Women treated badly 94

What you say is true. But the problem is that women are most attracted to men who treat them badly. And they continue to seek out men who will treat them badly. Women see men who treat them well as weaklings. This seems to be the design of nature. I can't mistreat anyone therefore I'll always been seen as weak by women.

But where does the strength really lie. Is it in the weakness of the women who cannot break a vicious cycle, or the men who write them off because they feel rejected. You also have to realize that those jerks also employ charm to win over their women. Those women, in turn, get rather suspicious over any form of compassion, even if genuine. If you truly have compassion for someone, it should be apparent and be motivated out of love and not pity. It takes more strength to be honest and true than to be fake and underhanded.

"If you truly have compassion for someone, it should be apparent and be motivated out of love and not pity"

Good point.

Read the post: "Why do women who have good men...cheat on them....and women who have bad men...usually more often than not...stay with them?" for more insight on this topic.

I think it's a mistake to be trying to date someone while they're recovering from their past traumas. It's better to put things on hold until they work it out well enough to fully function and then maybe start looking at them.

"Help" is not spelled "date". Don't put your heart or your genitalia on the chopping block for someone who's out for blood. Having compassion doesn't have to mean trying to fix their problems by letting yourself be used as a guinea pig.

Find someone who is ready for you.

Attraction is not a choice. Attraction arises in the limbic system or emotional area of the brain. Women call this chemistry. And they seem hard-wired for attraction to the worst kind of men for sex. Is it nature that keeps them going back to the abusive man?

Ugh good grief. Come on man.

Attraction is what it is. People need to just recognize that it is what it is.

Attraction is not LOVE nor does it mean jack shit in regards to how that person will treat you. That is a seperate issue alltogether and it has to do with their intentions their character and NOTHING to do with how YOU feel about them or what you like about them.

Attraction is no excuse for bad choices in partners. Yes you may like this and that about the person but look at the big picture.

"Having compassion doesn't have to mean trying to fix their problems by letting yourself be used as a guinea pig." So true. There is no need to rush in during their moment of weakness only to get slapped in the face. They say: "patience is a virtue", so be virtuous and be patient while they recover. If you truly love them, you will give them the space they deserve while still being supportive.

With women you have to think in a counterintuitive way. Good is bad and bad is good.They go with their feelings alone and not rational thought. If they feel attraction they will go with those feelings no matter what.

'Dave' said... "Attraction arises in the limbic system or emotional area of the brain. Women call this chemistry." "They go with their feelings alone and not rational thought. If they feel attraction they will go with those feelings no matter what." It sounds like all women do not have a choice because they are physically incapable of making rational decisions. They also say that "If you believe it, then it must be true". If you decide that this is true and treat women as if they cannot make decisions, then you have written them off-- no wonder they don't "choose" you.

CaJoh, I've seen that sort of dismissive response lobbed at many guys, and though it may seem logical, it isn't.

"Bad boy" types obviously believe that women are incapable of making rational decisions...and "bad girl" types believe the same about men: that you're all led by your dicks. Yet many people chose them.

So there's obviously some other difference between "bad boy" types and "nice guy" types, that would explain why the former is more popular in the media and in mainstream youth culture than the latter. I believe that difference is that one believes it more than the other...jerks and hoes are more invested in the stereotypes than nice guys, and did what it took to be able to play the game.

A long time ago, when _Revenge of the Nerds_ came out, and folks were discussing it, there were quite a few articles about the state of nerds in schools. In between the talk of social isolation, and the precursors to the Asperger's hysteria, were little factoids about how these kids and college students actually fared overall.

As painful as some of the harassment against them was, most were actually intelligent enough, and socially aware enough to know what it took to be accepted. They just didn't feel it was worth their integrity and dignity to do so.

Also, another thing to be aware of is that in discussion about relationships, a straight man is going to talk mostly about women, and straight women, mostly about men...but most people with an IQ over 100 or so are not really misandrists and misogynists, but misanthropists. They believe that *people* are stupid, and mostly overly arrogant vermin in general, not just men or just women.

This includes the sort who are nice people, but whose religion has an apocolypse in which most of mankind will be wiped out and sent to hell.

Even if someone doesn't have a religion, nobody can look at the world today and say that humans have made it a better place for any life form, ourselves included. So the smarter someone is, the more disdain they'll have for humanity, despite their hopefulness that we might actually pull ourselves up, reduce our population in a humane way, and reduce our environmental impact to a more sane level.

At the moment though, we as a species, are shitting where we eat, and apparently even have trouble bonding properly. Deep down, this is what people are complaining about...that somehow, humanity got lost, and then we as a species went on a self destruct path, "Doggy style."

I have the good fortune of being extremely adaptable. I owe alot of this though, to exposure to many kinds of lifestyles, families, and having access to whatever books I could get my hands on from childhood. Most people don't get all of those experiences in youth though, so it's hard to sell them ideas like alternative relationship styles and whatnot. So in some ways, most nice guys (as far as I know) are limited mostly by trying to adhere to outdated strategies in a new environment.

Not to worry though...a depression is coming. During extreme hardship, people become more survivalist, and it's much easier for a stable guy to be appreciated. Those who were more into the books and survival skills will find themselves much better off than those whose lives and getting laid depended on hype.

When someone can't afford a television, or the time to sit and watch it enough, who's playing most often on MTV is irrelevent.

"If you decide that this is true and treat women as if they cannot make decisions, then you have written them off-- no wonder they don't "choose" you. "

Another excellent point.

The fallacy of that argument:

Two people think and say the same thing.

One gets chosen and the other doesn't.

So someone tells the one who didn't get chosen, "It's because you think and say (the same thing the other one thinks and says)."

...

Mamasan -

Reduce our population? That's eugenics.

Tommy, sometimes bad scientists take a good idea and twist it. Population control is one of those good ideas that was attempted in the wrong way because the people who were doing it back then (and still are) were operating on false assumptions and prejudices.

The best way to convince people to have fewer children is to create a situation in which they could raise one, maximum two per couple (or only one for each partner in a poly situation), and not have to worry too much for their survival...also to bring extended families closer together since your cousins are genetically close to your half brothers and sisters, and aunts are close to your mother. A person would do as well to nurture their nieces and nephews as they would to nurture children born from their own bodies.

If families are closer, and in a culture where life is relatively secure and yet allowing for enough free expression and creativity, most people in it naturally won't have many children. A few might, but these would be people who are extremely nurturing, and have the resources and family support to cope with it.

So instead of sterilizing mentally challenged people, the eugenics experts should have been getting them jobs and better medical and social care, and destigmatizing them.

Mamasan -

I know that many people have taken eugenics and used it for demonic ends. I also know that you don't have those designs in mind.

However, I do have a problem with limiting the number of children to only two per family because I am the THIRD (and youngest) child in my family. In addition, if the idea of limiting of two children (or less) per family eventually became law, then we would likely face the prospect of a mortality rate that is higher than our birth rate, similar to the problems faced by European countries today. In fact, Russia is severaly underpopulated to the point where it considered banning abortions, legalizing polygamous marriages, and banning people from leaving the country. Moreover, the one-child policy enacted in China is only obeyed in the cities, but is hardly adhered to in China's rural areas.

Another problem I have with your proposal is the fact that we would be forced to associate with relatives we cannot stomach, especially those with whom we had a falling out.

Another thing that I have to say is that it is unlikely that any government (local, state, or federal) would intelligently determine the maximum number of children per family. Besides, governments frequently do a mediocre-to-poor job in carrying out its basic functions and running any extra services they provide.

Generally if people have more children than they can responsibly take care of and support, then there's gonna be problems. For some people unfortunately even 1 is too many for them to handle and there is much neglect and abuse.

Tommy, I wasn't talking about government imposed limitations. That's putting the cart before the horse.

Mamasan -

In that case, I apologize.

Mamasan -

You can understand why I would be hesitant about limiting two children per family.

mamasan ,the problem was the hybridization of neanderthols with cromagnon, the neanderthol genes are extremly agressive and irational and manipulative. ever wonder why descendents from semitic tribes have so much hair and so much religious fanaticism in such a hot climate? the genetics of religion come from neanderthol genetics ,it is called temporal teritorialism.the tangibil territory was not enough to feed the obsession,so religion was invented to control past and future after death.

Rod, whether or not the cro magnon and neanderthal interbred at all is still debated. Recent genetic evidence however, says that it is very unlikely, or didn't happen. Besides, a need for control sounds more like a cro magnon feature than a neanderthal one. Neanderthals most likely had an external locus of control, while cro magon had a more internal one, which gave them the cognitive advantage to drive neanderthals to extinction or successfully absorb them to the point of leaving no genetic trace within the relatively short span of 30,000 years.

Whichever side of the debate one is on, the earliest evidence of religion is far older than contact with neanderthals. It seems that this was a part of the human experience since long, but the nature of religion changed with civilization. To control large groups of people, one needed to use it as an aid to organizing them into hierarchies and castes.

Marriage is one of those things that keeps people organized, and offers some assurance and enforcement of genetic order. Free people can choose who to breed with based on their own individual, family, or cultural ideas of fitness/suitability, but within an organized society, these natural methods of choice must be overridden in order to keep order.

If you look at how things are going today, part of this "thug love" trend seems to be designed to ensure that people with a lower social standing will stay there. If you glamorize poverty, the poor don't feel as bad about staying that way, or at least keeping the look of it, regardless of how much they actually have in the bank...which is sometimes more in real money than their middle class peers. Many if not most middle class are considerably deeper in debt than the poor. Someone who owes the bank $100,000 is actually poorer than someone who owes only the $20 they need to pay in a bad check mistake, but it's the earning potential that makes the difference.

...but sometimes there's not even that much difference. Sometimes the only real difference between a middle class and a poor person is their ability to juggle expenses and foster the trust of a bank. I've seen this played out between teachers, since both my parents are teachers. They're good jugglers who drive nice cars and have a very nice house, but they don't make more than their peers.

Between police officers, firemen, and other public servants. Some people can be making the same money, and the same earning power, and have completely different lives. So this is even more evident in the private sector.

Back to marriage though, it is a way of organizing and enforcing adherence to a social class. With it, males can have some assurance that society is going to enforce his property rights over a particular woman and her genetic future, and women gain a sense of belonging and validation of their social status.

Since now, men can tell if a child is genetically theirs without marrying, it's women who gain the most from marrying. Men don't really gain anything unless they marry someone wealthy.