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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Fair enough if that's what they want, but it has little or nothing to do with a "healthy relationship".
As for what happens in a long-term relationship, playing games will guarantee a failed relationship. Love and respect are what keeps relationships strong and healthy. What people love about their partners, and what people want from their partners, differ wildly according to personality, life stages and other circumstances. It has nothing to do with gender identity.
I guess. But he was just trying to give perspective from a more related-to-me source.
And where do you derive that deduction from?
Sure, it does. If you keep the spark that you had going when you first met (ie: the honeymoon phase), then you have a very healthy relationship.
I never advocated for playing games. And I never advocated against love and respect. But they are certainly not the only determining factors in a relationship. I also never stated that my guide is universal as there are some bifactors, but by-and-large, it is applicable because gender identity does come into play. Not in the same way you're thinking though.
When I say gender roles exist, I'm not saying that women don't have rights or the ability to form a career or that they should be oppressed housewives. You need to know what your partner wants in life (even though most people don't even know what they want in life), but there are certain handlebars that the genders feel comfortable latching onto.
You also didn't answer my question at the end.
Pick Up Artist.
Basically, it's the psychology of wimmenz. Whether you take that to be one night stands or a deep meaningful relationship. Though, dudes who can't measure up typically don't like them anyway.
Perhaps you should psychologise me and my twin sister and then tell me that you can lump us all together, eh?
Or maybe I'm just weird.
Tell me, Chief, how would you go about trying to get into MY pants?
But can I make a very small request? "wimmenz"? STOP IT PLEASE
No, no, no, I don't know how I can say how completely and utterly wrong you are in any other way. Everything you've written in this entire thread is bollocks.
Relationships do not operate along gender lines. Not all women want x and not all men want y. It comes down to personality and personal taste, it comes down to how each partner treats the other partner and it comes down to what two people want to compromise on to share their lives together.
What I want from my wife and what she wants from her husband are personal to us. People are attracted to different personality traits and different physical traits. What they're attracted to is personal to them and talking of 'alpha' males and 'beta' males is complete and total shit. What the fuck is an 'alpha male' anyway?
As for your question at the end, gender identity doesn't make any difference as to whether it is acceptable to hit someone. If a woman is trying to attack me I will hit her; if a man is trying to attack me I will hit him. If they're not trying to attack me then I won't. Hitting someone is sometimes acceptable, but rarely, and that doesn't change depending on whether it is a man or a woman.
I sense this would not work on me
I wouldn't.
No.
Humour me.
Of course I don't like the cod psychology bullshit because I "can't measure up". It couldn't possibly be that I don't like cod psychology bullshit because it's cod psychology bullshit.
The central premise of the PUA argument is that people like confident, attractive people who are confident and attractive. It's not exactly a ground-breaking insight into the human psyche. Beyond that, it's just window dressing.
Because it's cutesy and annoying, just like us
Now, a few years ago I would have had the same reaction. "lyk omg thats so sexist u dnt no nuthin bout nething!" Really, though, it's not. Where does it say, even once, that women are somehow weaklings or inferior? Where does it say that a woman can't have a career or even (god forbid) leave the kitchen? It doesn't. Also, since there seemed to be some confusion on this: feeling safe in the arms of your man doesn't mean that you're scared and helpless whenever you're on your own. That'd be ridiculous and you'd need to be in some sort of therapy to deal with that separation anxiety.
The article lays out a very simple concept, and some of you are getting way too bent out of shape over it. Yes, it's a very "traditional" set of views, but it's not as outdated as you seem to claim. The difference between this and the "sexist" ideals you're sputtering about is that this doesn't say anything about the right of the woman to pursue what she wants in life. Maybe in the 19th century, women had to stay at home with the kids, had to dress a certain way, had to act a certain way. This article lays out no such guidelines. If Chris was dating a girl and she wanted to go out and become the CEO of some big company, he wouldn't stop her. Nor would he break up with her because she doesn't fit his "sexist" ideal of what a woman should be.
You're acting like this article is a recipe for disaster because no woman wants to feel "safe" with her man, no man ever has that protective instinct with a woman, no woman ever wants her man to think of her as someone he can relax around and who will support him, gawd no. Some women are actually just fine with this view of relationships, myself being one of them, and I'm rolling my eyes at you guys spacking out like this is some big insult to relationships everywhere.
Ya'll need to chill out.
No matter how many times you say it's "bollocks", that doesn't change the fact. If my entire argument were "you're wrong", you'd all have a hair up your ass about how much of a dick I'm being.
But you obviously don't read a single thing I say as you're still making the same arguments I've already went over and explained. I never said "all" anything, yet you keep using that same tired argument. The exception doesn't invalidate the rule.
But seriously? You think it's okay to hit a woman? Honestly, that tells me all I need to know about you. But at least you're consistent in your views.
XD
Why would I do that? I have no interest in you and even if I felt the inclination to do a nonsensical hypothetical, no matter what I said, you'd format your reaction to "lol that wouldn't work on me".
Why not?
Is that the central premise of PUA? Hahahahaha. Okay, I see how much you've actually read before coming to a conclusion. You obviously know nothing of the subject, yet you're talking about it like you've spent years as a pick up guru.
Perfect example of dudes with penis envy who can't measure up:
One day, I was on my way home from school and this guy from my school -- whom I had seen a few times, but never really acquainted myself with -- sat with me on the ride home. We were bullshitting, yadda yadda yadda and then he asks me if I'm friends with two guys, who for the sake of privacy, I will refer to as X and Y. X is a PUA and Y is a dude with a lot of game, whom I hang out with a lot.
Nodding a yeah, he explains how X and Y are such horrible guys and just use women and act so disrespectful with their vulgar jokes, yadda yadda yadda. So, I raised an eyebrow and I was like, "But their tactics in courting girls works, so obviously there's an element of legitimacy to what they're doing." And you could see the steam pouring out of his ears as he big his tongue and said "I guess so."
This was not a guy who had any reason at all to hate X or Y. X and Y didn't even know the guy. But because they were successful with girls and he wasn't, he hated them. This wasn't an isolated incident either.
You can attempt to rationalize it all you want, but the mere fact that you think the "PUA argument" is that people are attracted to "confident and attractive" shows that your disdain is ill-founded and misplaced.
Trust me, I thought the same thing about PUA until I actually bothered to read beyond the first paragraph on the Wikipedia page.
I'm not saying that any of what he said was intrinsically wrong, but the way it's laid out as a 'this is how relationships have to be to function' bugs me, because it's not true.
From my own personal experience, I've never felt 'protected' by my boyfriends (except for now, because he's massively OVER protective and as such it scares me a little), I've never felt like I need to nurture them, and those things are actually fairly equal in my current relationship. I comfort him when he's sad, just as he does me.
Chief - alright, fine. What my question was really asking was how you would go about trying to hook up with ANYBODY. Not necessarily me. Since you clearly don't want me (you're missing out, lemme tell you
It really depends on the girl, the situation I'm placed in, how long/well I know her and what exactly I want from her. You guys seem to be under the impression that my saying there are commonalities among girls and what they want equates to me saying that all girls are the same and that's not true.
And don't take that as an insult. You're a cool girl and all, but you're not my cup of tea for anything of that sort.
Being "nurturing" doesn't mean that you comfort him and he doesn't do the same for you. Relationships do need a certain amount of balance, especially in that respect. It's just that the way we comfort each other isn't necessarily the same. At the end of the day I'd like to go home to my guy and know that no matter what he's going to make me feel safe and loved, and he knows that no matter what I'm going to try to make our home a place where he can check his stresses at the door and not have to worry about anything.
Personally, I probably take the article a little further. I'm naturally submissive in any romantic relationship, so if I don't feel like he's (metaphorically speaking) "bigger" than me, I'm not going to be as happy. To be honest, I'd be perfectly content as a housewife and someday stay-at-home mom. Make him some coffee and breakfast and pack his lunch in the morning, have a hot meal waiting when he gets home, keep the house from being in a total shambles... And my remaining free time would be spent reading, having coffee with the other wives on the block, whatever, haha. This is not because I feel like I'm above working for a living, and I fully understand that I will most likely need to have a job outside the house in order for us to pay the bills. It's simply what I would be happy with. I may not understand all these women today with their feminazi "I WILL SHAVE MY LEGS WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT AND YOU WILL NOT COMPLAIN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CONTROL ME RAAAHHHH" views about relationships, but I do understand that they exist. I hate it when women imply that there aren't any women like me out there, though, or that we've been "brainwashed" into thinking that what we want is normal. I feel like that's been happening in this thread, and it has me sorta baffled.
1. I don't need to be asked. I posted an advice thread. No one asked you to reply to it.
2. I never said all women are a particular way. In fact, I said numerous times that they are not.
I must say though that I feel elated that you'd make your first post in my thread.
I'm not saying you think all women are exactly the same, that would be ridiculous even for you. What I was referring to was you saying all women are "passive" which is certainly something I have never experienced and is in my opinion completely wrong. I also note that you have qualified all your generalisations by saying things like "with a few exceptions" etc but I'm afraid this hasn't been enough to convince me that what you say is the rule and not the exception itself.
I also couldn't help noticing that in your guide for asking a woman out you stated that:
"The wimmenz are raised on Disney and fairy tales and are militantly melancholy with their day to day activities. It is up to you to extend your magic carpet and show them a whole new world."
emmm, excuse me? Since when do women not do spontaneous fun things unless expressly invited to by a man. I am extremely curious as to where you're getting your information from apart from your own (seemingly) distorted experiences.
As I said to others, you're entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't care if you dispute clear-as-day empiricism. Your opinion on the subject being different doesn't suddenly make mine wrong.
As for the latter bit, it's anecdotal. Women are creatures of curiosity and fantasy; typically unfulfilled by their mundane suitors. Create an air of excitement and thrill and you have a big portion of the battle already won.
Please. Start thinking instead of just reacting.
Even so, I have often observed that so-called "scientific" studies on psychology and the like back up what the reseacher him/herself believes. It is fairly easy to find "evidence" to "confirm" a wide range of conflicting opinions within the social sciences field in general. Your guide appears to me an attempt to validate your own way of doing things by claiming that it is what most people do.
Also, I don't believe the average man is "mundane" either. On the contrary, they seem a lively bunch.
Maybe this is because of my age but I find the average man, or boy, mundane. At school I'm surrounded by guys who are extremely uninteresting and not driven to do much of anything. I consider myself a person whose life goal is to gain knowledge, I absolutely love learning. I have yet to find more than a handful of men who even understand this. Sure, I have plenty of guys who I'm good friends with but after being with a few guys I find that they all tend to do the same thing, follow me around like some sort of puppy and get all perky when I kiss them. They all want to go out to dinner, go see a movie, go bowling, blah blah blah. Maybe all of the guys outside of this city are better but I have yet to find someone who really knocks me off my feet with their originality.