- Joined
- Sep 23, 2014
- Messages
- 189
Hey man,
It'd probably depend on what you had in mind for a 'real relationship'.
Maybe you could start by asking yourself this: is there a difference between 'beta-like tendencies' and vulnerability? And if so, what place does vulnerability have in your relationships?
An interesting equation I recently heard about sexiness seems relevant here: Sexiness = possession + freedom.
In other words, when a woman is independent and free to walk away from you, yet she still chooses to be with you, we find that irresistible.
When this happens we experience a sort of mesmerized wonder about how they've allowed us to be so close, but we also worry that they might not do so forever. This type of relationship requires a degree of vulnerability.
Unfortunately, liking someone almost always makes us want to reduce their ability to survive without us. In the nicest way, we relentlessly want to erode the freedom of the person we love. Through this, we eventually kill the independence which had underpinned our desire from the outset (huge arguments every once in a while with the possibility of things actually ending rekindle things, however).
A lot of machismo seems founded on that fear: the fear of vulnerability. So this type of man actually puts on an act of being a man, which is in reality just a caricature of a man. And this man actually limits himself with the image of how he thinks he should be.
Out of love, we throw away the supports of our independent lives and knit it with another. This necessitates vulnerability and trust, which I don't think is wholly compatible with a desire to also be a girl's 'permanent Master and Commander'.
What I'm basically saying is this: I don't think what you're looking for is possible, as the really feminine women who still get to you most likely do so BECAUSE YOU WANT THEM TO, as that is a necessary condition for achieving real intimacy with them.
-Howell
It'd probably depend on what you had in mind for a 'real relationship'.
Maybe you could start by asking yourself this: is there a difference between 'beta-like tendencies' and vulnerability? And if so, what place does vulnerability have in your relationships?
An interesting equation I recently heard about sexiness seems relevant here: Sexiness = possession + freedom.
In other words, when a woman is independent and free to walk away from you, yet she still chooses to be with you, we find that irresistible.
When this happens we experience a sort of mesmerized wonder about how they've allowed us to be so close, but we also worry that they might not do so forever. This type of relationship requires a degree of vulnerability.
Unfortunately, liking someone almost always makes us want to reduce their ability to survive without us. In the nicest way, we relentlessly want to erode the freedom of the person we love. Through this, we eventually kill the independence which had underpinned our desire from the outset (huge arguments every once in a while with the possibility of things actually ending rekindle things, however).
A lot of machismo seems founded on that fear: the fear of vulnerability. So this type of man actually puts on an act of being a man, which is in reality just a caricature of a man. And this man actually limits himself with the image of how he thinks he should be.
Out of love, we throw away the supports of our independent lives and knit it with another. This necessitates vulnerability and trust, which I don't think is wholly compatible with a desire to also be a girl's 'permanent Master and Commander'.
What I'm basically saying is this: I don't think what you're looking for is possible, as the really feminine women who still get to you most likely do so BECAUSE YOU WANT THEM TO, as that is a necessary condition for achieving real intimacy with them.
-Howell