We can keep this non-political if we're careful...

Interesting discussion about emotions and the male-female dynamic.  I have noticed that Mrs. VCH and I feed off each others' emotions, and it works both ways.  If she's angry and pissed off at the kids, I get angry and pissed off at the kids.  If I get argumentative, she gets argumentative.  Unfortunately these can be feedback-loop type of emotions, and can spiral worse and worse until someone or something steps in to terminate the loop.  Something as simple as doing an abrupt 180 and one of us giving the other a big hug is often all it takes.  

Positive emotions work the same way, though in that case the goal is NOT to interrupt them. :-)

I heard somewhere that "Romance begins in the kitchen".  This isn't an invitation to do it on top of the dishwasher; rather, it means small, simple acts of affection- a hug, a kiss, a smile - done without intention of it escalating or expectation of reciprocation.  

I don't know how much our personalities are affected by nature vs. nurture.  I'd expect it varies person to person.  I think the current zeitgeist is to attribute it mostly to nurture, however that contradicts somewhat the simultaneous zeitgeist that sexual orientation is mostly nature.  I don't know that you can have it both ways.  But like I said, I think its different for everyone.  My own "feel" is that there's always at least a 15-20% nature or nurture element to them; whether it's 20% or 80%, I couldn't say, nor could I tell you _why_ it varies so much.  

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

If you consider it in terms of the times, the lists are pretty much the same.  In broader terms, healthy, wealthy, and of good genetic stock.  

Chances are if you are short, fat and poor you are not going to be dating a fashion model or a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader no matter how much you jump up and down and scream about it on youtube. It might be easier to set your sites a little lower and spend more time where women at your level hang out, rather than waste your time commiserating with other poor short dudes on Men's Rights Forums and yakking on about the red pill.

There really is life outside of the Internet and the fake world the Ad Agencies present to us.

Agree 100%.  

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Chances are if you are short, fat and poor you are not going to be dating a fashion model or a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader

So you are saying if I am tall and slightly chubby there is a chance.

Move to a small town where the choices are limited.

You could be the guy with a job AND a new truck...

Beer Baron said:

In reply to APEowner :

I went to one many years ago, and it wasn't a positive experience.

First I ended up paying a bunch of money because my insurance didn't pick up the tab.

Then talking about someone who was dealing with apparently being hit by his wife, the therapist commented something to the effect of him deserving to get hit or hitting him being an understandable response to the guy being a bit of an ass. I 'Noped!' right out of talking to someone who thought abuse may be justified.

I'm sure this is not typical. But it wasn't positive.

I saw a therapist when I was a teenager, but he quickly realized the problem was that my stepmother and my dad needed therapy.

I don't really know what's typical but my own experience with three different therapists in two states has been overwhelmingly positive.  I'm sure that there are good and bad therapists just like there are different competencies in every profession.  One thing that all three of my therapists had in common is that they encouraged regularly evaluating if they continued to be a good match for me and what I was dealing with at the time.  If yours isn't a good match look elsewhere. 

That recommendation comes with a caveat.  Therapy is hard work so don't just look for someone who tells you that you're problems are all someone else's fault and you don't need to do anything different from what you're doing now.  They may be someone else's fault but you're not likely to change their behavior, particularly if it's something in your past.  You're going to have to do something different or you're going to keep getting the same results.

Note that I don't think this caveat is applicable to you Beer Baron, but I feel like it might be something that others might need to see.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

The wife and I are slightly different. She is certainly empathic. I am decidedly not. It's not a hormonal thing, it's a personality thing. We are just wired differently. 

She will commiserate with you and generally share your feelings. I just want to know what I need to fix or who I need to kill. 

Of the 5 love languages, she is Words of Affirmation. I am solidly Acts of Service. https://www.healthline.com/health/love-languages#chart

We went through some bad spells, including a 6-month separation at the 12-year mark, before we figured it out. She understands that I will never be empathic and will struggle with even being sympathetic at times. I also will not go running to her with every little problem in life. I don't voice my problems, I solve them. She voices hers but doesn't necessarily want them solved as much as she just wants me to listen. It still causes friction at times, but we work at it. She understands why I don't bring home flowers every other week, and I understand that sometimes I need to just shut up and listen. We are coming up on 36 years now so I think we'll stick it out another 30 or so. 

In reply to Toyman! :

Boy does that sound familiar...

I'm really working on the shut up and listen thing.

Interesting conversation.

One thing that I think is missed is how society has changed over the last few decades in the Western world in general.  Mainly for the better of course.  A century ago, heck 50 years ago, women had very few rights and basically had no choice but to accept marriage no matter what they wanted.  Thankfully today women have the opportunity to be independent for the most part, and more importantly they have the opportunity to escape abusive relationships.  Think of what’s changed for women over the last century:

• They can now vote (OK, that was 103 years ago)
• They can now have their own bank account (needed permission from a father or spouse until the 60’s)
• Protection against marital rape (starting around 1970)
• Speaking out against spousal abuse is no longer blamed on women for being poor wives
• They used to be bared from many jobs that weren’t teacher/secretary etc., if not legally then societally, except during war when suddenly then could do ‘men’s’ jobs, right until the men wanted those jobs back.
• Inheretance laws used to be biased against them
• It was only in the last century that women started receiving equal property rights
• And in areas where the law did allow equal rights, society, religion, media, etc. all pushed the women as subservient model

Over the last few decades not only has the law started to correct the imbalance, but society has (started) to accept them accept them as equals.  This means that a young woman who a few decades ago was essentially forced to become a housewife and baby making machine, can now instead choose to become an independent person on their own terms.  This also means that there are now more young men who are not finding mates/brides/partners, and many don’t like it.  Let’s not blame women for no longer being ‘forced’ into unhealthy relationships.

One thing is for sure, despite the set backs women are certainly poised to take on great leadership roles in the future.  The ratio of men/women getting a degree has gone from 57/43 in 1970 to 40/60 today, and for people of African decent it’s up to 30/70.  Women still face massive discrimination in hiring, promotion, and especially wage equity, but over the coming decades as more of them are entering professional and leadership positions, and by extension politics, the world will continue to evolve for the better.

volvoclearinghouse said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

There have been numerous studies that show that women do prefer:

1) Men over 6' tall

2) Men with higher incomes

3) Men with lower BMI

200 years ago, this was totally not the case.  This list 200 years ago might look like:

1) has enough land to grow the food we need

2) fat enough that he won't die during harsh winter

3) owns more than one mule

If you consider it in terms of the times, the lists are pretty much the same.  In broader terms, healthy, wealthy, and of good genetic stock.  

Chances are if you are short, fat and poor you are not going to be dating a fashion model or a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader no matter how much you jump up and down and scream about it on youtube. It might be easier to set your sites a little lower and spend more time where women at your level hang out, rather than waste your time commiserating with other poor short dudes on Men's Rights Forums and yakking on about the red pill.

There really is life outside of the Internet and the fake world the Ad Agencies present to us.

Agree 100%.  

Back before the Internet there used to be bars in the lower middle class parts of town where guys could get together, drink cheap beer, watch sports on TV and complain about women. Now we have Men's Rights Forums, Red Pills, Organizations, guys selling books, angry guys making money on YouTube views and a whole movement. They get these guys stirred up and when all is said and done they are still just sitting alone alone in their rooms in front of a computer just getting angry. But hey, they found a way to monitize it.

Sometimes I just hate technology. It is actually taking us backward.

In reply to ShawnG :

Me too. I made the mistake of mentioning that I needed an indicator or flag when the subject of her conversation changed so I wouldn't get lost. 

She didn't think that was nearly as funny as I did. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

No, I actually scrolled right on by. It was your second attempt that received a response. 

In all seriousness, this is a decent conversation. Add to it or don't, but trying to derail it is just petty. 

In reply to Beer Baron:

Just like finding a mate or new job, you might have to shop around to find the right therapist. That dude sounds like he's in the wrong profession. 

I've been to two, about 5-6 years apart. The first one I saw once and felt an immediate and immense sense of relief. No, I wasn't being overly sensitive and neither was my wife. No, I don't have to keep putting up with this stuff just because it makes my in-laws feel better about their poor way of dealing with it. Yes, what I'm feeling is normal and natural.  The second time my wife and I went separately and then together to talk about the same issues. Probably 6 sessions total. Best money I've ever spent. My wife and I are much happier as a result. 

Toyman! said:

In reply to ShawnG :

Me too. I made the mistake of mentioning that I needed an indicator or flag when the subject of her conversation changed so I wouldn't get lost. 

She didn't think that was nearly as funny as I did.

That's because the part you're not getting is that the topic didn't change.

In reply to Duke :

It changed, it always does. Usually between one word and the other without even a pause or a breath. What she wanted didn't, but the subject matter did. 

In reply to Toyman! :

I repeat my previous comment, young padawan.

In reply to Duke :

Young? Not hardly. 

Beer Baron said:

In reply to ddavidv :

I suggest amending your statement with the qualified "tend to be" rather than the absolute "are".

I'm sure that's what you mean. But it is good to be clear that we're not talking about absolutes in order to avoid confusion. Also to remind ourselves that we're talking about individuals that vary rather than a monolithic group.

I think it's always a good idea to view most behavioral things as on a spectrum (much like how it is commonly used for things like autism).  Because it is on a spectrum, does not mean it will be evenly distributed though.  Most behaviors, including (genetic) sex related ones will almost certainly be very bimodal (shown below)

(insert boobie joke here )

To imply that there are no (general) sex related behavior differences would be absurd on both an observational and scientific/statistical basis.  To imply that discussing or pointing out those differences are misogyny is also pretty absurd.  Obviously, anything can be taken to an absurd extreme, and I think that is what the OP is seeing.

Back before the Internet there used to be bars in the lower middle class parts of town where guys could get together, drink cheap beer, watch sports on TV and complain about women. Now we have Men's Rights Forums, Red Pills, Organizations, guys selling books, angry guys making money on YouTube views and a whole movement. They get these guys stirred up and when all is said and done they are still just sitting alone alone in their rooms in front of a computer just getting angry. But hey, they found a way to monitize it.

Sometimes I just hate technology. It is actually taking us backward.

In fairness, the bars were monetizing it too, by selling drinks.  But at least that came with some sort of personal interaction.  To derail this thread completely, one of my favorite parts of business travel is getting into some small town the night before the meeting and finding one of those neighborhood bars to sit down and have a few beers with the locals.  Invariably I end up getting drawn into some discussion or another, and usually learn something.  Also, there are still suds joints where a pint of domestic brew will set you back under a fin, after tax and tip.  

Reminds me of a book a friend of mine recommended to me, and I have yet to read:  Bowling Alone.

Toyman! said:

ddavidv said:

ralleah said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Let's not. Plenty of misogyny floating around this thread already.

And that's how the discussion ends. Call it a name.

Misogyny refers to a hatred of women. Discussing biological programming, nature vs nurture, etc in regards to differences in the sexes is not misogyny. 

Men and women are different. Their brains work differently, they think differently, and their biological imperatives for survival from the stone age still factor in, though with less significance. Dismiss it at the peril of your relationships.

The one thing I took away from my hobby study of the topic is that women think and act ways we men find puzzling, but they aren't doing it intentionally. It's software running in the background. We have our own software running in the background, but it's a different version, which is why women become exasperated with us (and we with them).

Biology isn't misogynistic. It has to love women for the species to survive.

Just ignore them. They can't or won't add to the discussion and are lashing out. 

Mind clarifying if you're referring to me, FBC, or both of us?

I'd also like to point out that there can be good discussion happening in this thread, along with the misogyny sprinkled throughout. It doesn't have to be labeled as the cause of what's being discussed to be present as part of it.

I remember following a movement called MGTOW. Men going their own way. It started with single men who were unsuccessful at love and dating putting all that energy into something else. That could go one of two ways. You could hole up in the back room and write the Great American Novel, go out to the garage and build a beautiful car, read great books, study philosophy, go to night school to get another degree, create great art, learn how to program, whatever. The list of positive directions is endless.

Or, you can go the second way and become a mysogonist, rant on internet forums, scream about how life is unfair to most men and re-create the He-Man Women Haters Club.

I tried a little bit in both directions. The first direction resulted in the founding of two dog rescue groups, the completion of a Masters Degree at night, a couple of restored cars and a house full of books and dog fur. The second direction gave me nothing but high blood pressure, depression and indegestion.

But what do I know? I dropped out of the MGTOW Club when I married rich Texas girl.

In reply to ralleah :

Any time a person spouts off the latest buzzword they don't seem to be interested in discussion. They just want to get their licks in.  

Both comments were posted to limit discussion or to make the poster feel superior. Neither comment added to the discussion or encouraged more discussion. Just glib outbursts without any interest in learning or understanding anything new or different. 

So let's go with, yes. 

Both posts could have been reworded to encouraged thought and discussion but to me that doesn't appear to be what either one of you wanted. 

I could be wrong. It's happened before. Just ask my wife.

Toyman! said:

I don't voice my problems, I solve them. She voices hers but doesn't necessarily want them solved as much as she just wants me to listen. 

Everyone re-read and memorize this. It will make your life better if you are in a relationship.

In reply to Toyman! :

It's not a buzzword, and you should check your presumptions re: my intentions, and lived experience.