Tag Archives: relationships

2568. More Tips for Women — 03


The following are some results from the way the sexes are born differently. It describes the need of why women are born with so much relationship expertise that men lack. Women are especially endowed with the ability to overcome how two natures work contrary to each other.

  1. A woman’s love connects her to a man, but the reverse is not true. Her love is an unearned gift to him, and men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. It does not follow that not appreciating her love is not appreciating her. He measures his appreciation of her in a mixture of other ways that earn and retain his respect.

 

  1. Women, loaded with self-love and ardent desire to spread it, instinctively rely on three little words to fix all that is broke. Men are not born with self-love and earn it as they develop, and so womanly love has a lesser importance.

 

  1. Women are not born with self-respect; they earn it as they develop. OTOH, men are born loaded with self-respect. Their dealings with women are primarily based on respect and expectations that they be automatically respected with whatever love a woman wants to give them.

 

  1. Her respect of who and what he is impresses him more than her confessing her love. He measures her love by her actions much more than her words.

 

  1. Expressions of female love can become overbearing when over expressed. It may signal that she is desperate, fearful, depressed, and generally not in charge of her life. She can even be boring with too many  ‘I love you’s if his interest in her personally is very low.

 

  1. A man prefers to figure out that a woman loves him by her actions to support and depend on him, by her letting him run their relationship habits, by her accepting his leadership/dominant role. Her words are never as impressive as her actions. Whether she loves him at conquest is immaterial; either way is okay so long as she yields.

 

  1. It’s man-think. The more she relies on his leadership, the more love she must have for him. Pardon the hyperbole, but her willingness to obey signifies her love. He is primarily interested in her love/obedience at the present moment; he doesn’t worry about how it impacts their future. Now is forever. If she loves him enough to obey now, he owns their future, or so men usually think. The pressure to obey inspires women to learn how to outwit, outsmart, and outmaneuver men.

 

  1. It’s the existence of her love and not the expressions of it that a man depends on. She loves me, so let’s move on. Her expressions of love please her more than him.

 

9. Given a quiet or concerned moment, she says I love you. It was unnecessary, so why did she say it? What does she expect him to do? What can he do but respond with the same, which is a confirmation that she desires, but he does not understand the need—unless she previously taught him.

 

As the result of being born differently, on matters of love she is single minded, but he is not. She relies on the use of words to convey her thoughts and what she expects of him. He focuses on actions from which he figures out where he stands and what he can expect from her.

As individuals develop throughout life, they learn to adjust to make all those conditions shown above become more advantageous for themselves. Women learn much more easily than men, because of their relationship expertise to compensate for inborn traits.

Their natures are very different and contrary to the other. Since women are blessed with special abilities for dealing with men, it is up them to relieve, reverse, or overcome the willfulness of both sides to get their own way. Men don’t know where to start; they pretty much fill their roles as described above.

 

13 Comments

Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, marriage, sex differences

2145. Unisex Fails Women


It’s been happening for half a century through six or seven generations of females, each of which seeks its own identity with a different lifestyle from previous ones.

Women possess some male hormones, and I use testosterone merely as example. Hormones respond to behavior. The more masculine-like is female behavior, the higher the level of Big T. The higher the level, the more masculine they act in response, so hormones and behavior trigger more of the other and spiral upward making women more like men. The reverse is true too. The more feminine women behave, the less T floods their body and the less they act like men.

Most men want to marry a virtuous woman, but she’s not virtuous enough unless she’s fascinating to him. Except for sexual potential, men see little or no fascination in women who act like men. Such women possess too few of the virtuous qualities that fascinate men.

Consequently, over 50 or so years women migrated from potential mates to undesirables for permanent relationships. They depend on romantic love to support their relationships. It fades in a year or two after conquest, and men are free to move on to another sex object, if they didn’t move on before.

The unisex movement is political and sprang out of Feminism. Ergo, feminist thinking, theory, and belief are responsible for short duration of marriages. But it’s really not that simple; that’s just the foundation. Unisex politics convinced women they should act more like men, which flooded them with more testosterone, which brought out more self-centered female aggressiveness that men find unpleasant, which cost women much of their non-sexual fascination, which lured men into sex-only relationships, which brought about the shortening of marriages.

The more feminine that women behave, the more likely they appear fascinating to men, and the more likely men see promise in them as lifelong mates. They are made that way in order to live compatibly with each other.

 

16 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, feminine

2111. Little White Lies


This subject deserves an article, so I expand on concerns triggered by Her Highness Prettybeans at 2109. It’s about the merit or demerit of females when they use little white lies to improve or protect the feelings of loved ones. It’s described as part of the female nature in #94 in the list of Female Blessings at Birth at blog top.

Prettybeans triggered a new vision of both sex differences and an ethical conundrum. I throw out the following analysis to invite dialogue and help women figure out their own lives a little better.

  • Men deal more in facts, women more in feelings. Facts expressed at least cause paper cuts in relationships. Paper cuts hurt but can be prevented with little white lies, about which women are experts.
  • The female conscience seems more sensitive because women are more prone to guilt than men. Honesty and dishonesty to men aren’t gray issues. But they are to women as are so many other things where feelings dominate.
  • Both sexes are made to be compatible with the other. So the womanly ability to use little white lies is part of their design. It means, at least to me, that honesty for women depends on their motive. If they gain personal advantage, it’s dishonest. If it disturbs their conscience or produces guilt, it’s dishonest. If they try to motivate someone to do something, it’s manipulation and therefore dishonest. If they simply smooth interpersonal feelings without personal gain, it’s not dishonest although it’s not totally honest either.

Not sure if the logic would hold against a superior mind, but it makes sense to me. The difference between acceptable and unacceptable little white lies is determined by the motive behind them. Personal gain is the dividing line and each woman has the conscience and sense of guilt to judge whether she’s being honest or dishonest.

Now take that to the relationship interface. As we all know, honesty should prevail. Women now have a standard, if my analysis holds up under scrutiny of better minds. To my thinking, a wife’s little white lies with no guilt and clear conscience don’t disturb a husband’s feelings as dishonesty. He’s not eager to accuse wife for something that brings pleasantness without hurt to him.

Sir Eric at 2109 agreed that little white lies “done with good intention” are acceptable. We can presume that good intention means without personal gain for the woman and without attempt to manipulate. Accepting Eric and I as authority figures, it follows that men find well-intended little white lies acceptable. It means they can abstain from judging wife as dishonest for neutralizing ill feelings, even though it seemingly indicts them as co-conspirators in dishonesty. People dedicated to one another live easily with such a dilemma.

 

 

14 Comments

Filed under sex differences

2103. Women as Champions Or … ?


Sir Eric at 2101 reported this. “[W]hat I’ve noticed mostly from women is an attitude that seems to hold all men as fairly indistinguishable and interchangeable. When you look at the high divorce rates and the whirlwind relationships that go on today—if women are the relationship experts, it seems like they value men and relationships on a very low-level.”

Good conclusions from the results Eric sees in society. Allow me to bore underneath and describe some of the natural motivational forces at work.

Women value men and relationships on a very low-level because they value themselves on a very low-level. Dislike for themselves transmutes into dislike of others, particularly trait for trait, quality for quality. None of us can give what we don’t have, and so if I dislike myself for sometimes not being totally honest, I can’t credit anyone else with that good habit. OTOH, if I acknowledge more rationally that I’m sometimes not honest but it doesn’t make me dislike myself, then I can credit others for their APPARENT honesty. The difference is determined by the governor of the behavior of every person, their self-image, the picture they have of themselves and their roles and positions in life. (If sinning makes me dislike myself instead of trying to do better, then my self-image takes a hit with every sin. It doesn’t take long to convince myself that I’m no damn good.)

Women hold all men as fairly indistinguishable and interchangeable because they feel that way about themselves. As I try to point out in Female Blessings at Birth, women are highly distinguishable and not interchangeable. They can choose to claim, believe, and exploit the multitude of better-than-male blessings they are born with. IOW, they can use their superiority to their advantage, which is what God intended, Nature provides, and hormones energize—but it’s an individual matter and free will has to be dedicated to individual betterment.

Life continues to boil down to this, as women goes so goes society.

6 Comments

Filed under Fickle female

2099. Compatibility Axioms #541-550


541. Females are born hard-headed and soft-hearted. Males are born hard-headed and hard-hearted. Her hard-headedness captures a man. Her soft-heartedness holds him. [199]

542. Romance to males means foreplay or prelude to it. Women define romance as what precedes foreplay. [199]

543. Women can enjoy masculine-style sexual freedom, but they eventually lose playing that man’s game. (Losing defined as inability to keep a man for life.) [199]

544. Commitment made before conquest fades or dies afterward, whereas a man’s devotion may dip a little after conquest but it returns. [200]

545. Everything looks and tastes better when you’re grateful. Finding reasons to be grateful for yourself and others simply brightens life. [200]

546. Selfishness interferes with gratitude, the absence of which causes unhappiness. [200]

547. A man’s devotion depends on his respect for a woman, which mostly floats on her wavy ocean of self-respect, exceptionalness as a female, feminine virtue, unique qualities, and likeability as potential mate. [200]

548. A man’s enduring love is built upon his respect for women generally and respect and likeability of one in particular. Need for her intensifies his devotion. [200]

549. After conquest a woman ceases to be a challenge, because a man’s most pressing goal has been accomplished. He moves on to his current mission in life, whether she’s his keeper or a dumpee. [200]

550. Modest attire sends the message she’s interested in long-term relationships. Immodest attire signals she’s interested in a man, period. [200]

 

5 Comments

Filed under Dear daughter

2077. Compatibility Axioms #491-500


All that follows below is based on the natures of men and women as they are born. Women have to figure out what’s best for them given the lessons they have learned in life and the relationships they enter.

491.Inability to conquer a woman focuses a man’s mind on one thing—getting it done by whatever it takes. But then conquest releases him to focus on something or somebody else. [172]

492. Men as hunter-conquerors always take interest in new targets whether in chase mode or not. [172]

493. Fellatio doubles down on ‘will you respect me in the morning’?

494. Sex deferred until marriage maximizes her as a highly feminine matrimonial target. Only a ‘giant of a man’—in his eyes that is himself, his royal studliness—could beat out all those other competitors for her made evermore worthy of investing himself by her impenetrable chastity. [174]

495. When all women cut way back on providing unmarried sex, the effective rationing makes men sell themselves more assertively. By force of habit and drive to succeed, this turns them into more dependable investors in and guardians of female interests. [174]

496. Morality serves women much more than men. To the extent a woman fails to live within and uphold a self-imposed strong moral code, she can expect mistreatment by men and consequent mistreatment of herself by herself. [175]

497. Women choose to ignore this benefit dealing with a man. When she repeatedly refuses their first-time sex, he honors her wishes, explores her qualities, heeds her strengths, and accepts her weaknesses. More importantly, she learns whether he’s after her or just after sex. (Details appear in posts about Virtual Virginity.) [175]

498. Women use sex to capture men for short-term benefits. Long-term relationships are thus greatly weakened. [175]

499. Men expect respect and gratitude from their woman. Her encouragement and cheering him onward and upward provides it. Nagging and criticism nullify it. [175]

500. Women yield first time sex to men who threaten to leave. Whether a man bluffs or not, if she yields he loses respect for her. Next step: Dumped. He followed his nature and she abandoned hers. [175]

 

42 Comments

Filed under sex differences

2050. Single Women Don’t Pay — IV


Her Highness Cinnamon asked for more about paying date costs. What about gray areas? Complicated financial situations? The only right answers are what’s right for the people involved. Exceptions and gray areas always exist and people do what’s in their best interest. Whether that’s the best for their relationship may become questionable when examined under the microscope of their respective natures.

Our basic natures are hardwired in ways that often rise up to haunt our decisions. Example: She pays for dinner and he never calls again. Or, he pays, calls her, and she never answers. Such risk can’t be eliminated, but knowing more about how the sexes are born differently makes it easier to minimize risk, develop compatibility, and foster continuing relationships. All of which are of much greater interest to women than men.

Consequently, my analysis of human nature endorses men paying all dating costs except for the cost of her preparation. Analysis reveals how people behave according to the default conditions they are born with and before they overwrite their hearts with contrary lessons learned in life. Each person must figure out what’s best for them at the time, place, and date. Hopefully in what follows, women will figure out ways for them personally to reduce the risk of losing candidates before relationships develop.

College men either started or refined the art. Men propagandize women into accepting that men take all the risk when they pay. However, men don’t explain their measure of risk, which is that the guy pays but gets no sex. IOW, men twist social argument to imply that dating is prostitution in action and men are unwilling to pay. The risk is too high; he might not score the first date. If he does score and goes back, they don’t date but hang out and share costs. Propagandized females ignore their hearts. They fall for the scam. They lose the ability to earn masculine respect from which manly love arises. They lose some ability to be likeable enough for men to want to proceed into the future with them.

So, let’s examine the motivational forces that linger in the background of dating.

  1. Men are normally the bigger risk takers. However, not with dating. Women crave dates to find mates and accept a much greater risk than men. It attests to natural female courage to date while not fully understanding the nature of men.
  2. Both sexes make easy whatever they have in mind as personal objectives. He looks short range and present oriented for results to either bed her or get a return date. She plans to explore the long range and his potential; she looks for promise of an extended relationship. He’s looking to sell, she’s looking to buy. Buyers don’t pay until they’re sold on seller’s product. Men hide their product by indirectly implying and perhaps encouraging women to think that marriage is behind a door that she can open under appropriate conditions that she must demystify. She can’t open a door to see what she gets until she yields sex, and even then he chooses the door. That’s when she discovers that his product is either 1) prospect of serious commitment and extended relationship, 2) her new role as booty, or 3) she’s dumped. Women should not pay to face three closed doors, when the odds are 2-1 against her—and she still has to morph 1) into marriage.
  3. Mutual motivation: While each date partner seeks to impress the other favorably, they do so while peeking through opposite sides of the same keyhole. He looks for sex and she for lures or links to marriage. It breeds insincerity from the get-go. Who is more likely to be insincere? The short-range or long-range thinker? I presume the short but that’s another story. For the opportunity to be insincere more easily than women, men should pay for the advantage. It’s not equality, it’s fairness. And men standup for fairness as diligently as women standup for equality.
  4. Their apparent reason for dating is to have a good time introducing themselves and exploring each other’s personality and character in face-to-face encounters. All done with having fun as the common denominator. But men expect and become the seller on dates. They market the promise of good togetherness, sell themselves as prime leaders, and choose venues and arrangements as marketing tools; as is the seller’s duty. Why should she pay seller’s expenses before she decides to buy what he’s selling.
  5. Selling is a process and not a result. Women are processors and do well at it. Men are producers and try to make processes more efficient. Which means that he changes over a series of dates with one woman; it’s an ‘admin cost’. She shouldn’t pay for the seller’s privilege to change his approach.
  6. His natural male purpose for dating is to check her out for access to sex and determine her likeability for further pursuit. IOW, his nature pushes him to uncover her weaknesses with the least expenditure of time, effort, and money. That puts a burden on him to initiate and to do so efficiently for his own sake, but it has marginal or zero benefit for her. He leads, subsumes his dominance into charm, and it denies her reasonable room to explore him except for what he chooses to reveal. He’s far more privileged for gaining knowledge about her; she’s limited for gaining knowledge about him. The proof is also in this pudding: She never knows if he will call again, but he’s not bothered that way. Therefore, he should pay for the privilege of exploring who she is and can be in his life. He pans for gold; she pays to make herself look golden just for him. Consequently, he should absorb responsibility to pay for the privilege of her presence on a date.
  7. Her natural female purpose is to help him determine just how worthy she is as potential girlfriend and how her potential for mating is superb.Her nature guides her to avoid bragging and to proceed more passively, which adds to his burden to initiate and then weigh her responses. He’s in the driver’s seat, she’s the passenger. If she proactively tries to convince him of her worth in his life, it turns him off. It begs the question, why should she pay when her options are limited to being the passive date? She has to accept what he gives. He judges her by what he uncovers. She judges him by what he discloses. As the passive participant, why should she pay when she is so limited in what she can accomplish or uncover about him—all of it being relative to how simply the same thing works to his advantage.
  8. Women primarily have fun on dates but it isn’t reusable. They learn little too, because sellers do the talking and shape the exchange of knowledge. Men primarily gain knowledge, which is reusable as he ponders future dates with the same woman. Men should pay for advantage gained.
  9. This would work to a woman’s disadvantage, but it’s an interesting thought. Why don’t women disclose how much they pay to prepare for a date? Because they sense in their heart of hearts that it’s the wrong thing to do. That relationships don’t develop well when money is brought into the equation. Better to develop the relationship and then deal with money issues after cooperative teamwork and hopefully devoted connections have been brought together out of romance.

In the final sweep up of such things, a woman dresses up at significant expense. She provides benefit to a date’s eyes, pleasure, and reputation for dating someone who thinks enough of him to dress well. After all, we dress according to the importance of the event in our lives. OTOH, men generate similar effect for their dates by spending on them. Her girlfriends measure her importance by how her dates spend on her. Never equal, but it’s highly fair when they both spend to make themselves look good and thereby impress the other. He pays date expenses, his duty. She pays preparation expenses, her duty. In both cases, the duty to impress, please, and focus their attention on each other as unique makes dating pleasurable. More so when they exploit their different natures rather than depending on lessons learned earlier in their lives.

 

5 Comments

Filed under courtship