Ro**** Posted January 4 In my experience, compatibility starts with shared values. I’m most attracted to people who are financially stable and independent, just as I’ve worked to be. More importantly, I value emotional maturity—someone who handles life with empathy, kindness, and a steady temperament.
Cr**** Posted January 4 Because in general, that's how we measure ourselves and each other. When men are bragging about wealth they aren't flirting with women, they're flirting with other men.
Deleted Member Posted January 4 Author 9 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said: In simple terms, while a lot has changed (especially in the last 15-20) a lot are getting teachings from fathers, or grandfathers, from legacy media, so on. And absolutely this once was a big thing - but this was also in the day where women couldn't actually have their own bank accounts so someone who could provide a good life was ranked ahead of even looks. Good income, job security? Done. I think a lot get stuck in this idea and it plots their own downfall. Yes, this exactly. I have tried to make work long term monogamous relationships that fit gender roles all my life (13yr, 2yr, 3yr LTRs) and I find it's not a good fit (for me). The open relationships felt amazing but I felt shame for being happy outside a triad relationship and became exclusive again and abandoned my community and this has me conflicted. Is this what addiction feels like (you know without the feel good benefits 🤣).
Deleted Member Posted January 4 Author 7 hours ago, NexumSange said: Uhhh this may be A truth, but not everyone's. I don't hang with women who subscribe to an overall notion that men need to be financial providers at all, let alone the sole or greater providers. I think women CAN subscribe to this, but I'd venture to say that a vast amount of women today want other things from men (jn general), like emotional awareness and intelligence, deep nurturing and support, true listening and absorbing, showing up authenticly to the relationship, saring in and or taking on aspects of the mental load, emotional load, manual labour surrounding childrearing & household tasks and so on rather than merely financial contribution. This world is set up for capitalism which makes *** super important and that *** of not having stands in many, most, if not all people's ways. I think I understand that in this way. Because the legacy masculine traits (provider, protector) are baseline satisfied by a part time job and the police. The capitalism is the true aggressor for males to live at work. That the 'real gap' lies in only the legacy feminine traits. And by proxy these traits awareness, emotion, nurturing, ect are the only traits left to fill and now become more of a universal attraction palette. 🤔 I can really appreciate that stance.
Ta**** Posted January 4 4 hours ago, MDQC said: This!!! This is what I am talking about, I know the landscape has changed from the 1950s but it's still being passed down and it think that is creating a lot of misunderstanding and relationship stresses with misguided efforts. So, now that I know people are on this same page, is there a way to fix this believe? How does one learn kindness, empathy, emotional intelligence, cleverness, personality, wit, and not be a 'lone wolf'? Looking for real thoughts, books, ideas, you think would be useful. My guess is a lot of men find it more difficult to work on themselves, their personality, maximize their looks - instead prefer to believe women are gold-diggers. While some internalize the ***-thing and get overall self-conscious because they think they are failing. How to get over it? Idk, women used to be told to be pretty, good-housekeepers, birth-machines and don't think too much, and never become independent. But somehow most of us got out of that mindset. Men learning their worth is not that connected to their riches should be relatively easy. Though - women had to fight for each freedom. Men seem to be stuck in the old narrative, as it involves nothing more than - going to work, like they (and we) need to. And that would buy them affection. And if it doesn't, then they don't make enough *** - or women are ***hungry bitches. Many people, no matter the sex or gender, prefer a simple narrative. One does only need to follow that established path. And it usually comes with the bad guys to blame, like capitalistic, unappreciative women.
Ba**** Posted January 4 Wait the question at the end comes from a false conclusion Sure *** isn’t/wasn’t the most important thing but it has always been relevant It’s easy to claim that being able to provide doesn’t attract (objectively false as a general statement but not universally false either) but even under the assumption that it’s true straight up being unable to provide comes with a bunch of other issues, the biggest 3 being the appearance of indecisiveness, the perceived inability/unwillingness to commit and the actual reduction in confidence cause by all of it Sure the *** isn’t really the attractive part but being at least able to provide for yourself makes almost everything else easier, you have to be extra creative, really resourceful and a little delusional to make it work if you can’t
Ba**** Posted January 4 Arg the app censored the word for $€£¥ again The hypocrisy of aggressively pushing paid premium subscription AND using proxy currency points while censoring the word “$$” is quite disgusting
ey**** Posted January 4 Mind, of course - while the whole breadwinner thing is history, and of course plenty of two income households. There is stuff which remains true. Relationships cost time and ***. And that can be to both parties to different degrees. So whilst having income/status is no longer the draw it once was (nor should it be) not having much income can make dating considerably harder. Equally whilst wealth isn't necessarily a turn on... being frugal often is a turn off. Whenever guys aggressively speak out about spending etc - it turns off far more people than it impresses because it says that they're less likely to invest in the relationship.
Deleted Member Posted January 4 Author 9 hours ago, Gatadata said: I think the belief is held onto desperatly because thats all many men know. If youre brought up with values of a sort and then find out these values are... worthless? Im sure itd cause identity crisis like no other. Cognitive dissonance, panic, despair, the hurt of having spent so much time on a thing while being told its worth it, then finding out its not valuable after all? It must be devastating. Ive come to appreciate creativity and personality above all else. I dont like relying on someone, becoming... subservient to them and having to rely on their income. I dont mind being poor, you can be poor and comfortable, i just want an intelligent and empathetic partner. But im a girlie who likes to thrift and make use of the small things. Thank you, I appreciate this explanation. I think what you said could explain a lot of anger when success signaling doesn't work and when rewriting identity is more effort then wanted or is still an unknown discrepancy.
Deleted Member Posted January 4 Author 3 hours ago, TaliX said: My guess is a lot of men find it more difficult to work on themselves, their personality, maximize their looks - instead prefer to believe women are gold-diggers. While some internalize the ***-thing and get overall self-conscious because they think they are failing. How to get over it? Idk, women used to be told to be pretty, good-housekeepers, birth-machines and don't think too much, and never become independent. But somehow most of us got out of that mindset. Men learning their worth is not that connected to their riches should be relatively easy. Though - women had to fight for each freedom. Men seem to be stuck in the old narrative, as it involves nothing more than - going to work, like they (and we) need to. And that would buy them affection. And if it doesn't, then they don't make enough *** - or women are ***hungry bitches. Many people, no matter the sex or gender, prefer a simple narrative. One does only need to follow that established path. And it usually comes with the bad guys to blame, like capitalistic, unappreciative women. I very much appreciate the insight. I think there really is something to what you are saying, and I’d like to add one more layer. A lot of this feels less like women’s preferences and more like male to male comparison and ego signaling, similar to how women can be harsher critics of other women over traits men don’t actually prioritize as much. Personally, I’ve never really encountered the “gold-digger” archetype in real life (part of me almost wishes I had, just to see the narrative play out 😅). What I have noticed is that attraction in my own relationships was never driven by *** or assets. And yet, I still carry this core assumption that my financial position matters, because that’s how I was raised, and how I’ve structured my life, build, provide, accumulate, create security. I’ve modeled my identity around that framework, even while knowing it isn’t what actually creates connection. So the confusion isn’t, why don’t women value ***? It’s why does this belief stay so sticky, even when experience contradicts it? I agree that simple narratives are comforting. They reduce uncertainty and give you someone/something to blame. Letting go of 'old ways' means sitting with ambiguity and doing more internal work than just checking external boxes. That part, I think, is where a lot of resistance lives.
wo**** Posted January 4 17 hours ago, astrafjord said: Hey MDQC, I agree, it's an old model that has been successful for thousands of years. But the social environment is changing because the economic power and need is also shifting. Women have jobs, ***, bank account ect., now, so economic providing isn't as high on the priority list. So, what do women actually look for according to social experiments applied under the scientific method, and have been observably recorded Women want: personality attributes. Kindness. Empathy. Emotional intelligence, humor. Sure, they still have some level of affirming that the point of meannincludes many aspects, but alo providing, butnits not high on the priority list like it used to be As a result, Women now highly valued how they're emotionally treated and turned to. And you're right, successful relationships are deeply involved emotional presence sort of thing. Really rewarding, but it's quality depends on empathetic and team oriented attitudes and behaviors All too often, men are taught to be lone wolves, to be brilliant, make a lot of ***, fuck a lot of pussy; intercept a bullet The gap between these two attitudes is staggering I agree with some of what you say. I want to give a perspective that I think is different than yours on the first of the two different camps (my word, not yours) related to things men have/teach and what women want/value. One thing you mention I have very strong feelings about. I don’t intend to insult or offend. I did take offense, the way I express my views might show that, but I am not claiming you intended any offense. I’m open to questions and criticisms from you or others. I can be wrong and freely admit that. I agree with what you say women want, but that doesn’t necessarily tell the full picture, the studies could have missed including important data. Men being “taught” to be lone wolves, to be brilliant, make a lot of bread, fuck a lot of pussy, and intercept a bullet is something you say. My take is that you think it’s bad or outdated or something. Clarification is more than welcome. Another take is that you’re suggesting it’s done on a decision making level by men and taught to boys who are sort of blank slates. I may be way off there, I welcome correction or clarification. My perspective: Lone wolves- masculine characteristic . Its expression provided significant societal value across time at a great personal cost. Virtuous. Deserving of respect. Brilliance- I’m a big fan. Big value throughout time, including today. Think it’s innate, can’t be taught. Make bread- teaching how- big value to one taught. Having bread- universally valued. The importance of it to an individual woman in mate selection varies. It’s a modern representation of provide and protect. In historical context the single most important thing to a woman in mate selection, no close second. Societal landscape changes quickly, behavioral and psychological factors in mate selection- snails pace. Despite what individual women might say, still up top. Rich women don’t select emotionally intelligent paupers. Men who want a woman benefit from knowing that, and having bread making ability as a skill. Fuck a lot of pussy- inherent biological drive. This, along with female mate selection, selected for greater survival rate of offspring. Key to human survival as a species over time. Pussy- men like it. Lots of pussy- men like that too. Blame mother nature for that, not men. Men, like women, tend to talk about what they like. Just as is the case with anything else, there’s a time and a place for it. Do some men overdue it? Sure. Some women overdue certain things too. “Intercept” a bullet? Extremely inaccurate. Intentionally dishonest or a subconscious representation of bias? I can’t say that because I am not a mind reader. But I wonder. More information might make a difference. The reason I put those two speculative questions out there is because we are discussing men and women and relationships. In all my life I have never heard of men “intercepting” a bullet. I’ve never heard of teaching to “intercept” bullets. Context matters. Here it matters A LOT. There is a type of lie that is known as “a lie of omission”. It requires intentionality and I can’t say that is the case here. The optics though? Not a favorable look imo. Men standing in harms way to protect women is something women value and expect. Men doing so is benevolent and virtuous. Doing it in situations where they risk death to protect someone else might be the single most selfless thing a man can do as an expression of benevolent masculine virtue. Scene- Little girl playing on the sidewalk, carefree. Man walking down opposite sidewalk. Girls mom watching her daughter from their front porch. She notices a truck barreling down the street heading straight towards her daughter. Frozen stiff, she sees the man running across the street towards her little girl. The man dives towards the girl, pushing her to safety. His foot and ankle get crushed by the truck. A few neighbors had also noticed. Mom rushes to her daughter and scoops her up, holding her tighter than ever before. The neighbors rush to check on the man. That’s not simply “intercepting” and we all know it. He didn’t see the truck, see the girl, then reflect to see if there was something he was taught that may pertain to what is happening and what his role might be, if any. His response was instinctual. Heroism. Risking his life for another, a stranger in this case. Virtuous masculinity.
Deleted Member Posted January 4 Author 17 hours ago, astrafjord said: Hey MDQC, I agree, it's an old model that has been successful for thousands of years. But the social environment is changing because the economic power and need is also shifting. Women have jobs, ***, bank account ect., now, so economic providing isn't as high on the priority list. So, what do women actually look for according to social experiments applied under the scientific method, and have been observably recorded Women want: personality attributes. Kindness. Empathy. Emotional intelligence, humor. Sure, they still have some level of affirming that the point of meannincludes many aspects, but alo providing, butnits not high on the priority list like it used to be As a result, Women now highly valued how they're emotionally treated and turned to. And you're right, successful relationships are deeply involved emotional presence sort of thing. Really rewarding, but it's quality depends on empathetic and team oriented attitudes and behaviors All too often, men are taught to be lone wolves, to be brilliant, make a lot of ***, fuck a lot of pussy; intercept a bullet The gap between these two attitudes is staggering I think you’re right about the shift. Do you notice people identifying themselves as “dominant” primarily because of their place within capitalism, rather than their capacity to hold emotional, relational, or physical space?
FE**** Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Barthold said: Arg the app censored the word for $€£¥ again The hypocrisy of aggressively pushing paid premium subscription AND using proxy currency points while censoring the word “$$” is quite disgusting It's the app store rules that bring in the censorship; however, feel free to believe your narrative.
wo**** Posted January 4 1 hour ago, MDQC said: Thank you, I appreciate this explanation. I think what you said could explain a lot of anger when success signaling doesn't work and when rewriting identity is more effort then wanted or is still an unknown discrepancy. Success signaling 100% works. A portion of financially well off men irrationally believing that their financial status alone will secure satisfying results with women doesn’t equate to success signaling not working. It doesn’t even suggest it.
Do**** Posted January 4 9 hours ago, MDQC said: I was saying the opposite. I was asking why success is not working anymore. Known example: Like why are successful people getting passed over for guys with multiple DUIs and can't drive, when the when the woman is attractive and successful herself? And if we know this to be true and repeatable why do men and our society for that matter continue to support this lie of provider, instead of teaching social skills, emotional skills, and how to make friends with strangers. Looking at this clinically it makes no sense. Not sure how we're misunderstanding each other, but if you want a clinical answer you're not likely to find it on a forum. 🤷🏽♀️
wo**** Posted January 5 Value signaling vs. real value Can you define what you mean? If you define real value as emotional intelligence and similar qualities, then value signaling is providing signals that you have those qualities. The rest is smoke and mirrors. Men lie to women to get sex, other things too. They are often cleaver or sneaky in the way they do it. Emotionally intelligent men are no different. In fact it seems rather obvious to me that they would be much better at it. Maybe knuckle draggers are more likely to be better at it.
MN**** Posted January 5 That old frame work is security. Knowing someone is able to handle the bills, take care of responsibility and be able to support them selves is paramount. As a man, I take pride in knowing that weather it’s my wife, or one of our girlfriend (we have 2) that if they don’t have it, or aren’t able to provide for them selves they can ask and I can take care of it. Personality is huge too, as well as having a adequately sized “member” my *** has never gotten me laid(except when I was in the service and I was buying said company) but it has assured the people in my/our life that their is at least stability at home…
ja**** Posted January 5 20 hours ago, MDQC said: I think you’re right about the shift. Do you notice people identifying themselves as “dominant” primarily because of their place within capitalism, rather than their capacity to hold emotional, relational, or physical space? I don't believe any man ever considered himself dominant because of being the primary breadwinner. That's not to say it didn't help rein*** that belief but for men dominance isn't some sort of role playing thing they don't conceptualize it it's just the natural order of things.
Al**** Posted January 6 It’s a nice sentiment, but in my anecdotal experience, in times of financial hardship, women readily leave their partners and pursue relationships with exclusively stable partners and when men experience a period of time of plenty, women enter their lives readily. I won’t deny the importance of the other factors you mentioned but the greatest determination of relationship longevity continues to be financial stability. This isnt to say women leave poor guys, but every relationship has inherent issue and the willingness to work through issues seems to evaporate when basic needs are no longer guaranteed. This isn’t a criticism against women. I was raised with the understanding that my greatest role in a relationship was as a provider, and biologically it makes sense that women would seek out the most stable situation for themselves and their ***. It’s not good or bad, it’s just the way things are.
Ba**** Posted January 6 Sunday at 10:53 PM, FETMod-RG said: It's the app store rules that bring in the censorship; however, feel free to believe your narrative. I don’t “believe” as a matter of principle but if I don’t have the necessary information i have to assume You know where i can find a list of the forbidden words i’d have to find creative euphemisms around??
Ki**** Posted yesterday at 05:12 AM When a man refuses to work while the woman is work 2+ jobs and the kids are hungry and out of insulin, things get desperate. As in anything, there has to be balance.
Ba**** Posted yesterday at 08:38 AM 3 hours ago, KittyMath said: When a man refuses to work while the woman is work 2+ jobs and the kids are hungry and out of insulin, things get desperate. As in anything, there has to be balance. In your example the primary problem with the man isn’t that he has no $€£¥ that’s more a symptom of the problem(s) with him Ps “the kids lach vital medicine” or “the kinds know what hunger feels like” are both separately already beyond desperate
Recommended Posts