I have no idea why women are so upset with the idea of a guy trying to learn how to be socially adept, when they continuously complain about not being able to find a charming man that sparks any attraction.

The words I have to say about this subject wouldn't fit on this page! uggggggg
Why can't people just be themselves and be direct about what they need and what they expect?

I saw a guy doing that to a girl I was hitting on at the club last week. Totally called him out on it. It was so damn funny! hahaha what a loser.

The girls are getting deprived of seeing as much of their father as they are used to, but they see their mother taking on more and more, yet still deferring to the man of the house. And the first generations of girls starts to round 40 and is wondering why they are deferring to a man who isn't an active leader in their home...and the phenomena of 'Divorce' starts to grow.

Humans are naturally polygamous
The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.

Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.

Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.

In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)


Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

eazk, you are so right.

I checked it out. Most of it was pretty intuitive, but reading it and thinking about it is an interesting exercise. Sometimes you reflect back on situations in the past and think how you might have handled them better or differently. What I got from it was:

1) Be confident, not arrogant or wussy
2) Be yourself, more important don't be someone you are not.
3) Lighten up. Laugh. Dating should be enjoyable for both parties.
4) Have a life of your own. Your own friends, interests, and activities.


This is not enough.

Believing in yourself is not enough.
Being yourself is not enough.
Laughing and making others laugh is not enough.
Having your own interests, friends and activities is not enough.

It's good - in theory - it just doesn't work. Not saying that the D'Angelo stuff will work any better. Not saying that it isn't better to be happy and content with yourself... to be a positive and upbeat person... Just saying it is not enough to attract women.

Or maybe not any women. Maybe there are a small number that will be attracted and I've just been as unlucky as sh!t not to run into any yet!

life_of_leisure:
I completely understand women and can assure you I am anything but gay, or woman's dream.

So is what you're saying, boys who learn how to relate to women by emulating a male rolemodel's way of relating to women is "better" (for lack of a better word) than learning to relate to women by being around women/raised by women?

If yes, why do you think that is?

Naturally, I would expect the way boys relate to girls to change a great deal from one generation to the next, (from one generation where boys learned their behavior from emulating dad to the generation where dad wasn't around and learned about women from mom). But why do you suppose learning about women directly from women leads to a sort of "male identity crisis" that so many social theorist describe?

Ahhh, I'm thinking because they are in a constantly subordinate role to a woman, and as they start to go through puberty that perspective changes...they want to be heard, respected, etc.. When moms, aunts, sisters, etc., don't do that in the manner the emerging man can understand and the boys don't have a mechanism by which to resolve that (go out and kill something, have a mentor help communicate, etc., etc..)...yeah, they feel wussified and resent it.

Men have been ignoring so many aspects of the dating business for so
long, and many have been pretty much in the dark! Many more women
are much more in tune to what is really happening!

...doesn't teach men how to act around women; he teaches them how to BE, so that the behavior comes naturally.

...never manipulate, lie, deceive or use hypocrisy.

This stuff is extremely empowering for men. It can change a mans life, virtually overnight! There is nothing similar that I know of for women! Sure I have read some of the relationship books for women, which in many cases just mirror some books for men. If a woman follows the advice, maybe it will improve the quality of her relationships in the long run, but in the short term, it could mean choosing to be alone, rather then being with the wrong man, which isn't exactly something that makes one jump up and down and cheer about!

Women have conspired to keep women down.

Women have endeared our society with negative, control crap towards other women to demean them in the eyes of the men they themselves are trying to attract.