sex drive to conquer attractive women. It’s decision time and she turns out to be either keeper, booty, or dumpee. Being a keeper depends on the loyalty she earns before conquest, which is a reflection of the respect she earns by keeping her legs crossed in spite of his pleadings and pressure versus her resistance; no ring, no booty.

It’s still two conquerors facing off. He seeks sex without obligation. Her nature alerts her to seek marriage before yielding sex. Time associating with a man, her patience, and her refusal to yield are the ingredients that bring about a compatible relationship that lasts. Men may be dominant, insistent, and even obnoxious about it. But conquest is in the hands of a woman, and the model above is aligned with their inborn natures.

10 Comments

Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, feminine, Fickle female, How she loses, How she wins, marriage, sex differences

10 responses to “2321. Likeability, Loyalty, Devotion, Love, and Conquest

  1. Cocoa

    Dear Guy, thanks so much for the clarity and the breakdown of what’s so ever complex. This is wonderful.

    Can you please elaborate a little bit on, “They might be just good friends.”
    Can it stop there At friendship? Can the interaction and association just stop at likability and just being good friends?! How can that be determined and WHO controls that? How can one know if it’s friendship or more?

    Forever sir Guy this is a line in the sand issue for me and maybe other ladies too. I know very well where and how it starts, but I am lost at where it ends and stops. I would love and would pray that my good healthy relationships with respectable men are at that point, but, again, can I, can we or can anyone control what comes next?!

    P.S. Could my confused and *fear* stem from my ethnic background and the way I was raised? Simply, it’s no interaction with males till engagement and marriage. At least that what my sister told me the other day. That I am *paranoid* because of what I mentioned above!

    Your advice and help in this sir Guy would be immensely appreciate. I want to, l really need to be free and clear in my thoughts. Educate me please. May the Lord bless you and reward you abundantly.

    Your Highness Cocoa,

    Devotion is the essence of both friendship and a man’s love. The difference is in degrees of intensity of emotional connections and that a man’s love depends on reciprocity of likeability and loyalty.

    As to who controls what, it’s highly individual but dominance plays a natural role.

    As to whether it’s friendship or more, only those involved can know.

    What comes next? Whatever those involved determine should come next. Outsiders unwelcome or unnecessary.

    Your ethnic background set your values. But your curiosity reaches beyond that and you seek greater control. Kinda natural but also kinda frustrating.

    Guy

    • Shanna

      My coworkers debate this issue quite often. The women say men and women can be just friends PERIOD. 🙂 The men say, men in friendships with women never view it as “just friends”, but rather men just respect being in the holding pattern until the woman opens the door for more. I tend to agree with the men. Usually in opposite sex friendships, one person is usually open to more than friendship at any given time, but the key is being respectful of the other person’s wishes and then being honest if it’s an arrangement that can be maintained. As you said Mr Guy, who controls what is highly individual but dominance plays a natural role.

      Your Highness Shanna,
      You’re wise to agree with men. Women wishing does not make it true.
      Guy

    • Cocoa

      Many thanks sir Guy.
      @Shana, thank you! I also agree with men. I think it is wishful thinking of women to say that’s just friendship. Me in my confusion and debating with myself (I never share my thoughts or feelings in these matters publicly) I alway feel and believe the male and female relationships in interesting, mysterious and risky. I know little but depend highly on my intuition and what you say below, especially the part where you say “until the women open the door for more”, makes a lot of sense.

      I see that we women are the controllers. I think we are the dominate side as long as we are not conquered.

      I always ask myself, why these guys hover around for so long? They do call it friendship, yes! But for me there is something telling me they are *waiting* for more… Uhhhh! The agony and uhhhhh! The temptation! May God delivers us all from temptation….

      • My Husband's Wife

        “Friendship” between the sexes is a pretty interesting topic. I’ve noticed a difference between my generation (X) and younger and my parents (Silent Generation). My parents generation were “friendly” to members of the opposite sex, however wouldn’t think of going out, hanging out with someone of the opposite sex without spouse present. If single, going out with someone of the opposite sex was a date with the intent of something more, attraction was acknowledged. There were barriers put in place between the sexes because of the natural attraction between the two was recognized and respected. In that era, one didn’t talk about certain things with the opposite sex as it was deemed inappropriate. (Sure the occasional affair happened, but it wasn’t so widespread as today.) Or am I wrong about this?

        Today it seems as though the line between the sexes blurred. Married people hang out with opposite sex “friends” and singles do as well. I believe that this has caused more confusion and loss of respect in general between the two. From what I’ve witnessed, sure both men and woman can be “friendly” without sex involved—even while married and can be attracted to others as well. However, when you get into real “friendship” (meaning hanging out, repeatedly going out together alone, calling/texting each other on a regular basis, etc.) things become more complex, especially if one of the two is married and/or attracted to the other. And I see this happening a ton today. Something my parents gen would never dream of doing.

        It seems as this idea of “friendship” between the sexes might be a result of feminism—everyone is equal…no unique differences between the sexes that can be acknowledged or respected. Men haven’t changed, but women have…and expect to hang with men who never become attracted to them. Both sexes seem to get frustrated when put indefinitely into the “friend zone” with someone their attracted to.

        There is a video online where a college student asked male/female students if men and women could be friends. It’s pretty funny to watch as nothing has really changed with the natures of men/women. Society has just changed in what is appropriate now. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA

        Your Highness My Husband’s Wife,

        You have it all very clear and correctly understood. Well done and well described.

        The video is great and makes the point clearly. Tomorrow’s post, almost done, tackles that issue with a clear explanation of why men say no and women say yes to friendships.

        (But you know, no mention was made about friends with benefits. I wonder whatever happened to that concept? Is it normal and included in the understanding of “friends” or has it been excluded in common practice. Do you know, per chance?)

        Guy

        • Cocoa

          I am glad that you are writing about this sir Guy. I agree also with MHW, in that the spirit of feminism has influenced that it’s ok for a man and a woman to be just friends as if they are two men or two women on the basis that we are all the same. Well, not in a million years. We are not the same and will alway be different. And this blog precisely out into shinning light how, when and how we are different.

          • My Husband's Wife

            That’s it Cocoa! I think you boiled it down nicely to what I was trying to say:
            “Feminism has influenced that it’s ok for a man and a woman to be just friends as if they are two men or two women on the basis that we are all the same. Well, not in a million years.”
            Thank you for your concise statement 🙂

        • My Husband's Wife

          Dear Sir Guy,

          I do wonder where the “friends with benefits” fits in too. Maybe this video was from a more conservative campus? I remember hearing a very good interview with Dr. Miriam Grossman who found that the girls coming to see her on campus suffered not only physical affects, but serious psychological affects from their “friends w/benefits” / hookup relationships. It happened so frequently that she has now made her life’s work teaching the real biological sex differences that the new “Sex Ed” completely ignores in order to promote promiscuity. Can’t wait to read the next post…

          Your Highness My Husband’s Wife,
          Give me another day for the article.
          Guy

  2. Shanna

    Mr Guy,
    This line: “Men may be dominant, insistent, and even obnoxious about it. But conquest is in the hands of a woman…” It’s the crux of the whole matter. I think it’s something women often forget and causes us to give away our power so easily.

    Your Highness Shanna,
    Also, men don’t appreciate unearned gifts and far too easily the givers.
    Guy

  3. Southernbelle

    Sir Guy,

    Will you elaborate on this idea please.
    “IOW, he’s not going to overextend himself as exclusively faithful without other reasons that depend on her avoidance of conquest.”


    Your Highness Southernbelle,
    He doesn’t care to promise exclusivity unless it moves him closer to conquering her and moves her farther away from being unfaithful to him.
    Guy

    • Southernbelle

      Sir Guy,
      When an “exclusive” relationship begins to look and seem more catered to his preferences, schedule, etc is that reason enough to “break” exclusivity or at least withdraw? It seems like continually having conversations on what she wants/needs (verses what he’s giving) is just evidence that they’re not a good fit. Or is this just “training grounds” to see how amenable he is to step up/adjust to make her happy? This is courtship phase a few months no conquest and he is respectful gentleman to her and others.

      Your Highness Southernbelle,

      Color it as ‘training grounds’. Break exclusivity and you break the courtship. You’ve made good progress, why throw it away? Quit expecting more; let him keep his schedule to court you.

      ‘Catered to his preferences’ is the process by which he determines whether living with you will be more satisfying to him than living as he is today. Especially true if he’s backed off applying pressure to get you in bed.

      Guy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s