Naturally unfaithful women.

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say fear. Its curious that you would change what I said to introduce "fear of women"..

I didn't change what you said, that's my own observation. It's curious you would assume that, your observation was made from a male perspective and mine from a female.

I think women have been and are feared by some men, fear of the unknown, feeling threatened, etc, etc. I'm sure that is why some men have so many problems having any kind of long term intimate relationship with a woman. Fear & ignorance breeds contempt and I think that explains the very odd way some men view women & their place in general society in 2009.

That doesn't apply to all men everywhere, obviously.

lynsalot

scanlas wrote: »

Hey Lynsalot,

I like to keep my sex life private, as for my mother, she is a female so she has the characteristics of a female I would guess.

If you think the thread is ridiculous then don't read it.

I should've phrased it differently lol your theory is ridiculous and i'll read whatever I like thanks all the same.

So your theory applies to your mother then yes? Well if we're going to use generalisations....

scanlas

Women like sex. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Your response has come out of your ego searching for food to replenish itself. Let's stick with discussion of facts.

jonsnow

scanlas wrote: »

Social conditioning has us believing wealthy men are sexier.

A wealthy man in his environment of being higher status will attract more women. In that position he can give orders and gets situational confidence which does make him more attractive to women in that environment.

A sexworthy man has those behavours in all situations. Have you notice how amongst your friends you have an interesting fun personality but amongst strangers you don't. A sexworthy man has access to his cool personality all the time. What matters is how you make a woman feel.

Take a wealthy man out of his comfortable environment where he has power and into an unfamiliar environment and he tends to lose his cool personality. Sometimes a wealthy man is a sexworthy man of course. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I've chatted up hundreds of different women from different cultures, the mechanices of the pick up are the same across cultures. The women respond to the same things. Italian, French, Irish, English, Scottish, Zimbabwaen, Australian, American, Colombian, Brazilian: all the same to name some of the nationalities I've chatted up from the top of my head.

They all respond to the same things, there are only minor differences which may be cause by different cultures, at core level they are the behave the same.

Women will tend to flock to wealthier men which is more of a status attraction, not a deep sexual attraction. A man's fearlessness, dominance, confidence, masculinity, thinking from first hand perspective, playfulness and social skills subcommunications of sexuality are what causes sexual attraction. Most men spend their lives either trying to be rich to get women or blaming thier lack of wealth or looks for not having choice with women,little do they know they don't need any of that stuff, sure it helps, but it's not at the core of what gives a man choice with women.

Someones read The Game

rantyface

It's almost impossible to say what's natural when we are so completely constrained by societal norms, whether we notice it or not.

You are all assuming that women evolved to depend on men, and not that that this dependence is just a societal norm from the last couple of thousand years.

I don't feel naturally dependent on men, and I'm as able bodied, rich and intelligent as any of them. So I reject that hypothesis until I see evidence.

Also, I think a lot of that alpha male stuff is unfounded rubbish. Much of it came from the observation of chimps, when our other cousins, bonobos, do not behave like that, and even chimps are not at all faithful to the alpha males. You should steer clear of books like that because they are often some absolute idiot's hypothesis dressed up as fact.

scanlas

u

scanlas

s

Wibbs

Well its a sat night and I'm just in the door but Ill bite...

scanlas wrote: »

People on this thread said that most men these days understand how sexual women are. I refuted that and still do.

Funny enough I would agree with you on this point. Especially younger or less experienced men. There's enough men out there who appear quite disconnected with what is to be a man, never mind what it is to be a woman. Quite a few fall into the idea of I can't believe she's "letting me" sleep with her. Hopefully they'll grow outa that one.

Above is an example of a man with a "nice" girlfriend who was surprised she had had a one night stand in the past.

Maybe, but it could also be his personal moral compass and experience. It doesn't have to follow that he is surprised in general by the sexual mores of others, just his own and his particular partners and the choice he decides to make on this. He acknowledged her previous three sexual partners, it was the manner of one of them that threw him. Equally you could have a guy who assumed his partner was sexually experienced and then found out she was a virgin when they met and no doubt he would be just as surprised and even shocked if his criteria extended to wanting a sexually experienced woman.

The vast majority of men would be surprised by an average woman's sexuality, thoughts and desires of a sexual nature.

I dunno about the vast majority part. Again maybe with younger men or men with little sexual experience and following that sexual confidence of their own. Though I would agree a lot of men don't appreciate that women have this sexual inner life, or at least the level of it. If one doesn't understand something it tends to make one fear it.

The above example show's why women try to keep this a secret, it makes it more difficult to get commitment, resources etc from a man. Due to men's insecurities and judgmentalness women have to keep their true sexuality a secret to most men.

IMHO it's more the latter than the former. I would say that a lot of men have an ego issue with it. There is also the whore/madonna bit, that many have but won't admit to. There are women they screw and women they marry kinda thing. That goes for promiscuous as well as inexperienced men in my experience. Indeed the guy I know with the biggest madonna/whore complex is also the biggest man whore I know. Go figure. Any woman with half a brain knows this, so keeps schtum on that principle.

They are more open about their sexuality to women in private, gay men and a small minority of men who understand women and understand not being judgmental and being discreet about these issues.

Well they know damn well that a lot of men will judge them. Actually many of their women(and gay men) peers will too. I've heard as many women call other women sluts as men. It's not just on the man side. It's far more complex than that and not as simplistic IMHO.

Women will often cheat with those minority of men, but won't consider it cheating, oftentimes they rationalize "it doesn't count" when they have sex with that small minoriy of men. They won't feel guilty.

Or just maybe they feel safer with a man like that. They're looking for a guy like that(among other things) and if they haven't met a guy like that, the player type may be the next best thing as at least his ego appears more secure.

Safe is a big deal for women. Many if not most feel judged all the time. They are judged on their bodies, their social behaviour, their sexual expressions. By other women as much as men. It's a long enough list. IMHO in general women have a harder time with peer judgement and social pressures than men. Plus a man who is confident in his own sexuality and transmits that confidence to her, will also make her feel freer to be herself warts and all. He appears to be more likely to know how to please a woman and lets her be herself without the BS of a fragile ego male. IMHO its sod all to do with cheating or any of that, it's just attractive for the woman. Consider that studies have shown that a woman has to mentally let go at the point of orgasm. Part of her brain shuts down in a much bigger way than with a man. If I was a woman? I wouldn't be shutting my brain down with some insecure, immature, judgemental chump. I would be going for the type of guy that let me be me. A confident and non judgemental person that engaged with me as a person and not just a pussy with baggage attached. It's not a conspiracy of silence and it's not rocket science, it's pretty obvious.

Oh sure we can look at aspects of evolutionary biology and I agree there are diffs between the reproductive strategies between the genders. The most obvious being that for a woman, sex is a more "dangerous" act. She has much to lose and is in a vulnerable position. The less vulnerable she feels on all levels, the more attractive the guy will be. Now others may point to sexual behaviour in women that seems risky. The "rape fantasy" being an obvious one, but the mistake men make is that they miss the fantasy bit. Yes many women want to be ravished, but they want it on their own terms and safely. That's why its a fantasy. The clue is in the title. Womens sexuality is a very complex thing. IMHO it's far more complex than mens. The problem is that too many men are by nature reductive in their thinking and see obvious patterns when things are far more fluid and complex and then they try to drop that into a formula.

The pickup artist lark that is popular is one such. I have been surprised by it's popularity. I was actually called on it in PI by a poster claiming that I was standing on the shoulders of these midgets, when I stated the bleeding obvious in response to a guy who had difficulty talking to women. So I had a perusal of the available stuff online. As a concept it's more interesting than in what it "teaches". yes there were nuggets of wisdom, but again lets play state the bloody obvious and wrap it up as some arcane secret.

It seems to have gone like this, a guy discovers that being confident and standing out makes you more attractive to women in certain pretty narrow circumstances. Fine and not exactly news(for the last 100,000 years), but then the media kicks in, and the money machine, especially the interweb. The interweb is more a place for borderline asperger types than any other media. Throw these guys a bone and they'll run with it. They like the idea of the 12 step program to "pick up chicks" as for many of them the only woman they've seen up close was one they downloaded. So god forbid they treat them like a fellow equally daft traveler in this life, rather than a pussy on legs with buttons they can push. It makes it safer and easier to understand for them and a few guru types get rich on the back of it. The nerdy saps get lucky once or twice but still don't get laid, or even engage with, or even like women. Indeed I suspect the "gurus" have their own issues on more than a few levels.

This "naturally unfaithful women" lark is just another banal extension of that milieu in my humble. Yes it makes some sense, but in a very very limited linear way. One could spend a lifetime trying to figure out just one woman(or man) and still come up short. Hell I've spent a lifetime trying to understand myself and have only gotten so far. To say women are naturally unfaithful is just too simplistic a pill for me to swallow.

End rambling slightly tipsy BS.

Wibbs

PS I'm not entirely happy with you using PI/RI posts as examples. Actually not entirely happy would be an understatement. Please if you could edit your posts and remove the quoted bits as it's not appropriate to reference particular threads in PI. PI is PI, this is humanities and people posting in the former should not have to suffer being used as examples in the latter.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The pickup artist lark that is popular is one such. I have been surprised by it's popularity. I was actually called on it in PI by a poster claiming that I was standing on the shoulders of these midgets, when I stated the bleeding obvious in response to a guy who had difficulty talking to women. So I had a perusal of the available stuff online. As a concept it's more interesting than in what it "teaches". yes there were nuggets of wisdom, but again lets play state the bloody obvious and wrap it up as some arcane secret.

It seems to have gone like this, a guy discovers that being confident and standing out makes you more attractive to women in certain pretty narrow circumstances. Fine and not exactly news(for the last 100,000 years), but then the media kicks in, and the money machine, especially the interweb. The interweb is more a place for borderline asperger types than any other media. Throw these guys a bone and they'll run with it. They like the idea of the 12 step program to "pick up chicks" as for many of them the only woman they've seen up close was one they downloaded. So god forbid they treat them like a fellow equally daft traveler in this life, rather than a pussy on legs with buttons they can push. It makes it safer and easier to understand for them and a few guru types get rich on the back of it. The nerdy saps get lucky once or twice but still don't get laid, or even engage with, or even like women. Indeed I suspect the "gurus" have their own issues on more than a few levels.

This "naturally unfaithful women" lark is just another banal extension of that milieu in my humble. Yes it makes some sense, but in a very very limited linear way. One could spend a lifetime trying to figure out just one woman(or man) and still come up short. Hell I've spent a lifetime trying to understand myself and have only gotten so far. To say women are naturally unfaithful is just too simplistic a pill for me to swallow.

End rambling slightly tipsy BS.

Really excellent post. Very enjoyable read.

The one thing about the whole pick up lark is that its a path of sorts. At the start you find the silly chat up lines, use them, realise they're awful, and then wonder what else... There is a lot of really bad material out there for picking up women. I've read most of them (I really hate David DeAngelo's stuff and yet I have four of his products. :eek:)

But there is some great material out there, which can give you insight into understanding people. There is a guy called Ross Jeffries, and his later products are awesome. Really. If you can get your hands on the Palo Alto tapes, you'll understand. I'm confident you will. He's quite an ugly jewish guy who dresses really bad, and I've seen three of his seminars in London. Very enjoyable weekends.

I was that shy guy in secondary school who found it hard to meet women (in spite of going to a mixed tech school.). Three years later, that had changed. This stuff works. But like all things it requires commitment and some hard work, which is why there's so many guys out there still relying on the basics... :rolleyes:

This path opened up avenues like NLP, meditation & self-hypnosis which have helped in my own career, and personal relationships with my family, and other people. Makes life a lot easier. I'm still learning though, and I've met some of the people (male and female) who use NLP properly, and they're a joy to watch in a bar. I'm due to marry in roughly a year, and these tools have helped me every step of the way, and they'll help to keep my marriage... interesting. haha:D

scanlas

Ross Jeffries comes across as a bitter twisted man, I don't think I could ever take advice off him.

One thing I find funny about the PUA stuff in mainstream society is people are about 7-10 years behind the type of stuff that's being taught presently. Lines and routines being used to cover up a lack of self esteem was something that was taught 10 years ago, it's not taught now by the respected companies, things have moved on since then. It will probably be 10 years before mainstream society learns and understands about the stuff presently being taught.

scanlas

scanlas wrote: »

Ross Jeffries comes across as a bitter twisted man, I don't think I could ever take advice off him.

His original material from the 80's and 90's followed the standard pua techniques, along with an awful disregard for self-respect. However his material from 2000 onwards focuses a lot more on self-development, confidence, meditation, visualisation, reframing etc.

Out of curiosity, what products of his have you used?

One thing I find funny about the PUA stuff in mainstream society is people are about 7-10 years behind the type of stuff that's being taught presently. Lines and routines being used to cover up a lack of self esteem was something that was taught 10 years ago, it's not taught now by the respected companies, things have moved on since then. It will probably be 10 years before mainstream society learns and understands about the stuff presently being taught.

Modern Pickup techniques focus heavily on NLP and understanding language. They learn the subtle meanings behind words, and how people react on both a conscious and subconscious level. Lines and routines are there for people who don't really want to commit themselves to learning how it all works, and how to do it automatically. Instead they're looking for the quick fix or the easy way out.

scanlas

I don't know anything really about his products, just that it centres around NLP. His products could be great and really helpfull but from what I saw of him on an episode of the Dr Phil show, he seems really childish and like he has a huge chip on his shoulder about something. If I were going to learn about NLP I'd probably learn from Hypnotica's stuff, I have a dvd of him chatting up women in a nightclub using hidden nightvision cameras , the man is amazing to see in action.

Wibbs

NLP? Hmmm I would find that a bit dodgy personally. Then again I've tried that and hypnosis for smoking and it would have been more useful to stick an ostrich feather in my arse and sing the birdy song for all the good it did, so maybe I'm baised(apparently I don't respond to it well)

Self improvement for oneself I would laud. Indeed I think more men and women should concentrate on themselves first and foremost. I also think many men are clueless about women(and themselves) and more insight would be good. So far so good.

The thing I find dubious about much of the pickup stuff is the taint of misogyny that hangs around it. Do I believe that in general women and men have fundamental differences in reproductive strategies? Yes. I think the idea the both genders are essentially the same, especially in that area have lost a lot of currency. Do I think men have lost their way in interpersonal skills and direction especially in the area of romance? Defo. IMHO much if it is down to the changing interactions of the genders. In the past(say 50 years ago) far fewer men would have had women friends. The women they dealt with were lovers or family for the most part. In many cases women did not have the freedom they have today too. Do I think women in general are much more clued in in this area? Yup(they have more practice and more focus on it for a start).

My issue comes when women are portrayed as a homogenous group and even with the best of intentions(or worst) they come off as hormonally challenged, morally fluid, dingbats who need a man to "train" them. Hey I went out with that type and did have to train them. Not good relationships. I've also gone out with women far more well balanced than I(hence they buggered off:D). There feels like a lot of blame being bandied about. Don't get me wrong, I do think more men need to be men and lead their lives and lead their partners more. To the point where it is a healthy balance for both.

IMHO That misogyny or them and us notion that seems to pervade the area, is reflected in thread titles like this. It's seen as an explanation for the nice guys not getting a fair crack of the whip kinda thing. "Why saddos don't get women" . Word to the wise, it's cos they're saddos. I'm not explaining myself well I'm afraid. I suppose, yes I can see many of the points they raise, but most are stating the obvious. Women want a strong confident socially adept man, that other women would find attractive. Duh. Learning how to be like that, in a world without good male role models is a good quest klaz. I get that, I just feel it gets taken too far either because of the money to be made out of people or because of the linear nature of many men in trying to over analyse things. Sometimes a word is just a word.

I had a look at the jeffries fella on the web. I would tend to agree with scanlas. Maybe he comes across better in print, but jeebus, he comes across as well balanced as a three legged horse and very insecure.

scanlas

scanlas wrote: »

I don't know anything really about his products, just that it centres around NLP. His products could be great and really helpfull but from what I saw of him on an episode of the Dr Phil show, he seems really childish and like he has a huge chip on his shoulder about something. If I were going to learn about NLP I'd probably learn from Hypnotica's stuff, I have a dvd of him chatting up women in a nightclub using hidden nightvision cameras , the man is amazing to see in action.

Ross Jeffries has an ego the size of Everest... and tbh its kinda warranted. I've seen him in action, and he's a joy to watch.. He's not exactly a likeable person. I'd never ever want to spend any serious time around him, but that's largely irrelevant. Its his knowledge that's useful.

I would recommend reading his material before judging him.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

NLP? Hmmm I would find that a bit dodgy personally. Then again I've tried that and hypnosis for smoking and it would have been more useful to stick an ostrich feather in my arse and sing the birdy song for all the good it did, so maybe I'm baised(apparently I don't respond to it well)

It didn't work for my smoking either, but i think thats mostly because we don't really want to give up, and we're looking for a miracle cure. The point is that if you really want to stop smoking, you will regardless of what method you use.

NLP is a tool just like anything else. The intentions of the person using the material are always going to determine how its used. It could be used in a dodgy manner, but then again I never have. I guess my moral center keeps me from doing that.

Self improvement for oneself I would laud. Indeed I think more men and women should concentrate on themselves first and foremost. I also think many men are clueless about women(and themselves) and more insight would be good. So far so good.

Personally, I think this stuff should be taught in schools. It would solve so many social problems we as a people have. Everything from extreme binge drinking, to violence, this material does help to better oneself.

The thing I find dubious about much of the pickup stuff is the taint of misogyny that hangs around it. Do I believe that in general women and men have fundamental differences in reproductive strategies? Yes. I think the idea the both genders are essentially the same, especially in that area have lost a lot of currency. Do I think men have lost their way in interpersonal skills and direction especially in the area of romance? Defo. IMHO much if it is down to the changing interactions of the genders. In the past(say 50 years ago) far fewer men would have had women friends. The women they dealt with were lovers or family for the most part. In many cases women did not have the freedom they have today too. Do I think women in general are much more clued in in this area? Yup(they have more practice and more focus on it for a start).

Personally, I view mothers influence over children as being a major part in why men are so clueless in picking up girls. After all, what mother wants to raise a toy boy, and instead sought to develop a "nice" boy. Great, but not wonderful at attracting girls who want excitement in their lives.

Women learn how to wrap men around their fingers (to very varied levels of success), from the time they enter their teens. From getting money from Daddy, to getting out of homework with their teachers, they learn to manipulate men to get what they want. All perfectly natural, and something women have been doing since time began. Men on the other hand have none of this, and it is frowned upon for men to attempt the same. Men are supposed to be up front, and honest every step of the way.

My issue comes when women are portrayed as a homogenous group and even with the best of intentions(or worst) they come off as hormonally challenged, morally fluid, dingbats who need a man to "train" them. Hey I went out with that type and did have to train them. Not good relationships. I've also gone out with women far more well balanced than I(hence they buggered off:D). There feels like a lot of blame being bandied about. Don't get me wrong, I do think more men need to be men and lead their lives and lead their partners more. To the point where it is a healthy balance for both.

I've learned that every woman is different. No girl I have been with has been the same. That's the reason they're so fascinating. The variety of thoughts, personalities, experience etc. I'm not a big fan of stereotypes when applied to men or women. They're too limiting, and generally aren't all that positive.

People need to live their lives as they want to lead them. Not the way that society tells them to. Men are expected to live their lives according to certain guidelines, as do women. To step outside of these cultural norms, is to invite degrees of isolation, and scorn. A pity really, since we'd all probably be a lot happier if we stopped caring what other people are thinking of us.

IMHO That misogyny or them and us notion that seems to pervade the area, is reflected in thread titles like this. It's seen as an explanation for the nice guys not getting a fair crack of the whip kinda thing. "Why saddos don't get women" . Word to the wise, it's cos they're saddos. I'm not explaining myself well I'm afraid. I suppose, yes I can see many of the points they raise, but most are stating the obvious. Women want a strong confident socially adept man, that other women would find attractive. Duh.

I find that a lot of the opinions on the internet and outside regarding women are boasting bull****. Many very bitter people have placed themselves as an authority, and revel in promoting negative attitudes towards men and women. There's not a lot of realism involved. It comes down to twisted perceptions, based on some previous hurt. Either real or imagined.

Which is a shame, because once you do gain the confidence to approach women, and have a decent conversation, the world gets really interesting.

I remember when I was 23, and I'd been using RJ's material for just over a year. I hadn't any success with it, beyond getting some phone numbers. I was in Dublin Airport, and approached a group of air stewardesses from an Asian airline, and asked one of them out. I got the date, and met her that night in Dublin. Great experience. But the point is that I could firstly approach a beautiful woman, secondly, the group atmosphere didn't bother me, thirdly I got the date, and lastly the date was a great success.

Learning how to be like that, in a world without good male role models is a good quest klaz. I get that, I just feel it gets taken too far either because of the money to be made out of people or because of the linear nature of many men in trying to over analyse things. Sometimes a word is just a word.

Totally. These people are in this to make money, and they themselves manipulate their audience. And people do take it too far causing harm to others, while others don't really use the material and throw it away as a waste of space. But some people take it seriously, and become better people. That is the category worth paying attention to.

A word is often just a word. But why did that person choose that word? This stuff was of major use in my job as a credit controller. It does give you insight into people. There is a great phrase "Language structures consciousness". And its true. The language that people use does influence their personalities, and their emotions.

I had a look at the jeffries fella on the web. I would tend to agree with scanlas. Maybe he comes across better in print, but jeebus, he comes across as well balanced as a three legged horse and very insecure.

I'd recommend looking at his material rather than he himself. Many of the worlds greatest thinkers are pretty awful people. Have a look at Dave Reiker instead. He was one of RJ's students and used to work the seminars with him, but he chooses a more scientific approach to meeting girls. Very interesting and well thought out. He has absolutely no patience whatsoever with people who don't respect women.. Great guy.

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I view mothers influence over children as being a major part in why men are so clueless in picking up girls. After all, what mother wants to raise a toy boy, and instead sought to develop a "nice" boy. Great, but not wonderful at attracting girls who want excitement in their lives.

I don't understand how a woman can teach a boy the minuté of how to be a man.

I think the biggest influence in a man's life with regard to interaction with women after the age of ten or so, is his father; or in lieu of a father in the traditional sense, the primary male role model in the boys' life. I'm not naturally going to be able to teach my son how to pick up women, or teach by example how to speak to or treat women - there is only so much information on women's minds & bodies that I can healthily share with him. That wouldn't traditionally be the mothers' role.

For the most part that's down to his father or father-figure. The effectiveness or suitability of their role-model with regards to witnessed interaction with the women in their lives would surely be the biggest "training" factor in boys' interaction with women in their own adolescence & adult lives?

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't understand how a woman can teach a boy the minuté of how to be a man.

I think the biggest influence in a man's life with regard to interaction with women after the age of ten or so, is his father; or in lieu of a father in the traditional sense, the primary male role model in the boys' life. I'm not naturally going to be able to teach my son how to pick up women, or teach by example how to speak to or treat women - there is only so much information on women's minds & bodies that I can healthily share with him. That wouldn't traditionally be the mothers' role.

For the most part that's down to his father or father-figure. The effectiveness or suitability of their role-model with regards to witnessed interaction with the women in their lives would surely be the biggest "training" factor in boys' interaction with women in their own adolescence & adult lives?

Actually I was referring to the raising of children up until roughly 10-15 years ago. Following WW2, there was a much larger emphasis of men working later hours, and the wife looking after the children during that time. For many families, the father just wasn't there to provide any real guidance. When they were finished work, they would spend their time relaxing or doing whatever odd jobs needed to be done. This gave women a much larger role that previously held in the home, and more control over their children.. My father has spoken about his father working 14 hour shifts and his mother doing everything else, while he was a child.

That has obviously changed over the last two decades with mothers performing more work outside of the home, and some men working less hours than their fathers would have done. There has also been a rather large shift in thinking about how parenting should be done, and the west really reflects that.

Nowadays, boys learn most from their friends or from the media. Their parents don't really factor in when it comes to learning how to communicate with other people.

Ickle Magoo

With all due respect I think fathers input into their children's' lives differed from family to family as much in 1945/1995 as today...and even with minimal paternal input it does not mean the paternal/male input required was taken over by maternal means. Is that not one common explanation for the gangs of young men we now see?

Even with that taken into consideration, I think it's fairly safe to say that in 1995 those men did/do not rely solely on their mothers' input to enable them to communicate with other women...surely they would look to other men and their methodology for guidance on how to interact with their peers before mothers interaction with their sons?!

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

With all due respect I think fathers input into their children's' lives differed from family to family as much in 1945/1995 as today...and even with minimal paternal input it does not mean the paternal/male input required was taken over by maternal means.

Of course, it differed depending on the family and the individual parents involved. I'm not throwing a blanket out there and saying that all families were like this. But in western culture, children spent more time with their mothers than their fathers, and as such would have been around feminine company most of their growing years. They would have been influenced by the opinions of the women around them, all of which would have sought their children to be "nice" people who would take care of them when they were older.

Is that not one common explanation for the gangs of young men we now see?

Is it? I would have thought that the gangs we see are due to the lack of parental control more than anything else. Both parents working long hours, and not really keeping track of where their children are. Also the breakdown of parenting discipline towards children. While heavily hitting children is obviously wrong, the fact that parents are unable at all to physically punish their children, is a major influence over these children joining gangs.

Even with that taken into consideration, I think it's fairly safe to say that in 1995 those men did/do not rely solely on their mothers' input to enable them to communicate with other women...surely they would look to other men and their methodology for guidance on how to interact with their peers before mothers interaction with their sons?!

Solely? Where did I suggest that? You often seem to look for absolutes. I'm talking about being a major influence considering the amount of time they spent in female company. You do not think that children pick up on the opinions of their mothers even on a subconscious level?

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course, it differed depending on the family and the individual parents involved. I'm not throwing a blanket out there and saying that all families were like this. But in western culture, children spent more time with their mothers than their fathers, and as such would have been around feminine company most of their growing years. They would have been influenced by the opinions of the women around them, all of which would have sought their children to be "nice" people who would take care of them when they were older.

I would partially agree. I do think in 90% of cases the worst person to ask for advice in how to meet, seduce and work with women romantically are other women. This includes mothers. Though that may be the mother son vibe. I know my own mother was far better with advice with my male mates, than with me. TBH Looking back there is only one of my female mates opinions that I would take on the subject. Usually the answers are "be yourself/be nice to her/the right woman will come along/etc". All coming from a good place, but ultimately pretty useless advice. A lot of men are little better. I would ask men who are successful with women for advice.

Then we have the media and it's depiction of romance nowadays. In most case the weak sappy bloke get the girl. Interesting example. The 80's John hughes movie "pretty in pink". In the original ending the sappy guy got the girl. Both the test audiences and the studio felt it was unbelievable. So they changed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_in_Pink#Trivia I strongly suspect they wouldn't change it now. So IMHO there has been a change afoot. While life is more complex than that, in general terms the sappy guy doesn't get the girl and if by some chance he does, he doesn't keep her. If by an even bigger chance he does keep her, sooner or later the cracks will show and she'll go off him. Sexless marriage ahoy.

I can say in my own life, in every case(but one) where a long termer woman has left me, it was mostly down to me. Controversial perhaps, but I honestly believe that. Yes they could have been more understanding at times etc, or took a different tack towards the end, but 9 times outa 10 it was more my fault than theirs. Why, because wither I was acting like a generic gobshíte, an over emotional sap, boring or simply didn't realise what many women actually need. Also in pretty much case what they said was the reason, wasn't the actual reason(which a few admitted after).

Again this more feminine idea about "what women want" is prevalent in the print media too. It's all over the place. TBH I think the pickup artist stuff is an exagerated backlash to that general vibe. As a backlash it takes itself too far and too seriously. That's my issue with it and all polarised discussion of this nature.

Of course the changing role of men has left them adrift. A lot of them anyway. They are often told that expressions of manhood are somehow lesser. In some ways they have been over civilised for want of a better word. Many are afraid to contradict this too, especially in front of women. I've seen young men being verbally abused by young women and they just took it. They didn't have the confidence to just ignore it for the static it was, or they tried to apologise or they went to the other extreme and over reacted emotionally. Not a good mix.

In the absence of real life older males setting a standard, then media, other equally immature males and immature females are going to take up the slack for a lot of men.

Is it? I would have thought that the gangs we see are due to the lack of parental control more than anything else. Both parents working long hours, and not really keeping track of where their children are. Also the breakdown of parenting discipline towards children. While heavily hitting children is obviously wrong, the fact that parents are unable at all to physically punish their children, is a major influence over these children joining gangs.

In areas where the fathers are absent gangs are more prevalent. You could easily argue a lack of older male influence creates the conditions for that. If a 15 year old kid has no one else the 19 year old kid with the gun and fancy car is someone to look up to.

Jesus I'm rambling again. Someone will be long shortly to untangle that lot and rip it to shreds:D

allabouteve

Wibbs wrote: »

Then we have the media and it's depiction of romance nowadays. In most case the weak sappy bloke get the girl. Interesting example. The 80's John hughes movie "pretty in pink". In the original ending the sappy guy got the girl. Both the test audiences and the studio felt it was unbelievable. So they changed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_in_Pink#Trivia I strongly suspect they wouldn't change it now. So IMHO there has been a change afoot. While life is more complex than that, in general terms the sappy guy doesn't get the girl and if by some chance he does, he doesn't keep her. If by an even bigger chance he does keep her, sooner or later the cracks will show and she'll go off him. Sexless marriage ahoy.

I think that movie is upwards of twenty years old, and society has changed immeasurably since then.

25 years ago a premium was put on brawn and physical size and capability. The same value isn't present today since we have so much new technology to make up the various shortfalls. We don't need muscular men to drive trucks, we have power steering. We don't need strong men to carry hods laden with concrete blocks, we have hydraulic lifts. They mightn't be new, but mass manufacture and innovation has put these within the reach of most. Hence the diminishing value of traditional male pluses. Size, brawn, strength.

The 'sappy' guy as you put it, is the programmer, researcher, innovator, of today, and its the nerds that rule the world. Its the Bill Gates's who are the big sucesses, not the big strong man who used to be seen as a good provider in the making.

Personally I would much rather have the company of someone who uses more of his brains than his biceps, and while good looks are an asset to whoever has them, I believe that the evolution of male roles in the last twenty years has made the 'sappy', sensitive man much more sought after than you realise. Particulary among the more clued-up women.

Wibbs

allabouteve wrote: »

I think that movie is upwards of twenty years old, and society has changed immeasurably since then.

Oh I agree, it has, but I personally think more in the media representation than in reality. Society may change on the surface, but people take a lot longer to do so. We're still living with a brain that is unchanged from at least 50,000 years ago. Look at the double standard in sexuality. Women are labeled sluts yet men are cool for exhibiting the same behaviour. There are many biological reasons why, but with contraception and all the rest, that should have gone by the wayside, but it hasn't. This stuff runs deep. The reproductive suitability clues that women trigger in men are the same as they've always been. So not too skinny, not too fat, no wrinkles, symmetrical body, good sized breasts, long legs, a particular waist hip ratio are found in damn near every culture on earth with surprisingly few variations on the basic model. They show a woman's reproductive health which because of biology is tied more into youth. One could easily argue that the same applies to cues men give out to women, although the cues are different.

25 years ago a premium was put on brawn and physical size and capability. The same value isn't present today since we have so much new technology to make up the various shortfalls. We don't need muscular men to drive trucks, we have power steering. We don't need strong men to carry hods laden with concrete blocks, we have hydraulic lifts. They mightn't be new, but mass manufacture and innovation has put these within the reach of most. Hence the diminishing value of traditional male pluses. Size, brawn, strength.

Well I was around 25 years ago:D so I wouldn't agree, at least to the degree you suggest. We had all of the above back then. While there is much change in the interim, it's less than it appears. Most men back then would have been clerical workers of some nature and big strong builder types would have been on average down the scale of attractive men, depending on the background of the woman.

The 'sappy' guy as you put it, is the programmer, researcher, innovator, of today, and its the nerds that rule the world. Its the Bill Gates's who are the big sucesses, not the big strong man who used to be seen as a good provider in the making.

I think we're confusing terms, or more to the point I'm not being very clear. When I say "sappy" I mean the un focused male who whines, who isn't clear about his intentions, who can't make decisions to save his life, who is socially inept, who puts every woman he likes on a pedestal. That type I mean and there are a lot of them about. I honestly think the "nerds rule the world" stereotype is one too many especially those type of men fall for and take comfort in. Yes you have the Bill Gates/steve jobs of this world. They may be "nerds", but they're not sappy men by any stretch of the imagination. Very strong focused men actually. Both Bill and Steve are rothweilers in business. They have to be. they're as far removed from the sappy man as you can get. They also have power. A major aphrodisiac still.

Personally I would much rather have the company of someone who uses more of his brains than his biceps, and while good looks are an asset to whoever has them, I believe that the evolution of male roles in the last twenty years has made the 'sappy', sensitive man much more sought after than you realise. Particulary among the more clued-up women.

I agree, but its not a jock/nerd equal split. Looks aside and indeed jobs or biceps aside, the guy who is strong in himself(not muscle wise), intelligent, emotionally consistent, socially adept and socially adaptable is going to be attractive to far more women than the "sensitive" wallflower type. Sensitive is a good trait, but IMHO too many men go waaaay too far with it. The "I love you, but I'm not in love with you" is the phrase that type hears a lot. Yes the women will like the guy opening up, but IMHO and IME, they won't be too pushed on sleeping with him after a certain point, unless they think he's their only option. Again looking back, the guys I knew back when I was 21 who were attractive to and successful with women(I don't mean players either) would be equally successful with women today when I'm 41 and for the the same reasons I outlined above.

Capt'n Midnight

Paternity tests FTW :pac:

Of course you would need to check up legal issues
IIRC a husband is legally presumed to be the father and has to support the children

Capt'n Midnight

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is also a difference in how much ejaculate a man will pump into
a new sexual partner compared to a long term one.

Also if he fears she is cheating

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

They would have been influenced by the opinions of the women around them, all of which would have sought their children to be "nice" people who would take care of them when they were older.

As opposed to what? Giving their sons lessons in pulling or what women want from a sexual relationship? I'm not following your logic. They raised their sons to hopefully be nice people, I think that's fairly standard fare for parents - I don't know what the reference to hopes of caring for these women in their dotage, most people actually want to take care of their parents, it doesn't have to be instilled in them from a young age.

Deleted User wrote: »

Solely? Where did I suggest that? You often seem to look for absolutes.

Sorry, I find the whole women being blamed for not teaching their sons successful pick up techniques angle a bit ridiculous. I think it's solely down to the absence of paternal influence as opposed to maternal anything. I imagine his mother would be the last place most men would look to answer any questions on how best to proceed with sexual relations.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm talking about being a major influence considering the amount of time they spent in female company. You do not think that children pick up on the opinions of their mothers even on a subconscious level?

I think unless it's very obvious to the son that his mother hates his father or men in general, or has some other means of emotionally damaging his image of his own sex, then she has very little influence on his sexual maturation & has little influence on how he interacts with his female peers. I think a mothers' primary role with her son is as a carer & secondly as an example of how women act & react to men in her interaction with his male role model/s. From what I've read on this subject (Richard Rohr, Steven Biddulph, Don & Jean Elium, etc, etc); when boys start reaching sexual maturity they start pulling away from their mothers and looking for male role models to spend time with, if fathers are absent then it is this father hunger that is often the driving force behind young men having unsuitable role models or no role model at all.

Sisters, on the other hand, I would imagine could be very useful in helping young men to learn how to interact with women of their own age group but the material I have read on the subject would suggest that by far the greatest influence in a boys life with regards to interaction with the opposite sex especially re post puberty romance, regardless of who spends the most time with the child, is their father or primary male role model.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As opposed to what? Giving their sons lessons in pulling or what women want from a sexual relationship? I'm not following your logic. They raised their sons to hopefully be nice people, I think that's fairly standard fare for parents - I don't know what the reference to hopes of caring for these women in their dotage, most people actually want to take care of their parents, it doesn't have to be instilled in them from a young age.

I'm talking about influencing male perceptions of women. Not about mothers giving men tips on pulling girls.

Sorry, I find the whole women being blamed for not teaching their sons successful pick up techniques angle a bit ridiculous. I think it's solely down to the absence of paternal influence as opposed to maternal anything. I imagine his mother would be the last place most men would look to answer any questions on how best to proceed with sexual relations.

You're awfully defensive about women... I don't believe I blamed women or mothers for anything in this post. And I don't believe I said that mothers should have taught their sons how to pick up women.

Instead I spoke about how mothers influenced their children, because of the amount of time that children would have spent with their mothers. In the past fathers would have been out working, and the mothers would have been at home raising the children. As such, I believe (and many others) that mothers influenced their sons in how women were to be perceived. It is the perception of men about women that matters in all of this. The reason that many men are such wusses when it comes to approaching women, is that they placed women on some sort of pedestal. So when it came to speaking to girls, then it was a difficult action.

I think unless it's very obvious to the son that his mother hates his father or men in general, or has some other means of emotionally damaging his image of his own sex, then she has very little influence on his sexual maturation & has little influence on how he interacts with his female peers.

I'd agree with you in part except, that I'm trying to get the point over to you that the mother has already influenced her son in the matter of his perception of women by this time.

While I don't go in with Freud's mother/son thing, at the same time I've some similarities cropping up. Like my mother, my partners tend to be small, dark haired, and very strong willed women. I think most men subconsciously compare all women with their mothers.

I think a mothers' primary role with her son is as a carer & secondly as an example of how women act & react to men in her interaction with his male role model/s. From what I've read on this subject (Richard Rohr, Steven Biddulph, Don & Jean Elium, etc, etc); when boys start reaching sexual maturity they start pulling away from their mothers and looking for male role models to spend time with, if fathers are absent then it is this father hunger that is often the driving force behind young men having unsuitable role models or no role model at all.

I haven't any real argument with this paragraph.

Sisters, on the other hand, I would imagine could be very useful in helping young men to learn how to interact with women of their own age group but the material I have read on the subject would suggest that by far the greatest influence in a boys life with regards to interaction with the opposite sex especially re post puberty romance, regardless of who spends the most time with the child, is their father or primary male role model.

My father tried to explain to me about sex when i was 12, and he nearly died of embarrassment. He couldn't, and still can't talk about that aspect of life. And oddly enough, my father isn't rare in this.

During the years, I've found out from most of my friends, that they learned about sex, and meeting girls, from being set up by other friends. It bypassed the awkward approaching girls phase, and instead jumped them into being with girls. It was only when they reached college years, and didn't have a circle of friends to rely on, that they started meeting women on their own.

The greatest influence for boys from 15 - 20 for meeting other girls is simply put, the media. Every second drama on tv is about teenage angst. Its worse nowadays compared when I was a teenager (hmm... has it really been over 15 years? lol).

Oh. I had an older brother (5 years older), and an older sister (3 years older). Neither was any use in helping me in any area of this while growing up... Although I did enjoy my brother being caught having a girl in his room when I was 11..

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm talking about influencing male perceptions of women. Not about mothers giving men tips on pulling girls.

I know - but I think that's indirectly, men look to other men on how to interact with women - otherwise these "how to be successful with women" self-help & motivation books would be written by women. They're not, the vast majority are written by men for men & the standard format is a claim to have found the holy grail of technique for being successful (with women or in life) and a suggestion that if other men follow their example, they too will share in the success. Successful men teaching other men how to be successful.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're awfully defensive about women...

Sorry klaz, I don't mean to be. I think mothers are responsible for an awful lot with regards to teaching their kids, failing to pick up the slack for fathers who are absent or unable to discuss this hugely important issue with their sons, isn't one of them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe I blamed women or mothers for anything in this post. And I don't believe I said that mothers should have taught their sons how to pick up women.

No, you said

Personally, I view mothers influence over children as being a major part in why men are so clueless in picking up girls

Which infers that if mothers had used their influence differently then men would somehow know how to pick up girls, no?

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead I spoke about how mothers influenced their children, because of the amount of time that children would have spent with their mothers. In the past fathers would have been out working, and the mothers would have been at home raising the children. As such, I believe (and many others) that mothers influenced their sons in how women were to be perceived. It is the perception of men about women that matters in all of this. The reason that many men are such wusses when it comes to approaching women, is that they placed women on some sort of pedestal. So when it came to speaking to girls, then it was a difficult action.

I think there's some truth in the pedestal thing, but I don't think that's necessarily down to the influence of the mothers themselves, I think that's down to a general culture of hiding away nudity, periods and childbirth - and sex being such a taboo subject in general. I'm sure the old common values in the era you refer to; of opening doors for and men being obliged to give women their seats and so on, just perpetuated this mysterious difference between men and women.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd agree with you in part except, that I'm trying to get the point over to you that the mother has already influenced her son in the matter of his perception of women by this time.

I don't think so, again, I think both boys and girls view how to interact with each other from watching parents, family and friends do likewise. I think society instils a perception of women based on the roles and behaviours the child witnesses. I guess you could argue that by adhering to those roles and behaviours women perpetuated the perception but those were really the only accepted societal roles available at the time.

Deleted User wrote: »

While I don't go in with Freud's mother/son thing, at the same time I've some similarities cropping up. Like my mother, my partners tend to be small, dark haired, and very strong willed women. I think most men subconsciously compare all women with their mothers.

I don't think it was ever your mothers intention that you hold her as a standard by which to measure any other women in your life, in fact, I think it's fairly standard human psychology for anyone to hold the people they love and felt secure with as a child as an - often subconscious - model of attraction.

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't any real argument with this paragraph.

Phew! :cool:

Deleted User wrote: »

My father tried to explain to me about sex when i was 12, and he nearly died of embarrassment. He couldn't, and still can't talk about that aspect of life. And oddly enough, my father isn't rare in this.

Again, it's not just about the "birds and the bees" chat, it's about witnessing an adult male and how they interact with and treat women with regards to sex and romance. Though, I think if more fathers stepped up to the plate and discussed sex, porn, masturbation and feelings about & for girls, etc, with their sons then it would resolve a lot of the issues with regards to the mechanics but it doesn't really show his son what makes a successful or loving partner - only witnessing or discussion on that very subject can do that.

Deleted User wrote: »

During the years, I've found out from most of my friends, that they learned about sex, and meeting girls, from being set up by other friends. It bypassed the awkward approaching girls phase, and instead jumped them into being with girls. It was only when they reached college years, and didn't have a circle of friends to rely on, that they started meeting women on their own.

Good ole repressed Ireland, eh? In fairness, experimentation with peers and the knowledge garnered from that personal experience is going to be the biggest influence of how people approach the opposite sex from then on, regardless of how parents influence their children or how open families are about sex.

Deleted User wrote: »

The greatest influence for boys from 15 - 20 for meeting other girls is simply put, the media. Every second drama on tv is about teenage angst. Its worse nowadays compared when I was a teenager (hmm... has it really been over 15 years? lol).

That's a very Western phenomena, many other cultures embrace a boys journey to maturity and celebrate his reaching puberty and his journey to manhood.

The media keeps churning out the teen soaps because they are so popular and again, it's not the fault of the media that it has to step in and become a dating information service as a result of paternal coyness.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh. I had an older brother (5 years older), and an older sister (3 years older). Neither was any use in helping me in any area of this while growing up... Although I did enjoy my brother being caught having a girl in his room when I was 11..

I think there are lots of other people whose siblings do help and whose interaction with whom have sculpted how these men view and treat women.

He was "caught"? A bad thing. So you learnt that having a girl in your room was wrong and bad and likely to get you into hot water - but if he'd had a male friend in his room would that be ok? It was another year before your father approached you to discuss sex. It's those kind of events that shape how we view things, I think.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I know - but I think that's indirectly, men look to other men on how to interact with women - otherwise these "how to be successful with women" self-help & motivation books would be written by women. They're not, the vast majority are written by men for men & the standard format is a claim to have found the holy grail of technique for being successful (with women or in life) and a suggestion that if other men follow their example, they too will share in the success. Successful men teaching other men how to be successful.

Ahh, but the whole male self-help & Speed seduction scene only arose in the last 20-30 years. The 70's did wonders for both sexes by introducing previously unallowed concepts. That a man might actually learn how to meet women successfully? Shocking. Whereas, the wave of self-help and meditation courses that are taught by women for women, were and are perfectly acceptable.

Men teach other men in this because this about the state of the mind, and our perceptions about women (and also ourselves). Men are more accepting of the advice of other men who have been through what they are experiencing and have gotten past it. Just as there are courses out there for women seeking to pick up men taught by other women...

Sorry klaz, I don't mean to be. I think mothers are responsible for an awful lot with regards to teaching their kids, failing to pick up the slack for fathers who are absent or unable to discuss this hugely important issue with their sons, isn't one of them.

There you go again. Picking up the slack for their fathers? Since the fathers were out working, and the mothers were there to raise the children, its your perception that its the man's fault? You say I am blaming women/mothers, but you yourself seem to do it...

Deleted User wrote:

Personally, I view mothers influence over children as being a major part in why men are so clueless in picking up girls

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Which infers that if mothers had used their influence differently then men would somehow know how to pick up girls, no?

Yup, I said the above. But again I said influence, which doesn't even suggest teaching men how to pick up women. And secondly, the only people I blame in all of this are the men. We allowed ourselves to be influenced in how we perceived women. We allowed ourselves to be manipulated into acceptance of these kind of values. We had a choice, and we took the easy option.

So do I blame women? Nope. I believe the influence of mothers in the past was a major factor in how men perceived women, and how men placed women on pedestals.. But, it is to men I look at, when I consider that we accepted all of this. So easily.

I think there's some truth in the pedestal thing, but I don't think that's necessarily down to the influence of the mothers themselves, I think that's down to a general culture of hiding away nudity, periods and childbirth - and sex being such a taboo subject in general. I'm sure the old common values in the era you refer to; of opening doors for and men being obliged to give women their seats and so on, just perpetuated this mysterious difference between men and women.

In this age of the Internet (where most kids have easy access to nudity), and lack of religious fervor, the Pedestal perception still exists. Its a matter of raising the female sex to dizzying heights, where men feel inadequate when approaching them. This is something that women themselves seek to promote. Hence the role of the media, and the manner of adverts where women are sophisticated, and men are bumbling fools.

I don't think so, again, I think both boys and girls view how to interact with each other from watching parents, family and friends do likewise.

Very true. But in younger year approaching and just past puberty boys will still spend more of their time with their parents. Nowadays, I believe that its more equal with men having as much interaction with their children, but in the past, the fathers would have been working (dependent on their work), and not have as much time with their children. It is that influence of the mother, by being around them and picking up on the daily cues which guided children.

I think society instils a perception of women based on the roles and behaviours the child witnesses.

Society is different. Society breaks in and changes children as they hit their teens. That is when we're most susceptible to its influences. And, yes, these influences will have a huge impact over how a child views the world. But the base perception of the world, and people instilled by the parents, is the foundation of all of this.

I guess you could argue that by adhering to those roles and behaviours women perpetuated the perception but those were really the only accepted societal roles available at the time.

Women changed the way that society viewed them. By that very fact, women could have changed it earlier had enough of them wanted to. Its just that there wasn't such a following of women willing to break the social constructs they were used to living in. There is comfort in the familiar.

I don't think it was ever your mothers intention that you hold her as a standard by which to measure any other women in your life, in fact, I think it's fairly standard human psychology for anyone to hold the people they love and felt secure with as a child as an - often subconscious - model of attraction.

Sure, I agree. But the influences remain regardless of intentions.

Again, it's not just about the "birds and the bees" chat, it's about witnessing an adult male and how they interact with and treat women with regards to sex and romance. Though, I think if more fathers stepped up to the plate and discussed sex, porn, masturbation and feelings about & for girls, etc, with their sons then it would resolve a lot of the issues with regards to the mechanics but it doesn't really show his son what makes a successful or loving partner - only witnessing or discussion on that very subject can do that.

Most fathers are uncomfortable about discussing any of this with their children. Women tend to be more practical about the subject, and less likely to be uncomfortable. In fact, most men wonder how they got their wives in the first place.. As for showing others, I doubt they would know how.. considering their lack of experience themselves. Most men from older generations didn't play around and have many partners. They just don't have the experience with many women which we take for granted these days. My parents married when they were 23, and my mother was my fathers second ever partner. That is not uncommon.

Good ole repressed Ireland, eh? In fairness, experimentation with peers and the knowledge garnered from that personal experience is going to be the biggest influence of how people approach the opposite sex from then on, regardless of how parents influence their children or how open families are about sex.

True, if we're only talking about approaching women. I'm still talking about male perceptions of women, and the foundations of those perceptions.

That's a very Western phenomena, many other cultures embrace a boys journey to maturity and celebrate his reaching puberty and his journey to manhood.

Because its one of the few achievements that a boy can achieve and feel proud of. Stereotypical western cultures have many points for girls during their growth period, but there's few marking points for guys.

The media keeps churning out the teen soaps because they are so popular and again, it's not the fault of the media that it has to step in and become a dating information service as a result of paternal coyness.

Of course, its the media's fault. They perpetuate the concepts, and promote these feelings. Movies, sitcoms, even comedies on tv all promote that such behaviour is to be expected, and not to experience it is wrong.

I think there are lots of other people whose siblings do help and whose interaction with whom have sculpted how these men view and treat women.

Of course. I'm not from the mold that made all men. But I showed my experience because its a common experience amongst people. Some children are closer and will help each other out in this area. I believe that the difference in age is an important factor in this.

He was "caught"? A bad thing. So you learnt that having a girl in your room was wrong and bad and likely to get you into hot water - but if he'd had a male friend in his room would that be ok? It was another year before your father approached you to discuss sex. It's those kind of events that shape how we view things, I think.

He was caught having sex with the girl. Not merely having her in his room. But then my brother viewed everything he did as a chance to aggravate my parents. :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh, but the whole male self-help & Speed seduction scene only arose in the last 20-30 years. The 70's did wonders for both sexes by introducing previously unallowed concepts. That a man might actually learn how to meet women successfully? Shocking. Whereas, the wave of self-help and meditation courses that are taught by women for women, were and are perfectly acceptable.

I don't think it's shocking, I think it's a bit sad really. Not that self-help is sad, it's a brilliant thing to want to do. I think it's sad that men have to resort to reading books in their twenties or thirties to give them the confidence to approach women - something is going seriously awry somewhere along the line.

Deleted User wrote: »

Men teach other men in this because this about the state of the mind, and our perceptions about women (and also ourselves). Men are more accepting of the advice of other men who have been through what they are experiencing and have gotten past it. Just as there are courses out there for women seeking to pick up men taught by other women...

Exactly, which is why fathers or male role models are so much more effective in passing on information to their charges. That's my point.

Deleted User wrote: »

There you go again. Picking up the slack for their fathers? Since the fathers were out working, and the mothers were there to raise the children, its your perception that its the man's fault? You say I am blaming women/mothers, but you yourself seem to do it...

One minute its down to fathers out working or being away at war and then it suddenly switches to the self-help books of today - the era seems to be changing to suit your argument, tbh.

I think in previous years we knew much less about child psychology and the parental roles were completely unbalanced, with obvious results. There has never been a good reason for men not to parent their children and these days there are very few excuses indeed, for males not being able to be a present and important role model for their children.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup, I said the above. But again I said influence, which doesn't even suggest teaching men how to pick up women. And secondly, the only people I blame in all of this are the men. We allowed ourselves to be influenced in how we perceived women. We allowed ourselves to be manipulated into acceptance of these kind of values. We had a choice, and we took the easy option.

So do I blame women? Nope. I believe the influence of mothers in the past was a major factor in how men perceived women, and how men placed women on pedestals.. But, it is to men I look at, when I consider that we accepted all of this. So easily.

I think you are being very harsh on both sexes. Western cultural anthropology is a tad more complex than woman manipulating the poor men! :pac: It's a real kind of negative imagery of everyone to see women as scheming and manipulating the impotent and weak men - I don't think either view is very accurate.

Deleted User wrote: »

In this age of the Internet (where most kids have easy access to nudity), and lack of religious fervor, the Pedestal perception still exists. Its a matter of raising the female sex to dizzying heights, where men feel inadequate when approaching them. This is something that women themselves seek to promote. Hence the role of the media, and the manner of adverts where women are sophisticated, and men are bumbling fools.

I could argue re the lack of religious fervour around this part of the world but even so, there are lots of adverts with very cool and successful men. Women are often views as trophies or sex objects - I don't think anyone won in the media portrayals.

Deleted User wrote: »

Very true. But in younger year approaching and just past puberty boys will still spend more of their time with their parents. Nowadays, I believe that its more equal with men having as much interaction with their children, but in the past, the fathers would have been working (dependent on their work), and not have as much time with their children. It is that influence of the mother, by being around them and picking up on the daily cues which guided children.

I still don't understand what cues you are referring to in an average family dynamic that would have such a catastrophic affect on a young man's ability to interact with the opposite sex, could you give me an example?

Deleted User wrote: »

Society is different. Society breaks in and changes children as they hit their teens. That is when we're most susceptible to its influences. And, yes, these influences will have a huge impact over how a child views the world. But the base perception of the world, and people instilled by the parents, is the foundation of all of this.

Society is often what drives parental roles and what is seen as necessary or strange. The amount of time my father in law spent with his sons was ten times that of his father and yet nowhere near as much time as my husband spends with our son/children. All worked roughly a 40hr week, all had equal opportunity to have a greater role in bringing up their children, society had defined roles for the sexes and it took a brave man or woman to challenge them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Women changed the way that society viewed them. By that very fact, women could have changed it earlier had enough of them wanted to. Its just that there wasn't such a following of women willing to break the social constructs they were used to living in. There is comfort in the familiar.

I don't think people live with a misogynistic society, or apartheid, nor any other social construct in which one set of people tell another they are not allowed to vote or be considered equal out of comfort & desire to keep the status quo. That's a silly argument.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, I agree. But the influences remain regardless of intentions.

What influence? What undue influence do you think women have over their sons? What do some women do that render their sons incapable of conversing with their female peers? Any why are only some men affected, even when raised by the same woman?

Deleted User wrote: »

Most fathers are uncomfortable about discussing any of this with their children. Women tend to be more practical about the subject, and less likely to be uncomfortable. In fact, most men wonder how they got their wives in the first place.. As for showing others, I doubt they would know how.. considering their lack of experience themselves. Most men from older generations didn't play around and have many partners. They just don't have the experience with many women which we take for granted these days. My parents married when they were 23, and my mother was my fathers second ever partner. That is not uncommon.

Most men? Most women? Today? In Ireland? Or everyone in the whole world? You seem to be actually referring to fairly small demographic and using universal terminology to normalise it. Your description doesn't describe my parents or many of the families I know, I don't have any experience of or with the non-participation or ability to discuss aspect, either.

Deleted User wrote: »

True, if we're only talking about approaching women. I'm still talking about male perceptions of women, and the foundations of those perceptions.

I think the perception that men have of women differs from men to men and is driven by men. The lad mags, the ads, the sexualisation, the pedestal - who are the people running these media perceptions? Who owns the porn mags and film studios? Who make up the majority of advertising execs or media moguls? It's not women.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because its one of the few achievements that a boy can achieve and feel proud of. Stereotypical western cultures have many points for girls during their growth period, but there's few marking points for guys.

Many points to mark achievement for western girls only? Name them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course, its the media's fault. They perpetuate the concepts, and promote these feelings. Movies, sitcoms, even comedies on tv all promote that such behaviour is to be expected, and not to experience it is wrong.

Again, who runs the media? These same men who can't be at home to talk their kids through puberty? Are they the media executives churning out the teen soaps to teach pubescent males how to act and be? Oh the irony.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course. I'm not from the mold that made all men. But I showed my experience because its a common experience amongst people. Some children are closer and will help each other out in this area. I believe that the difference in age is an important factor in this.

Among people you know maybe - and common in this part of the world I would concur.

Deleted User wrote: »

He was caught having sex with the girl. Not merely having her in his room. But then my brother viewed everything he did as a chance to aggravate my parents. :rolleyes:

Even so, it's perfectly legal to have sex when you are 16. When I was 16 I lived 200mls away from my parents and was completely self sufficient. I had friends who were allowed to stay with boyfriends or have boyfriends stay over - again, I think you are speaking about a particular demographic rather than the world at large and your claiming everyone as like when my experience would say not, is probably what is causing the issue here rather than the points you make about your demographic.