Opening Men Up Emotionally

[entropie]

Emotio..what? Is that a beer brand?

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

WHAAAAAAT ????? Then, a man who cries with sincerity isn't more sexy than a man who jizzzzzzzzzes without real intention and care ????

Ok, I must admit that depends on the amount of drops in total... (+the quality of sincerity, whatever drops they are !)

 

[entropie]

WHAAAAAAT ????? Then, a man who cries with sincerity isn't more sexy than a man who jizzzzzzzzzes without real intention and care ????

Ok, I must admit that depends on the amount of drops in total... (+the quality of sincerity, whatever drops they are !)

häh?

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Oh, I just wanna add something about men and "sensitivity".


If a man opens up to his emotions and communicates them to me, even in a subtle way...that could be with his eyes, or with an explicite language (scratching balls does not work there sorry),

I'll feel confident and connected to him.

If he refuses that side of him, I'll probably reject him consciously or unconsciously. I'm a woman who needs to see a man's humanity and even a man's awkwardness and flaws

to feel confident. A man who seems to strong does not interest me.

The contrary is also true, a man who is lost into his wrong feminine side (negative anima) will frighten me too.


"No woman no cry" ??? I have always been the one to reassure men in my life.

It has been a long time to admit I could be sad too. So I'd be glad if the bullshit and préjugés that say "Men can't cry, that is not allowed, men should be only song and proud and so on"

will one day disappear, and all gender bullshit with it. I must say men had helped me a lot, with care and time, to accept my sensitivity by showing me the example.

So why women couldn't be a model of strength ?


Here you go ! Time to count the drops now

 

[entropie]

Oh, I just wanna add something about men and "sensitivity".


If a man opens up to his emotions and communicates them to me, even in a subtle way...that could be with his eyes, or with an explicite language (scratching balls does not work there sorry),

I'll feel confident and connected to him.

If he refuses that side of him, I'll probably reject him consciously or unconsciously. I'm a woman who needs to see a man's humanity and even a man's awkwardness and flaws

to feel confident. A man who seems to strong does not interest me.

The contrary is also true, a man who is lost into his wrong feminine side (negative anima) will frighten me too.


"No woman no cry" ??? I have always been the one to reassure men in my life.

It has been a long time to admit I could be sad too. So I'd be glad if the bullshit and préjugés that say "Men can't cry, that is not allowed, men should be only song and proud and so on"

will one day disappear, and all gender bullshit with it. I must say men had helped me a lot, with care and time, to accept my sensitivity by showing me the example.

So why women couldn't be a model of strength ?


Here you go ! Time to count the drops now

you talking soft about men and you prolly being very young doing so leaves me sceptical. I dont trust you, no more of my emotions!

 

[entropie]

I mean opening up men emotionally that reads good on the paper. But that can be a bad idea as well. i mean it depends on what men you have, americans, vikings. puuuh drunkest ! I'ldnt be so wishful with my thinking !!!!

 

[Mole]

Opening up men emotionally sounds like opening a can of sardines.

The words opening up men emotionally are pejorative, they are disrespectful of men, and they are weasel words, they sound contemporary and cool, but they are designed to diminish men.

And there is a conflict of interest here. Those who are diminishing men also hope to take advantage of men.

These are not disinterested people giving good advice to men, rather they are emotionally manipulating men, in the cheapest way for the cheapest reasons.

 

[entropie]

Opening up men emotionally sounds like opening a can of sardines.

The words opening up men emotionally are pejorative, they are disrespectful of men, and they are weasel words, they sound contemporary and cool, but they are designed to diminish men.

And there is a conflict of interest here. Those who are diminishing men also hope to take advantage of men.

These are not disinterested people giving good advice to men, rather they are emotionally manipulating men, in the cheapest way for the cheapest reasons.

Guys like you make it hard for woman. And who wrote its mandatory to make it hard for woman

 

[Mole]

Guys like you make it hard for woman. And who wrote its mandatory to make it hard for woman

Of course I make it hard for women. I encourage women to rise to their better self. I encourage them to think critically, I encourage them to wake from their child hood trance. I encourage them to explore cognitive dissonance. Of course I encourage them to explore the emotional pain of cognitive dissonance in order to make new discoveries. And I discourage women from emotionally manipulating men, particularly when they tell us it is for our own good.

 

[entropie]

Of course I make it hard for women. I encourage women to rise to their better self. I encourage them to think critically, I encourage them to wake from their child hood trance. I encourage them to explore cognitive dissonance. Of course I encourage them to explore the emotional pain of cognitive dissonance in order to make new discoveries. And I discourage women from emotionally manipulating men, particularly when they tell us it is for our own good.

And what would be if they just would want to like you and not like you for what you encourage them to?

 

[Mole]

And what would be if they just would want to like you and not like you for what you encourage them to?

This is entirely up to them. I don't want to control them.

 

[entropie]

This is entirely up to them. I don't want to control them.

But you know my question wasnt about what you do. But about you understanding that girls like you because of you not because of what you do. They do always in fact

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

If a guy has (big) balls he accepts his own feelings. I leave the others to other women. Unless he is curious to learn and grow up

 

[entropie]

If a guy has (big) balls he accepts his own feelings. I leave the others to other women. Unless he is curious to learn and grow up

You are definitly the mastress in making sense xD

 

[grey_beard]

You pretty much lost me at this line.

It's like the mathematician in a hotel at a conference, who hears the fire alarm in the middle of the night.
He groggily gets out of bed, and goes to his dress jacket, where there is a packet of matches in the pocket.
He strikes a match, and carries it over to the sink, where he fills a cup of water at the tap, and then
dunks the match into the water. ("A previously solved problem.")

He then gets incinerated in the fire.

Point being, the guys who are interested in quick scores with women, and guys who have no luck with women, agree.
("A previously solved problem.")

In order to have illicit relations, you must first have privacy with the girl. The PUAs have studied how to do this;
the MGTOWs have given up on even a date, let alone privacy.

The application is, the "point of no return" on intimacy is actually somewhere during the course of the evening:
not in a literal, laws-of-physics sense, but in the "everyone knows what's going to happen" sense.

 

[grey_beard]

I'm totally with you on the avoid temptation at the get go, part, and that's easy to avoid in a casual sense-- it's within a relationship that it's hard (if long term commitment hasn't been yet established). In that case, both people need to be committed to not putting themselves in murky waters (if they've agreed to putting off the sexual element) not just the woman. We all get weak sometimes.

I don't want to derail this thread, but what is up with this MGTOW stuff?! Don't get me wrong, I understand what drives men to that kind of thinking (I sometimes slip into the female version of it) but just abandoning women-kind, and a man's own desires for relationship and family, is just dumb. It's really the perfect counter-extreme to the man-blaming, "strong + liberated" female victim mentality. The solution is always in the middle. It grieves me even in a personal way because I struggle to find good men and sometimes (as aforementioned) start to think I'm just better off leading a single life. It's the same deception that well-intentioned individuals of both genders experience, but it's a lie.

And to the OP (since I've only commented on side issues), I do think raising boys to be open emotionally is important-- not shaming them for expression, but talking them through beneficial ways of channeling that (as I would with a child of either gender). This is something, honestly, that I've witnessed mishandling of by fathers just as much as mothers though. My Dad and brother are perfect examples. My Dad was pretty absent (working + traveling) but he always frowned on crying or being hurt with both my brother and myself. I think it was because that was very ingrained in him, and as a result he had no idea what to do when we were upset or sad. My brother specifically was also pretty discouraged from other forms of emotion that I wasn't, and expected to be stoic/independent younger.

Now that my brother is a father (and a hella great one too, I might add) he's better about these things than my Dad was, but there are still moment that I've seen him shame my nephew-- usually when he's stressed (he's 6w7) and in regards to not instantaneous obedience (my nephew isn't even two yet!) or when he senses any sort of defiance. He reacts too strongly, too quickly, and (though he's an amazing Dad is almost every other way) I do think it will affect my nephew in the long run.

I suppose that's called personality though, yes? I know I wouldn't be who I am if my parents hadn't screwed up in the ways they did-- the truth is that all kids sustain hurt and are messed up somehow, there's no preventing it, only processing it and turning it into growth.

Remember what fertilizer is made of: manure...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It's like the mathematician in a hotel at a conference, who hears the fire alarm in the middle of the night.
He groggily gets out of bed, and goes to his dress jacket, where there is a packet of matches in the pocket.
He strikes a match, and carries it over to the sink, where he fills a cup of water at the tap, and then
dunks the match into the water. ("A previously solved problem.")

He then gets incinerated in the fire.

Point being, the guys who are interested in quick scores with women, and guys who have no luck with women, agree.
("A previously solved problem.")

In order to have illicit relations, you must first have privacy with the girl. The PUAs have studied how to do this;
the MGTOWs have given up on even a date, let alone privacy.

The application is, the "point of no return" on intimacy is actually somewhere during the course of the evening:
not in a literal, laws-of-physics sense, but in the "everyone knows what's going to happen" sense.

I meant.

I have no respect for someone who spends time on those sites, nor will I listen to someone who hangs out on those sites.

 

[Rambling]

MGTOW is not the answer in my opinion. I get their gripe but going Galt on women in general only avoids a problem, doesn't fix it. If good men avoid all quality relationships with women then all that's going to be left for them are the low rent deadbeats with whom they will procreate creating more losers. I think leading by example is more effective for men and women. As a man I'll be particular about what kind of woman I want to share a quality relationship with. MGTOW is fundamentally flawed because it assumes quality women are non-existent which is ludicrous.

The myth perpetuated to women is that all men are the SAME underneath...therefore since they all pretty much look alike, dress alike and behave in similar polite ways with repressed feelings and surface chivalry, it doesn't matter which one you choose. Isn't that the point here?

Then it takes a moral or clever woman to try and select for features which make for a good long term marriage for raising their kids. Since the (wrong) assumption is that all men are the same...being men. And that none will have emotions sufficient to match their wife emotionally.

Jobs such as artist, sculptor, composer which a man could choose are not highly paid in general and are more risky careers.

Off topic but to make the contrast, women openly differentiate in ways of dressing, emotional expression, style, values, outlook...a man doesn't have to be very emotionally ABLE in order to select women he prefers since their emotional differentiation is set out clearly in their permitted expressiveness.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

You are definitly the mastress in making sense xD

The stereotype of the weak ESFP female is dead too ! Yes...making sense... I love learning about sex and pleasure with men so...

men should deserve it and explore their inner (dark or light) side. Meeting the other one should be like an harmonious dance.

One step towards you...then another step towards me... We did not learn to walk in one single day, as Rome wasn't built in a single night.


Oh ! I was about to forget : men allow me to learn patience too...

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Jobs such as artist, sculptor, composer which a man could choose are not highly paid in general and are more risky careers.

Being a muse is very very risky too... I swear it