Tag Archives: female nature

Blog 2339. Suggestions for Raising Children — Part XIII

Tactical Parenting: Encouraging Sexual Restraint in Teen Girls

I presume that readers take exception to masculine-style sexual freedom for females. It’s now expanded with a follow-on movement of sex for pleasure in the U.S. It’s now developing overseas into threesomes for one and both sexes and on-the-street connecting up with those known and unknown, which means only a matter of time before the practice immigrates here.

If you don’t like it, your best contribution is teaching girls to avoid teen sexual activity. By avoiding it in adolescence, girls learn that other things are more important than sex and sexual freedom; for example, the ability to keep a husband. It’s then up to girls to teach boys, provided moms and dads teach boys to respect girls as unique and more valuable to men when treated respectfully.

To all moms, don’t preach to save herself for her husband. Teach to protect her heart and mind for herself, so she’s better prepared to handle males and life as she sees fit. A girl well-educated about herself and males knows what to do that’s best for her. She knows how to distinguish sincerity from smooth talk and lies and how to handle each.

Moms can’t be too well prepared to train and uplift girls to earn their potential for the handling of men and a mate. As women go so goes society, and only mothers can get them there. Dads need to encourage but moms do the work.

You may think of the following as too philosophical. However, sound personal decisions are based more on good philosophical underpinnings than on less stable beliefs such as popular opinion. So, I intend to unload all that I can figure out as relevant to moms raising girls to achieve their girlhood hopes and dreams.

Until now, I never realized the endless connections between what mom knows and how to raise better daughters. Sex today interferes dramatically with that process. Moms need more non-sex info and so this series continues to expand far beyond that originally intended.

Female character shapes the values, standards, and expectations that flood the culture and determine how people live in society. When moms focus on teaching about sex, they miss the boat. When they teach about screening males, handling dates, training boyfriends, discouraging players, and especially keeping husbands, they are on target to raising sterling daughters into women with significant influence with men and over boys.

When mom has a better picture of how the male and female natures prioritize and interact, she’s much better prepared to convey the lessons appropriate to each girl’s level of maturity. By puberty the lessons can be complete and a girl’s sense of self-development can carry her through adolescence without too much hurt.

A mother’s judgment is invariably sound when she depends on facts rather than popular opinion. Her biggest burden then is to gain and maintain daughter’s respect for mom’s teachings, which is a matter of self-discipline, nurturing love, not blaming others, and starting with toddlers in the third year.

NOTE: Mom’s biggest challenge is to get the father’s support, backing, and encouragement of daughter to listen to mom, whether present in their lives or not. IOW, mom sorely needs father’s respect to reinforce whatever respect daughter has for mom.

Modern teens are involved in sexual activity after copying adults, so moms have to counter that social movement when they teach about sex in early childhood. It’s tough, but how else can they overcome the political outrageousness of sex-ed in kindergarten unless they start early?

I suggest this plan. Except for basics, discourage interest in sex-education as being promoted. Mom knows better than bureaucrats. Teach beneficial behavior that attracts and holds the interests of males without having to satisfy those interests. Teach girls to make males work for everything they get from girl or woman. Earn masculine respect rather than popularity. Teach independence, teach girls to dislike the popular venues and achieving popularity. They all want to be liked. But they benefit permanently when they are respected. They earn respect when they refuse boys having their way even in the simple things such as copping a feel, kissing without earning it by demonstrating devotion with actions rather than just words, and  specifically by not spreading their legs for any reason.

Men respect what they earn and don’t appreciate what they don’t earn. Free gifts are meaningless, especially sex. And men can’t love who they don’t respect. So, the love of a man depends on how she makes him earn the sharing of her persona with him without sexual involvement.

Girls gain nothing from conquest except they bond and boys don’t. She loses and he benefits immensely: 1) Whatever respect she gained earlier by refusing quits growing. 2) His obligations to please her ‘expire’. 3) He doesn’t have to search any longer for weaknesses to facilitate bedding her; he owns their sexual agenda. She’s a keeper, booty, or dumpee. 4) He’s free to look for someone else.

Moms should stick to family values that glue relationships. Promote strengthening of personal character that emerges from sexual restraint. Describe the unexpected penalties for lack of good character that urges restraint in teen life. Teach deferred gratification and persuade against immediate gratification. Teach the importance of self-gratitude as critical to the sense of self-importance so earnestly craved by the female psyche.

Instead of blaming men for the social and domestic ailments of females, teach the blessings that women brought to American greatness. Men conquered the West, but women civilized it. Through their indirect influence with husbands, American wives morphed two male-dominated religions into our one-of-a-kind female-dominated Judeo-Christian culture. Our country is what wives made it by taming the male nature and husbands into pleasing the women in their lives. Womanly influence is maximized at the breakfast table and pillow talk—provided her man has obligated himself by becoming devoted to her.

It raises the question. What makes him become devoted to her? Answer: Her likeability and his determination to be loyal to her without his fear of being dumped. Devotion builds as he pleases himself for the purpose of pleasing her, and his actions reinforce his feelings for her.

Men need neither religion nor morality; they can and will just fight out their differences. Women need both, which are essential to strengthen the female character, political relevance and influence, and ability to make better men out of their mates—as both better husbands and good examples for other men.

When society moves upward with moral standards, women dominate the culture. When women allow moral standards to deteriorate, society becomes more immoral and men come to dominate values and standards. As that happens, the culture declines and individual marriages are made weaker. Today, they are also made fewer, and female influence fades accordingly.

But notice this. Wives and not single women did it in the past, which means that marriage is critical to supporting a female-friendly society made that way by wifely dominance of cultural values and standards. Single women don’t wield influence over men except as power enables it on the job, but that doesn’t impress men to accept and adopt female value and standards off the job. Only wives can get men to change their ways in the direction of more female friendliness, and it requires a delicate, well-educated, patient, and feminine touch.

What does all that mean for teaching girls to avoid teen sex? How can girls do what’s right for themselves? How can they understand themselves, boys, men, mates, and their promiscuous peers, unless they know the likely consequences of interacting and how to both resist female peer pressure and outsmart males?

When moms teach it well, girls know what to do with it. The more females keep their feelings among their sex, the more mysterious women are to men, which reduces the male’s ability to take advantage, which keeps girls and women in the driver’s seat in their relationships.

I have more on this subject but inadequate time to get it organized and explained with the clarity I seek. Sorry, but the following will be more ‘miscellaneous’ in its identity.

1 Comment

Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, feminine, marriage, sex differences

2271. Dark Side of Feminism: The Swamp of Ill-feeling

I aim at the gender level, ladies, so don’t take it personal except the sentence surrounded by asterisks.

The male and female natures inherited at birth have been socialized and domesticated into habits that work contrary to how we are born. Default conditions are ignored because of pressures designed by political activists. I don’t alibi for either sex but blame Feminism to explain how and why compatibility has sunk into the swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.

Feminists taught women to blame men for female problems. Doing so put women in the role of acting contrary to their nature, contrary to where their heart leads them. *As the direct response, single women soften their natural hard-headedness and married women harden their soft-heartedness.*

Men aren’t as much offended as they are disappointed in females. Men think: I want to cooperate but with all the crap you pull, why should I?

As women go so goes society and we all do what makes us feel good about ourselves; women do it with little regard for how it registers with men. The combination causes men to harden up their hard-headedness and refuse to soften up their natural hard-heartedness. Men are disappointed because they are discouraged from being heroes to the opposite sex, which gives every indication of being in distress but undeserving of masculine help.

Feminism changed all women; it’s now a universal spirit. Women can’t resist being convinced that they deserve better than whatever men produce and provide. They measure men by how men treat them instead of how men measure themselves by what they accomplish. That difference rocks compatibility.

Adopting feminist thought, women don’t or can’t abandon their natural motivational baseline, which bastardizes their motivational drive and produces results that further confuse the female mind, and which earns disrespect in the male mind.

She tries to bond with sex but men don’t. She abandons modesty to be liked and men don’t respect her. She forgoes mystery that fires up the male imagination and favors full disclosure that kills male curiosity. She expects boyfriend to be loyal to her but she doesn’t first earn his respect. She expects husband to be faithful but tries to change him. She builds his castle on fashion and her reputation with women and disregards his desire for a functional recovery and resting place. She weakens his comfort and daily recovery by insisting to keep a perfect appearance within the home. She tortures him with petty requests to do what she can easily do herself. She commands his presence without respecting his other obligations. She doesn’t respect his family but she wants them to do what she expects. She ranks her children over her man and expects him to peacefully play second fiddle to her music score. She ignores her heart by letting others convince her its undependable to protect and promote her interests. She wants to make sure he knows that her needs and wants are more important than his.

By trying to either be more like men or get them to act more like females, women confuse themselves. They are unable to produce the outcomes they long for. Men wish it were otherwise, but modern women are propagandized to listen to women instead of men. It’s more a gender than individual happening; by blaming men, women escape guilt for causing relationship failures. Much as the radical feminists anticipated it five decades ago.

On the other side of the ledger, the male nature stubbornly rejects feminist theory. Men stick to mostly following their nature, which of course is never all that admirable to women. Men learn in life that particular behaviors annoy the heck out of women and—when inclined to please their woman—they avoid the annoyances. However, when blamed, they easily convince themselves that ‘I don’t appreciate what she does, why please her?’, which pushes them back toward their self-centered, hard-headed, and hard-hearted nature.

So, what else is new? He takes me for granted. He never shows enough affection. His job comes before me. He won’t help with housework. He won’t help enough with the kids. He won’t clean or pick up after himself. He’s a slob around the house. He spends our money on his toys. He’s so selfish he doesn’t know the meaning of ‘us’. He wants sex whether I’m ready or not. He never wants to take my family into consideration. He loves our daughter but expects too much from our son. He thinks I should be able to handle a full-time job and housework with no help and no problems. He talks a good game but doesn’t produce when the chips are down.

Those are symptoms of men who don’t care if they annoy their woman or they purposely do it out of some real or imagined spite. Men aren’t that opposed to cooperation unless they want to save face.

Blaming a man shows disrespect and men tire easily of it. They expect to be respected and appreciated and to measure it by her displays of obvious gratitude, which also endorses his likeability to her and her willingness to be loyal to him.

Thus, the pointy finger of blame continues to mock compatibility and flood the already full swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.


Filed under courtship, Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!, sex differences

2175. Dating in Mid-life — Part C8: Her Past, A Simpler View

You can’t shape the dating atmosphere to your advantage without anticipating what is likely to come up. This post is aimed at reinforcing the more practical side of a subject and admittedly aims more at younger than more mature women.

Perhaps the toughest test of your worth to Mr. Good Enough, can and will he accept you without knowing the details of your past sex life? He has four interests: to determine his comparative value as a lover, to prevent his embarrassment as your lover, to determine the likelihood of you cheating, and what really intrigues him: Promiscuous? With his friends? With someone he knows? Mistress? Shack up? Cheap? Easy?

It’s his nature; he’s born that way. Men begrudge anyone who went before them, and the begrudging varies with who are the individuals. Husbands can be forgotten as legitimate earners of your favors (unless you bring it up)—but not the others and some measure of too many or too much reflects harshly against not just you but more importantly him.

CAUTION: The Manosphere loudly broadcasts that women are equally entitled to sexual freedom and their history is of no concern to advocates of Game philosophy. Don’t fall for it, darling. Their philosophic values are founded on the supreme superiority of men over women to the extent that respect for women is non-existent. Their philosophic flavoring floats on Feminism, tends toward homoeroticism, and leans on Islamic values. Overall, it contradicts anyone’s interest in sexual discretion and monogamy.

Here are a dozen pointers to help shape the dating scene to your advantage.

  1. Your known past generates suspicions that override acceptances and assurances. Your unknown past generates fewer suspicions to eat away at the mutual trust you hope to build.  [241]
  2. Men seek and others often advise full disclosure. When men actively pursue more about your past, they can’t ignore and not use the information to shape their thinking. Talked into full disclosure, women expect fairness and equality. The male nature does not originate fairness for sharing sexual assets, and equality is a female concept that men don’t normally consider in human relations. [241]
  3. People argue that trust cannot arise without full disclosure. Hah! Trust arises from convictions drawn from beliefs and speculation about a person. Trust does not arise when specific knowledge prevents such convictions. [241]
  4. Full disclosure comes out uneven, unequal, un-repairable, because the male nature values a woman’s chastity far more than the female nature finds interest in a man’s sexual history.  [241]
  5. The harder a man works to draw details out of your sexual past, the more likely he will use it against you sometime, someway. Perhaps latently, indirectly, or vengefully. It’s available to hold over your head and to rationalize or recover from his own mistakes. [241]
  6. Forgetting your sexual past with lack of knowledge is far easier than forgiving what Mr. GoodEnough learns from full disclosure. The more he knows, the more he thinks. The more he thinks, the more he looks for the bad or unacceptable. The more unacceptable, the less forgetting. The less forgetting, the less forgiving. [241]
  7. Feminine intuition trumps full-disclosure. While not easy, you are blessed with the skills and expertise to withhold who, what, when, where, why, and how of what he doesn’t already know. Withholding information is not dishonesty. Disclosure means candid, accuracy means honest. [302]
  8. His spirit and willingness to give more than he takes may indicate his ability to honor your decision and help qualify him as Mr. GoodEnough. However, if he’s more of a taker, he may not honor your other expectations either. Such as these after marriage: Have kids even though he agreed. Or your desire to stay home and home school, when he wants more income in the home. Or support you in caring for a sick parent. [327]
  9. Your undisclosed sexual past defends your relationship, because his ammo box lacks your historical bullets to fire back in domestic squabbles. [327]
  10. The forward-thinking woman convinces all her female friends to never leak anything about her past to her dating partner, boyfriend, husband, or any other man. But this may fail too, because friends betray friends. They steal dates, boyfriends, lovers, and husbands, don’t they? Consequently, the wisest woman keeps her sexual history as secret as possible even from friends and family. [327]
  11. Former relationships may be known to your man, but no mention should be made or comparative details disclosed. It’s toxic in any relationship for you to disclose the relative sexual worth of one man to another, regardless of who’s the better. [302]
  12. Don’t think you can outsmart him by claiming he’s your greatest lover ever. You opened the door to his inquiry about how and why he’s the greatest, so you’re trapped into telling what you’re best off not to disclose.

The more that Mr. GoodEnough knows, the more likely he will make you pay some price for your past. Couples do squabble. You may never know or understand what’s happening. Yet, he may strike back because of your earlier sexual events. It takes very little for reminders of your past to grow into humiliation for him. Your history affects his sense of significance, whether you know it or not and accept it or not. 

I know this subject has been perhaps overheated and difficult to accept. Too much of a good thing can still be boring. Tomorrow’s subject is also a tender one that needs to be reviewed for mid-life dating. It’s submission, even though we all know that subject doesn’t apply before marriage. Preparation is easier than recovery, which is the not just everything but quite often the only thing.



Filed under courtship, Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, How she wins

2169. Chivalry — Recovery is Everything and Overdue

If you read the first post on this subject, #2168, why have we as a culture so readily accepted the intentional murder of chivalry at the hands of feminists? More importantly, how do we recover if the feminists were to let us? Or why should we even try?

I talk much about the character and custom-setting deeds of our forebears and how society’s female-friendly standards shrink. Perhaps chivalry could help right our sinking cultural ship, so I describe the road to recovery.

Chivalry indirectly leads to female happiness in one of life’s cause-and-effect natural phenomena. The process that follows is produced by both sexes following their hearts to live according to the natural condition they inherit at birth. It’s what instinct and intuition lead men and women to do naturally. It contributes greatly to general compatibility that leads respectably to enjoyable mating and indirectly to better fulfillment of girlhood hopes and dreams.

However, the practice has to be taught in childhood. That’s right. Both sexes need to have the benefits of following one’s instincts reinforced. God provides no owner’s manual until old enough to study the Bible. So, parents have to close the gap.

Male Nature:

  • Women are born to earn happiness over time. Men are born to earn satisfaction through daily achievements, and chivalry provides significant opportunity for both sexes.
  • His actions generate his feelings. A male who practices chivalry develops over time a deeply-rooted belief that he should unconditionally respect females, which includes the desire to give unconditionally, which enables him to eagerly find favor with a female, which energizes him to put his convenience momentarily at the disposal of a female, which makes him feel good about himself, which earns self-admiration, which provides satisfaction that he did the right thing. His chivalrous actions program his heart with those feelings (so long as the process isn’t interrupted by female signals that his effort isn’t welcome, in which case his will power and determination have to say ‘don’t quit’).
  • To boy or man brought up to be chivalrous, it becomes a duty. They are automatically responsible for distressed or otherwise discombobulated females. Fulfilling one’s duty is not an event that deserves reward, and men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. Consequently, women don’t know much about rewarding a chivalrous act, even though mere acknowledgement is sufficient when a guy does his duty.
  • It’s a hard and fast belief developed in childhood. Teaching boys that females are weaker and, therefore, to be protected makes males feel stronger, which opens the male heart to helping, which opens the door for chivalry, which defines a new duty, which energizes males to earn female favor, which produces a male at her disposal, which makes females feel superior, which puts her in the role of boss, which confirms she’s not the weaker sex, which guys can accept unless it’s verbalized.

Female Nature:

  • As you’ve read so often on this blog, women are born to be happy but they have to earn it. It comes from each woman’s gratitude for herself compounded by gratefulness for others in her life. Treated chivalrously, she becomes grateful for who she is and what she deserves, which adds to her sense of self-importance and ability to pass her gratitude on to others.
  • Chivalrous actions make a female feel superior. Her heart becomes programmed with respect and gratitude, which makes girls and women more grateful for themselves, which contributes to their happiness. Indirectly, chivalrous men help women find happiness. Also, his actions program her heart with respect and appreciation for males.

However, the foundation of chivalry is a delightful charade based on male eagerness to deceive themselves about females. Men are extremely unwilling to acknowledge any superiority to women; it’s inconsistent with their natural sense of dominance. By focusing solely on physical abilities and calling females the weaker sex, men can ‘prove’ to themselves that any superiority attached to the female gender is inconsequential. Chivalry confirms the weakness of one sex, which strokes the ego of men, and lifts any burden from men to admit otherwise. That’s the female-friendly charade that men develop to win female favor, but also to protect their own sense of significance.

Which begs the question, isn’t Feminism designed to highlight the superiority of women? Sure, but it doesn’t work except with the power of government imposed for legal, political, and economic advancements that become toxic when brought into both social and domestic relationships by well-meaning women with unrealistic expectations.

History proves the sexes can live compatibly. Men can’t and won’t do so when women impose their superiority to get their way. Either women keep their superior nature to themselves and avoid reminding men that it even exists, or men resent, resist, and often retaliate. To admit women are superior is to admit manly insignificance, which by nature is a man’s greatest fear that ranks with her fear of abandonment, which is what he does when she goes too far.

I submit that men or boys who are raised to be chivalrous, are not the same males who are abusing and disrespecting women and children on a regular basis. True chivalry, when ingrained in a boy, serves him throughout life. It provides a sense of satisfaction when he is able to help, please, win their favor, or delight women and children. It also serves as an internalized insurance policy against him becoming an abuser. Men can’t hit women, if taught to be chivalrous in boyhood.

Observe these Italian boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OcKQ_mbiQ and watch to the end.

You saw with the Italian boys how easily a charade can be turned into more safety for females. One simple admission, females are weaker, which enables males to ignore female superiority as long as it remains inadmissible as evidence for females to get their way. It’s easily and best taught in childhood. That’s next as this series grows from two to three installments.



Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!

2130. Male Bonding

Sir Eric’s clear and worthy questions at 2127 inspire this post.

Two conquerors face off. He seeks conquest; she seeks marriage. The female nature is willing to change to conquer. But the male nature resists, resents, and even retaliates against changing to please anyone else and especially a woman. (We observe it in toddlers.)

Bonding arises out of the male nature only when tied to something of significant interest. A prospective conquest is of prime significance. Males thus face an internal conflict. To conquer they have to change to please a woman if she won’t easily part with her favors.

Women love and partially bond before conquest, and sex finalizes the process for them. Bonding is not necessary for conquest but mutual bonding is for marriage. Thus, another conflict. Lifetime obligations don’t emerge unless the man changes sufficiently well that mutual bonding occurs.

A man will change provided he has the proper incentive. His self-interest to conquer makes him willing to pay that price. He will change over time to conquer a resisting woman. He will teach himself to please her in order to please himself and vice versa. It starts as desire to conquer but morphs away from sex to her when her fascination and promise for his future outshine his desire to conquer. His pleasing actions become new habits over time and reprogram his heart into believing she’s worth it.

All done in hope of convincing her into bed sooner rather than later. His conquering motivations provide the glue, his actions clamp two self-interests together in mutual bond. Thus, it appears that he changes to please a woman but he doesn’t. He changes to please himself, to facilitate conquering her. Both are beneficiaries of the process that works in two steps when women hold out for marriage.

1) Frustration being the father of invention, men denied first sex together find words of commitment. Further denials of sex bring out greater effort including his conscience to honor his words and thus deepen his commitment. Such commitment, however, doesn’t hold nearly as much adhesive as does the second part of the bonding process which happens over more time.

2) Devotion emerges out of his continued actions that please him for pleasing her, and those actions program his heart with emotions that bond. (The deeper his devotion becomes, however, the more it shifts her toward the alpha role in marriage, which invites her to do wrong things and thus makes it easier for her to screw up their marriage).

Thus, if change is a trap, he’s self-seduced by desire to conquer. By withholding sex, a woman provides the incentive that drives him to change and become capable of bonding well with her.

When her actions work contrary to his intentions, his frustration for first sex turns into the pursuit of sex only and less interest in her. Consequently, her job is to keep him in pursuit, which calls primarily for no sexual relations. Remove that incentive and a man’s bonding is far less likely to solidify into permanent obligation.

I realize the real world doesn’t work like that today. But, I describe the nature of men and women that closes the gap between her natural inheritance to be compatible with a mate and his natural resistance to mate up permanently with only one.



Filed under sex differences

2093. Compatibility Axioms #511-520

NOTE: A man’s domains are those relationship issues about which he’s the boss, near-boss, thinks he should be, or aspires to be that eminent person. Either as he sees it or concludes from daily negotiations or haggling with his woman. [189]

511. It’s the territorial imperative in coupledom. She shows disrespect when she invades his domains and signals his insignificance when she succeeds.[189]

512. Disrespect shown to a man piles up to kill his love. Insignificance piles up to end his presence. [189]

513. Symptoms of less love and his impending departure can be found in less interest for fulfilling his woman’s hopes and dreams. [189]

514. When women try to lead in masculine domains, much as feminists do, men find bigger or better ways to stay ahead. This leads to put downs, mistreatment, and an ‘I’ll show you’ spirit. Examples: rap music, family abandonment, and abusiveness. [189]

515. Relationship success comes from making daily decisions that build mutually recognized and honored domains for each spouse. An organization cannot long function under two equal CEOs. [189]

516. Men appreciate cheap and easy sex. But, they don’t much value unearned gifts. Such female behavior cheapens a man’s conquering spirit. It denies him opportunity to prove his manly worth by other than sexual performance. [190]

517. A woman’s eagerness for the excitement of sex make her appear too loose for a man to expect her faithfulness.  [190]

518. Being given what a man expects to be a challenge turns him toward other challenges. [190]

519. The female nature intuitively guides mature girls and women away from the extreme behavior of cheap and easy sex. They know something else is much better for them. [190]

520. Though not as women expect, casual sex energizes men. If she’s that free and easy, then he can pursue the next score, notch the bedpost again, and go after more. [190]



Filed under Dear daughter

2064. Inspired Over Polish Food — First Course

Last evening I had a delightful Polish dinner with Her Highness Marie, one of my research consultants. She inspires new thoughts about men and women, and two new principles come to light. I post one today and the other later.

In dating and courtship, modern women try to find and capture candidates to consider for marriage. Lacking in self-gratitude, they abandon their female nature. Men win and women lose because the focus shifts to sex.

It’s a huge paradox. The female nature prompts women to wish that men would put sex aside in the process of finding interest in each other. Modern women dress sexually attractive and wonder why they can’t keep sex on the sideline. It doesn’t work to the advantage of women. After abandoning their own nature, they ignore the male nature. It subconsciously implies disrespect. Men subliminally respond with little respect for women although they respect the female nature (now seldom in use). Women don’t appeal to the emotional side of men. Just the sexual which provides fun and games but no emotional interest or link up.

Women want to be liked first. It’s a mistake. To be liked other than for sex, she must first earn a man’s respect. Just as men must respect before they love, the same goes for liking someone beyond a passing moment in life.

She’s attractive two ways, sexually and emotionally. Men are like this. a) He likes her sexual appearance and becomes interested in sex with her. Or b) He respects her emotional appearance and becomes interested in her. It’s under her control. Whichever option she induces him to take, his curiosity and imagination dominate his thoughts. He becomes curious about who she is and fires up his imagination about what she represents to him. Sex or something more promising? Until that happens, she can’t claim victory for what she wants most. In the end women want ‘b’ and ‘a’ works directly against them.

Men respect uniqueness in women. A man wants distinction, not commonness. He seeks to appreciate his own taste in women, drive his competitors to envy, inflate his self-admiration, and add to his significance. When she provides those benefits, he respects her. Out of that start, he learns to like her and can move on to love her.

A woman who looks like just another member of the sisterhood doesn’t appear unique. Example: The commonness of one hair style kills uniqueness for many women. (It’s for another time, but I’m willing to bet that most men given two choices would pick the second. a) Long, below the shoulder, and little-upkeep hair to nestle their face in while in bed. Or, b) neatly coiffed, shorter, and face enhancing hairdo that makes her look attractive out of bed. When’s the last time her hair helped get a man into bed?)

Women fertilize their tree of hope when they find ways to make their emotional attractiveness hide their sexual attractiveness. Glamorous clothes and hair are one option but the Muumuu Effect is another (posts 665 and 666).

The success of women attracting men for other than sex won’t improve until they show greater respect for both the male and female natures and overcome their own lack of self-gratitude. Without the latter they remain too self-centered to be respected very highly by men.



Filed under courtship