33 votes

What Women Want

I don't know anyone of any political stripe in the United States who doesn't believe that for exactly the same job, a woman should be paid the same as a man, or that a woman should have the same standing as a man in law; that she should have the same political representation and equal social influence. If these more-or-less ubiquitous truisms are the fruits of feminism, then we all - men and women alike - have much to thank it for.

But I am sensing a tectonic shift away from feminism as an assertive philosophy.

Generalizing from anecdotes is always dangerous but there's little alternative to drawing on personal experience and conversations in observing the relationship between men and women and the meaning of gender in our culture.

I remember distinctly as a young teenager having no idea what to do with girls except to be nice to them - just as I was supposed to be nice to everyone. I recall thinking that any kind of physical advance on a girl was by definition aggressive, and therefore I was a better person for not making them. I realize now, of course, that that may well have been a convenient rationalization of my own cowardice, but all the same, it was the rationalization that most naturally made itself available as I was growing up.

In my 14-year old mind, there was a compelling logic to "if men and women are equal, then I should treat men and women in exactly the same way". By the other end of my teenage years, I had no more idea about what to do with girls - except to continue being nice to them.

By my last year of university, I had been with only one girl - my first girlfriend, whom I'd actually met before I arrived at university. That relationship had finished a few years before, and by my last year, I'd had none of that sexual fun that students were supposed to be having - and that window was about to close with my upcoming graduation. Nevertheless, many of the most attractive women at my college would often take advantage of my open door policy and come around for tea and conversation.

So when a fellow student, who lived in the same building as I and was known as something of a womanizer, asked me how it was all the college's most attractive females were visiting me on a regular basis, I answered, "Because I am not doing with them what you would want to do with them".

I heard myself say those words. When I started saying them, I thought I was making a statement of my own moral rectitude. By the end of the sentence, I realized I was making a statement about my own emasculation.

And more or less in that moment, I resolved to try something different. The next time one of those attractive girls came up for tea, I broadened my conversation to include flirting. I didn't call it that. I didn't call it anything, but I think if I'd been asked, I'd have called it, "being less pathetic".

And lo and behold, these women - good friends, all of them - started responding in kind. Where there was only tea, there was now tea and chemistry. I didn't go "all the way" with any of them - I only had a few months of university left and wasn't that much of a quick study - but I discovered the fun of actually playing with gender and sexuality.

Ten years later, I find myself sitting in a bar in Manhattan with a friend, discussing how, based on more experiences in the intervening decade than I can begin to list here, women actually like men to be men. I was speaking in a sexual context and, obviously, drawing on conversations and experiences with women with whom I'd actually been close enough to be able to discuss or even directly test the hypothesis. Presenting my findings to my friend as some kind of exciting discovery, I ventured that women seemed to like those traditionally male qualities of self-assuredness, assertiveness, and in the right context, even dominance, and especially when they were harnessed in the expression of desire. Women, I'd found, wanted men to make the first move with confidence, rather than to ask whether this, that or the other was ok. They wanted men to take risks.

The fact that I was about 30 years old and any of that was surprising, and the fact that behaving in such ways that are attractive to so many women felt so "risky" to me as a man, told me something about the culture I was brought up in: they pointed to an over-reach of the politics of feminism into cultural and personal experience in a way that wasn't serving anyone very well. Put simply, some of the moves that most women who are attracted to a man want him to make might prompt another woman to claim sexual harassment. Context is everything, for sure, but no one taught the young men of my generation about that: rather, since the imbalance of power is always in favor of the man, we as men are dangerous by default. When I was a young adult, the rules of thumb for how good men behaved said nothing of context.

Moreover, a man of my generation, unlike my Dad's, is taught no codified language to signal attraction to a woman in a non-threatening way. My father's generation engaged in such a thing as courting. There were safe ways to signal one's desire for a woman, and for her to respond. There was an etiquette of attraction, if you will. But male Generation-Xers, who reached manhood as feminism reached its political peak, had no such codes. So I, wanting to treat everyone in my world well, was careful to do nothing that could possibly be interpreted as being predatory. And I set a high bar for myself, as approaching anyone with the goal of getting from them a gratifying experience for myself was predatory by definition - wasn't it?

Back to the bar in Manhattan. There I was with my friend, chatting about all these things, and a woman comes up to us, telling us that she'd been listening in; that we were so right; that she wished more men knew this, and that we really should be teaching seminars on this stuff to other men. Since then, I have had dozens of conversations with women who've said the same thing. In a strange recurrence, the most recent, a month ago, was with a lady who owns a dating and match-making company, and was so excited to hear a man venture this hypothesis that she invited me to come and speak to her clients.

What would be the thesis of such a speech?

It would be that to be human is to be gendered; that some of the most intense, sublime and human experiences available to us are sexual; that our experience of our sexuality is an experience of polarity - the gap between the masculine and feminine. Femininity, masculinity and sex are delicious to the extent that the polarity exists, is directly experienced and is even amplified.

Men and women are indeed equal in humanity and moral agency, but the most intense experience of being a man, or of being a woman, is in the difference between them - not their sameness. This is not to make either superior. Rather, it makes them more equal than any political account of gender ever can, since it asserts their utter dependence on each other. If you cut a magnet, with a north pole and a south pole, in half, you end up with two small magnets, each with north and south. There is no north except with a south, and vice versa. There is no magnet without both. It is impossible even to define each pole except by defining the other.

How is this fundamental truth of our sexuality, intensely experienced by most people repeatedly in a lifetime, nevertheless hidden to us? Consider the reaction, especially among women, to "Fifty Shades of Grey", a book about a relationship based on male sexual dominance and female sexual submission, which sold 100 million copies. The only thing surprising about its massive success is that anyone is surprised about it. What is the cultural context that can make so many of us so unable to observe our own sexual responses and motivations that we are actually surprised by them when we see them out in the open?

I'm not a reader of "gender theory" or "feminist theory". My "polarity theory" is simply one that I have evolved to explain both my personal experiences and those of almost everyone to whom I've ever spoken about this topic. I recently ran it by a relationship therapist. I was fascinated by his response. He said that not only was I right but that this theory explains why he has so many more lesbian couples come to him with sexual problems in their relationship than gay male couples. He expounded that gay couples tend more often to begin a relationship with sex, and so that polarity of energies - the masculine vs. feminine - is established from the beginning - and if it can't be, then no relationship gets off the ground. Lesbian couples, on the other hand, he explained, are much more likely to come to him for help with sexual difficulties in their relationship, because those relationships usually do not begin sexually and so that polarity is not established: rather, the sexual aspect of their relationship grows out of everything else that brought them together, often leaving them to discover that without that polarity, the sex simply doesn't work.

It was around the time of that conversation with the therapist that a rather attention-grabbing article about just this issue came out in the mainstream-as-it-gets New York Times Sunday supplement. Although many have taken issue with some of its findings since publication, there was one line that summed it up and is consistent with my own experiences and those of the people with whom I'm close enough to discuss such things.

the values that make for good social relationships are not necessarily the same ones that drive lust....

That should be so obvious as to be a banality, but my generation has been trained not to see it. Many women, for example, want to be pursued. But a decent man brought up in the feminist era is immediately faced with a problem: if we are pursuing, then, by definition, the woman is running away - so we must be doing something that the woman doesn't want. The right thing to do - the thing that respects her "equality" - is to stop the pursuit. After all, if she wanted what we wanted to give her, she'd already have told us, or, at the very least, let herself be "caught" as quickly and easily as possible.

I remember back in my teenage years, the "No means No" marches in London. And in the context that that slogan was meant to be applied to, the point is clearly both correct and morally essential. But in some contexts, "No" can mean "Not yet, but I'm open to your continued, respectful or playful attempts". And just as a young man must be taught to respect a woman's "no", he needs also to be taught how to read women, to read context, and to do both without feeling guilty or anxious about the desires that naturally drive him. If we fail as a culture to give men even that, then the good men - as all too many women seem now to be finding - will continue to default to a safe, scared, hands-off mode, and we all end up losing much of the pleasure of being sexual beings.

The experience from which that woman in the bar in Manhattan was speaking - as confirmed by many others to whom I've spoken since - is that, indeed, many men don't know how to make a woman feel like a woman. And both men and women are suffering from that. A woman wants her man to help her feel like a woman - to establish that polarity. If he can't do that, because he can't feel himself as a man, then we are on a vicious cycle of destroying the polarity - that experience of the very difference that makes gender and sex so ... well ... sexy.

Feminism should surely be celebrated for the political, and indeed, cultural successes it has had. They are too many and too obvious to miss.

But it seems now, perhaps, that whereas the political and institutional benefits of feminism have been almost entirely to its credit, women, themselves, are now experiencing in their personal lives - in the actual experience of being a woman - the damage that has been done by a culture that has removed the permission, even ability, of men to revel in the pole of the sexual magnet that they represent.

And I don't mean that faux, superficial masculinity of sports teams and large trucks that American advertisers like to push at us. I mean that which each man defines for himself - whatever it is that makes him feel powerful, able and attractive - and confident enough to know that he can go to that place of assertiveness with his sexual partner in the bedroom, without that saying anything about his treatment of women anywhere else.

By the right man, a woman likely wants to be pursued. By the right man, a woman likely wants to be taken. Some want to be dominated, and others, at the very least, want to be in the presence of dominance. And nearly all women want to feel like women - and would like their men to play their part in that.

Since I started making notes for this article, some weeks ago, as if as confirmation of its main theme, I discovered the existence of the Men's Rights Movement - and the many women who populate it - and the springing up on social media of anti-feminists.

The fact that such sentiments are now moving mainstream speaks to a cultural hypothesis I am currently testing out - that feminism, like the modern Progressivism that has its roots in the '60s, is at the end of its two-generation lifespan - and that the pendulum is beginning - just beginning - to swing back.

And no one should be surprised. Approximately two generations after the beginning of feminism, young adults, especially young women, get to assess its outcomes while taking for granted its successes. To generalize, many of the political successes that feminism fought for may well be responsible for giving some of those anti-feminists some of the security, education, representation and, indirectly then, power to declare that they don't like feminism for the bits that don't suit. They don't like feminism because they blame it for taking the man out of their men, the woman out of themselves, and if you'll allow me to be a little more literal, the man out of the women, too.

My favorite teacher at high school was the Head of Mathematics. His students liked him because of his dry sense of humor and his provocative way of educating - at least 10% of the time about life, rather than math. I can't recall the context... but one of the most memorable lessons he ever gave concerned the meaning of "equal".

To say a woman is equal to a man is like saying a giraffe is equal to an elephant. Equal has a particular meaning. It means "is the same as". Giraffes are not equal to elephants because they are different.

In the '90s, that tongue-in-cheek comment was sufficiently provocative that it has stayed with me for two decades. Now, though, it will do as a concise explanation of why, culturally, if not politically, Feminism, like all -isms, is, at best, incomplete.

Feminism is about enabling women to have what they choose. But women choose to feel like women - to experience the delectable polarity of the female and the male, and that requires a culture that empowers, and celebrates, both.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

nice, thoughtful post, Robin

What do women want? They want feelings. You gotta figure out how to help them feel the right kind of feelings. The golden rule does not work here. You need the platinum rule.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

And then

"Feminism should surely be celebrated for the political, and indeed, cultural successes it has had. "

NOPE. It shouldn't be celebrated. It has created a new extremist element in our society. If it was egalitarian, it would be called egalitarian. The movement is a blight attacking men.

Join the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement. Stop getting married if you are young and wealthy. You will only fund the divorce industry. No one plans on divorce.


I was going to cite the same quote and make the same point. Feminism has destroyed our families, our children and the moral fabric of the western world and this moron thinks we should celebrate it. What a pussy...

Hey, this doesn't just apply to singles

(and NO I'm not talking about 'having an affair') If your wife says, "I'm not in the mood.", don't take that as a "no", take it as "figure out why." Often a little tenderness and conversation can be enough to get her there. It works for us.....We married women enjoy the pursuit by our husbands, too. That doesn't change when you walk down the aisle.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Some confuse being equal with

Some confuse being equal with having equal rights, it's not the same thing. If a job requires lifting 100 pound items, and the only crew is men, it's because there is not a glut of women that either can or want to lift that weight. That is not discrimination, its a general biological reality, with the occasional exception to the general rule. It would be discrimination to hire a woman that cannot do the job and make her male counterparts do her work while she receives equal pay for unequal work.

As far as hooking up, I was a late bloomer myself, but after joining the air force at 19 I learned how to find my share of mates in an ultra competitive environment of 8 to 1 men to women. Fortune favors the bold, and as it turns out objectifying women leads to more one night stands. I really can't stand those guys that run around being white knights as their getting laid strategy, it's so annoying, and it doesn't work well anyways.

You aren't going to get laid at all if the woman is not interested in the first place if she considers you too ugly/weird or not dominant enough. Fortunately looks are not what a mature woman goes by most of all, so even ugly men can still get beautiful women. Unfortunately for women, men put looks as the number one priority, and there is no changing one's DNA.

I have watched a couple videos of those men's rights movement guys and they are just the same as hardcore feminists, people that are angry the opposite sex does not want to sleep with them, and they cry victimization and get bitter.

I don't go hunting for one night stands anymore, I have a great wife/family now, and want it to work out long term. I won't lie, I still have that DNA programming to spread my seed far and wide, but I repress it because of the consequences of stepping outside my marriage for momentary pleasure.

I have noticed with a ring on my finger and never projecting flirtations towards women creates a situation where I get flirted with more than when I was single. I think they see the ring and think that another woman found value in me, and that makes them also look for value in me. My wife is at least an 8 in the looks department (Probably a 8.5/9 for 30 years old), and I especially get women taking lingering looks when I am out in public with her. If a woman sees your with a woman prettier than her, you become instantly qualified, but I learned that at 20 years old anyways. If you cheat on your wife that is a 9 with them, they get to enjoy the ego stroke of thinking they are hotter than that 9.

As an evolutionary trait,

As an evolutionary trait, women seek preapproval from other women before they give their own. For our survival as a species, the leaders and the strong men were the most desired, and provides the status. So you being taken by an attractive female exactly that. Your status is immediately high to on looking women.

I find this topic so interesting. So many complex variables. But in the end, it all comes back to our biological traits, no matter what modern society tries to say.

Yep, I could not agree more.

Yep, I could not agree more. Mating is about our biological programming to continue on our genetics through procreation. It's not socially acceptable to say, and I don't mean this in a hateful way, but gay people operate in a way that is counter to the survival of their genetics. Of course there is always variations genetically, and they have the genetics to weed themselves out of the herd. I don't hate them for it, in fact I wish every man but me was gay so I could have my pick of the litter every time.

(ring) It is often a

(ring) It is often a competiton thing... When you are with a hot woman other woman often see if they can measure up by getting your attention. I think it is mostly women with low self esteem that chase rings.

Bob Marley Knew

No Woman No Cry

Um what? "Don't cry Rita"?....


Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Rita Marley

Bob was a lucky man to marry a woman with such a big heart.

I'm lucky that way too.

Rita's book, No Woman No Cry, 'splans it all.

I know what Rita was trying to say

Just wasn't sure what you were trying to say. Carry on!

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set

up the NWO - Aaron Russo.

Hollywood producer, filmmaker, activist and truth seeker Aaron Russo reveals some of the REAL reasons for feminism which was funded and pushed by the Rockefellers and the CIA for very nefarious reasons, which includes being part of their central banking worldwide takeover to help set up the New World Order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

Well articulated and great

Well articulated and great insights. My thoughts on feminism in a nut shell....feminism has systematically emasculated our men. In my experience, most men like the feeling of being needed by a women. Feminism eradicates that in many ways. Women do not need men when they marry the government. The state will provide for women and their children. In my humble opinion, feminism is socialism in panties.

In America today, the percentage of men in prison is at an all-time high, the percentage of men with a job is near an all-time low and the percentage of children living without a father is at an all-time high.

Who does a child turn to for guidance when dad is not around and mom is out working? Public institutions?

Socialists know how to sell to wo-men.

OK - here is how it works. Any man can live in this house except your husband if you want this extra money. So what do you want to do?

The Socialists (Democrats) know how to control women. These Socialists are always screaming - Republican's War on Women!

I love your "humble opinion".

Women are emotionally charged

Women are emotionally charged creatures, whereas, men tend to be more analytical. I think women, in general, tend to vote democratic for that reason. Emotional based decisions are not usually the wisest choice, but Mamma bear has a lot on her plate. Cooking, cleaning, shopping, working, rearing children and holding down a job. Becoming informed on issues takes time, time that tends to be a luxury most single moms don't have. So votes are based on soundbites and emotions. The politician that can provide for her better than her absent man will look very presidential in the eyes of that single, tired, overwhelmed and uninformed mom.

Women DON"T want "nice"

I learned that the hard way lol!

Wake up Robin; its a Women's World

Robin said "since the imbalance of power is always in favor of the man, we as men are dangerous by default."

Here Robin must be thinking of generalized physical power. But generalized physical power over females is not the social power that females hold over men and is exerted every day and night. The real imbalance of power is females over males. And the expressions of this power of females over men expresses itself in any society, any culture, and over any time period of human existence. It is seen expressed as males hold title to real property, women hold title to real men. It is seen expressed in that men go to battle to die, women are protected and made safe. It is expressed in so many fundamental ways that there are simply too many to list.

So, it is incorrect to think that "the imbalance of power" is males over females. It is not so for any species let alone our own. The sciences say otherwise. Darwin says otherwise. Sociobiology says otherwise. Evolution says otherwise.

And why is that? The power the female comes from the fact that they posses a uterus which is always in short supply and hence, high demand. Even though Male and female genitalia is roughly in equal number, its the female uterus that is the difference. One can argue that in mammals that not only is the short supply of uteri but also the short temporary nature of lactation that keeps females in such high demand.

Contrary to male chauvinists, it is not the vagina that is in short supply, indeed, male penis and female vagina are in nearly equal numbers, its the uterus. There is always a short supply of available uteruses, hence the always present high demand for females. This is true for all mammals, and true for humans as well. This insight eludes many. Some sci-fi writers think that by increasing the ratio of females to males, that males will grow in demand and then gain the power. But for this to occur, the ratio of females over males would have to rise well above 100 to 1 before demand near parity could arise. But females command more power than parity. What would ration of females to males have to be for males to enjoy the power of demand that females today enjoy? Some have estimated that females would need to out number men 1,000 to 1 before demand for males would be similar to the demand we see for women. That is, a complete reversal in demand. One sign of that complete demand reversal would be the ability for any sexually mature man to walk the streets and prostitute himself for money. Another would be forced sex or rape. Another would be a social custom of females holding real estate title and males finding no need to do so since "choosing" a female comes with these benefits. Even still, if males were out numbered 1000 to 1, because of the nature of the egg and sperm and the nature of pregnancy and childbirth risks and caring, shorter term unions would be common and thus demands of monogamy would still be harder.

What about love? With 1000 to 1 sex ratio, there would not be much "feelings of love and commitment" coming from the rare males. Female demands of monogamy demands payment, an emotional payment. This payment is expressed as "feelings of love & commitment" from the male. To achieve this emotional price from males who are in such short supply would be nearly impossible. But males could demand this emotional price from females with ease.

Again, its nearly impossible to turn the tables. Females will always rule, dominate, have the power over males and males will forever seek to gain real estate, assets, prestige, power (over resources and men) all to gain the favor of short supply uteri found only in females.

Even though males today find themselves born in roughly equal numbers of females, by virtue of the uterus females command all the power. This fact expresses itself in a myriad of ways, from emotional development to life goal choices to emotional responses. Males sense of desire is honed to see the "ripe female" and the human female advertises her ripeness for an amazingly long time in the mammalian kingdom. Human females "appear" ripe to human males from the young ages of 12 to 50, no ripe uterus will escape his notice. Indeed, when it comes to "seeing" females as "highly attractive", it "biologically pays" to lean to the younger ages rather than to the older ages. Young females intuitively feel their power of attraction and go through a learning curve on how to control it socially. From early on they (and those close to them) will seemingly obsess over their appearance. From what clothes to wear, when to wear it, how to wear it, and what to say, not say, etc all goes to the power of attraction, how much to attract, what kind of attention to attract and who to attract. But this is all goes to the issue of female power. Males on the other hand, seemingly obsessed about games, power games, games of acquisition, games of points and scores and winnings and desirable things.

And all of this is.....natural. Its how we are built, how we as males and females are made. Its not only our human bias, but mammalian bias. Its our biology and sociology. We humans have "solved" the human power imbalance problem by either legally culturally socially sanctioning polygamy, (placing most of the jealousy upon males) or by legally, culturally, socially sanctioning monogamy, (placing most of the jealousy upon females). Neither system solves the problem raised by the imbalance of sexual power, but both systems achieve "ESS" evolutionary stable state.

So the moral of the story, females hold all the power. Get used to it. Dance to their tune, ie chase them until they choose you. If you want to keep them, you'll have to pay the emotional price of "love and commitment". Fail to do that, she'll say "next" and strip you of all your assets and you'll lose legal or physical access to your children. Its a "woman's world", but if some female disagrees, don't argue with her or you "won't be getting any" uteri. Infact, the clever salesmen always tells their customer who "might buy" exactly what they want to hear. And that is the easy part; its "I love you with all my heart (and I'll give you all my children, all my possessions, and I'll lay down my life, too)". Welcome to Earth, welcome to the human race, now wake up and realize its a "woman's world" and there is nothing, nothing that you can do about it no matter how physically strong you happen to be.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

It's not a competition!

We each have our own type of power. We're different, like giraffes and elephants. We need the strengths of the other gender to help define ourselves...wasn't that the whole point of the article? I'm most attracted to strong, confident, masculine men(think Ron Swanson from Community). I'm not really attracted to men that would allow me to dominate them. Yes, being able to give life is very powerful. It's also a time when we feel the most vulnerable, scared, insecure, and fat!

really FAT

I'm glad I'm not a women. I did "watch" all 3 of my children being born.


You say, "In fact, the clever salesmen always tells their customer who "might buy" exactly what they want to hear."

A clever sales manager trains: The man is the head of the house and the woman is the neck. She turns the head anyway she wants.

At the risk of making a false assumption...

I am going to assume I am the first woman to comment and I must say I feel like I've known you my whole life ;)

When I was growing up, all the guys I knew were polite like you and never chased me (some never even shared more than a few words which was disappointing to me), and I guess like you have said, that they did not know how to be men themselves since we were of the same generation and really hadn't learned much about anything except to be nice.
Nowadays I cannot set foot outside hardly without some guy chasing me down. It's really quite a bizarre switch and the age range has been anywhere from 18 to 50! And their intentions are quite clear and sadly all about sex which really is a turn-off since I know that is their main goal. They refuse to take "NO" as "NO", no is never no to them even though I mean it. Just once, just once, it would be nice to not have a guy act all goofy or who wants to run off and get married when I first meet him (and yes, this HAS happened no joke)!
I think that if a guy gets turned down twice, then he should know that the woman he is asking is really not interested and he should just move on, but it doesn't seem that anyone has gotten the message.

Anyway, I couldn't agree with you more! Nice write-up as always! Sorry about the tangent lol

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

If men who make advances on you aren't taking even a second "no"

for an answer, then you are trying too hard to let them down easy.

I for one prefer a woman who wasn't interested was CRYSTAL CLEAR about that preference.

You don't have to be rude, but don't leave open any possibility. If you do, don't be surprised if the guy tries to open that door wider.

If your second "no" was instead "I AM NOT INTERESTED" with a cold dead-pan stare, you might find it more effective. Trying not to hurt the guys feelings will only get you pursued even more.

I suspect if a man tries to go too far (emotionally) too fast, it's because he either is tired of playing games, is afraid it will all turn south in short order unless you commit, or is too scared to fail and have to try again. (or all of the above) And don't be mistaken, there are women who behave this way as well.

Your comment about men being "all about sex" is not informational enough to not be part of the problem. If you wanted to make the single most effective comment to drive "nice-guys" back into Niceville when they just started venturing out into Manhood, then go ahead and repeat that sentiment every chance you get. It's a winner.

Rather, try explaining what you'd prefer men talk to you about when they are first getting to know you (or just breaking the ice) and don't give the impression you want platonic relationships with men or that your intention is to place every man you meet into a "in case of emergency break glass" case and then you'll later let them out of that case when you get the urge. (not that you gave this impression, but your comment bordered on scaring men away from ANY attempt to talk to you)

The comment nearly implied that sex should NEVER be on his mind when he approaches you, or even once a relationship starts. (if it does) Sure, he shouldn't be vocalizing it from first eye-contact (or not even) but you'll get more mileage in educating men to bring to the table what you'd like more than what you don't like.

And yes, if you aren't seeing or getting what you want because the men you meet haven't learned how to interact with you, the solution might very well be educating them, unless you have lots of time (decades) and wish to wait for luck or fate to bring you a man who already has learned the lessons and happens to be single and interested in you.

"They refuse to take "NO" as "NO", no is never no to them"

Not taking no as no is actually a pretty successful strategy for men: both with women specifically and in general. Saying "no" is a pretty successful strategy for women, too. These are just roles in the "chase" dynamic which IS programmed quite deeply into many, if not most, men and women.

The art is for men to not take no as no but to take no as "try something different" (but be persistent). The art for women is both to figure out how to say "no" but leave room for a later yes ... AND to figure out how to get no across far more effectively when they really and truly and *permanently* mean NOT EVER.

I once traveled to another country with a friend and we went out clubbing pretty much every night. In one small city he saw a girl who met his criteria for attractiveness and asked her to dance. She said "no!" The next night he saw and asked again and she said "no!"

We caught a plane to a city a thousand miles away. One night he went out to a local club and guess who was there? The same girl. Wearing the same dress (I guess she was a tourist too). "Isn't that the same dress you were wearing last week?" he asked. I don't remember what, if anything, she had to say about the dress... but she offered him her phone number and suggested he call.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

The persistence certainly played some part in the response, but

the more potent act was making a comment about her dress and the style of the comment itself.

Not only did he show that he really was paying attention to HER (and not just that she was female with the requisite physical parts) but he also commented in a way that "busted her balls" so to speak. he didn't pay her a compliment. He caller her out on something that allegedly women pay too much attention to - wearing the same dress. (yes, I know it was on another continent, that isn't the point)

One also can't discount that since the two were now both back "home" that she might also feel more comfortable with a relationship as she knew she was not locked into a short fling if she wanted more eventually. (and that the possibility of a relationship, rather than just a romp, was higher since the two weren't 1000 miles from home anymore)

There were I'm sure more dynamics and reasons than what you've relayed here, but the persistence part was just one small part.

right tan

Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

Press on!

Well thought out

And well written as always Robin. Do you think a little bit of your experience was cultural as well, being raised in England, which is more reserved?

"Any government that is big enough to give everything you need is also strong enough to take it all away."

Good read...

Enjoyed it.

I can relate. I'm a person that tends to put to action the things I've learned. Growing up and have been beaten over the head with lessons such as "no means no" so frequently, I've very often cut off the pursuit after the first no - despite potential chemistry - simply out of respect. They've trained the chase out of us.

I agree.


Long read...

Women want beauty.

Us men - look good already.

Women want money. Lot's of money.

"Women want money."

Not if they know the value of things money can't buy.

Alleged 9-11 pilot

Mohammed Atta, according to his ex-girlfriend, said to her "All you American women want is money." Her reply was "What else do you have to offer?"

There is a common complaint from women that "All men want is sex." That may elicit the same reply.

Satisfying the two wants in the same transaction is illegal in most states.

Politically, what women want is someone else to shoulder the expense of their perceived "needs." Votes go to the highest bidder.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Really? Someone went and

Really? Someone went and downvoted a bunch of my comments without leaving any responses? Wow... LOL. I feel special that you would spend such time on me. Did I strike a nerve? Ha.

So true

It has been rumored that the best things in life are free.

Depends what kind of woman

Depends what kind of woman you want, when you want her, and if and when you expect to be left alone by her.

Most women

want beauty. Not all but most.

HSN and QVC, mostly women - 99%, sell "magic" cream for $100 oz to "REMOVE" wrinkles all day long.

HSN brings in $3 billion a year. QVC is bigger.