If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Ripplemagne's Guide To A Healthy Relationship
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think the reason this one is my favorite is probably because I agree with it so much.
also back to the 'puzzle' thing, i dont really want to be *encompassed* by a bloke thankyou v much
As for the traits, they're general. Yes, there are some women who are more dominant and some men who are beta males, but in a general sense, that's how it works. And the people who do have reversed personalities tend to find it harder to find a mate. And everyone has traits like being protective or nurturing, but there is a type-a and type-b version.
As for the puzzle, it's not meant literally (literally, you'd more "encompass" him, but I'll save that for Sex Ed.)
hm, i dont mean to be rude but im not so sure hetero relationships are your 'expertise' either.
i find your opinion interesting but i still disagree with the huuuge generalisations you are making. you cant have type a and type b people. i think it's more like abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz = one person. m or f (yeah i did just type the alphabet). people are way too complex and it's entirely dependent on the situation.
if someone really annoys me then i can stand my ground, if i am having a bad day or feel uncomfortable then i will let people walk all over me. this isn't down to my gender, it's down to my ever changing personality, my life experiences, whether i am on my period, whether the sun is up, if my dvd from play.com has arrived on time. yada yada you get the gist.
How can you have abcdetcetera in terms of individual personality traits? They're either active or passive traits. Ex: Aggressive and passive-aggressive.
But tell me, do you think there is no difference between men and women?
the passive/aggressive/ passive and aggressive thing i've never been a believer in. i dont like this weird obsession we have with labelling ourselves. to me it seems almost as bollocky as horoscopes. i've been described as a passive person, but wind me up in the right way and i can be pretty aggressive. it's dependent on the situation. also people change all the time. you are changing now without realising it. tomorrow you will continue changing. hopefully you will fall in love with some *macho* aggressive non desirable girl and your views on relationships will alter
i believe men and women are biologically different and because of culture and so are pre-disposed to certain behaviours e.g men feeling it necessary to open doors for us because it's considered gentlemanly behaviour (not that there is anything wrong with this) but it's definitely not a rule of thumb for everyone. i reckon you're confusing this strange notion about the sexes you have with your own equally odd expectations :thumb:
And yes, people change. But a) they have core values that do not b) the new traits can also be defined with words.
And no, I fully recognize that women are not all the same. But if you look at the ones who tend to be aggressive and lack feminine qualities, they tend to wind up alone. You can try to psychoanalyze me any which way you want, but it's a fact that men are generally more aggressive than women. It's a fact that women tend to be more nurturing than men. It's a fact that men and women compliment each other in different ways typified by nature.
but again, if something is orange it usually stays orange. sure we can label ourselves into different personality types but i personally prefer not to because there is a danger of believing that if you are passive ie. weak. you are that way for life.
i dont know what you mean by core values? i'll take a stab in the dark. when i was six my core value was that all boys were smelly or mean. when i was ten my core value was that my parents were always right. when i was seventeen my core value was that life wasn't worth living. all of these things changed.
okay i see you are generalising again and again i disagree. i dont think men are more aggressive than women at all. having attended an all girls school i've been witness to some downright brutal fights between girls. and now i am going to bed, but will respondezzz tomorrow....
If it pleases you, I'll use another example. The word "caterpillar" exists to define a creature that eventually changes into a "butterfly". We use words to get points across and communicate ideas.
When I was younger, I used to be all anti-label about things too. But it really just comes down to using words as a means of conveying ideas. If we didn't have "labels", we could never give someone an explanation of something. Even down to just the descriptive aspect of writing, where character development would just be dry without labels to define them.
But no, by passive, I don't mean weak. Mahatma Ghandi was passive, but was he weak? I certainly don't think so. And I certainly am not telling anyone that they cannot change things that they don't like about themselves. But what I am conveying is that a certain formula works and is based on our natural chemistry.
For example, as a woman, do you not prefer when a guy shows alpha status by approaching you rather than waiting for you, the woman, to approach him? That's because natural courting procedure places man as pursuer and woman as the "prize". It doesn't make you weak to feel the way your natural instincts guide you to. Sure, there are women with testosterone imbalances or women who simply want to be difficult by doing the opposite of societal norms, but again, my guide is based on the general.
That's not a core value. A core value is an aspect that, as you age, does not change. It's sometimes hard to define a core value from our current points in time. But I, for example, am a very curious person. That's a core value of mine. There are aspects like the fact that I went from shy kid to Mr. Popularity in a year that do not fall under that category, but there are some things about us that just define us.
When people say things like "I'm still me" defines it quite well.
No one said that women cannot be aggressive. But it's pretty much empirical fact that men are generally more aggressive.
You are taking what I'm saying and making it as though I'm saying everything applies to everyone in all circumstances. But as I explained before, there's traits that are more active and traits that are more passive (dormant, even.) There is variety, but there is also majority and basic ingrained methodologies.
These methodologies up a person's chance for a healthy relationship. Men being men and women being women. I'll use myself as an example.
I mentioned earlier that I went from shy to Mr. Popularity. This was a big change for me because, before, I was a very isolated person, who didn't really get any girls even though I was a pretty good looking guy.
When I came into myself and took on a more active role, actually approaching girls and presenting alpha qualities, I not only managed to turn that around, but I also outdid all of my peers. Why? Because I went from one extreme to another, whereas they were still stuck in limbo. They were more active than I was before, but still more passive than I am now. So, if you don't discount the Ladder Theory, I was basically on a higher tier of the ladder.
Now, I don't tell this story to brag. I tell it because it illustrates what I'm talking about in terms of aggressive and passive. By being aggressive (and I don't mean aggressive as in RAAAAWR), I establish my confidence in being the leader of the pack. This, in turn, creates alpha status, which translates to pussy galore.
Apropos of nothing else in this thread but Gandhi was anything but passive. Non violent maybe but he courted confrontation, hardly a passive act.
I have been in homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and to be honest, it comes down to the person. Yes, you should be there to rely on and support one another, but this sounds like something from the dark ages! I am an equal to my partner. He is not my emotional crux, nor am I expected to make my partner 'at ease' with my charming womanly conversation. Yes, people always bring different strengths and weaknesses to the relationship, but it is just Victorian to think that it boils down to a man being a leader and woman being a supporter.
I'm going on personal experience here, but I would hold my partner when he's upset, laugh at his stupid jokes, and advise him when he has a problem, just the same as I have done for all my previous partners, and I know he does exactly the same for me. I most certainly do not put the health of my relationship down to feeling safe in my lovers arms. I feel equally safe in the world when I'm not in his arms (part of being a well adjusted, secure person I would say).
People in relationships (not just men and women) don't understand each other because of a breakdown in communication, not because one person is from Mars, another is from Venus. Gender sterotyping is a very unhealthy thing, and I hate to think how crazy I would be if my partner tried to put me in the woman box. Yes my sex is female, but I am a person with complex sets of opinions and emotions that cannot be reduced to woman versus man.
I kind of see what you were getting at about the teenage thing - of course the relationships we have at 17 are different to those we have at 35, but it's a learning curve. Of course you have to love, support and understand yourself before you can love, support and understand anybody else - that's just common sense. Thing is, you don't learn any better way than through experience. All my short, early relationships were like practice runs. I made a lot of mistakes, learnt a lot of lessons and am now a well rounded person in a healthy relationship with a wonderful friend. I couldn't have learnt everything I have through watching other people having the experiences.
There's only ever one key component to a healthy relationship: respect. If you have it you have a healthy relationship, if you don't you don't.
Anything beyond that, talking about man as protector and woman as supporter, is outdated cod-psychology claptrap. Men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus, at the end of the day all humans want very similar things: a home environment and relationship that is loving and safe, based on mutual respect.
and love
If you're offended by an article, then you really need to get out more.
You're free to believe whatever makes you feel good, but that has no bounds on the legitimacy of my guide. Why do the best PUAs in the world all have the same views? Why do psychologists continually find differences between men and women that support my thesis?
Fact of the matter is that men and women are fundamentally different. I normally segway into this article with a little social experiment, where I debate Dick Masterson's thesis, but I felt the sensitivity of this forum wouldn't be able to keep up with it. Nevertheless, the point it would illustrate is the fundamental differences via studies, anecdotal evidence, et cetera. The fact that this has prompted such outrage leads me to conclude that not only is this forum too sensitive, but waaaaay too hypersensitive.
Hint: If women weren't biologically designed as support modules, there would never have been the "horrific 19th century sexist bull" that you mentioned.
You seem to be under the impression that if women don't have a dick between their legs, that they are somehow devalued. That is absolutely not the case. It works much the same way as a Poland Spring bottle of water. There are two elements to it; the bottle and the water. Without the water, the bottle is useless. Without the bottle, the water is useless. Their different strengths and weaknesses compliment one another.
Granted, academia and the media is trying its damndest to make men into women and women into men -- that doesn't change our natural inclinations.
Why do you think there are so many people out there, who change relationships more than most people change their underwear? Why do you think there are so many people, who sit around lonely and longing? Because they're given mixed messages on how to court a mate.
This is all field-tested. But it's kind of funny because your reaction to this is the same way my reaction would have been... when I was 15. In fact, it pretty much was the same reaction (obviously not to my same article though; more in reaction to the Ladder Theory, which is mooooostly accurate.) I'm not meaning to put you down or your views on the subject; whatever you think makes you happy. But I do understand your concern and outrage (to some degree), as it was once my stance on the subject as well.
You talk about these "previous partners". But the fact of the matter is that they're just that; the past. And who is to say your current partner won't soon be the past as well? Your entire contrast to my article was predicated on "Well, I'm in a relationship and I disagree, so it's bullshit."
If you disagree, that's fine. But quit getting so over-the-top about it.
Okay. Lets field test that.
You go up to a hundred wimmenz, telling them that if they go out with you, you will "respect the fuck out of them!" And I'll go up to a hundred wimmenz and use my methods. We'll tally up how many girls give the "I have to use the restroom" and never come back and calculate if the only thing important to a woman is "respect".
I'm not trying to disrespect you or anything, but while respect is a necessity, it's far from the only factor to take into consideration. And I believe by telling people what you are, you're giving them an idyllic, Disney-esque perception of what a relationship is that will not match up to reality.
I'll just go home to my wife, whom I have been married to for six years and been in a relationship with for ten years, instead. Because, guess what, I'd rather have sex 1000 times with her than have sex once with 1000 women.
Beyond that, I haven't got a fuck what you're on about. PUAs, other than being stupid cunts, are interested in nothing other than notches on bedposts, not on actually having a relationship with a woman. Once they've fucked her, they're not interested, it's on to the next woman. A one night stand does not, under any circumstances, qualify as a 'relationship', even less a 'healthy relationship'. Even the most "successful" PUAs have talked about not wanting to use their "techniques" on women they actually see as marriage material; several have blogged about settling down with women who were resistant to their "techniques" or actually told them to get knotted when they tried their "techniques" on them.
If you were talking about how to pick up women I'd still thinking you were talking out of your arse, but you weren't talking about picking up women. You were talking about having a long-lasting 'healthy relationship' with a woman. And your cod psychology bollockspeak has nothing to do with maintaining a healthy relationship.
My wife's not from Venus, she's from Cumbria.
I only 'vouch' for people if they ask for it.
PUAs vary dramatically, depending on the person. The association between one-night-stands and PUA is nonsensical because, while some have that ambition, not all do. However, they all acknowledge my thesis, in that men and women are fundamentally different. If you go into courting a woman in the way that you, as a man, would want to be courted -- you will be very disappointed.
If the methodology of courting is one way for pick ups, then it is the same way for courting (with some tweaks, admittedly.) If a girl is attracted to you because she sees that you are fun, stable, socially dominant with an air of novelty she hasn't seen before, then once you're in a relationship, if that all turns off -- you've just fucked up the game. And people make this mistake all the time. They allow themselves to lose the novelty that made the other person fall in love with them in the first place.
This is why these things don't just "wear off". But, of course, you think this is bullshit (so why bring the pick up thing at all?), so obviously if you say my writing is "bollockspeak", then it must be. It's funny because you spent all that time talking about something that didn't matter and then when you got to the main sector of what you had to say, you just said "you're wrong and stuipd".
If you disagree, fine. More power to you. But if you're going to take an absolutist stance that my guide is bullshit, don't make your explanation for it being bullshit... that it's bullshit.
I dunno why you've all been mentioning this Venus/Mars thing incessantly as I haven't said a single thing about men being from mars or women from venus. Both're from Earth, but they are still different. It amazes me that people are so pressed by external influences that they can't acknowleddge that simple fact.
Question: If men and women are the same, is it okay for a man to hit a woman? (Don't give me some bullshit about how it's not okay for anyone to hit anyone. You know what I mean.)
I hadn't even spoken to him today until after he posted that.
That's exactly why I mentioned it.
Because most of us have no idea who he is, what is the good of him 'vouching' for you? I'd consider it more of a hindrance than a help.
But we don't know him so his 'vouching' amounts to nothing .... if you know what I mean?