[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

Why is it that the more emotion and vulnerability you show to

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 149
Thread images: 6

File: IMG_4402.jpg (550KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_4402.jpg
550KB, 1920x1080px
Why is it that the more emotion and vulnerability you show to a girl the more she turns you away, when supposedly they want "emotional availability"? How do I do this?
>>
What exactly do you mean by emotion and vulnerability? If you mean complaining about your problems and weaknesses, that just isn't sexy, and isn't being emotional and vulnerable it's just being a whiny pussy.
>>
>>18516365
This is the most perfect answer you could have been given OP, pretty likely the poster is actually a woman
>>18516374

Women don't want to hear your troubles, your insecurities or your fears. When they talk about emotional closeness they mean telling them you love her, that you're happy to be with her and that kind of stuff. Not that they actually want to hear your troubles or anxieties.
Keep those to yourself, only share positive feelings and you'll be OK.
>>
>>18516365
you are supposed to be her rock she can rely on, not an emotionally unstable napkin

what they mean by emotional availablity is that you listen to their problems and say "Its going to be alright" with a calm smile

>but thats not fair reeee i wana whine too
well, its not fair but you get to put your hard penor inside them so i think youll survive
>>
everything in this thread is accurate OP. I'll just add this, being emotionally available and open with your woman should double as the crutch you need. does that makes sense? keep your shit to yourself, but for me at least, if it's too much to take all it takes for me is holding a woman I care about and it's all good.

that said I don't have a woman to hold and haven't for awhile now so I'm losing my goddamn mind WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB!
>>
>>18516365
>supposedly
That's the whole thing right there. Learn from what women do, not what they say. Infact never trust much of what people say about themselves.
>>
It depends on the girl in question. I for example love to take care of my bf, so I welcome it when he speaks to me about his insecurities. Different people want different things, though, and some girls want to be supported more than they want to support. Also, it's possible that you're opening up too quickly. Don't talk about your traumatic childhood on your first date.
>>
>>18516365
It depends on how you show it.
As long as you don't end up whining/playing victim or you completely lose control of yourself, it's all good.
>>
>this thread
It's hard to be a man. No wonder men generally don't respect women if men have to offer so much and women can provide so little. Especially nowadays.
>>
>>18516455
This and >>18516374. You're allowed to have emotions, you're allowed to be emotionally vulnerable. But there's a difference between confiding in someone in a way that makes you closer to them and whining to someone in a way that alienates them. And there's also sharing too much, too soon.
>>
>>18516387
>tfw you wasted so much fucking time dating a girl who was way less attractive/socially worthy than you specifically so you could be equals in your relationship and get emotional support from her but she stilled pulled this "only girls are allowed to get emotional support" utter bullshit.


I know you guys think you're super smart by figuring out that women are selfish, but the point is, it's not supposed to be that way. If you are in a long term relationship you as a man are entitled to a meaningful degree of emotional support from your partner. Especially relative to context.

This is the whole thing about being a woman. It is their role. They are supposed to nurture. If you deny that because you think you're living in some postmodern hyperworld where the stakes are too high for basic and ancient rules to apply then you've got your head shoved up your ass and need to take a step back and reevaluate your sense of personal responsibility.
>>
>>18516386
>>18516387
>>18516425
Nailed it.
By emotional availability the mean you're available to read and comfort THEIR emotions. You have to be strong and stoic. Share some little irrelevant things every once in a while but never share what really worries you. They don't want to hear it and it makes you look weak. And no, they don't want to see you being weak.
>>
>>18516477
If you're going to talk about nature, they're supposed to nurture the old and the very young, not their partner. Their partner is the provider and protector.

Men's emotional needs are fulfilled within the man and not shared. That how it's always been and how women want it to be.
>>
I think there's a difference between being whiny and showing emotions and that applies for both sexes. No one wants to be with someone emotionally unstable, no one is perfect but you need to balance yourself somewhere. I knew guys that would talk about killing themselves all the time but only because they knew it would get their attention, they were neither serious nor genuine, it's manipulative. But everyone has problems and insecurities somewhere, I don't think women are turned off by that.
>>
>>18516482
In general what you are saying is agreeable but I'm not speaking of regularity but of exception. I'm saying, when the situation is exceptionally bad, that's when the woman is supposed to step in and temporarily mother her partner.

And I'm talking specifically about long term relationships, where it is exactly that bond/promise which is supposed to underly the entirety of the relationship. A relational premise.
>>
>>18516480
>And no, they don't want to see you being weak.
You're so dumb and you don't even realise it.

The whole concept of civilisation is that men and women can relate to each other in a real, actually meaningful way. All of what you're saying does nothing but equates to "women just want the fa├žade of society with only all of its benefits but still want the primal satisfaction of being in a relationship in which the male is terminally more sexually valuable than then"

To a point of impossibility of relation.

Your entire way of thinking is just pussy worship. It's all based on destroying yourself to give women every single little thing they want and to not even have them be grateful for nor even recognise it.

You are balls deep in the conditioning, my friend. And you have literally no idea.
>>
Its a constant game of affection and making her long for affection. If you show that its readily available any moment anytime without her actually working to get it from you, she'll feel like "its too much" or she's "drowning".
>>
>>18516493
I think that most women would stand by their man's side if they are in a bad place emotionally.
I personally did, many times, even if I am emotionally incompetent so my attempts at it were a little ridiculous.
>>
>>18516502
>The whole concept of civilisation is that men and women can relate to each other in a real, actually meaningful way.
wat
The concept of civilization is to specialize in different fields of of work.
>>
>>18516502
>women just want the facade of society with only all of its benefits but still want the primary satisfaction of being in a relationship in which the mail is terminally more sexually available than them

But that's 100% absolutely the case. How can you understand it so well but not understand that it's true?
>>
>>18516502
>The whole concept of civilisation is that men and women can relate to each other
Are you retarded? It's to make survival easier and more comfortable.
>>
>>18516509
Well mine didn't, and she was supposed to be one of the good ones. So I am not to sure I believe you. You've probably only been with men with light burdens in life.

>>18516512
Specialising in different fields of work is a totally degenerate, unbalanced thing which has only come into existence relatively recently within society (in the past 5k years). The male/female thing is a priori of it.

>>18516517
See above. Before any sort of labour/energy expenditure can be placed into effect you have to have down the relation between the constituency. Now, what would be the most prominent break-up of that constituency. The answer is sex. The relation between men and women.

>>18516515
Simple. I understand it but you haven't gotten as far as right and wrong yet. It's one thing to know how to construct a nuclear weapon but it's another, more advanced question to know whether or not to in the first place make use of it.

The thing about what women want is obvious. What's not is that they shouldn't want those things. Because I'm sure you'll agree it's hard to tell people they don't deserve something. It's hard to show a feral animal you mean it no harm.
>>
>>18516502
No. WE gave it meaning. At its core mating works on a very simple contract:

I, as a man, will offer you my seed, provide for you, protect you from external threats and help you raise your child.
I, as a woman, will offer you my womb, raise your children with care and love and sexually satisfy you.

That is it, love and other emotions are simply there to facilitate this exchange.

I am not worshipping pussy, I am simply saying that a man who shows weakness and emotional turmoil is not a good mate. Women want a stable man, a rock they can hang onto when they are on emotional turmoil. This is why evolution made men much better at hiding and containing emotions, and why women prefer aloof men to sensitive ones.
>>
>>18516524
The flaw in your response is that this represents a state of nature. We do not exist in a state of nature. We exist in a state of civilisation, which is antithetical to a state of nature.

Now, civilisation only comes into existence when you weaken this "primal stoicism" parameter in men. In other words, communication comes into existence.

When a man is 100% taken care of by the occasional orgasm, he might as well be a mute. Society did not spring into existence upon the tongues of mutes.

You are a hypocrite. Trust me.
>>
Civilization, a jewish plot to weaken men.
>>
>>18516477
you talk about worth while talking about a human being while telling me i need to pull my head out of my arse

i think you are just a bitter frog who got memed on by a whore, the difference between me and you is that i have a set of priorities and i adopt, while you continue your online rants about things not being fair, talk about responsibility heh
>>
>>18516540
My responsibility is automatic.
>>
>>18516530
CIvilisation comes when different people do different things and share the results of these things. It has nothing to do with men's emotions.

Men's solve their emotions via action. Not via sharing. Women don't want a man who shares negative emotions with them, because that's the mark of a faulty mate. Just like how you don't want a woman who hates children.
>>
>>18516521
>You've probably only been with men with light burdens in life.
Yeah.
My husband's dad died when he was 16, his mom when he was 21. His brother was about to turn 18 when his mom died, my boyfriend was still finishing university and they were pretty broke. He had to sell the house they lived in, so they stayed at my place till my husband was 25 and finished his master.
We are paying his brother's master now, 1/3 of what I earn goes into his expenses and he is living with us.
He struggled with drug addictions through his late teens, tried to off himself once when he was 17.
Lightest burden of all.

Easiest life ever.
>>
>>18516548
Terrible analogy. Civilisation and everything in it is the direct product of "faulty males".
>>
>>18516552
Sounds relatively mundane if I'm honest with you. I think it would be a surprising experience for you, to learn about what other sorts of struggles are out there. Exposure to the real world is a scary thing.
>>
>>18516553
Explain to me what emotions have had to do.
Explain to me how all past civilizations idealized male stoicism as the way to act.
Explain to me why women do not like emotionally vulnerable men.

Men are stoic and women are kind. That is the basis of civilization.
>>
/adv/ has the best worst threads.
>>
>>18516556
I'm sure your struggles were extremely worse because they were yours.
>>
>>18516547
apparently not since it was you who misjudged the situation and keep crying over a negative experience
>>
>>18516556
Oh, quit wanking.

Assuming she's being honest: drug addiction, an attempted suicide, a significant lasting financial burden, and both parents died young.

Yes, those circumstances are survivable (obviously, since they've survived), and there are plenty of people who have it worse - millions of them - but that's still some fairly heavy stuff for people to deal with when they're basically still kids. It's more than many people ever have to deal with.
>>
>>18516558
>Explain to me what emotions have had to do.
Emotions are the air we breathe. They inspire us. Give us spirit.

>Explain to me how all past civilizations idealized male stoicism as the way to act.
There's nothing wrong with male stoicism. But from (definitively, undeniably that is) Roman times there is a very clear string of tropes of a likewise female capacity into modern times (Libertas, Marianne, Columbia. Roman, French enlightenment, American respectively). This is the more accurate prescription of what society really is.

>Explain to me why women do not like emotionally vulnerable men.
Look, I'm not saying women should like deliberately weak men, men who are weak, know they are weak, and want to use their weakness as a means of manipulation in order to stay comfortable. Obviously not saying that because it's just asinine and does work. What I'm saying, which is directly relevant to OP's dilemma, is that women should not harbour disdain for a man simply because he's struggling. Women should in fact help their men in this state. Nurture him out of it. This is how we made the world. This is the exception by which a miraculous exception from nature sprung into existence.

When you come on here and blurt out retarded, obvious shit like "WOMEN THINK VULNERABLE GUYS ARE ICKY" when OP didn't ask whether or not that was true, but rather asked specifically as to why, then you are doing nothing but enabling them to continue on with this cancer of selfishness which has only recently begun to take hold in the world.

Men being stoic and women being kind is the basis of nature. Men and women being both in an at most 51/49 split is the basis of civilisation.
>>
File: 1499166932790.jpg (1MB, 2963x4192px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1499166932790.jpg
1MB, 2963x4192px
>>18516365
>>18516374
>>18516386
>>18516387
>>18516455
>>18516474
>>18516480
>>18516489
>>18516548

>Not that they actually want to hear your troubles or anxieties, keep those to yourself.

>You are supposed to be her rock she can rely on, not an emotionally unstable napkin.

>As long as you don't end up playing victim or you completely lose control of yourself, it's all good.

>It's hard to be a man. No wonder men generally don't respect women if men have to offer so much and women can provide so little.

Summarized (t.l d.r): Don't ever show weakness to anybody (especially not to girls/women) and you'll be fine.

Pic related.
>>
>>18516578
does not* work
>>
>>18516573
Not even memeing I would say those struggles are less than average. Just in the civilised world. All bets are off and you just get fucking laughed at in your dumb spoiled ass face when you account for third worlders.
>>
>>18516579
There's a difference between
>There's this thing I'm struggling with and I want to share my burden with you. Can you help me?
and
>WEE WEEE LIFE IS SO UNFAIR WHY CAN'T I GET EVERYTHING I WANT AND HAVE EVERYTHING GO MY WAY WHEN I'M SUCH A GOOD PERSON AND I HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN MY LIFE

First is amazing, second not as much.
>>
>>18516583
Even third worlders have it pretty easy compared to factory farmed livestock.
>>
>>18516585
>tfw you did the first and she turned it into the second

Don't trust anyone guys. Just live inside yourselves and never let a woman touch your bare skin, not even once.

>>18516586
Great point dumbass. Just solid.
>>
>>18516585
>First is amazing
wat. I can see it being tolerable, but how is it "amazing"?
>>
>>18516587
>Great point dumbass. Just solid.
That's what she said.
>>
>>18516589
Who, your mother?
>>
>>18516587
>My experience with ONE woman is indicative of all women ever in history

>>18516588
Because it is a great sign of love and trust. It means he is true to you and shares himself with you. Especially when you're dating someone reserved or who hides his emotions a lot, when he shares something meaningful with you it feels like he gave you a kidney.
>>
>>18516583
I don't think that 50% of your peers were orphans and homeless before turning 25, with a past of drug addition, depression and attempted suicide and with a younger sibling to take care of.

If you honestly can say so, move out because you live in some special kind of shithole.
>>
>>18516591
I got involved with her specifically because she was different from anyone I've ever met.

But
>the reality is terrifying so I will deny it continually
Who knew
>>
>>18516578
>Men being stoic and women being kind is the basis of nature.

Let's be honest here.

Men have to be stoic for their survival and social status.

A few women choose to be kind, the majority of women (nowadays) simply aren't kind nor considerate.

>I have nothing against women, I'm just being honest:

Most of them choose to do, dress and say whatever they want to without taking the lessons and advice from their own parents into consideration.
>>
>>18516591
>when he shares something meaningful with you it feels like he gave you a kidney.
So... do it twice and you're dead?
>>
>>18516596
>the majority of women (nowadays) simply aren't kind nor considerate.
Yeah. That's called death.

Are you okay with that? Just answer. Because if you're okay with everything dying I have nothing to say to you. But you aren't. And you have no idea. So shut the fuck up.
>>
>>18516578
>>18516578
>Emotions are the air we breathe. They inspire us. Give us spirit.
This is pure romanticism. Emotions are merely what drives us to evolutionarily determined behavior which increase our chances of passing on our genes. They have no more meaning to them than whichever we want to abscribe. In the case of women, kindness and love will attract males by making them want to be their protector, and in the case of males, being focused and driven will attract females who want him as a protector.

>There's nothing wrong with male stoicism. But from (definitively, undeniably that is) Roman times there is a very clear string of tropes of a likewise female capacity into modern times (Libertas, Marianne, Columbia. Roman, French enlightenment, American respectively). This is the more accurate prescription of what society really is.
I don't even understand what your point is here, but the reason most personifications are female are because females are nurturing and lend themselves to allegories like the motherland or justice nurturing the human soul. It has nothing to do with male feelings. If anything it shows stoicism as the natural male state, since male gods are always strong and firm, while female goddesses tend to be kind and understanding.

I'm not quoting the last part to not get to post limit, but again, no. We made the world by working and sharing our accomplishments, not because the farmer got sad and got home to a wife who heard him whine about his job for 2 hours. If that happened, the wife would do good to leave him for a man who works harder and whines less, and that's probably what she would've done.
>>
File: what.jpg (17KB, 644x417px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
what.jpg
17KB, 644x417px
>>18516600
>>
>>18516598
Lol.

Nah, it just feels really special. I know how hard it is for him to let me take care of him, both practically and emotionally, so when he decides to share it feels always very special.

>>18516595
Sucks that you misjudged her character.
Still doesn't say anything about women as a whole.
>>
>>18516585
First is amazing only if the problem isn't big.
And it's only amazing the first time before you become a "naggy man child"
And obviously don't even think about doing it if she also has problems because then you're selfish.

Women love the IDEA of a man opening up, but hate when he actually does it. The romantic notion of a dark and brooding guy telling them their problems is what excites them, not a guy actually telling them their problems. It's like men and shy, reserved girls with issues. The IDEA is fine but they don't actually want to deal with one.
>>
>>18516596
No, women are still kind and considerate. That's basically how they are at their core, they're more empathic and feel the suffering of others more.

That doesn't mean that's what they look for in a partner, though.
>>
>>18516600
>Getting this angry just because I said a few things that are true.

I thought the majority of people who browse /adv/ are mature, guess I was wrong.
>>
>>18516607
It's not that I misjudged her character. It's that she needed to be a certain way and she chose not to. It has nothing to do with my judgement.

If that doesn't say anything about women as a whole, nothing can. So yes, it does.

>>18516602
>They have no more meaning to them than whichever we want to abscribe.
People are calling me the fedora now but it's clear that trophy belongs to you. The map is not the territory, friend.

>In the case of women, kindness and love will attract males by making them want to be their protector, and in the case of males, being focused and driven will attract females who want him as a protector.
What makes this wrong is that it applies to a state of nature. Not a state of civilisation, in which we live, in which you have things like the internet which make you a total fucking hypocrite to post the sorts of things you do on it.

>not because the farmer got sad and got home to a wife who heard him whine about his job for 2 hours.
No, what happened was he fell into a rough time and rather than leaving him for a "better mate", she stuck with him and nurtured him back to his strong self. THAT is what everything, everything, is based off of. That is all that it is. Everything.

If we did not have that. We would just be another pack of wolves.
>>
>>18516583
Right. I'm going to be honest with you: the impression I get from your post is that you're probably fairly young and have never had to deal with anything on that level in your life, much less beyond it. Now, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong, and maybe you'll list off all the innumerable struggles you've had to deal with, and you might even be telling the truth, but here's why I say that - generally speaking, people who have been through shit themselves become less willing to casually dismiss the struggles of others. Not more.

People who have lost relatives to terminal illnesses, or struggled with addiction, understand how incredibly brutal those things can be. People who have lost loved ones to suicide attempts, or come close to it, are the absolute LAST people you'll ever hear calling that sort of thing "mundane." When people belittle things like that, it's usually young people who lack the experience to put them into perspective.

Like I said, maybe I'm wrong about you. But I doubt it.
>>
>>18516609
I honestly don't mind when my partner talks to me about his issues.
You keep telling me what I like, but I genuinely don't dislike when a person I love talks to me about something they struggle with, as long as they do it in a way that is mature. And, at times, I can listen to him or try to help even if they are being immature, as long as that's not their general attitude.

I do want my man to be my rock and the person I rely on, I am perfectly fine with admitting that. But on the other hand, I don't mind if he sometimes needs me and wants to be taken care of, or if in some phases of our relationship he's the one who needs a rock.
>>
>>18516620
Me casually dismissing your husband's struggles is not an emotional reflex, I did it on principle. For the sake of the discussion we are having.

I have no sympathy for you if you believe those things are "incredibly brutal". And not commonplace. Mundane. Because we just live in different worlds then. And I can't have you thinking your husband belongs in mine.

But I will be petty here for a moment and tell you I laughed at you informing me of his "attempted suicide" at 17 years of age. That was a pretty Goddamned stupid thing to bring up if you wanted me to take you seriously.

17 years old and was unsuccessful. Hmmmmm. Wonder why!
>>
>>18516587
>Great point dumbass. Just solid.
Truth hurts.
>>
>>18516618
>If that doesn't say anything about women as a whole, nothing can.
Nothing can be said about women as a whole. You can say some thing about women on average, but women aren't a hivemind that all feel the same stuff and all want the same things, just as men aren't.

Some women will be there for you when you go through shit, some others won't. Same with men.
Shit people are shit people, it is not a gendered thing.
>>
>>18516630
>Nothing can be said about women as a whole

Stopped reading there.

Do you find it difficult to be anti-intellectual on a platform which could have only come into existence upon the back of 2000 years of intellectualism.

Saying something about women on average is identical to saying something about women as a whole. There may be exceptions but they will never in themselves constitute a separate rule.

Men are, women are. The point isn't that we are, it's that we shouldn't be. What does it say if a person who is supposed to be the absolute opposite of a "shit person" turns out to be indeed just another shit person.

What else could that possibly spell out.
>>
>>18516618
Solid ad hominem.

>What makes this wrong is that it applies to a state of nature. Not a state of civilisation, in which we live, in which you have things like the internet which make you a total fucking hypocrite to post the sorts of things you do on it.
We cannot transcend our nature. We look for the same things on a partner now that we have done for millennia.
What do women want in a man:
-Resourceful
-Able to provide
-Attractive (good genes)
-Emotional support

What do men look for in a woman
-Attractive(fertile)
-Loyal
-Kind and nurturing predisposition

Notice how nowhere is "i want a man who shares all his troubles with me"

>No, what happened was he fell into a rough time and rather than leaving him for a "better mate", she stuck with him and nurtured him back to his strong self. THAT is what everything, everything, is based off of. That is all that it is. Everything
Except most of the time they do leave him. Because women nurture CHILDREN, not their husbands. Their nurturing instincts include kissing a child's scabbed knee, not listening to how their husband feels like his life is going nowhere.
They don't want your drama. They don't want to nurture you. They want you to be strong and stable, that's how it works and the recipe for successful marriages. If you have troubles, fix them yourself by acting and leave them out of it.
>>
>>18516365

They don't want genuine emotion and vulnerability.

The want superficial emotion and vulnerability.
Look shy but don't act it (head low, eyes up, but then be confident when you talk to them).

Look like you have emotions, but don't really show them. (look into her eyes, smile when you see her, somtimes, practice facial expressions in a mirror. Learn to act. Don't show too much. Don't show negative emotions - never ever cry in front of a woman).

What women want, is a psychopath. An actor. A manipulator.
It's why women liking bad boys is a thing.
>>
>>18516644
You're saying obvious shit.

The point is that women don't deserve this. They shouldn't want it.
>>
>>18516609
this post should have gotten a get.
>>
>>18516650
Women don't deserve those things anymore than men deserve a qt girl that drain their balls every night.

Which is to say, nobody is owed anything, not men and not women.

Funnily enough it has been proved that women are attracted to the dark triad so yeah.
>>
>>18516638
>Saying something about women on average is identical to saying something about women as a whole.
Not really.
First, you still failed to prove that women on average don't want to see their partner's weaknesses and would leave if they did.
Second, even if it was true on average, there are sill many people whose sensibilities don't align with the average.
There are women out there who stayed next to their partners through all sorts of shit, and loved them nonetheless. You'd be dismissing them as if they didn't exist.

There doesn't need to be a "rule" about women, like there doesn't need to be a rule about men.
Learn to know people as they are, be true to yourself around them, establish genuine emotional connections.

This rhetoric you are using is also mildly dangerous.
Not everyone wants to deal with everything about you. It doesn't make them shit people. People have no obligations to love you.

I'll just make you an example - I met this guy, he was bipolar. He had a bad episode and I decided to stop seeing him after.
He blamed me, told me I was a piece of shit, said the same things you are saying now about me leaving because he was weak. When he was manic he turned really abusive and destroyed me emotionally.
Am I a shit person for leaving him?
>>
>>18516625
I know you think you're coming across as worldly and badass, but grown-ass adults simply don't think like you unless they've either been pretty lucky or pretty sheltered. It's not just evident in the way you write about suicide etc, but the way you write about women too. And I'm a different poster - not the woman with the suicidal husband.

Again, I could be wrong; maybe you have oodles of experience with women and you and your peers have lived tougher lives than she (or I) could possibly imagine. But ... I'm not wrong. You haven't spent any real time in the "third world," either.
>>
>>18516650

>>18516657
This is the best response. Beats anything I was going to say to that guy.

All I was going to say is that "life isn't about what you deserve, are entitled to, or what you even allegedly earned - it's about what you GET

Think half those women want someone who'll cheat on them at the drop of a hat? Or beat them?
No, they want a psychopath without the psychopathy.
It's stupid and unrealistic, but it's what they want. They'll never get it though. "

Point I'm making is, everything's shit. Learn what the rules of the game actually are, not what you desperately wish they would be. Make it bearable.
>>
>>18516641
We can't transcend it in a direct way, no. I agree with that. But society is precisely that indirect transcendence.

So it's not that women never say something like that, but that we should aim to live in a world in which they theoretically, ultimately do (treat it as an asymptote if you find the idea of women literally asking for it distasteful).

>Except most of the time they do leave him.
Right, and this is what's called "life is shit because we're still animals (in a sense)", which is directly antithetical to the whole society thing.

>Because women nurture CHILDREN, not their husbands.
But I'm not saying women need to nurture their husbands as they do their children. The difference is women nurture their children as a rule, so, it follows that they should nurture their husbands as an exception. In other words I'm not talking about a man just sit and bitch about pointless things and his wife listening to him, but rather a man going through an exceptionally difficult time and his wife giving him affection or something to lessen the pain and make it so he's got a better chance at succeeding. It's a totally evolutionarily adaptable, synergetic behaviour. Which only occurs in the higher rungs of evolution, aka civilisation.

>They want you to be strong and stable
Asking for this all the time only works in a state of nature because men don't have any higher order occupations which require emotional productivity, which are also the sorts of occupations which hold society together from the top down.

In that case perhaps personal differences here in this specific thread are socioeconomic in nature. Sometimes one is prone to forgetting that on 4chan you could well be talking to white trash. Or even minorities.
>>
>>18516657
Women are attracted to the dark triad because it's the least common denominator in men. If you don't believe that's the easiest way for a man to act then you've been on the internet for way, way too long.

People are owed things. You are a sort of masochistic retard to deny that. You probably have a lowly lot in life and that's your excuse you use to cope with it and your learned helplessness.
>I'M NOT OWED ANYTHING I'M NOT OWED ANYTHING I'M NOT OWED ANYTHING
>flogs self
>HOW DARE I ENTERTAIN THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF CREDIT, THE NOTION UPON WHICH ALL OF SOCIETY IS ALREADY BASED AS PER THE FACT THAT I BUY MY FOOD AND GASOLINE WITH FIAT CURRENCY AND/OR A CREDIT CARD.

retard
(kidding you're not a retard but come on man)
>>
wew lad what a shitshow this thread became eh? I'm going back to sleep.

lads keep your shit handled, and if you can't figure out how to prop yourself up enough with emotional closeness with your woman that you can hold your shit together, rather than actually talking about your shit. I've tried being open before, it is never a good idea. I've tried being really reserved about it, really mature about it, real occasional with it, it's never a good idea.

there is no emotional caretaker for men alright? get the thought that your spouse will be that entity out of your stupid little mind. there is a reason there are gods, and there is a reason that they are almost always portrayed as caring, or as those that give you strength to get through the hard times.
>>
Wow, reading this thread about what women want has made me despise them even more

When I die alone my only comfort will be knowing loneliness is better than being with a woman
>>
>>18516667
you don't get the point.
>>
>>18516666
>and if you can't, figure out how to prop yourself up enough
that sentence really needed that comma
>>
>>18516658
>Second, even if it was true on average, there are sill many people whose sensibilities don't align with the average.

I don't understand why you don't see how this doesn't matter. People who's sensibilities don't align with the average don't matter because they are just a complex away from it. Nothing more. It's not like they are somehow valid just because they are different. In fact, in terms of averages, the exact opposite is true. They are specifically invalid because they are not statistically normal, as in the statistical definition of normalcy.

>You'd be dismissing them as if they didn't exist.
No, I am sure that's true. What I'm saying is it's become untrue. Recently. Society is an organism just like anything else that moves. It can die. You are in deep denial of your fear of this. Not smart.
>>
>>18516665
I meant people aren't owed shit just by existing. Just because you're a woman it doesn't mean you deserve a loving and caring partner just because. You'll have to do and give back if you want it, and if you chase after the dark triad then it's likely you will land a manipulative guy which in this case would be entirely deserved.
>>
>>18516365
don't listen to women about what they want
>>
>>18516658

>There doesn't need to be a "rule" about women, like there doesn't need to be a rule about men.
There literally can't not be. If they exist at all then that's a rule. And from that fact it follows there is an infinitude of others. (if existence wasn't infinite, you could literally walk to the edge of it, which is obviously untrue, the finitude of existence, because to "walk to the edge of it" is in the first place totally inconceivable).

>People have no obligations to love you.
Your long term partner most certainly does. Again, you can deny it but no one could obviously live in a world in which their long term partners just up and sociopathically dipped out of their relationship for a "better mate". In fact, we don't even need to waste our time with categorical imperatives. Let's just take the idea to its logical conclusion. If we lived in a world where this was okay, only 1 guy would mate with all the women. And funnily enough that probably would end up a dead end on a biological basis because interbreeding would eventually destroy things. So yes, your long term partner absolutely does have a very clear obligation to at least try to love you. To not just say "well I don't anymore at this moment so I'm leaving bye".


>Am I a shit person for leaving him?
Honestly? Yeah, you probably actually are. I'm not saying that to spite you. Let's just remove the fact of our disagreement here for a moment. It was probably a shitty thing to do which you did out of weakness and selfishness and now you're excusing yourself by labelling him as "bipolar", as if he was like some terminal case (if he might as well be in a mental institution, so no, he wasn't).

But idk, why don't you tell me more about the way you treated him.
>>
men and women have a different concept of love and women are literally unable to love men in the way men consider love to be

women love the idea of a man, the status attached to him and the interests he has, not the actual person
>>
>>18516688
>They are specifically invalid because they are not statistically normal, as in the statistical definition of normalcy.
Again, this doesn't mean they don't exist.
It is stupid to assume that all women feel in a certain way because (in your opinion) on average women feel in a certain way because averages aren't exactly representative of every single person in a group and when you have a relationship you don't have it with a group, you have it with one person.
Averages are not relevant in a relationship, which is what we are talking about now.

>Your long term partner most certainly does.
Not really. They can stop loving at any point. They're in no obligation of loving you or stay with you.

>But idk, why don't you tell me more about the way you treated him.
I think I was fairly nice to him. He was pretty happy.
He threatened to kill me. Got very drunk because he used to drink a lot when he was manic, put a knife at my throat and told me he was going to kill me if I left him or if I didn't stop trying to help him.
Don't really feel shitty just because I didn't want to stay with him, I'm sorry.
>>
Without reading the replies, I got royally fucked by my gf this way, too. I'll probably never open 100% again, and I'm normie, mind you,
>>
Never show weakness in front of a woman. NEVER FUCKING CRY IN FRONT OF A WOMAN. They say that they to see that shit, but believe me, they don't. They don't know what the fuck they want.
>>
>>18516716
>I'm normie
stick around awhile
ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US.
>>
>>18516720
This should be sticky.
>>
>>18516712
>It is stupid to assume that all women feel in a certain way because (in your opinion) on average women feel in a certain way because averages aren't exactly representative of every single person in a group and when you have a relationship you don't have it with a group, you have it with one person.
You're not grasping what I said. Let me say it as clear as possible. If you feel different from the average, you simply don't really know what you feel. When I said all outliers are just a complex away from the average that's precisely to mean that the people who find themselves outside of it are simply just confused.

>Not really. They can stop loving at any point. They're in no obligation of loving you or stay with you.
My point was a lot more nuanced than that. Obviously there is a point on one extreme in which a woman can in a way formally stop loving a man, but the point is all that's in between that. They should put forth a massive amount of effort to stay in love, not a minimal one. Also, if they do stop loving their partner they should stay with them for the sake of maintaining things like the image of marriage and monogamy in society. They should recognise that they may have been too weak but that doesn't mean they get to place themselves in front of literally everyone else and ruin social images for the collective.

>Don't really feel shitty just because I didn't want to stay with him, I'm sorry.
So what exactly did you not do. Sounds like you were with him because he provided something for you and you left him once the costs outweighed the benefits. That is 100x more shitty than some unstable guy pretending to threaten your life. You know Goddamned well as I do any guy who does dramatic shit like that will never pull the trigger. Using it just because it happened in some sense is cheap. Talk is cheap.
>>
>>18516691
>>18516698
>>18516720
Thank God there are a few people here who are telling the truth.

I swear if more people started to say this stuff online and in real life then we would have less men who'd have difficulties when it comes to women.
>>
>>18516743
yeah, learning about how females are and not what they or culture tells us how they are is essential for not getting fucked in a negative way
>>
>>18516734
>If you feel different from the average, you simply don't really know what you feel.
A lot of people act differently from what you believe is average - a lot of women stay next to their husband through everything.
People are much more nuanced than you think.

>They should put forth a massive amount of effort to stay in love
Again, no obligation. No one owes you love.

>They should recognise that they may have been too weak but that doesn't mean they get to place themselves in front of literally everyone else and ruin social images for the collective.
I doubt that people being in relationship that makes them unhappy and poison them makes the community happier.

>Sounds like you were with him because he provided something for you and you left him once the costs outweighed the benefits.
I cared about him and enjoyed my time with him, but couldn't see myself spending the rest of my life with a man like that and wouldn't want my children to grow around a man like that. He was mentally unstable and unwilling to get any help, and I really know better than trying to save people who don't want to be saved.
My affection for him doesn't mean anything, he wasn't fit for a relationship and I have some self respect. I'm not going to stay with an abusive person to be a better martyr.

Again, this kind of rhetoric is scary. You are allowing abuse.
>>
>>18516748
> a lot of women stay next to their husband through everything.
You're getting your generations confused again. Data from boomers is not representative of a social cancer which only really fully metastasised in the last 30 years. The people to whom you are referring are prior to the point I'm making, regardless of them still being alive. Enron went bankrupt, that doesn't mean the executives aren't all still filthy rich.

>Again, no obligation. No one owes you love.
I've always had trouble with hearing this come out of the mouths of women. I could understand it coming from some like really self-loathing, defeated, embittered guy, but not from women. Just disgusting. Sign of the times I guess.

>I doubt that people being in relationship that makes them unhappy and poison them makes the community happier.
It does. Because it's better than the alternative. Also stop lying to yourself, there is such a thing as lowering your standards and being happy with what you have. No guy is so terrible he's going to treat you like shit for no reason. YOU were doing something as well as him. There is such a thing as just stopping expecting whatever you expect from him and letting him win. This is in fact the historical default. It's the price you pay to men for building the world for you to live comfortably in.
>>
>>18516748
>I have some self respect

off context but this shitty "i have some self respect" i heard only from one ex gf who created drama but would never apologize. ever. as if apologizing hurts your self respect.

as for women giving emotional support to men, i only experienced giving emotional support and receiving emotional support. but it usually was me giving a lot more then receiving. about 90/10
from my personal experience a relationship goes to shit when you as the man cant give enough support because you need some yourself.

the pool of men standing in line to give support is endless, especially when the woman is good looking

from reading this thread i assume you guys are mostly in your 20s

from my personal experience i can say that things change rapidly when you hit your 30s as the line of men offering support becomes smaller. when this happens women "will put up" with giving more support to hold you.
>>
>>18516748

> and I really know better than trying to save people who don't want to be saved.
This is what it all is. It is obvious to me at least. You are guilty you were too selfish to put forth the effort to help him yourself. This is what you are supposed to do as a woman, not humiliate and cuck him into seeing some therapist so you can steadily push him away.

Look, I don't know him obviously, but from the way you talk, I only am reminded of the complete selfishness and aversion to responsibility I personally had to put up with. Watch, you will probably flip that back onto me, just like she would always do. Then again, idk, did he pay for everything? Did you live with him and not have to work? Did he cook for you and always try his best to tend to you when you were having a difficult time? You'll have to excuse me but it's laughable when you do all that shit for a woman and she refuses to uphold and sort of emotional responsibility to you and still has the fucking gaul to tell you YOU are the one who needs to take on more responsibilities. Perhaps things were a little bit more even between you two, who knows. So you'll have to excuse me if you think I'm enabling someone who was maybe genuinely abusive to you, but understand I would then be coming from the exact same thing, just other way around.
>>
>>18516772

i can relate to this. i used to be in a relationship with daddys little princes. she had looks. thats it. she left me when i could not entertain her enough
>>
>>18516771
>from my personal experience a relationship goes to shit when you as the man cant give enough support because you need some yourself.
Goddamn it all. I guess it's nice to see someone who knows exactly what the fuck happened to me. I just needed to get through a rough patch, I wasn't asking her to be my Goddamn mother. Apparently women are so fucking entitled beyond belief they would rather destroy everybody's lives including their own just to stand their dumbass social value ground. "I don't need to give emotional support because I think I'm too attractive to do that and if I do it means I'm less attractive than I am, even though that's already totally obvious, and I can't violate this perception of myself in fear of serious existential crisis because my whole identity is wrapped up around my perceived false sense of attractiveness".

kms

>when this happens women "will put up" with giving more support to hold you.
What about when you replace age in women for homeliness. Are they not supposed to be roughly interchangeable. How could an ugly girl honestly believe she's not less attractive than most girls just because she has had one 9 inch dick in her life?

>it was mine
>>
>>18516770
Boomers are those with the highest divorce rate in history. Our generation has a pretty low divorce rate, and it gets lower. Millennials are better at staying married than boomers, even if they get married less.

>I've always had trouble with hearing this come out of the mouths of women.
Why? No one owes me love and I don't owe that to anybody. I work to be a person worthy of love and expect my partner to do the same.

>No guy is so terrible he's going to treat you like shit for no reason.
This is MAJOR bullshit. A lot of people are terrible and are going to treat you like shit and hurt you for no reason, or will hurt you disproportionately when you give them a little pain.

> You are guilty you were too selfish to put forth the effort to help him yourself.
He literally told me he was going to kill me if I didn't stop trowing away his alcohol, and hit me when I told me I called an ambulance to bring him to the hospital.
I tried to help, he didn't want my help. I left. I don't see how I am being selfish in this situation.

>did he pay for everything? Did you live with him and not have to work? Did he cook for you and always try his best to tend to you when you were having a difficult time?
He didn't spend 1 cent on me. He was unemployed and spent all his savings in alcohol and bullshit when he was manic, I just inherited a house, had a job and savings. I paid for all our dates.
We didn't live together, we had been dating for 9 weeks when I left him.
I never let any of the guys I dated before my husband spend a cent on me, cook for me or do anything practical for me.
And he never stayed by my side through anything, it was just 9 weeks and I was at a pretty decent point in life.

You are enabling someone abusive because you want to make a point. If you have been with someone abusive yourself, you should know better.
>>
I haven't ever seen nor experienced a relationship where the girl gave the same level of emotional support she received

Basically girl want confident guys and confident guys do things by themselves
Opening yourself to her is the quickest way to dry her up
>>
>>18516802
Divorce rate is a strawman.

>Why? No one owes me love and I don't owe that to anybody. I work to be a person worthy of love and expect my partner to do the same.
I don't think you understood what I meant then. The part about being worthy of love is already assumed in my head. So when you say that it comes across as "no one owes you love even though you are worthy of it". And again, if you double down and deny that then you're just pointing out either a tautological semantical issue which is purely linguistic in nature (the fact that there exists cases in which people who are owed things do not end up receiving them), which is, like I said, tautological and not a point to argue, or you're saying worthiness is not interchangeable with being owed. But it is. By necessity. A magnet is worthy of its opposite, and by necessity, is owed its opposite too. Think about a universe in which magnetic forces with positive and negative charges existed but never ever came into contact with each other. A hard world to imagine, probably, from a sheerly statistical point of view. So again, by necessity.

> A lot of people are terrible and are going to treat you like shit and hurt you for no reason, or will hurt you disproportionately when you give them a little pain.
First thing is just not true in any way shape or form. Second is an extension of why the first isn't true: how do you know for sure it's disproportionate. You only have your own opinion to go off of, not theirs. There is no telling whether your opinion is more objective. As a woman it probably is not. (because women tend to be less objective and more self-serving)
>>
>>18516802
>I tried to help, he didn't want my help. I left. I don't see how I am being selfish in this situation.
Because he did want your help, you just didn't want to give him the sort of help he was asking you for, and for no reason other than you would rather throw away his life than maintain your sense of being a princess with no emotional responsibilities to your partner. (Again, speaking hypothetically)

>We didn't live together, we had been dating for 9 weeks when I left him.
Then why did you bring him up in the first place. I was speaking only to the effect of long term relationships.
>>
>>18516818
>I haven't ever seen nor experienced a relationship where the girl gave the same level of emotional support she received
Then you've never been outdoors. But I think you have, you just haven't recognized them for what they were.

I mean, really? You've never seen a relatively put-together girl with a complete loser with unresolved emotional issues, an alcoholic or a dude with crippling depression or bipolar disorder or whatever? You've never seen a depressive neurotic toolbox being basically propped up and guided through life by his wife or girlfriend?

That's an unhealthy relationship model to be sure but it's certainly common. There are healthier girl-supports-guy models out there but I brought up that one because it's one that you can't possibly deny exists, fuck, if you have a reasonably-sized group of female acquaintances you'll run into relationships like that almost every day (If not, congratulations on having unusually wise female friends.)
>>
>>18516847
>You've never seen a relatively put-together girl with a complete loser with unresolved emotional issues, an alcoholic or a dude with crippling depression or bipolar disorder or whatever? You've never seen a depressive neurotic toolbox being basically propped up and guided through life by his wife or girlfriend?
100% of the time its the other way around. Women are just vastly more adept about concealing their loserness, but only because the world sees them just as a fuck object.
>>
>>18516826
>no one owes you love even though you are worthy of it
And that's it. No one owes you love - you have to be worthy of it by their standards and they have to be willing to love you.
You don't have the right to be loved. It simply doesn't exist.

>First thing is just not true in any way shape or form.
It is absolutely true. A lot of people will hurt you just out of their own interests and out of anger, even if you aren't the one who caused that anger.
I am glad if you never experienced it, but there are plenty of people who do it.

>you just didn't want to give him the sort of help he was asking you for
I helped him in the way I thought I could help, and did what I was capable of. I did my best, it wasn't enough. Happens.
It is not about "being a princess", but genuinely what could I do in a situation like this?
He'd refuse to talk to a professional, he refused to take his medication, he drank himself to death, threatened to kill me, all the times he talked to me and I tried to give him advice he'd stop talking to me for days.

> I was speaking only to the effect of long term relationships.
Because you brought up long term relationships later in the discussion.
>>
>>18516847
That only happens at those extremes because of some weird mother fetish on the girl part. With average woman average man the ratio of emotional support is like 80/20.
>>
>>18516862
How often does it happen that a man shares his feelings, tho?
I hear this kind of bullshit all the time, but while I bring up my issues with my boyfriend he rarely speaks to me about what's wrong with his life.
How can I support him if I don't know he's feeling down?
>>
>>18516868
Because as soon as a man starts telling you his issues your attraction towards him instantly drops to below zero?

This is the entire point of this thread, you say you want emotionally available men then dump them when they start telling you too many of their issues.
>>
>>18516870
That's not my experience, at all. I don't mind listening to the small stuff that goes wrong during his day, and enjoy big deep emotional talks when we share dark thoughts and bad things about our past and feels.
I don't like self pity, and I don't enjoy feeling like I'm with someone very weak, but having feelings doesn't make you weak. I actually think that being vulnerable is one of the most courageous things you can do and appreciate when my boyfriend shows that side to me.
>>
>>18516859
>And that's it. No one owes you love - you have to be worthy of it by their standards and they have to be willing to love you.
You don't have the right to be loved. It simply doesn't exist.
Talking to you is difficult because I make a point which deconstructs yours and you just repeat it in a weird self-satisfied sort of way. I already showed you how "no one owing you love" is an incoherent idea which just doesn't work. There is no such thing as being worthy of love where one cannot be owed it. Incoherent.

>It is absolutely true. A lot of people will hurt you just out of their own interests and out of anger, even if you aren't the one who caused that anger.
I am glad if you never experienced it, but there are plenty of people who do it.
No. Wrong. It always has something at least a little to do with you. You're just a child, a dumb female with her romantic ideas about "psychopathic dark triad" types of guys (which do not exist) to think otherwise. There is always push and shove. No matter how bad you want that one alpha to exist who just goes around shoving random people because he "gets off" on it. You child. He's not real.

>I did my best, it wasn't enough. Happens.
No you didn't lol. Don't lie. You put forth only what you wanted to, not what you could.

>but genuinely what could I do in a situation like this?
See him as a human rather than a "(100% stoic) man" and help him work through his emotions. Like how you're supposed to as a woman, as his partner. In your defence I would wager to guess it's more of a socioeconomic issue. Sounds like it.

>Because you brought up long term relationships later in the discussion.
Hell no. My main point is women have a responsibility to men but only the men they've been involved with for years. Specifically that point because without that how the fuck can society function. Time is supposed to be a binding agent. If that's not true then nothing is.
>>
File: lol.jpg (388KB, 1499x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
lol.jpg
388KB, 1499x1000px
>>18516818
>Basically girl want confident guys and confident guys do things by themselves
/thread
/board
/genders
>>
>>18516877
Hahahaha you are so full of shit. Sweetheart it's time to get off 4chan.
>>
>>18516862
>That only happens at those extremes because of some weird mother fetish on the girl part.
That's ... just not true, man. Lots of girls - and I do mean a LOT - are very attracted to the idea of "fixing" broken men. Guys do that too, though they usually think of it in terms of "saving" rather than "fixing." And moreover emotional vulnerability can actually be attractive ... at least at first. Yes, even in men.

It's not an obscure "fetish," it's a pattern that I've seen play out probably dozens of times. I'm trying to avoid the typical 4chan thing of, "You disagree with me so you're clearly a virgin," I'm sure you're not, but your experience with women is at least a bit *limited* if you think this is some rare and extreme thing (And limited experience with this isn't necessarily a bad thing - like I said, it's not a healthy relationship model at all, getting into a relationship to "fix" somebody.)
>>
>>18516888
Maybe it's geographical. I live in one of the biggest cities in the world and this shit would just be laughed out of the room if ever surveyed. Sounds like some sort of midwestern thing desu.

And the point is is that if it's not in the urban areas, it's probably long dead. In fact that's more along the lines of what I would say. You sound like you live in 2003.
>>
>>18516882
> It always has something at least a little to do with you.
No, it doesn't.
A guy tried to rape me. I was literally walking home in jeans and a sweater, from the store, and he pushed me down and tried to force himself on me. How was it my fault? What did I do to him?

>See him as a human rather than a "(100% stoic) man" and help him work through his emotions.
How? Other than offering him to listen to him, giving him advice, trying to take away the things that made him feel worse like alcohol, suggesting him to look for professional advice, being affectionate when he was depressed?
Which are all things that I had done, but didn't help, because he didn't want to be helped.

There is no socioeconomic issue, he was mentally ill.

I can't keep arguing, you just want to be right for the sake of it and I have things to do.
Have a nice day.
>>
>>18516907

>A guy tried to rape me. I was literally walking home in jeans and a sweater, from the store, and he pushed me down and tried to force himself on me. How was it my fault? What did I do to him?
You're outside. Women not being kept away or at least accompanied is a symptom of a failing society. You aren't the reason society is failing or anything, but there objectively is a push to that shove in that case, just to exemplify my point.

>How?
Make him feel good about himself. Have faith in him. Show him you believe in him. We can be honest on here, no one knows you and he isn't here: you know the real reason why you left him was because you didn't see him as valuable enough to give him those things.

I really doubt he didn't want to be helped. That sounds like when a girl makes up shit about their ex because they cling to the idea he was in at least one way this big alpha only to save face for the fact that they were ever in a relationship with him, someone whom they now view as more or less a total loser.

>Have a nice day.
You don't have things to do like RIGHT now. You just don't "feel entitled" to continuing this conversation. Even though you're already undeniably involved in it. This is what I mean. Civilisation exists upon the back of a social contract in which people don't just up and run away from things they find tasteless or uncomfortable. Now you know. Later.
>>
Why would she need two pussies?
>>
File: 1496073446188.jpg (20KB, 225x257px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1496073446188.jpg
20KB, 225x257px
>>18516931
>>
>>18516924
>You're outside. Women not being kept away or at least accompanied is a symptom of a failing society
Jesus Christ. Back to /r9k/. Go.

If you're going to hang out on the normie board you people need to fucking identify yourselves at the beginning of the thread. I'm not particularly feminist - like, at all - but I'm not going to waste my time talking with somebody who wants a return to the gender roles they had in literal Ancient Greece, or, like, modern Saudi Arabia.
>>
>>18516938
I've never been on r9k. Let's remove all of the memes for a second. Those gender roles are healthier. The ones we have now are the products of disease and decay. It's a tough pill to swallow but there's no real denying it.

r9k is like, round up all the roasties and keep them in containment zones. There's no tit for tat there. The reason why its r9k is because it's just indulgence in fantasy. And I'm not saying there's something wrong with the western ideal of women having certain rights, I think that's ultimately a good thing, but it's just the way we have it now, the way in which we do it right now, it's unbalanced and out of place. And all I'm saying is you said there was no reason for that guy to attempt to rape you, but there very well actually was. You are just refusing to acknowledge it. That's all.
>>
I was naive and opened up to a woman (25) who claimed she wanted to know what I was thinking instead of holding it in. She got pissed and lost attraction as soon as I told her what was on my mind. I'll never make that mistake again.
>>
>>18516888
You said it yourself, they are very attracted to the IDEA. The IDEA of a broken man is a guy that is confident, attractive, well adjusted guy yet has this deep, inner turmoil that the woman helps bring out.

And then after a deep conversation the guy goes back to being a confident, attractive, well adjusted guy.

They don't want the men with actual issues, with mood swings, who struggle with things, take time to warm up, etcetera.

To be fair the hypocrisy goes both ways. Men also love the idea of a broken girl to be saved by their love and acceptance yet don't actually want those kind of girls, so I'm not saying is a male only thing.
>>
Availability, not instability.
>>
>>18516960
Anyone who is mature knows better. You can't "fix" people and when you try, they become codependent and needy, and at worst demanding and abusive. They will move on to someone else who will enable them when you get sick of their shit.
>>
>>18517026
You can, you're just a miserable failure at being a nurturing woman in the right way.
>>
>>18517036
Stop projecting your bullshit onto everyone ITT. Nobody is obligated to be "nurturing" to an abusive, arrogant douche. Have some self confidence and you won't need your dick sucked 24/7.
>>
>>18517040
Your whole thing about not owing anyone anything comes from deep seated guilt at your inability to help those around you. Don't lie. Your ever confident alpha male isn't here to tell you I'm wrong and that everything is going to be alright. We are through the looking glass and beyond the pale.
>>
>>18517026
I agree. The difference is that men usually accept a lot more instability from their partners than women do.
>>
>>18517042
I'm a new poster, not who you were talking to. I have 0 patience for your type. Grow the fuck up or go the fuck home. Seriously.
>>
>>18517046
That's hardly a good thing. It's ruined many families. How many guys make excuses for their children's mothers because they infantilized their horribe behavior? How many of them actually get help instead of a divorce?
>>
>>18517052
You are projecting. You don't know my type.
>>
>>18517057
Well I know I have no interest in getting to know it any further.
>>
>>18517058
Am I supposed to care? lmao

You responded to my post so you straight up failed in that already didn't you.
>>
Holy shit, shut the fuck up
>>
>>18517063
I just figured you might need some extra help realizing what a giant retard you come off as.
>>
>>18517026
>>18516960
Good comments.

I think timing also has a lot to do with it, obviously if you just started dating or haven't been together for very long, dropping the bomb on some past trauma can freak some people out because they don't know how to "help," or even just let you vent. But if you're really committed to this person already, you should want to hear what troubles them so you can be aware and give them room to/ help them grow past the trauma. It's not about "fixing" anyone, that's not your job, but taking the good with the """bad""" and growing together.
>>
>>18517067
There you go again. I don't come off as a giant retard. Sorry! Nothing you can do about it.
>>
>>18517072
I used to think that way and there is still truth to it. But when someone is set in their ways and the relationship has become toxic, it's best to know when to break it off. Which means you have to go in a little guarded from the beginning. People don't do that with their first big relationship, that is how they get hurt and used.
>>
>>18517084
A lot of the times I've seen someone refer to their relationship as toxic it's been more about them trying to weasel their way out of personal responsibility. And it is always painfully obvious from the outside so I find your statement doubtful.
>>
This question makes no sense for various reasons. You're assuming all girls think this specific thing. Gender has almost no influence whatsoever on how people think. In the areas that they do, they're completely unrelated to most other ways they would think.

The average girl will be able to converse with you as much a regular guy would. You have to stop seeing an individual person who is extremely unique, as this "Girl who is just like all other girls". It doesn't work that way.

Emotion and vulnerability are not bad things. If you have a girl that is stuck in some stone age mentality where they want you to feel like some traumatized "tough guy" then best to leave her alone to find somebody else. If somebody sees emotion as weak then they've been conditioned to feel ashamed of something that is extremely healthy and important to do as a human being. Bruce lee prized emotional expression. Many great people have prized it. It is important.

"How do I do this"
You don't have to do anything. Be yourself and just work on obvious common sense flaws that drive 99% of people away from wanting to date you. They are usually extremely obvious. Then, you find somebody who accepts you for who you are. Somebody you don't have to mold yourself to be around.
>>
>>18517093
>Bruce lee prized emotional expression.
When he refers to authentic, honest expression he's talking about physical movement, not emotions.
>>
>>18517091
They left me after YEARS because of the idea it was a "toxic" relationship and then the one they left me for was 10x worse, it didnt even last a month. He is still trying to talk to me, he STILL wanted to complain to me about how mean she was. All he cared about was whether or not the person he was with would obsess and fawn over him. To this day he probably sits there waiting for me to come back to him.
>>
File: endlesspoetry.png (429KB, 849x427px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
endlesspoetry.png
429KB, 849x427px
>>18517084
I agree, if a relationship has become toxic then it's best to just sever ties. But expressing emotional trauma can either make or break a relationship. Sometimes the end of that relationship can be the catalyst for personal growth, especially if you're the one who was leaning towards being dependent. But it really boils down to this: are you willing to attempt to heal your past traumas? Or do you just want someone to take care of you?

Early in the relationship game, you're probably still learning about yourself as well. People are all so complicated and at different areas of their life, all we can do is learn from these experiences and not compromise happiness.
>>
>>18517129
Yeah like if someone is taking like 10-20 years to get over something that has negatively affected their current relationship, you probably tried everything, and they're not gonna get over it. You're just an emotional tampon at that point.
>>
>>18517146
Fuck, even 1 or 2 years should be enough to determine that.

But no matter what you do, it ultimately falls on them to change.
>>
>>18517178
I mean 1 or 2 years seems short depending on the trauma. But the trauma itself might be something that can permanently scar someone too, it's not up to you to decide whether or not that is warranted, only if you're able to tolerate it in the long run. All you can do is say "Hey, I know you're hurt, but how do you think it makes me feel to hear about your ex for years and years? Am I wasting my time or what?" and they either give a shit, or they don't.
>>
>>18517190
Good point.
>>
>>18516365
Because you aren't doing it right. You're probably insulting her at the same time, or doinig other bullshit things guys do to make women feel insecure, so she isn't opening up to you because of that
>>
>>18516374
/thread
F
P
B
P
Thread posts: 149
Thread images: 6


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.