Does anyone else find excessive confidence in women a turnoff? (partner, conversations)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The key word in the OP is "excessive." That's like asking if men like women who wear "too much" makeup or who are "overly" generous. The question is slanted to give a biased response.
The key word in the OP is "excessive." That's like asking if men like women who wear "too much" makeup or who are "overly" generous. The question is slanted to give a biased response.
"excessive" is relative, just like everything else.
I struck out a bit with a couple of men I was interested in, and I thought it was because I was too easy, too straightforward about my desires and intentions...too confident, and not feminine enough. It may have been something entirely different, neither of them were inclined to discuss it with me (though I really wish they had.) Combine that with the fact that I'm a slender little person, not a curvaceous lady, I don't know how to wear makeup, I don't like girly fashions or wander about giggling or have a girlish voice... I had a short time of sadness and insecurity, figured because I would not be wanted or liked for me, I'd have to become something false or else deal with constant rejection and be on the outside looking in at what the "real girls" were able to enjoy.
So fortunately for me, that was a heap of baloney, I just needed to have more patience and make better choices in which men I was trying for.
Some men do want women who are less ASSERTIVE. Let them do the wooing, chasing, or persuading. And yet we know from posts here, if not from experience too, that there are also men out there who don't like women to play around, hide their interest, or make them jump through hoops.
All sorts of people find or make opportunities for breeding, you don't get a medal of honor for reproduction in a species/population (nation, society, culture) where we have nearly demolished the entire concept of "survival of the fittest."
I am not saying that basic animal nature has no place in the conversation, but as thinking, inventing, problem-solving animals, humans have in many ways altered the basic script we started with. There is more to it than basic evolutionary biology or breeding strategy.
Its actually one of my favorite movies...but fortunately I am able to separate reality from a Hollywood movie. I know a certain group of people finds it very, very challenging. From evolutionary perspective, those who get to reproduce are winners. Those that don't are losers, its really that simple. The reason I said this, is that if you really observe how women select men, it almost always mirrors this perspective. I find it fascinating in how many different ways it reveals itself, over and over and over.
Women during their ovulation period, choose masculine and dominant men, where is during the rest of the month, they at times choose weak men. Why do you think that is? Why do you think gentle, nice, weak, feminine men don't get laid for decades at a time unless they pay for an escort, despite saying all the right things to please the women they accidentally interact with ? Why do women prefer men who dominate them in the bedroom? Why do women hold a camera up, when they take a selfie? There are clear answers to these questions and hundreds more, only if you are willing to observe.
Its actually one of my favorite movies...but fortunately I am able to separate reality from a Hollywood movie. I know a certain group of people finds it very, very challenging. From evolutionary perspective, those who get to reproduce are winners. Those that don't are losers, its really that simple. The reason I said this, is that if you really observe how women select men, it almost always mirrors this perspective. I find it fascinating in how many different ways it reveals itself, over and over and over.
Women during their ovulation period, choose masculine and dominant men, where is during the rest of the month, they at times choose weak men. Why do you think that is? Why do you think gentle, nice, weak, feminine men don't get laid for decades at a time unless they pay for an escort, despite saying all the right things to please the women they accidentally interact with ? Why do women prefer men who dominate them in the bedroom? Why do women hold a camera up, when they take a selfie? There are clear answers to these questions and hundreds more, only if you are willing to observe.
Spork, while I think there are variations on the theme, rare variations which tend to separate human from Human, for the general populace these ARE very real factors, applicable in day-to-day life.
As always, there is the old "*I* don't do that, so it's not real" card to play. That's for those who refuse to even consider a possibility, let alone weigh it for acceptance or refute.
In our modern, "kinder-gentler" age of pinning hopes onto a giant Dream Board by just "putting it out there into the Universe", where PC thinking trumps critical thinking, LOVE outweighs carnal desires (when it's convenient for the speaker), emotions trump traditional thinking, etc. Today, "it's what's inside that matters" and that's pretty much touted as a bottom line of sorts.
If you sit through a basic Anthropology class one of the most entertaining portions of any given series involves Marriage and Reproduction. The first question any professor worth his/her salt will ask is "Why do we, as humans, marry?"
The air will immediately be filled with young voices who shout "Love!" Sometimes the debate involves definitions of love but if a professor has been through enough of it that he/she tires of the game, they'll just say "Wrong. Marriage is a contract defined solely by sexual and financial exclusivity. Everything else is a variation on a theme." And when you get down to brass tacks, this is correct.
This remains true, even in the more rare matrilineal societies where women control wealth, power and heredity.
Sorry, but it is not even remotely as simple as "pish-posh" any more than human interaction could be boiled down to Question2015's regurgitation of social anthropology. Both right, both wrong.
But to address Question2015's assertion of "success" more directly -- he/she is correct on the count of the passing on of genetic material. In loftier thought this matters less, but in the muck and the nitty-gritty, it matters quite a lot. The real differences between men and women when it comes to this regard who feels they have something to lose and whether their needs outweigh those of the so-called partner.
We've all heard stories of men cuckolded, indignant when they discover they've spent time and resources for a child not their own. Women immediately get upset at this one, because you should still love this child, what difference does it make who the father is?
What they don't get is that 1) men DO still love these children, but they've just been whammied with an enormous jolt of confusion involving 2) sexual betrayal and deception on top of finding out a part of them will not be passed on.
Now, take that portion where I said a part of them will not be passed on. The immediate rebuttal by women is that what's important is being passed on, the lessons, the love, the memories. Men are so **huff-huff** shallow that they can't focus on what's reeeaaaaaally important!
Seek out some resources. Watch what happens to women when they find out babies were switched at birth, when suddenly they have reared a child not their own. They act like they're falling apart: The hurt, the pain, the confusion.
1. They still love the child they raised, BUT...
2. They become desperate to seek out their actual, physical child.
3. They are angry, very, very angry at the hospital for such a dreadful mix-up, even when it was a question of labeling, not a question of having been deceived by an unfaithful partner.
In the end things work out, lives go on; but that immediate turmoil -- well, it gives lie to the general poo-pooing doled out to men during such episodes, a very real juxtaposition of I know you're upset, but let's be reasonable against Just what the hell went WRONG here, huh?!?!? I demand some answers and I demand them NOW!
There is only ONE explanation for such confusion and anger on the part of women when these things happen, and that is because genetics play a larger part than people want to admit. With men, there is the potential question of passing on one's genes. This is why babies almost invariably resemble their fathers during the early years. It's a genetic defense, a holdover from the dawn of the specie. It's not until about age 3-4 children begin to shift and much more strongly resemble a mixture of the parents or the other parent. This is no accident.
My whole "pish posh" comment was just...it is not that simple.
I've known lots of men who were not studly masculine dudes who still made babies. Lots. I've known men who looked like they crawled out of the slimiest shallow end of the gene pool who have made a whole trailer full. And women who....ok, let's just say that SOMEONE was willing to facilitate the creation of Honey Boo-Boo with the woman who birthed her, mmkay?
There is clearly far more to this, than "only winners (implied: humans who demonstrate superior traits of some kind) get to reproduce." All sorts of humans reproduce. And our social system does its best to keep those babies alive. Beyond that...well...what they grow up to be is another story altogether.
I also see confident women getting plenty of action. Case in point...the woman who owns and runs our local "community center for alternate lifestyles"...she's a substantial, ruddy cheeked, middle aged lady who likes to have her boots shined and kissed. She walks around with a cricket bat and she knows how to use it. She sounds scary, and she kind of is, but when she smiles, the room lights up. She goes by the nickname of "The Mother -Effing- Queen." And she hasn't got the slightest bit of difficulty attracting men...and her confidence, being a REAL thing and not a FAKE thing, also blends in her nurturing and supportive feminine social traits. She does a lot for others, she's a matriarch of the community, and she is rightly respected and has a lot of self respect. And despite not being a 20 year old submissive breeder, she sure is attractive to a lot of men. I would argue that one can be very feminine and still very confident...and that "feminine" comes in an awful lot of flavors. Just because a guy prefers one flavor over another doesn't mean that it's inherently superior to all.
I'm not arguing that those anthropological observations are not a thing, or are completely invalid, but I will absolutely argue that they're not the whole story, and there is a lot more to the human experience than that. It's not just my own life that disproves it as absolute unified theory, but hundreds of cases I've seen and observed.
Sure, there are plenty more male Doms and female subs....doesn't mean that the opposite doesn't exist or withers away for lack of attention or love. That would be like arguing that because reproduction is important and most people are heterosexual, that gay people are not a thing or should not exist, or will have trouble finding partners. Which simply is not true.
My whole "pish posh" comment was just...it is not that simple.
[snip]
I'm not arguing that those anthropological observations are not a thing, or are completely invalid, but I will absolutely argue that they're not the whole story, and there is a lot more to the human experience than that. [snip]
Which is, I believe, also the point I made, although I will admit that "pish-posh" came off as dismissive toward the whole idea rather than just suggesting it was not that simple.
No, you got it wrong. Winners, are those who get to pass on their genes. Losers are those that don't. If you are a feminine man, chances are you will end up as a loser in this equation.
Wrong again. It has been shown again and again that the higher the IQ, the less likely it is one will have children. Furthermore, women who drop out of high school have the most children, and the more intelligent a woman is, the less likely it will be that she wants children.
So unless you think it's the sign of a winner to go around impregnating high school drop-outs who can't even figure out how to use birth control, I wouldn't cling too tenaciously to your theory.
Then again, there could be a method to such madness: Intelligence is more likely to be passed down through the mother. I suppose if so-called "intelligent winners" went around impregnating less intelligent women, the world would soon be populated with easily controlled slack-jawed idiots, the better for such "intelligent winners" to dominate and exploit. Hmmm...
Meanwhile, the rest of us are too smart to have sex with such "winners" in the first place. We don't ascribe to the Theory of Male Ascension.
I find confidence in women as attractive as I find creativity, compassion, gentility, firmness, strength, wit, intestinal fortitude, a desire to adapt to and overcome adversity, an active sexual nature, a sly yet open smile, loyalty -- pretty much any desirable qualities denoting a great partner in life, come what may.
I think "excessive confidence" at least vaguely spells out the parameters of the question/discussion.
In the great p!$$!n@ contest of whether men or women are better, I wish we could all get along but we can't, so I don't care about the majority, just the ones who play well with others and have something to bring to the table. It's a lesson about Humanity I wish I'd wrapped my head around at a much younger age. Life would have gone quite differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
