Is being romantic the oposite of being alpha? While talking

pretty much. they want a guy who is way more valuable than them to act like a pussy for them.

When they think "romance" , they imagine brad pitt bending over backwards to make her feel comfortable with the massive disparity in value between them.

It's pure fantasy though. If they get the chad they want he's not going to give a shit because he has a lot of options. If they get the guy willing to worship her he's not going to be chad.

>>18103878

Women don't know what they want. It's more pure instinct for them

That's the long and short of it

>>18103878

no.

first and foremost, what people say they want and what they actually want / go for / get are completely different.

that being said being tall, muscular, and macho does not make you non-romantic. being tall muscular and macho does not make you non caring, and it doesn't stop you from watching the movie your girlfriend wants to see.

>poetry

i have never in my life heard a woman said they want a man who writes poems.

that being said, tall muscular macho men can write poetry, and many do. just go to any poetry reading.

the problem here seems to be that you've boiled the entire world down to the most distilled form of stereotypes imaginable, wherein everything that doesn't fit into one group must be a polar opposite.

>>18103904

Don't be agressive anon, you know generalization is a very usefull tool for analyzing human behaviours right?
Also, i did say at my post that i know that guys could be like that, but it seems like you've missed that part.

>>18103934

>don't be agressive anon

I wasn't being aggressive, I was literally just answering your post. I didn't swear, i didn't attack, i didn't antagonize, and I didn't insult in any shape way or form. all i did was address your points, explain why they're wrong, and show you why you're getting this error.

>you know generalization is a very useful tool for analyzing human behaviors right?

and yet you've done the opposite, you've over generalized to the point where you can't properly analyze human behavior.

my point was and still is that they aren't polar opposites. not that sometimes there's a middle ground, but rather that were all somewhere in the that middle ground.

my father was a a chief in the navy, 6'6" a master at arms, and lover of romantic comedies and animated films about talking animals.

my older brother is a marine himself, and since getting out has taken up body building, favorite hobbies include camping, hunting, and getting pedicures.

I myself played rugby throughout high school, spend most of my weekends at the shooting range, and my favorite anime is sailor moon.

again, middle ground, spectrum. were all just people.

There's an actual term for this used in study. "Cad and dad". Women have a sort of general dichotomy in their attraction. There's the guys who are good providers and nurturers (dad types), and the guys who have high testosterone, strong, good genes, etc. (cad types). Generally good women understand this and can successfully reconcile their instinctual preferences with good conscious partner choice.

This is EXACTLY the same for men. Men also have an attraction dichotomy of their own. They like both "ladies and freaks". They want pure, chaste, innocent, youthful (lady type), but also someone sexually open and available (freak type).

The old adage "I want a lady in the streets but a freak in the sheets" describes how you can reconcile both. It is the exact same for women. They want a "dad on the streets, a cad in the sheets" more or less.

The point is, both men and women can balance and play both roles to be attractive and satisfy their partner.

>>18103878
I actually don't like guys that write me poems or long romantic messages in greeting cards. It makes me feel awkward because it makes me feel I'm not as loving in return. It's not that I don't feel the same way, I'm just not good with expressing myself with words and never was.

I'm the type who would just sign my name on a valentine's day card. My ex-boyfriend would write novel length messages and I felt under pressure to do the same in return and worry my message wasn't recieved the way I felt.

>>18103966
So both men and women want to have their cake and eat it too.

I have always said me and women are the same and don't realize it. It's why they're frustrated with the other gender because they're just dealing with a reflection of themselves. Both men and women can be shallow or romantic.

>>18103984
>So both men and women want to have their cake and eat it too.
Essentially, yes. Instinct tends to be selfish and not exactly "rational". However, people who are smart and who would make good partners are people who can successfully appease both their more logical and illogical needs in a relationship.

For example, a women who chooses a man who would be a great father and partner. But she also can communicate that she wants things rougher and domineering in the bedroom and he is more than happy to accommodate.

As opposed to a woman who chooses an actual thug who really treats her like shit.

This is like a guy choosing stable and virtuous women who would make a great mom and partner. But he also can communicate that he wants her to do freaky and submissive stuff in the bedroom and she's more than happy to oblige.

As opposed to a guy who chooses an actual crazy, unfaithful, nymphomaniac.

>>18103878
I think it's a mix of both qualities. I like it when my boyfriend is sweet to me, but I also really like the alpha/macho thing. Maybe not in every aspect. Definitely during sex. And not 100% of the time either.
Is it really that hard to do both? I know it's harder for the more sensitive guys to do the alpha stuff and vice versa but at least try.

If it is, then I'm the most alpha person there is, and I'm not even a guy