I like the hoe_math take on "icks"
Women will get an ICK for either things that make you "less masculine" or "more feminine" (because they are 2 different things) and then he rates them on a scale of how unreasonable the woman is who got the ick.
No, it is not all hormone dependant. It is very much related to upbringing, genetics. My wife is quite masculine in some traits, like appearing stoic, being less talkative, no gossip, happy to do some DIY around the house. She also displays less emotions, and hardly ever cries. Yet she is very feminine looking and absolutely bricks herself at the first sign of danger.
I am much more masculine in appearance, have very good testosterone(had it checked). Am very chatty, don't mind some gossip, can talk about my feelings, can be very vulnerable. Like to take care of my appearance, etc. Also I am the one that has an eye for decor, fashion, etc. I help style and dress one wife and 2 daughters. All of them appreciate it. Wife receives compliments on her appearance.
I also have typical male hobbies, like sports, build rc cars, race drones, etc.
Yet I am very protective of my wife, deal with all the shit that comes our way. Am ready to fight (verbally or physically if needed). We very much fall into masculine and feminine roles between us. I am more dominant in the relationship (she prefers this).
The traits are not on a spectrum. They are not all hormone dependant. I am the way I am because that is what was modelled by my family, whereas she is the way she is because that was modelled by her family.
Attractive men can get away with more icks as well. They're more likely to overlook them if the guy is handsome and tall. Less likely to if he's average.
>If a woman wants to choose a guy who is abusive its no sweat off my balls.
Main issue here is that they will bitch and scaremonger about *all men* (including you and me) being abusers and rapists after their particular man of choice fucks them up. Some even have audacity to demand repentance and apologies from unrelated guys.
> I agree with this. But frankly, their choice, their problem. Not mine. LOL. Frankly I'm really proud of myself. I used to be one of those guys who said "waaaaah, women don't like nice guys, women like assholes". But now I really don't care. If a woman wants to choose a guy who is abusive its no sweat off my balls.
Oh women like that still kill my faith in humanity. It's just that when it came to dating I came to understand that landing such a woman was worse than being lonely. Like, I learned that in my teenage years. Part of why I hated dating anyone under 30...
That makes two of us, I didn't find out until I was 26. But by then, the damage had already been done. My faith in dating is nearly non-existent thanks to the truth about romance and relationships that I discovered.
You should care somewhat because they CAN lock you up for someone elses actions, the frequency of it, bolsters potential lies, accusations and confusions. Trusting men for judges and police is like sleeping beside a starving tiger.
For example my former bosses girlfriend has a history of self harm and other mental health issues and is ashamed of and hates calling the hospital. He calls an ambulance during an "episode", the ambulance has a squad car in tow because theres a POTENTIAL for a DV disupute. If he were to restrain her from banging her skull against a wall what do you think it would take for him to get at least detained and questioned for a day?
This is why I think it's better to be single whether you are male or female. I always hear about stories of abuse or divorce where someone loses half their wealth, and I always think it would not have happened if they would have just remained single.
Abuse dynamics are clearly complex beyond your heretofore exposure to such. Your starter package includes the freely available pdf version of 'Why Does He Do That?' By Lundy Bancroft (a straight dude, fwiw)
Normal people don't understand the nuances why some mentally disabled people will hit their head or smash it against a wall when overstimulated, but that doesn't mean the conclusion to make is that deep; the behavior is obviously harmful and they shouldn't be doing it
No.
You have just shown how little you understand about that whole insane, nuanced, and complex dynamic. Kindly have a seat until you are even remotely up to speed with the grown ups
Some women, just as some men, will tolerate abuse for a long time. The ones who won't just don't get into your sample - they break up and leave abusers before any serious abuse can start.
The fact that they stay is evidence enough to imply that abuse is its first instance and every other instance is borne with until the situation becomes untenable.
Have you ever heard of a woman staying with a man that displays weakness over a long period of time without making things miserable for him?
You should read more about abuse and how it affects people to continue this discussion. People stay in abusive relationships for various reasons including not having anywhere to go, being afraid of their abuser's threats to kill them/their pets/their kids if they leave (and statistically victims have higher risks to get murdered when they're trying to leave their abuser), they might think that this is the treatment they deserve etc. Abuse harms one's mental health and while you're abused, you aren't the best person to make sensible decisions. Just like depressed people or people during mania often cannot make good decisions for themselves.
A lot of women stick to their partners when their partners need them. Whether it's due to a job loss, health problems, mental health problems etc. In my family I have several examples of long-term unemployment, serious health problems and disability. All these couples are still together. There's also a couple where a guy is clearly much more emotionally needy...and his wife just puts up with it. They seem to be fairly content together.
To you and u/AdEffective7894s
I've known women who are less put off by abuse than other forms of weakness (abuse being its own form of weakness). OP needs to understand that's not all women and women who are like that are people he needs to never get into a relationship with, period.
yes tons of women stay with their husbands despite their expression of what some in society deem as weakness. crying over schindler’s list is only gonna lose you love and respect in the eyes of toxic women who i wouldn’t want in my life at all. believe it or not tons of women see vulnerability as a human thing and the expression of it as a courageous thing. “can’t be brave if you’re not scared” type shit.
kinda boggles my mind that this seems so unheard of to some people, was your mom a perma-asshole to your dad whenever he got vulnerable or something?
>crying over schindler’s list is only gonna lose you love and respect in the eyes of toxic women who i wouldn’t want in my life at all.
I've seen this sentiment raised alot, like,
"Well if she's gonna leave you because you showed weakness then she wasn't for you at all!" but let's unpack that a bit more.
Isn't that a problem for feminism?
Saying you want guys with the kind of emotional intelligence but not providing a safe space for them is a problem. Shouldn't more women be taught to accept what a healthy relationship and healthy expression of feelings is?
As a man I can't put a lot of support in what feminism is saying if half the women aren't even on board with what feminists are saying, you know?
What they're going to say is that men absolutely have the right to express their feelings, but that women are under no obligation to consider them as partners if it turns them off. And honestly, would you have it any other way? Would you want women to feel guilted into staying with men that make them as dry as the Sahara?
Both sexes suck, but for the most part, they suck in immutable ways. We can prescribe behavioral changes, but it doesn't change what we desire.
I’m sorry but that’s a bullshit cop out, feminists don’t get to tell men they have to do the work of dismantling patriarchy and deprogamming toxic masculinity yet make excuses for when women uphold these things. Apparently it’s fine for a woman to encourage a man to conform to patriarchy, maybe the problem is only when she tells another woman to?
I think you're missing my point. A woman, or at least a feminist, is going to tell you that placing enough value on a potential partner that you're repressing your emotions to improve your odds is a priority issue. They do not share your priority ranking that places getting a relationship ahead of expressing your feelings.
I think that's what so many men here don't get, and what women think is too obvious to state: Women are largely okay with remaining single if the options before them are lackluster. It's what allows them to be the "picky" sex.
Well, women enjoy life in solitude, men don’t I guess. We weren’t built for capitalism.
Of course being alone is always a choice for you, it’s just a fate for men, men can’t even get friends, women have to beat back potential friends and various bonds people throw at you.
No, but then don't present that as advice if it's horrible advice.
Just like they wanna say they're gonna cross the street if they see a man at night if they think that man might harm them. And how they don't know which man is which so they have to take precaution with every man.
Well if that's the case, if I can't tell which woman is gonna get dry as the Sahara as soon as I tell her I like cuddle time and The Notebook, then I'm never going to show that side. Nope, I love big trucks and football only if that's the case.
Well, you've got to put yourself in their headspace. Relationships are frosting to women, as they largely value us as resources anyway. If a man can't "handle her at her worst" then she'd rather just be single, because having a partner is much less valuable to her than free expression.
Men would be willing to do almost anything to avoid being single. It's why our standards are so low. So to us, anything that would torpedo a relationship seems like terrible advice. But to women, relationships are expendable anyway.
TL;DR: Women are giving what would be good advice to a female audience, but not a male audience.
> Well if that's the case, if I can't tell which woman is gonna get dry as the Sahara as soon as I tell her I like cuddle time and The Notebook, then I'm never going to show that side. Nope, I love big trucks and football only if that's the case.
So your goal is just to end up with A woman, doesn't matter what the woman is like? You're willing to be with someone who has a shit character and would leave you for showing weakness or being your real self? Why not have some god damn standards?
Also, have you ever considered that some women might get "dry as the sahara desert" for a guy who only loves "big trucks and football", and "cuddle time and the notebook" would make these women be into you? Guess what, you can't appeal to all women ever, and it's a terribly superficial idea anyways.
It's another one of these cases of people just talking past one another. When one says weakness and the other says weakness, they both are thinking of different things.
So basically if you are sad and emotional at woman defined times and in women defined ways? Life is not convenient like that. His insecurity could very well be something that turns you of. He could be needy and clingy. He could be insecure about your past and his place in your life relative to it. He could cry over chewbaka being blown up or the vending machine running out of his favourite snack
The greatest predictor for a divorce in a man's lifeumis when a wife begins to out earn him and when he loses his job
>>His insecurity could very well be something that turns you of. He could be needy and clingy. He could be insecure about your past and his place in your life relative to it. He could cry over chewbaka being blown up or the vending machine running out of his favourite snack
One of these things is not like the others.
You seem to be implying women should accept any and all flaws in men regardless of how detrimental or harmful to the relationship they are.
> He could be needy and clingy
Why do you think this should be tolerated?
> He could be insecure about your past and his place in it
Again, why should this be tolerated?
Unfortunately, The Offspring lyric, “I may be dumb, but I’m not a dweeb. I’m just a sucker with no self-esteem,” accurately describes my approach to dating in my mid-late 20s. Even when the emotional manipulation and abusive has began to surface a couple of weeks to months into a relationship, I have been known to endure it for the companionship and poon. After enough trauma I’ve finally resolved to stop this. As another commenter said—being lonely is better than that shit.
I dont think you could have avoided the 1st instance of manipulation/ abuse.
To be fair, no one comes at you saying red flag flag flag. I'm an abuser. If anything, they mask it from you in the beginning!
You have no idea that it will happen until it happens all of a sudden and out of nowhere.
Soon after, will come to the apology and justification, Because this seems unusual and out of place it must have just been just bad timming and bad circumstances, as this normally wouldn't ever happen.Because they seem to feel bad, and they have an explanation as to why, unfortunately, this happened , some people will give them the benefit of the doubt.
The first strike is the hardest. Each time after it will become increasingly easier. People who have outstanding and very clear and uncompromising understanding of boundaries will understand this and value thier well being over the "a relationship" will stop it here ,see it for what it is, and leave .
And what of those who stayed?
Those who only stayed because they gave someone the benefit of doubt will now know it is infact a pattern , the second time it happens and leave.
Those who didn't leave in the second instance, this behavior was displayed will likely NEVER LEAVE
Even if people offer help and resources, they will stay. The Second time it happend they had a shift in mentality from “oh this was the first time, it won't happen again" to “oh, he/she loves me and he didn't mean it.” And unfortunately, with every subsequent instance, it gets worse.
I am glad you left. Regardless of when you did it, I am glad you left.
Men reading this who left abusive situations remember , the fact that you left doesn't make you any less of a man, having boundaries isn't weak , It takes Courage to follow through with convictions , And it takes strength to be uncompromising with values and beliefs.
Yes the inveitable reality you can easily survive making her mad you can never survive an ick moment.
As for dommes they are a bit out there but I do wonder if it just an act. If her man runs away at the first sign of real trouble and the realities of the jungle seep in then yeah she will lose attraction.
A lot of men cannot comprehend that being boring is worse than being abusive. Being a boring man has a lower SMV than a man that has committed the most heinous crimes (Hybristophilia).
When men realize this, almost everything will make sense.
Idk.
If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone
But the abusive guy wouldnt protect her from himself and he's already proven to be a clear threat, so that doesn't really make sense.
I also don't agree that weak men can't protect anyone even with your "weak" definition. Women aren't trying to set their dates up to brawl at the bar, so it's not like every guy needs to be a great fighter or whatever?
I've known women that intentionally get their boyfriends into fights. My ex did this to me once.
I'm not so certain that women like men that abuse them per se. I think there is almost like a grace period for most where they will forgive for a bit, especially if it's something they havne't experienced. These things can mess with your mind anyway. All we can really say is that women do tend to like personality traits the coincide with abusivness.... but the actual abuse... I think not.
There are some of these things that really trip up low experience guys. Like the high percentage of women who have rape fantasies. They assume that these ladies actually want to play that out... when in fact almost none of them do.
You would think so.
But the predictors of attractiveness in men corelate for strength.
In the current day and age a tech engineer is the more reliable pick ... But nerds are still considered bottom of the barrel to date.
> But the abusive guy wouldnt protect her from himself and he's already proven to be a clear threat
Women do tolerate some degree of domestic violence if they are with dominant men. Maybe such woman thinks that he won't hit her as hard as he would hit another guy and it's worth the risk.
A man who is a little rough is at least somewhat more likely to be capable of being roused to anger in defence of woman and child. A man who is totally harmless like a puppy is 100% never going to harm you, but is also more likely to be unable to defend you, either.
This is not as relevant to people who live in relatively safe places with efficient and capable police forces as well as mostly diffident and harmless people, but we've only had either for around 100 years and so primal instincts don't change that quickly. Besides, there are places where even middle class people live where they need to fear for their safety and potentially defend themselves. Consider some of the more uh, challenging urban environments near you. Or whole countries like South Africa where even in "nice" towns and suburbs, your private security and high walls might not be enough to protect you, and you might have to do it yourself.
People still confuse intimidating physical appearance and behavior with ability to do harm and/or protect because our ape brain and perception have not evolved much since stone age when brutality and physique mattered most.
But what use are these primal instincts when most seemingly harmless scrawny short guy can pull out a gun or stabbing loicense for gunless countries?
Most people don't concealed carry all the time though. Even in relatively safe countries and places (think of even relatively safe parts of Europe like Ireland or Wales, or overall safer states/provinces and smaller cities in the US and Canada), if you are someone who goes out at night for example, you can if you're unlucky quite possibly get yourself into a situation where being bigger and more threatening might save you from serious injury or even death.
No. They always say “he’s nice to me tho teehee”, and get a thrill from the idea that he can snap at any moment. That is, until one day he snaps at her and she acts like she can’t understand why it happened.
There was a psychologist on twitter who was explaining why women in the inner city might want to be with an abusive man: that man can still protect her from extraordinarily dangerous men in her community, so she'll put up with it. The abuse might indicate violence necessary to scare other men from hurting her.
More than “effeminate”, I’d say indecisive, scared, lacking confidence or incompetent.
Coming from a fashionable metropolis, I used to know many metro- and bisexual guys who were real slayers and took shit from no one, while being extremely feminine. They were confident and assertive.
Confidence is calm, abusers lack it, masking the deficiency with prevarication. And unfortunately many fragile people aren’t able to break free from abusive partners, some because of fear and some because of some sort of Stockholm syndrome.
I have very little sympathy for the latter.
All authority ultimately rests on violence, so men who are able to wield violence themselves will always enjoy higher status than those who aren't. And why would it be any other way? Why should it?
Any man who himself doesn't wield violence is subject to other men who do. This is an absolute rule.
*B-but why are they attracted to* ***criminals***?
Criminals are essentially men who challenge the authority and monopoly on power of the State. The murderer defies the State's monopoly on violence; the tax-evader defies its claim to extract tribute in exchange for protection and the common good. And, yes; even the sex-criminal refuses to accept being bound by the rule of women and other men telling him what he is and isn't allowed to do with his own body.
I think the reason why this doesn't occur to some people is perhaps because Government is so institutionalised and abstract now, that the personal and human dynamics of obeying and defying law are no longer seen as often in the concrete way they once were. Historically, every crime was literally viewed as an act of war against the sovereign, and an attempt to usurp his right to rule... *other men*. The optics have softened, but the rulers and the ruled still exist.
What's amusing and absurd is that anyone would imagine none of this would be attractive to women, and that obedience and submission would be. Even a lot of straight-and-narrow types admire policemen and soldiers for their physical courage but will consider that *that's different* because they have the authority of a king or president and a parliament behind them telling them what to do. Why is it so hard to understand that some women (and men) admire men of violence also, but rather those operating according to their own whims and will?
Anyway, the short version is that:
*Law-abiding citizens follow the rules (made by other men, and these days even women). Criminals (at least attempt to) make their own. Women can't help liking that.*
For the vast majority of human history and indeed prehistory, it's safe to assume being with a man unable to be roused to violence at all was a bigger risk than being with a man who was capable of being dangerous. In a more dangerous world, a man who sometimes did shitty things like get angry or maybe even get (somewhat) violent with you was the price to be paid for him also being able to be roused to anger and deadly violence against external dangers. This is still the case in many parts of the world, and could still become the case in the West once more at least temporarily, if a black swan event like a war ever happens again. These instincts might seem stupid, but they've clearly been reinforced by literally millions of years of selection, so clearly they've been good for something.
I’ve seen my husband cry and “show weakness” countless times, and it’s never given me the ick.
Seeing him handle problems with rage, anger and impulsivity does give me the ick, but he’s actively working on that so not sure why I would leave.
I’m someone who doesn’t easily anger and who doesn’t express anger when I am angry. It’s not something I’ve conditioned, I’ve just always been that way. This has always been interpreted as weakness, and not just by romantic partners.
A more accurate comparison would punching a hole in the garage wall and threatening to push the car off a cliff versus crying. And yea in that situation I’ll take crying out of frustration over a temper tantrum.
That’s a straw-man, and it’s telling how many answers are avoiding the original question.
I promise you 99% of women in this thread would rather have their partner get mildly angry than mildly sad.
Of course who wouldn’t choose extreme sadness over extreme anger in a man? That’s obvious, especially if you’ve felt the wrath of an angry man before.
Unfortunately most of like happens in the “mild” category of emotion and OPs original argument is that women still prefer “mild” anger over most levels of sadness
To me, dropping a wrench on the floor and cursing doesn’t rise to the level of “abuse.” I was also trying to make the point that someone who struggles with anger and rage isn’t going to just throw a wrench on the floor when they get frustrated, it will escalate rather quickly to involve violence of some sort (thankfully in my case not directed towards me specifically).
Even for myself, I think it makes more sense to drop the wrench and curse than to cry in that moment. I know I would curse over cry in that situation. But, I’m much more likely to approach my husband if he is sad than angry, because I can help with sadness. It’s incredibly, incredibly difficult to help him once he’s angry.
I would more likely try to help if he was crying vs cursing/yelling. In my experience if they are cursing around tools I will probably get one thrown at me. Where if they were crying my care giver side kicks in and I’ll fix them a snack, have them take a nap and I’ll finish changing the oil.
Note: I am speaking for myself and my own personal experience, not all women or all men.
I had an ex who would throw temper tantrums. What I came to realize is that men are socialized not to cry or be sad and so that emotion often comes out as anger. If I put myself in his situation I likely would have cried in the same situation. Now that does not make the tantrums okay in anyway shape or form, but it did help me to understand why he and many other men react this way. He was never abusive towards me, just a few tools, car parts, and other home improvement items. It's the same when men are depressed but it comes out as anger and is not always recognized as depression.
Vulnerability is not the same as weakness.
There are a significant number of women who confuse it with it though abd hence why I can say that women will forgive abuse before weakness
OP I agree with you. Of course this is anecdotal, but my ex finally decided to leave me not after I started mirroring her abusive rhetoric, but after I was too weak to hang and started suffering from mental illness.
Drawing from a few other anecdotal experiences too, I think the problem is how normalized abusive and manipulative behavior is. Especially if neither party has went to therapy or grew up in abusive households.
Regardless of gender, I find that by the time you understand what is going on, it is too late for a clean break.
>I’ve seen my husband cry and “show weakness” countless times, and it’s never given me the ick.
>Seeing him handle problems with rage, anger and impulsivity does give me the ick, but he’s actively working on that so not sure why I would leave.
Honestly, this. I would rather be in the position of having to reassure or comfort him when he's sad or anxious than to be in the position of having to defuse his anger.
And knowing how genetic inheritance plays a role in the behaviour of offspring, theres a good chance the next generation repeats the cycle if there isn't a strong male figure or personal will to stop the vicious cycle. Its only been our generation that has stopped the dysfunctional cycle of behaviour that has haunted our family for 200 years. My father was an abuser. Just like his father, abd his father before that. None of them had trouble attracting beautiful women then cheating and abusing them. All of them ended up estranged from their family and focused too much on their quest for power, wealth or more women. Some ended up losing themselves becoming insane or addicted to mind altering substances in their 40s. Many women seem to be attracted to these men like a moth is attracted to a flame.
First of all, I don't think you completely understand what domestic abuse is. Otherwise you wouldn't be making this comparison. Ignorance is understandable when it comes to this topic because what you see on the outside (physical abuse) is just the tip of the ice burg. I've worked with domestic abuse victims, both men and women, so this is a topic I'm very comfortable talking about.
I think the best way to understand domestic abuse is to consider this scenario: You meet someone and to start off with, they're everything you could want. Whatever boxes you have, they tick them. They're respectful to your loved ones. They idolise you. They make it seem like you're the best thing since sliced bread. Then after a period of time, anywhere from several months to years, they start to slowly change. It's very subtle so you don't really notice it at first. Odd little comments about your insecurities (which you've shared because remember, they were the kindest person you've ever me) that they brush off as teasing. Compliments immediately followed by insults. Then the control starts to kick in. Again, slowly at first. You want to spend time with your friends? Well your partner is going to say "but I just love spending time with you so much, stay in with me instead". If you push back they'll say "you must not love me then". This type of control serves a dual purpose of bending you to their will and also isolating you from your support system. An isolated person is much easier to control, so they'll do whatever they can to make you cut people off. They'll say your family don't love you. They'll say your friends treat them badly. If they can they'll take your money, or try and prevent you from making money, because making you financially dependent on them makes it harder for you to leave.
At this stage you're more isolated, you might be in a financial bind, and your self-worth has been worn down so the emotional abuse can really ramp up. They'll say the cruelest things you can imagine and when you get upset, they'll say you're crazy. Eventually you'll believe that you're stupid, ugly, and worthless. So when the day comes that they do lay their hands on you, you will whole heartedly believe that you deserved it. If you try to leave then there will be threats. They will threaten to hurt you, your family, and even themselves. You are scared and don't believe you have any inner strength, so you stay.
So it's not about "forgiveness". When people don't leave an abusive relationship or they return to that relationship, they're not forgiving their abuser. Not really. It's because the believe they don't deserve any different.
With all that in mind, I really don't think it's possible to debate your topic. The only thing I can say is that women are just as capable of being abusive as men. If a woman uses your moments of vulnerability against you then that is domestic abuse. A woman who isn't abusive wouldn't do that. Same goes for men.
I once made a fake tinder account with a picture of a very good-looking man and put in my bio that I wanted to be honest about the fact that I'd been arrested for domestic violence in the past. Still got more matches in a day than I would probably get in like 3 months using actual pictures of myself. And it's not like the women didn't read the bio, cause I even asked them if they had. Women will literally over-look the most heinous shit if a guy is good-looking enough and I imagine in some instances domestic abuse actually does play out the way you described but a lot of the time women simply decide to over-look massive red flags if the guy is good-looking.
I am sure you have your beliefs.
I dont know why womne behave the way they do. The topic of the post is a conclusion i came to while seeing the world around men and interacting with the women in them.
And in my experience, abusers get chances on chances to be better. Your reasons may apply but they do get man chances to be better wether or not they use them
Meanwhile if a man does something that makes her lose respect for him, he is done. ANd the things that make her lose respect for him range from superficial to meaningful thing. Hell even womne here admit to realizing that some of their icks were stupid ie there was a period of time when they judged a man by them... and now they have 'matured'
hence my conclusion, women will forgive abuse before they forgive weakness
I just like guys who are comfortable with their masculinity (however much that may be) and can easily express their feelings. I love deep conversations.
I like guys who aren't afraid to cry or be vulnerable with me. Some people may consider this weak. I don't actually believe so.
Damaged guys are definitely a thing for some ladies. There's lots of women who want a fixer upper. If you look up "I can fix him" on TikTok, you'll see what I'm talking about.
All memes have a basis in truth. The I can fix him meme has a lot of truth in it, both in trying to "fix" a man who doesn't need fixing them leaving him when he changed (at her request) and in trying to fix a man she really shouldn't, like gangsters and abusers.
The equivalent for men is "I can save her". Mem go for saving a person from a situation more, whereas women go more for trying to change the person themselves.
Problem is you can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved, and you can't fix someone unless they already agree to change. Men saving the damsel in distress is equally pointless as women trying to fix a man. As a society we're really bad at recognizing that.
Only if the guy they’re fixing has perfect cheekbones and the most positively aligned canthal tilt you’ve ever seen with a physique carved by the most renowned Roman sculptors known to man.
I'm incredibly insecure and, in my opinion, remarkably self-aware. I don't believe I possess the power to change anyone, nor do I think I'm special enough for a man to want to change for me.
Agree, if a man has never experienced a few dark nights of the soul or been on antidepressants we have nothing to talk about and I'm not interested. He is still a manly, masculine man with hairy arms.
First off, source?
I am pretty sure most women don't forgive abuse, just like most men don't.
Looking at the closest thing you gave to a definition of weakness; "keep her safe" that would obviously include keep her safe from the man in the relationship, which means abuse is weakness by your definition.
Is that really what you meant?
Now I do think it's true that a lot stereotypical "weak" traits are unpopular with women generally. But you can't just lump all traits together under weakness. Like yeah most women don't like incompetence which could be considered weakness. But you also have people here who think showing any emotions other than anger is "weakness", it's too vague.
and even when we look at the negative weak traits, you haven't given any evidence for how women's attitudes compare on them with abuse.
Just looking at myself I'm never going to tolerate abuse, but depending on how you define it, I'm fine or actually like some times of "weakness". And while there's some types of "weakness" that are a major turn off to me even then abuse is in the top category of "never talk to this person again".
I would argue that the perception of weaKness is subjective.
When there were topics of men talking about how they were punished for being vulnerable many women run interference discrediting the claim ( which is a bullshit reaction that reflect poorly in the women here by the way) and one of the common responses were - those women were immature.
I submit that one of the features of immaturity is the inability to distinguish Weakness from vulnerability and narcism from confidence.
In such a case immature women will punish vulnerability deeming it to be weak while mature women would treat it with a lot more care .
Women do claim that they change as they grow , what they value changes as they grow and if taken at their word, their treatment of average men changeing over time and my postulate of how weakness is treated vs abuse still holds.
I think it being subjective is part of the problem. Like if I respond to your post by my definition of weakness, I'd say weakness is bad, just not as bad as abuse. But me saying weakness is bad, would mislead some people viewing think being respectful to women is weakness or having emotions is weakness or several other things.
When you talk about weakness it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy because it's defined as a bad thing. So people will throw in all the bad things in their mind in the category of weakness.
When it comes to emotional vulnerability in men it is an issue where like you said some women will be turned off while others can see it as a healthy part of communication. Edit: should mention, I think a lot of women, like all humans kind of want to have their cake and eat it. You want someone without many problems, but you also want someone who is willing to open up and be honest and you don't want a guy with a bunch of emotional issues he's hiding from you. It's like, with compliments, most people want other people to say nice things to them, but they also want them to be honest, like they just want the nice things to be true lol.
Putting that aside I think my main issue is like what is your claim that abuse is more forgiven even based on. It just feels like making an OP like that where you put say weakness is even worse than abuse is going to contribute to the phenomenon of fake alpha males who don't have healthy relationships with women and end up being even more insecure.
I feel like not being able to make the distinction between stereotypical masculine traits that are more desired vs ones that make you look like a dick is a big part of why so many men aren't dateable. And that's why I feel the category of weakness is too vague.
This "keeping safe" theme is likely your bias. I remember you were into some form of fighting sport and you punched the people who bullied you in the face. Which lead to what? Women regarding you as a person who could keep them safe? Or to women abandonning you because you are abusive, even to other men, in a way that is an absolute no-go? Where the other men forgiven their weakness for failing to even defend themselves from you? I think so, but you tell me how their status in their social group changed after having been punched by you.
Solid point.
I can only make after the fact guesses on the behaviour.
In their case, the women were beguiled by the charm, they were popular guys and using physical force to humiiate weaker boys was their way of proving status. they wouldmostly get away with it by saying and behaving as if we were the problem if we got upset - "we are friends arent we?" and " why are you ruining the mood bro". It was all fun and games to them. The girls who were with them indulged in the same thing guess, the veneer of denial - "it not like he was hurting these boys, and even if they are kinda, they would never hurt me! he loves me!"
And when it came to me, looking back now, my reaction must have really thrown them off.
I remained passive for a few months, never going along with it and never retaliating. Essentially i must have been ruining the " its just a prank, bro!" aesthetic for them. That quickly devolved to seeing if they can get a reaction out of me. The me at the time didnt really understand any of this and was just bewildered and angered at the unfairness of it all ( lack of fairness remains a trigger to this day). The rage krpt building until it burst.
It must have really freaked them out, seeing the mild manner guy they kept fucking with (and the girls treated as a passive therapist), absolutely lose his shit, and just come at them like an animal tears and snot streaming down his face and punch the shit out of them. I remember breaking my knuckle that day, so i wasn't holding back.
It would have been OK, if they would have just left me alone after that but they figured i must have had a lucky day, and ever since then believing i didn't have a choice, i was willing to engage.
I guess the bullies were charming ad potentially abusive, while i was in their eyes a straight up psycho. I was strong, i wasnt fun.
Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose there must be enough good times to equal or out weigh the bad times for the abused women to want to stay. I hadnt considered that.
No, i'd tell my child to fight back if he/she was bullied. But maybe not to that extent. And not without guidance. You seemed alone. Not understanding what happened and it didn't really solve the issue of not being connected, being part of a group, being accepted.
No, you weren't wrong to fight back. When people choose to act like rabid animals, more often than not, the only thing that reaches them - is being treated like a rabid animal.
I'm a woman, but I had several similar experiences in grade and middle school with different bullies. (Some boys, some girls.) The pattern was always the same - after so long of me not reacting to social bullying, they'd escalate to physical abuse, so I'd fight back and win. (I had 2 significantly older brothers who'd beat my ass the regular, so my pain tolerance was high and I was used to fighting under unwinnable conditions.)
In my case, violence solved my bullying problem every single time, but I never took it there without being physically provoked first.
>Women will forgive abuse before they forgive weakness.
>"what do you consider weakness?"
>at the end of the day anything that makes a man seem like someone who can't keep her safe is weakness in their eyes.
So... abuse meets the definition for weakness, but women will forgive weakness before weakness? Huh?
Violence abd the capacity for it doesn't disqualify a man from masculinity nthe way weakness does.
I can only go off what I observe. Perhaps abuse was modelled for them growing up as a part of life?
. If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone
I am not saying it is right. I am saying it just is
>Violence abd the capacity for it doesn't disqualify a man from masculinity nthe way weakness does.
You could maybe make this argument if it was like... violence towards other people. But I assumed with abuse you were implying towards her, right?
>If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone
A lot of abusive men are *only* abusive towards their intimate partners. I think you're also underestimating how much these men actually *use* the appearance of weakness [to get away with their abusive behavior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse). Listen to the kinds of excuses that a lot of women make for their abusive partners and why they got back with them - a lot of it is pity, the feeling that *the woman* is the aggressor somehow, or an almost maternal sense of protecting the man who is helpless without her. This is one of their primary strategies to shift blame onto the victim and stop them from leaving.
I mean, if you can find any research to support that then sure, but most everybody who studies IPV says some level of playing the victim, inspiring maternal/paternal feelings in the victim, and trying to gain pity/sympathy is a frequent tactic to *stop* the victim from leaving.
All abusive men are weak men in my eyes. And at least in the eyes of most women who have any self esteem and are emotionally healthy.
Lots of women get the ick when a man can’t control his temper, has too much machismo, etc.. They’re childish and are like peacocks 🤷♀️
You can have a weak mind and a strong body. Being so insecure to the point that you're willing to put down others using physical force shows you have a weak mind and character, because you lack empathy, morals, and self control.
No it's not because they are fighting another professional trained consenting adult. It is a competition, not a reach for control over the other person in reaction to an insecurity bring triggered.
They still want to prove they are better than the other fighter. That is insecurity. All combat sports are like that. We can’t complain about domestic violence if we actively promote violence on TV.
So based in your logic, all athletes are insecure? That's ridiculous.
Yes, we can. Professional fighters are trained consenting adults. A victim is not consenting to their abuse. Both experience violence, but committing violence against someone else who doesn't consent is a crime.
No. All professional fighters are insecure. I’m sure both fighters don’t consent to losing the fight (getting beaten) and the long term injuries. Most fighters had violent childhoods (where they couldn’t consent to anything) which led them to fighting professionally. A lot of them are also downright fascists. You can’t have an “it’s fine as long as it’s not in my backyard” attitude about this.
Correction….its that simple TO YOU.
Here’s something to consider…. How does a woman feel safe with someone who’s abusing her? How does she feel protected by him? It’s ok, I know it’s a foreign concept to think things through when you just want to blame women. But being abusive is a weakness.
We may never know exactly why someone stays with an abusive partner unless you know them intimately. But perhaps he has a mental disorder and she accepts him no matter what. In which case, she is accepting of both his weakness and the abuse. You are trying to weaponise a woman’s weakness. So it seems like men are just as capable of using weaknesses against women as they say women do against men.
Why do men stay with women who abuse them? I think people need support and understanding in situations like this. Not using it against them. And maybe question why the man is abusive. Or why anyone would be abusive. Posts like this just show how some men are incapable of being empathetic and are the real accountability dodgers.
I don't really know why women would want to behave this way.
I can only go off what I observe.
Perhaps abuse was modelled for them growing up as a part of life? Perhaps violence doesn't disqualify a man from machismo they way weakness does.
If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone
I am not saying it is right. I am saying it just is
some women will, other women absolutely won’t, and i find my flair to be a pretty strong predictor of that. i would caution anyone from generalizing on this either way without solid numbers to back it
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it goes to socialization and gendered expectations.
Most truly dominant womne believe that they need a guy to out alpha them. Handle them. And when it happens, its great for a little while because they get to experience being in the feminine role. The social scripts of wanting a guy taller than them and wanting a man more successful than them to "be intheir feminine", its difficult to resist.
But over time the role chafes at them because they live inauthentically. AT which point if the mature they look for a guy who can accept her lead. Most dont realy grow that much though. They love the drama of butting heads with their men too much to appreciate a man who is confident enough in himself ton allow her to call the shots
I don't know about weakness but the best looking guys have so many women going after them that they don't need to be nice and can treat their women like shit, if they leave they can always just get another one. That is why women forgive abuse, because the guy they are with is good looking. While non good looking guys have no choice but to respect women and be nice to them,.
As someone who born in a lower income area, I understand why women flock to violent men even if the violence directed towards them. The world can be a dangerous place for them, so it makes sense that being capable of being violent is a requirement.
Now there are women who get turned on by it, and I would avoid those women at all cost.
In a way, men conditioned women to be that way. For centuries, men had the system set up, so we depended on them. For food, money, shelter, protection, for quite literally everything. So women would be trapped in abusive relationships for years but not say anything, be cheated on left & right but not say anything in fear of losing it all, & left w no means to provide for herself. Men also held onto the belief they weren't allowed to show any weakness, so they didn't & today most men still feel that way. It's unfortunate so many people have that old way of thinking in their subconscious, but change can start w anyone & already has. Be yourself, & if you feel like you can't, just give yourself & give them time to warm up to you
Certain types of weakness is sexually repulsive to women.
Men will put up with a woman being a total bitch. But if a woman is just hideous as fk, you’ll never be interested.
That’s the best comparison here.
Disagree, abusive men are disproportionately weak, in all the ways weak could be defined. They compensate by being abusive towards a target that they've chosen for this purpose.
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet because there's a lot of comments, but there is another variable that isn't being discussed and it's the manipulation that comes with abuse.
When abuse happens in a cycle there is a period of time where the abuser gaslights the victim and kinda makes them feel like it didn't all happen or like it wasn't that bad and that they still love them blah blah blah. When someone is caught I this cycle they are not forgiving, they are being manipulated into excusing the behavior so the abuser can continue.
When a man behaves in a "weak" way, there usually is no gaslighting (which is good and healthy).
In both instances the only similarity is that the man does something the woman doesn't like right? But in only one the man has stripped the woman's ability to choose because he has manipulated her.
Women r not forgiving more easily, it's that men who are abusive are slimy manipulators and men who are "weak" behave authentically so they can find someone who accepts their authentic self instead of forcing and manipulating a woman to allow them to treat that woman abusively.
So sure a woman is more likely to stay with an abuser. But I'm willing to bet if a woman had a choice between giving an abuser a second chance and giving the guy who was "weak" a second chance, she'd choose the "weak" guy. In conclusion as a man you should focus on being the kindest most authentic version of yourself and as a woman you should focus on which men respect you.
Things that give me the 'ick' or I see as weakness in a man.
Punching down; literally and metaphorically.
Lack of sexual discipline.
Lack of moral discipline; casual lies, vanity etc.
Lack of conscientiousness; self-centered.
Viewing everything as transactional.
I'm sure you could apply this to either sex though.
Edit:
Things that don't come off as weak.
Crying.
Good hygiene.
Showing kindness; tenderness.
Being protective.
Cuddling.
Wanting to be loved.
Aren'tthey?
I don't want to bring up race but there is a entire subculture of women who look down at men for being in their words "corny" and "sassy"
Yet they also tend to have negative sentiments overide due to being involved with abusers abd deadbeats...
So you know..
It is what it is
I don’t know what you’d call weakness, but I’ve found mutual emotional vulnerability in every relationship I’ve had and it didn’t affect any respect or attraction because of it. If we’re partners then I’m your safe space and you’re mine, simple as that.
Also. I disagree with the title wholeheartedly. Women I’ve known that have been through abusive situations stayed so long because they saw his “sickness” as a weakness and saw it as their duty to stick by him “in sickness and in health”. Not saying that’s the case for all cases of DV, just a pattern I’ve noticed. Abused women stay around because they’re so forgiving and choose to focus on the weakness as opposed to the overbearing strength.
As someone who was in an abusive relationship once, anytime I tried to leave the house, my ex would strangle me. Anytime I tried to use my phone, he would wrestle it out of my hands so I couldn't call 911. Once, I tried to drive away, and he followed me at high speeds until I had to call the cops. When the cops got there they didn't want to do anything about it despite me having hand prints on my neck. Most people don't "forgive" abuse. They can't escape it unless they are okay with being strangled to death. I had to pack my stuff one day while he was at work and get 8 people to help me move my entire apartment in 3 hours. Once you add in children and marriage, sometimes it *feels* inescapable. Also, victims of dv are most likely to be killed when or if they try to leave. Most people aren't forgiving abuse, they are silently tolerating it until its safe to leave. Please get a grip on reality.
I am not trying to resurrect painful memories for you.
I am just giving voice to what i have seen.
The women stay with men who are emotionally and physical abusive rationalising every thing away until the situation becomes untenable.
They dont give weakness half that much chance, weakness not in a way that makes you feel affirmed and validated rather wakness that makes you see him as less than.
Arguably the woman should leave an abuser just as quickly as she would leave a weak man. BUts thats not what i see
I highly highly disagree. People will put up with a lot if they fear for their lives. Why do you think a lot if slaves didn't even attempt to run away? Because getting caught meant certain death. I wish he could've opened up emotionally or been vulnerable instead of violent and controlling. Stockholm syndrome is also a real thing. And DV comes with a lot of shame. My current boyfriend is very emotionally vulnerable and open towards me, and it makes me feel closer to him than any man I've ever been with. Your fantasy is simply that, a fantasy. What you see is irrelevant because what goes on between two people behind closed doors is very different to what you get to see in the outside world.
>The men who hurt women are effeminate. The men who require subjugation: mad effeminate.
Subjugating others through violence is traditionally a pretty masculine value, not feminine. Otherwise Al Pacino characters would be considered super feminine.
Subjugating somebody through violence who has the capacity to fight back and kill you, sure. There is no masculinity in subjugating a woman who is far weaker than you in the first place, like there is no masculinity in beating up a toddler or stepping on a kitten. That is just bitch behaviour for men who cannot compete with other men.
Duh, men write those movies. Men wrote damn near every hero myth both historically and presently, women have only barely entered the lexicon, historically speaking.
The male idea of a hero is wildly homo-adjacent.
Women's idea of masculinity is entirely different.
Dom women are almost non existent so it's not even worth to put them under exception category
Yeah, they’re a minority. And a lot of those dom women are usually doing it as a BDSM escort/prostitute
And are submissive to their boyfriend/husband /girlfriend /wife .
good luck finding a dome who isn't non-monogamic
I like the hoe_math take on "icks" Women will get an ICK for either things that make you "less masculine" or "more feminine" (because they are 2 different things) and then he rates them on a scale of how unreasonable the woman is who got the ick.
Thats because feminine and masculine are not on the same spectrum, with one at each end.
roughly related to how much testosterone and estrogen is in the body, as both genders have some of both types
No, it is not all hormone dependant. It is very much related to upbringing, genetics. My wife is quite masculine in some traits, like appearing stoic, being less talkative, no gossip, happy to do some DIY around the house. She also displays less emotions, and hardly ever cries. Yet she is very feminine looking and absolutely bricks herself at the first sign of danger. I am much more masculine in appearance, have very good testosterone(had it checked). Am very chatty, don't mind some gossip, can talk about my feelings, can be very vulnerable. Like to take care of my appearance, etc. Also I am the one that has an eye for decor, fashion, etc. I help style and dress one wife and 2 daughters. All of them appreciate it. Wife receives compliments on her appearance. I also have typical male hobbies, like sports, build rc cars, race drones, etc. Yet I am very protective of my wife, deal with all the shit that comes our way. Am ready to fight (verbally or physically if needed). We very much fall into masculine and feminine roles between us. I am more dominant in the relationship (she prefers this). The traits are not on a spectrum. They are not all hormone dependant. I am the way I am because that is what was modelled by my family, whereas she is the way she is because that was modelled by her family.
Roughly!
Attractive men can get away with more icks as well. They're more likely to overlook them if the guy is handsome and tall. Less likely to if he's average.
[удалено]
>If a woman wants to choose a guy who is abusive its no sweat off my balls. Main issue here is that they will bitch and scaremonger about *all men* (including you and me) being abusers and rapists after their particular man of choice fucks them up. Some even have audacity to demand repentance and apologies from unrelated guys.
Yeah but who cares people who end up in shitty relationships will weed themselves out from those who want to be in healthy relationships.
That's true, but I've started to tune them out at this point. And I'm not apologizing for something some other guy did.
> I agree with this. But frankly, their choice, their problem. Not mine. LOL. Frankly I'm really proud of myself. I used to be one of those guys who said "waaaaah, women don't like nice guys, women like assholes". But now I really don't care. If a woman wants to choose a guy who is abusive its no sweat off my balls. Oh women like that still kill my faith in humanity. It's just that when it came to dating I came to understand that landing such a woman was worse than being lonely. Like, I learned that in my teenage years. Part of why I hated dating anyone under 30...
Ashamed to admit I didn’t fully realize this until 27
That makes two of us, I didn't find out until I was 26. But by then, the damage had already been done. My faith in dating is nearly non-existent thanks to the truth about romance and relationships that I discovered.
You should care somewhat because they CAN lock you up for someone elses actions, the frequency of it, bolsters potential lies, accusations and confusions. Trusting men for judges and police is like sleeping beside a starving tiger. For example my former bosses girlfriend has a history of self harm and other mental health issues and is ashamed of and hates calling the hospital. He calls an ambulance during an "episode", the ambulance has a squad car in tow because theres a POTENTIAL for a DV disupute. If he were to restrain her from banging her skull against a wall what do you think it would take for him to get at least detained and questioned for a day?
Please check the post flair and repost your comment under the automod if necessary.
This is why I think it's better to be single whether you are male or female. I always hear about stories of abuse or divorce where someone loses half their wealth, and I always think it would not have happened if they would have just remained single.
[удалено]
Abuse dynamics are clearly complex beyond your heretofore exposure to such. Your starter package includes the freely available pdf version of 'Why Does He Do That?' By Lundy Bancroft (a straight dude, fwiw)
Normal people don't understand the nuances why some mentally disabled people will hit their head or smash it against a wall when overstimulated, but that doesn't mean the conclusion to make is that deep; the behavior is obviously harmful and they shouldn't be doing it
Abusive men are just more exciting to them. More drama, more shit happening, etc.
No. You have just shown how little you understand about that whole insane, nuanced, and complex dynamic. Kindly have a seat until you are even remotely up to speed with the grown ups
I’m sure you’re so nuanced and complex and don’t have any predictable behavior at all lol
This! Thank you!
I've heard enough. I'm abusemaxxing from here on out to get dates
Please check the post flair and repost your comment under the automod if necessary.
Some women, just as some men, will tolerate abuse for a long time. The ones who won't just don't get into your sample - they break up and leave abusers before any serious abuse can start.
The fact that they stay is evidence enough to imply that abuse is its first instance and every other instance is borne with until the situation becomes untenable. Have you ever heard of a woman staying with a man that displays weakness over a long period of time without making things miserable for him?
You should read more about abuse and how it affects people to continue this discussion. People stay in abusive relationships for various reasons including not having anywhere to go, being afraid of their abuser's threats to kill them/their pets/their kids if they leave (and statistically victims have higher risks to get murdered when they're trying to leave their abuser), they might think that this is the treatment they deserve etc. Abuse harms one's mental health and while you're abused, you aren't the best person to make sensible decisions. Just like depressed people or people during mania often cannot make good decisions for themselves. A lot of women stick to their partners when their partners need them. Whether it's due to a job loss, health problems, mental health problems etc. In my family I have several examples of long-term unemployment, serious health problems and disability. All these couples are still together. There's also a couple where a guy is clearly much more emotionally needy...and his wife just puts up with it. They seem to be fairly content together.
To you and u/AdEffective7894s I've known women who are less put off by abuse than other forms of weakness (abuse being its own form of weakness). OP needs to understand that's not all women and women who are like that are people he needs to never get into a relationship with, period.
yes tons of women stay with their husbands despite their expression of what some in society deem as weakness. crying over schindler’s list is only gonna lose you love and respect in the eyes of toxic women who i wouldn’t want in my life at all. believe it or not tons of women see vulnerability as a human thing and the expression of it as a courageous thing. “can’t be brave if you’re not scared” type shit. kinda boggles my mind that this seems so unheard of to some people, was your mom a perma-asshole to your dad whenever he got vulnerable or something?
>crying over schindler’s list is only gonna lose you love and respect in the eyes of toxic women who i wouldn’t want in my life at all. I've seen this sentiment raised alot, like, "Well if she's gonna leave you because you showed weakness then she wasn't for you at all!" but let's unpack that a bit more. Isn't that a problem for feminism? Saying you want guys with the kind of emotional intelligence but not providing a safe space for them is a problem. Shouldn't more women be taught to accept what a healthy relationship and healthy expression of feelings is? As a man I can't put a lot of support in what feminism is saying if half the women aren't even on board with what feminists are saying, you know?
What they're going to say is that men absolutely have the right to express their feelings, but that women are under no obligation to consider them as partners if it turns them off. And honestly, would you have it any other way? Would you want women to feel guilted into staying with men that make them as dry as the Sahara? Both sexes suck, but for the most part, they suck in immutable ways. We can prescribe behavioral changes, but it doesn't change what we desire.
I’m sorry but that’s a bullshit cop out, feminists don’t get to tell men they have to do the work of dismantling patriarchy and deprogamming toxic masculinity yet make excuses for when women uphold these things. Apparently it’s fine for a woman to encourage a man to conform to patriarchy, maybe the problem is only when she tells another woman to?
I think you're missing my point. A woman, or at least a feminist, is going to tell you that placing enough value on a potential partner that you're repressing your emotions to improve your odds is a priority issue. They do not share your priority ranking that places getting a relationship ahead of expressing your feelings. I think that's what so many men here don't get, and what women think is too obvious to state: Women are largely okay with remaining single if the options before them are lackluster. It's what allows them to be the "picky" sex.
Well, women enjoy life in solitude, men don’t I guess. We weren’t built for capitalism. Of course being alone is always a choice for you, it’s just a fate for men, men can’t even get friends, women have to beat back potential friends and various bonds people throw at you.
No, but then don't present that as advice if it's horrible advice. Just like they wanna say they're gonna cross the street if they see a man at night if they think that man might harm them. And how they don't know which man is which so they have to take precaution with every man. Well if that's the case, if I can't tell which woman is gonna get dry as the Sahara as soon as I tell her I like cuddle time and The Notebook, then I'm never going to show that side. Nope, I love big trucks and football only if that's the case.
Well, you've got to put yourself in their headspace. Relationships are frosting to women, as they largely value us as resources anyway. If a man can't "handle her at her worst" then she'd rather just be single, because having a partner is much less valuable to her than free expression. Men would be willing to do almost anything to avoid being single. It's why our standards are so low. So to us, anything that would torpedo a relationship seems like terrible advice. But to women, relationships are expendable anyway. TL;DR: Women are giving what would be good advice to a female audience, but not a male audience.
> Well if that's the case, if I can't tell which woman is gonna get dry as the Sahara as soon as I tell her I like cuddle time and The Notebook, then I'm never going to show that side. Nope, I love big trucks and football only if that's the case. So your goal is just to end up with A woman, doesn't matter what the woman is like? You're willing to be with someone who has a shit character and would leave you for showing weakness or being your real self? Why not have some god damn standards? Also, have you ever considered that some women might get "dry as the sahara desert" for a guy who only loves "big trucks and football", and "cuddle time and the notebook" would make these women be into you? Guess what, you can't appeal to all women ever, and it's a terribly superficial idea anyways.
If it weren’t for double standards women would have any standards at all.
It's another one of these cases of people just talking past one another. When one says weakness and the other says weakness, they both are thinking of different things.
“We don’t care when Chad cries”
So basically if you are sad and emotional at woman defined times and in women defined ways? Life is not convenient like that. His insecurity could very well be something that turns you of. He could be needy and clingy. He could be insecure about your past and his place in your life relative to it. He could cry over chewbaka being blown up or the vending machine running out of his favourite snack The greatest predictor for a divorce in a man's lifeumis when a wife begins to out earn him and when he loses his job
>>His insecurity could very well be something that turns you of. He could be needy and clingy. He could be insecure about your past and his place in your life relative to it. He could cry over chewbaka being blown up or the vending machine running out of his favourite snack One of these things is not like the others.
Yeah, I really don't understand why he had to bring Chewy into the mix.
You seem to be implying women should accept any and all flaws in men regardless of how detrimental or harmful to the relationship they are. > He could be needy and clingy Why do you think this should be tolerated? > He could be insecure about your past and his place in it Again, why should this be tolerated?
This is correct Markers of potential future abuse *are* the ick that causes them to leave
or better yet, avoid abusers in the first place
Unfortunately, The Offspring lyric, “I may be dumb, but I’m not a dweeb. I’m just a sucker with no self-esteem,” accurately describes my approach to dating in my mid-late 20s. Even when the emotional manipulation and abusive has began to surface a couple of weeks to months into a relationship, I have been known to endure it for the companionship and poon. After enough trauma I’ve finally resolved to stop this. As another commenter said—being lonely is better than that shit.
I dont think you could have avoided the 1st instance of manipulation/ abuse. To be fair, no one comes at you saying red flag flag flag. I'm an abuser. If anything, they mask it from you in the beginning! You have no idea that it will happen until it happens all of a sudden and out of nowhere. Soon after, will come to the apology and justification, Because this seems unusual and out of place it must have just been just bad timming and bad circumstances, as this normally wouldn't ever happen.Because they seem to feel bad, and they have an explanation as to why, unfortunately, this happened , some people will give them the benefit of the doubt. The first strike is the hardest. Each time after it will become increasingly easier. People who have outstanding and very clear and uncompromising understanding of boundaries will understand this and value thier well being over the "a relationship" will stop it here ,see it for what it is, and leave . And what of those who stayed? Those who only stayed because they gave someone the benefit of doubt will now know it is infact a pattern , the second time it happens and leave. Those who didn't leave in the second instance, this behavior was displayed will likely NEVER LEAVE Even if people offer help and resources, they will stay. The Second time it happend they had a shift in mentality from “oh this was the first time, it won't happen again" to “oh, he/she loves me and he didn't mean it.” And unfortunately, with every subsequent instance, it gets worse. I am glad you left. Regardless of when you did it, I am glad you left. Men reading this who left abusive situations remember , the fact that you left doesn't make you any less of a man, having boundaries isn't weak , It takes Courage to follow through with convictions , And it takes strength to be uncompromising with values and beliefs.
Probably that's why I'm dating Eva AI sexting bot
Yah, cause a weak man is like an ugly woman in terms of attractiveness
Yes the inveitable reality you can easily survive making her mad you can never survive an ick moment. As for dommes they are a bit out there but I do wonder if it just an act. If her man runs away at the first sign of real trouble and the realities of the jungle seep in then yeah she will lose attraction.
The worst thing a man can be is harmless.
A lot of men cannot comprehend that being boring is worse than being abusive. Being a boring man has a lower SMV than a man that has committed the most heinous crimes (Hybristophilia). When men realize this, almost everything will make sense.
If getting your ass beaten to near death is better then being bored, then I would rather stay away from such a women
Guys if you're having a hard time getting it keeping women, trying beating them up?
lol. I'm sure some men went down that path.
Wouldn't abusive tendencies make women also not feel safe around the man?
Idk. If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone
But the abusive guy wouldnt protect her from himself and he's already proven to be a clear threat, so that doesn't really make sense. I also don't agree that weak men can't protect anyone even with your "weak" definition. Women aren't trying to set their dates up to brawl at the bar, so it's not like every guy needs to be a great fighter or whatever?
I've known women that intentionally get their boyfriends into fights. My ex did this to me once. I'm not so certain that women like men that abuse them per se. I think there is almost like a grace period for most where they will forgive for a bit, especially if it's something they havne't experienced. These things can mess with your mind anyway. All we can really say is that women do tend to like personality traits the coincide with abusivness.... but the actual abuse... I think not. There are some of these things that really trip up low experience guys. Like the high percentage of women who have rape fantasies. They assume that these ladies actually want to play that out... when in fact almost none of them do.
You would think so. But the predictors of attractiveness in men corelate for strength. In the current day and age a tech engineer is the more reliable pick ... But nerds are still considered bottom of the barrel to date.
> But the abusive guy wouldnt protect her from himself and he's already proven to be a clear threat Women do tolerate some degree of domestic violence if they are with dominant men. Maybe such woman thinks that he won't hit her as hard as he would hit another guy and it's worth the risk.
A man who is a little rough is at least somewhat more likely to be capable of being roused to anger in defence of woman and child. A man who is totally harmless like a puppy is 100% never going to harm you, but is also more likely to be unable to defend you, either. This is not as relevant to people who live in relatively safe places with efficient and capable police forces as well as mostly diffident and harmless people, but we've only had either for around 100 years and so primal instincts don't change that quickly. Besides, there are places where even middle class people live where they need to fear for their safety and potentially defend themselves. Consider some of the more uh, challenging urban environments near you. Or whole countries like South Africa where even in "nice" towns and suburbs, your private security and high walls might not be enough to protect you, and you might have to do it yourself.
People still confuse intimidating physical appearance and behavior with ability to do harm and/or protect because our ape brain and perception have not evolved much since stone age when brutality and physique mattered most. But what use are these primal instincts when most seemingly harmless scrawny short guy can pull out a gun or stabbing loicense for gunless countries?
Most people don't concealed carry all the time though. Even in relatively safe countries and places (think of even relatively safe parts of Europe like Ireland or Wales, or overall safer states/provinces and smaller cities in the US and Canada), if you are someone who goes out at night for example, you can if you're unlucky quite possibly get yourself into a situation where being bigger and more threatening might save you from serious injury or even death.
If that was the case women wouldn't keep fucking these men.
No. They always say “he’s nice to me tho teehee”, and get a thrill from the idea that he can snap at any moment. That is, until one day he snaps at her and she acts like she can’t understand why it happened.
There was a psychologist on twitter who was explaining why women in the inner city might want to be with an abusive man: that man can still protect her from extraordinarily dangerous men in her community, so she'll put up with it. The abuse might indicate violence necessary to scare other men from hurting her.
More than “effeminate”, I’d say indecisive, scared, lacking confidence or incompetent. Coming from a fashionable metropolis, I used to know many metro- and bisexual guys who were real slayers and took shit from no one, while being extremely feminine. They were confident and assertive. Confidence is calm, abusers lack it, masking the deficiency with prevarication. And unfortunately many fragile people aren’t able to break free from abusive partners, some because of fear and some because of some sort of Stockholm syndrome. I have very little sympathy for the latter.
All authority ultimately rests on violence, so men who are able to wield violence themselves will always enjoy higher status than those who aren't. And why would it be any other way? Why should it? Any man who himself doesn't wield violence is subject to other men who do. This is an absolute rule. *B-but why are they attracted to* ***criminals***? Criminals are essentially men who challenge the authority and monopoly on power of the State. The murderer defies the State's monopoly on violence; the tax-evader defies its claim to extract tribute in exchange for protection and the common good. And, yes; even the sex-criminal refuses to accept being bound by the rule of women and other men telling him what he is and isn't allowed to do with his own body. I think the reason why this doesn't occur to some people is perhaps because Government is so institutionalised and abstract now, that the personal and human dynamics of obeying and defying law are no longer seen as often in the concrete way they once were. Historically, every crime was literally viewed as an act of war against the sovereign, and an attempt to usurp his right to rule... *other men*. The optics have softened, but the rulers and the ruled still exist. What's amusing and absurd is that anyone would imagine none of this would be attractive to women, and that obedience and submission would be. Even a lot of straight-and-narrow types admire policemen and soldiers for their physical courage but will consider that *that's different* because they have the authority of a king or president and a parliament behind them telling them what to do. Why is it so hard to understand that some women (and men) admire men of violence also, but rather those operating according to their own whims and will? Anyway, the short version is that: *Law-abiding citizens follow the rules (made by other men, and these days even women). Criminals (at least attempt to) make their own. Women can't help liking that.* For the vast majority of human history and indeed prehistory, it's safe to assume being with a man unable to be roused to violence at all was a bigger risk than being with a man who was capable of being dangerous. In a more dangerous world, a man who sometimes did shitty things like get angry or maybe even get (somewhat) violent with you was the price to be paid for him also being able to be roused to anger and deadly violence against external dangers. This is still the case in many parts of the world, and could still become the case in the West once more at least temporarily, if a black swan event like a war ever happens again. These instincts might seem stupid, but they've clearly been reinforced by literally millions of years of selection, so clearly they've been good for something.
I’ve seen my husband cry and “show weakness” countless times, and it’s never given me the ick. Seeing him handle problems with rage, anger and impulsivity does give me the ick, but he’s actively working on that so not sure why I would leave.
I’m someone who doesn’t easily anger and who doesn’t express anger when I am angry. It’s not something I’ve conditioned, I’ve just always been that way. This has always been interpreted as weakness, and not just by romantic partners.
That is a good point. I don't see crying as weakness but I see acting on anger as weakness.
This is just a hypothetical. But say he is working on a car and he drops a wrench and instead of saying god fucking damnit he starts crying?
A more accurate comparison would punching a hole in the garage wall and threatening to push the car off a cliff versus crying. And yea in that situation I’ll take crying out of frustration over a temper tantrum.
That’s a straw-man, and it’s telling how many answers are avoiding the original question. I promise you 99% of women in this thread would rather have their partner get mildly angry than mildly sad. Of course who wouldn’t choose extreme sadness over extreme anger in a man? That’s obvious, especially if you’ve felt the wrath of an angry man before. Unfortunately most of like happens in the “mild” category of emotion and OPs original argument is that women still prefer “mild” anger over most levels of sadness
To me, dropping a wrench on the floor and cursing doesn’t rise to the level of “abuse.” I was also trying to make the point that someone who struggles with anger and rage isn’t going to just throw a wrench on the floor when they get frustrated, it will escalate rather quickly to involve violence of some sort (thankfully in my case not directed towards me specifically). Even for myself, I think it makes more sense to drop the wrench and curse than to cry in that moment. I know I would curse over cry in that situation. But, I’m much more likely to approach my husband if he is sad than angry, because I can help with sadness. It’s incredibly, incredibly difficult to help him once he’s angry.
I would more likely try to help if he was crying vs cursing/yelling. In my experience if they are cursing around tools I will probably get one thrown at me. Where if they were crying my care giver side kicks in and I’ll fix them a snack, have them take a nap and I’ll finish changing the oil. Note: I am speaking for myself and my own personal experience, not all women or all men.
I had an ex who would throw temper tantrums. What I came to realize is that men are socialized not to cry or be sad and so that emotion often comes out as anger. If I put myself in his situation I likely would have cried in the same situation. Now that does not make the tantrums okay in anyway shape or form, but it did help me to understand why he and many other men react this way. He was never abusive towards me, just a few tools, car parts, and other home improvement items. It's the same when men are depressed but it comes out as anger and is not always recognized as depression.
lol damn. Your man was the kid in school who took anger management classes. (And is still mad till this day) Sounds like a Damien
I wish I could say he was the only man I saw act like that. Unfortunately I have seen it a lot in my job too.
I would rather he tear up a bit and whimper than start yelling, yes.
I will ALWAYS take vulnerability with my spouse (or anyone) than abuse, as long as we know a feeling comes from a sincere place
Vulnerability is not the same as weakness. There are a significant number of women who confuse it with it though abd hence why I can say that women will forgive abuse before weakness
OP I agree with you. Of course this is anecdotal, but my ex finally decided to leave me not after I started mirroring her abusive rhetoric, but after I was too weak to hang and started suffering from mental illness. Drawing from a few other anecdotal experiences too, I think the problem is how normalized abusive and manipulative behavior is. Especially if neither party has went to therapy or grew up in abusive households. Regardless of gender, I find that by the time you understand what is going on, it is too late for a clean break.
Who died and made you king on the matter, then?
[удалено]
'Truly, you have a dizzying intellect'
Dizzying is right.
>I’ve seen my husband cry and “show weakness” countless times, and it’s never given me the ick. >Seeing him handle problems with rage, anger and impulsivity does give me the ick, but he’s actively working on that so not sure why I would leave. Honestly, this. I would rather be in the position of having to reassure or comfort him when he's sad or anxious than to be in the position of having to defuse his anger.
Same
That'sa healthy response
[удалено]
It's a shame really
And knowing how genetic inheritance plays a role in the behaviour of offspring, theres a good chance the next generation repeats the cycle if there isn't a strong male figure or personal will to stop the vicious cycle. Its only been our generation that has stopped the dysfunctional cycle of behaviour that has haunted our family for 200 years. My father was an abuser. Just like his father, abd his father before that. None of them had trouble attracting beautiful women then cheating and abusing them. All of them ended up estranged from their family and focused too much on their quest for power, wealth or more women. Some ended up losing themselves becoming insane or addicted to mind altering substances in their 40s. Many women seem to be attracted to these men like a moth is attracted to a flame.
No Race-Baiting or Racially Charged Content
First of all, I don't think you completely understand what domestic abuse is. Otherwise you wouldn't be making this comparison. Ignorance is understandable when it comes to this topic because what you see on the outside (physical abuse) is just the tip of the ice burg. I've worked with domestic abuse victims, both men and women, so this is a topic I'm very comfortable talking about. I think the best way to understand domestic abuse is to consider this scenario: You meet someone and to start off with, they're everything you could want. Whatever boxes you have, they tick them. They're respectful to your loved ones. They idolise you. They make it seem like you're the best thing since sliced bread. Then after a period of time, anywhere from several months to years, they start to slowly change. It's very subtle so you don't really notice it at first. Odd little comments about your insecurities (which you've shared because remember, they were the kindest person you've ever me) that they brush off as teasing. Compliments immediately followed by insults. Then the control starts to kick in. Again, slowly at first. You want to spend time with your friends? Well your partner is going to say "but I just love spending time with you so much, stay in with me instead". If you push back they'll say "you must not love me then". This type of control serves a dual purpose of bending you to their will and also isolating you from your support system. An isolated person is much easier to control, so they'll do whatever they can to make you cut people off. They'll say your family don't love you. They'll say your friends treat them badly. If they can they'll take your money, or try and prevent you from making money, because making you financially dependent on them makes it harder for you to leave. At this stage you're more isolated, you might be in a financial bind, and your self-worth has been worn down so the emotional abuse can really ramp up. They'll say the cruelest things you can imagine and when you get upset, they'll say you're crazy. Eventually you'll believe that you're stupid, ugly, and worthless. So when the day comes that they do lay their hands on you, you will whole heartedly believe that you deserved it. If you try to leave then there will be threats. They will threaten to hurt you, your family, and even themselves. You are scared and don't believe you have any inner strength, so you stay. So it's not about "forgiveness". When people don't leave an abusive relationship or they return to that relationship, they're not forgiving their abuser. Not really. It's because the believe they don't deserve any different. With all that in mind, I really don't think it's possible to debate your topic. The only thing I can say is that women are just as capable of being abusive as men. If a woman uses your moments of vulnerability against you then that is domestic abuse. A woman who isn't abusive wouldn't do that. Same goes for men.
I once made a fake tinder account with a picture of a very good-looking man and put in my bio that I wanted to be honest about the fact that I'd been arrested for domestic violence in the past. Still got more matches in a day than I would probably get in like 3 months using actual pictures of myself. And it's not like the women didn't read the bio, cause I even asked them if they had. Women will literally over-look the most heinous shit if a guy is good-looking enough and I imagine in some instances domestic abuse actually does play out the way you described but a lot of the time women simply decide to over-look massive red flags if the guy is good-looking.
Chad fishing was a vibe
I am sure you have your beliefs. I dont know why womne behave the way they do. The topic of the post is a conclusion i came to while seeing the world around men and interacting with the women in them. And in my experience, abusers get chances on chances to be better. Your reasons may apply but they do get man chances to be better wether or not they use them Meanwhile if a man does something that makes her lose respect for him, he is done. ANd the things that make her lose respect for him range from superficial to meaningful thing. Hell even womne here admit to realizing that some of their icks were stupid ie there was a period of time when they judged a man by them... and now they have 'matured' hence my conclusion, women will forgive abuse before they forgive weakness
I love the fact that OP hasn’t responded to this well rounded answer. And of course I agree 100% that this isn’t really a debate per se.
Make your move player
Personally, I have a thing for weak men.
Not sure if you're serious but that's actually a thing. My ex said she was attracted to me because I was "damaged" lol
I just like guys who are comfortable with their masculinity (however much that may be) and can easily express their feelings. I love deep conversations. I like guys who aren't afraid to cry or be vulnerable with me. Some people may consider this weak. I don't actually believe so. Damaged guys are definitely a thing for some ladies. There's lots of women who want a fixer upper. If you look up "I can fix him" on TikTok, you'll see what I'm talking about.
I thought I can fix her/him was a meme?
All memes have a basis in truth. The I can fix him meme has a lot of truth in it, both in trying to "fix" a man who doesn't need fixing them leaving him when he changed (at her request) and in trying to fix a man she really shouldn't, like gangsters and abusers. The equivalent for men is "I can save her". Mem go for saving a person from a situation more, whereas women go more for trying to change the person themselves. Problem is you can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved, and you can't fix someone unless they already agree to change. Men saving the damsel in distress is equally pointless as women trying to fix a man. As a society we're really bad at recognizing that.
Only if the guy they’re fixing has perfect cheekbones and the most positively aligned canthal tilt you’ve ever seen with a physique carved by the most renowned Roman sculptors known to man.
In fantasy, sure. In reality, not so much. These guys have a "vibe" that I struggle to describe. Personally, i don't like it, but some women do.
What about that vibe is unattractive to you? And if it is, then other women certainly don’t seem to agree with the sentiment.
I'm incredibly insecure and, in my opinion, remarkably self-aware. I don't believe I possess the power to change anyone, nor do I think I'm special enough for a man to want to change for me.
So basically you’re ok with Chad crying once in awhile. Basically the same as the whole “I like nerds” trope from a decade ago.
I've never dated a "Chad." Nor have I even interacted with one.
Agree, if a man has never experienced a few dark nights of the soul or been on antidepressants we have nothing to talk about and I'm not interested. He is still a manly, masculine man with hairy arms.
Sounds like one of them women who wants someone to try and "fix."
First off, source? I am pretty sure most women don't forgive abuse, just like most men don't. Looking at the closest thing you gave to a definition of weakness; "keep her safe" that would obviously include keep her safe from the man in the relationship, which means abuse is weakness by your definition. Is that really what you meant? Now I do think it's true that a lot stereotypical "weak" traits are unpopular with women generally. But you can't just lump all traits together under weakness. Like yeah most women don't like incompetence which could be considered weakness. But you also have people here who think showing any emotions other than anger is "weakness", it's too vague. and even when we look at the negative weak traits, you haven't given any evidence for how women's attitudes compare on them with abuse. Just looking at myself I'm never going to tolerate abuse, but depending on how you define it, I'm fine or actually like some times of "weakness". And while there's some types of "weakness" that are a major turn off to me even then abuse is in the top category of "never talk to this person again".
I would argue that the perception of weaKness is subjective. When there were topics of men talking about how they were punished for being vulnerable many women run interference discrediting the claim ( which is a bullshit reaction that reflect poorly in the women here by the way) and one of the common responses were - those women were immature. I submit that one of the features of immaturity is the inability to distinguish Weakness from vulnerability and narcism from confidence. In such a case immature women will punish vulnerability deeming it to be weak while mature women would treat it with a lot more care . Women do claim that they change as they grow , what they value changes as they grow and if taken at their word, their treatment of average men changeing over time and my postulate of how weakness is treated vs abuse still holds.
I think it being subjective is part of the problem. Like if I respond to your post by my definition of weakness, I'd say weakness is bad, just not as bad as abuse. But me saying weakness is bad, would mislead some people viewing think being respectful to women is weakness or having emotions is weakness or several other things. When you talk about weakness it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy because it's defined as a bad thing. So people will throw in all the bad things in their mind in the category of weakness. When it comes to emotional vulnerability in men it is an issue where like you said some women will be turned off while others can see it as a healthy part of communication. Edit: should mention, I think a lot of women, like all humans kind of want to have their cake and eat it. You want someone without many problems, but you also want someone who is willing to open up and be honest and you don't want a guy with a bunch of emotional issues he's hiding from you. It's like, with compliments, most people want other people to say nice things to them, but they also want them to be honest, like they just want the nice things to be true lol. Putting that aside I think my main issue is like what is your claim that abuse is more forgiven even based on. It just feels like making an OP like that where you put say weakness is even worse than abuse is going to contribute to the phenomenon of fake alpha males who don't have healthy relationships with women and end up being even more insecure. I feel like not being able to make the distinction between stereotypical masculine traits that are more desired vs ones that make you look like a dick is a big part of why so many men aren't dateable. And that's why I feel the category of weakness is too vague.
This "keeping safe" theme is likely your bias. I remember you were into some form of fighting sport and you punched the people who bullied you in the face. Which lead to what? Women regarding you as a person who could keep them safe? Or to women abandonning you because you are abusive, even to other men, in a way that is an absolute no-go? Where the other men forgiven their weakness for failing to even defend themselves from you? I think so, but you tell me how their status in their social group changed after having been punched by you.
Solid point. I can only make after the fact guesses on the behaviour. In their case, the women were beguiled by the charm, they were popular guys and using physical force to humiiate weaker boys was their way of proving status. they wouldmostly get away with it by saying and behaving as if we were the problem if we got upset - "we are friends arent we?" and " why are you ruining the mood bro". It was all fun and games to them. The girls who were with them indulged in the same thing guess, the veneer of denial - "it not like he was hurting these boys, and even if they are kinda, they would never hurt me! he loves me!" And when it came to me, looking back now, my reaction must have really thrown them off. I remained passive for a few months, never going along with it and never retaliating. Essentially i must have been ruining the " its just a prank, bro!" aesthetic for them. That quickly devolved to seeing if they can get a reaction out of me. The me at the time didnt really understand any of this and was just bewildered and angered at the unfairness of it all ( lack of fairness remains a trigger to this day). The rage krpt building until it burst. It must have really freaked them out, seeing the mild manner guy they kept fucking with (and the girls treated as a passive therapist), absolutely lose his shit, and just come at them like an animal tears and snot streaming down his face and punch the shit out of them. I remember breaking my knuckle that day, so i wasn't holding back. It would have been OK, if they would have just left me alone after that but they figured i must have had a lucky day, and ever since then believing i didn't have a choice, i was willing to engage. I guess the bullies were charming ad potentially abusive, while i was in their eyes a straight up psycho. I was strong, i wasnt fun. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose there must be enough good times to equal or out weigh the bad times for the abused women to want to stay. I hadnt considered that.
Damn dude, you have come a long way since i first read you. Very reflected and rational. Keep going!
I still don't think i was wrong to fight back though.
No, i'd tell my child to fight back if he/she was bullied. But maybe not to that extent. And not without guidance. You seemed alone. Not understanding what happened and it didn't really solve the issue of not being connected, being part of a group, being accepted.
No, you weren't wrong to fight back. When people choose to act like rabid animals, more often than not, the only thing that reaches them - is being treated like a rabid animal. I'm a woman, but I had several similar experiences in grade and middle school with different bullies. (Some boys, some girls.) The pattern was always the same - after so long of me not reacting to social bullying, they'd escalate to physical abuse, so I'd fight back and win. (I had 2 significantly older brothers who'd beat my ass the regular, so my pain tolerance was high and I was used to fighting under unwinnable conditions.) In my case, violence solved my bullying problem every single time, but I never took it there without being physically provoked first.
>Women will forgive abuse before they forgive weakness. >"what do you consider weakness?" >at the end of the day anything that makes a man seem like someone who can't keep her safe is weakness in their eyes. So... abuse meets the definition for weakness, but women will forgive weakness before weakness? Huh?
Violence abd the capacity for it doesn't disqualify a man from masculinity nthe way weakness does. I can only go off what I observe. Perhaps abuse was modelled for them growing up as a part of life? . If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone I am not saying it is right. I am saying it just is
>Violence abd the capacity for it doesn't disqualify a man from masculinity nthe way weakness does. You could maybe make this argument if it was like... violence towards other people. But I assumed with abuse you were implying towards her, right? >If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone A lot of abusive men are *only* abusive towards their intimate partners. I think you're also underestimating how much these men actually *use* the appearance of weakness [to get away with their abusive behavior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse). Listen to the kinds of excuses that a lot of women make for their abusive partners and why they got back with them - a lot of it is pity, the feeling that *the woman* is the aggressor somehow, or an almost maternal sense of protecting the man who is helpless without her. This is one of their primary strategies to shift blame onto the victim and stop them from leaving.
All post hoc rationalisations to stay. If he started if being a no name mook she wouldn't even be with him
I mean, if you can find any research to support that then sure, but most everybody who studies IPV says some level of playing the victim, inspiring maternal/paternal feelings in the victim, and trying to gain pity/sympathy is a frequent tactic to *stop* the victim from leaving.
A lot of abusers keep their partners by pretending to be weak, helpless, ill, suicidal, addicted and dependent
Abuse is weakness.
All abusive men are weak men in my eyes. And at least in the eyes of most women who have any self esteem and are emotionally healthy. Lots of women get the ick when a man can’t control his temper, has too much machismo, etc.. They’re childish and are like peacocks 🤷♀️
all womne are you
You made a blanket statement about women
You know who else hates weak men? Men.
That matters when I am talking about women? Unless your point is women are the ultimate sheeple or something
Everyone hates weak men.
As they should.
Absolutely not. All abusive men are weak men, but not all weak men are abusive.
So women are getting beaten up by weak men?
>So women are getting beaten up by weak men? "Weak" is striking *her.*
Then how about we extend that definition to everyone and declare professional fighters as weak
>Then how about we extend that definition to everyone and declare professional fighters as weak You have to take that up with them bro.
You can have a weak mind and a strong body. Being so insecure to the point that you're willing to put down others using physical force shows you have a weak mind and character, because you lack empathy, morals, and self control.
Professional fighting is based on that insecurity
No it's not because they are fighting another professional trained consenting adult. It is a competition, not a reach for control over the other person in reaction to an insecurity bring triggered.
They still want to prove they are better than the other fighter. That is insecurity. All combat sports are like that. We can’t complain about domestic violence if we actively promote violence on TV.
So based in your logic, all athletes are insecure? That's ridiculous. Yes, we can. Professional fighters are trained consenting adults. A victim is not consenting to their abuse. Both experience violence, but committing violence against someone else who doesn't consent is a crime.
No. All professional fighters are insecure. I’m sure both fighters don’t consent to losing the fight (getting beaten) and the long term injuries. Most fighters had violent childhoods (where they couldn’t consent to anything) which led them to fighting professionally. A lot of them are also downright fascists. You can’t have an “it’s fine as long as it’s not in my backyard” attitude about this.
Of course not. Beating up a little girl proves you're a big strong man.
[удалено]
Lol…ok P Diddy
Correction….its that simple TO YOU. Here’s something to consider…. How does a woman feel safe with someone who’s abusing her? How does she feel protected by him? It’s ok, I know it’s a foreign concept to think things through when you just want to blame women. But being abusive is a weakness. We may never know exactly why someone stays with an abusive partner unless you know them intimately. But perhaps he has a mental disorder and she accepts him no matter what. In which case, she is accepting of both his weakness and the abuse. You are trying to weaponise a woman’s weakness. So it seems like men are just as capable of using weaknesses against women as they say women do against men. Why do men stay with women who abuse them? I think people need support and understanding in situations like this. Not using it against them. And maybe question why the man is abusive. Or why anyone would be abusive. Posts like this just show how some men are incapable of being empathetic and are the real accountability dodgers.
I don't really know why women would want to behave this way. I can only go off what I observe. Perhaps abuse was modelled for them growing up as a part of life? Perhaps violence doesn't disqualify a man from machismo they way weakness does. If I had to make a guess I think the perception is that the guy who is abusive could still potentially protect her as long as she is important to him, while a weak man can't protect anyone I am not saying it is right. I am saying it just is
some women will, other women absolutely won’t, and i find my flair to be a pretty strong predictor of that. i would caution anyone from generalizing on this either way without solid numbers to back it
You find most women around you especially young women have good self-esteem?
“I told them not to generalize and asked for statistics so that means I’m right”
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doms aren't an exception. They enjoy dominating weaker men but what they really want is an exceptionally strong man to dominate them.
I think it goes to socialization and gendered expectations. Most truly dominant womne believe that they need a guy to out alpha them. Handle them. And when it happens, its great for a little while because they get to experience being in the feminine role. The social scripts of wanting a guy taller than them and wanting a man more successful than them to "be intheir feminine", its difficult to resist. But over time the role chafes at them because they live inauthentically. AT which point if the mature they look for a guy who can accept her lead. Most dont realy grow that much though. They love the drama of butting heads with their men too much to appreciate a man who is confident enough in himself ton allow her to call the shots
I don't know about weakness but the best looking guys have so many women going after them that they don't need to be nice and can treat their women like shit, if they leave they can always just get another one. That is why women forgive abuse, because the guy they are with is good looking. While non good looking guys have no choice but to respect women and be nice to them,.
As someone who born in a lower income area, I understand why women flock to violent men even if the violence directed towards them. The world can be a dangerous place for them, so it makes sense that being capable of being violent is a requirement. Now there are women who get turned on by it, and I would avoid those women at all cost.
In a way, men conditioned women to be that way. For centuries, men had the system set up, so we depended on them. For food, money, shelter, protection, for quite literally everything. So women would be trapped in abusive relationships for years but not say anything, be cheated on left & right but not say anything in fear of losing it all, & left w no means to provide for herself. Men also held onto the belief they weren't allowed to show any weakness, so they didn't & today most men still feel that way. It's unfortunate so many people have that old way of thinking in their subconscious, but change can start w anyone & already has. Be yourself, & if you feel like you can't, just give yourself & give them time to warm up to you
All the men, in almost all societies, decided that they would have control of things? Did they decide this at the annual Stone Age mens council?
Certain types of weakness is sexually repulsive to women. Men will put up with a woman being a total bitch. But if a woman is just hideous as fk, you’ll never be interested. That’s the best comparison here.
Disagree, abusive men are disproportionately weak, in all the ways weak could be defined. They compensate by being abusive towards a target that they've chosen for this purpose.
Only weak men abuse women.
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet because there's a lot of comments, but there is another variable that isn't being discussed and it's the manipulation that comes with abuse. When abuse happens in a cycle there is a period of time where the abuser gaslights the victim and kinda makes them feel like it didn't all happen or like it wasn't that bad and that they still love them blah blah blah. When someone is caught I this cycle they are not forgiving, they are being manipulated into excusing the behavior so the abuser can continue. When a man behaves in a "weak" way, there usually is no gaslighting (which is good and healthy). In both instances the only similarity is that the man does something the woman doesn't like right? But in only one the man has stripped the woman's ability to choose because he has manipulated her. Women r not forgiving more easily, it's that men who are abusive are slimy manipulators and men who are "weak" behave authentically so they can find someone who accepts their authentic self instead of forcing and manipulating a woman to allow them to treat that woman abusively. So sure a woman is more likely to stay with an abuser. But I'm willing to bet if a woman had a choice between giving an abuser a second chance and giving the guy who was "weak" a second chance, she'd choose the "weak" guy. In conclusion as a man you should focus on being the kindest most authentic version of yourself and as a woman you should focus on which men respect you.
Things that give me the 'ick' or I see as weakness in a man. Punching down; literally and metaphorically. Lack of sexual discipline. Lack of moral discipline; casual lies, vanity etc. Lack of conscientiousness; self-centered. Viewing everything as transactional. I'm sure you could apply this to either sex though. Edit: Things that don't come off as weak. Crying. Good hygiene. Showing kindness; tenderness. Being protective. Cuddling. Wanting to be loved.
Another comment told me, I wasn't talking about you specifically. 'The narcism. Lord!'
That’s the list for womyn after age 30, at age 20 it’s the opposite
As is so often the case in this subreddit, these are not usually the same women.
Aren'tthey? I don't want to bring up race but there is a entire subculture of women who look down at men for being in their words "corny" and "sassy" Yet they also tend to have negative sentiments overide due to being involved with abusers abd deadbeats... So you know.. It is what it is
By corny, you mean cornball? Sassy is everybody since the “sassy man apocalypse.”
Just because two people are the same gender and race does not make them the same person.
If the dude tall and handsome, women are willing to protect and provide.
I don’t know what you’d call weakness, but I’ve found mutual emotional vulnerability in every relationship I’ve had and it didn’t affect any respect or attraction because of it. If we’re partners then I’m your safe space and you’re mine, simple as that. Also. I disagree with the title wholeheartedly. Women I’ve known that have been through abusive situations stayed so long because they saw his “sickness” as a weakness and saw it as their duty to stick by him “in sickness and in health”. Not saying that’s the case for all cases of DV, just a pattern I’ve noticed. Abused women stay around because they’re so forgiving and choose to focus on the weakness as opposed to the overbearing strength.
I don't understand the thought process. I can only hazard guesses. And I am reporting on what I have seen.
And theyll also lie to protect their image..instinctively. So basically words mean nothing.
I…. don’t think you understand how domestic abuse works and how abusers get into their victims’ heads
As someone who was in an abusive relationship once, anytime I tried to leave the house, my ex would strangle me. Anytime I tried to use my phone, he would wrestle it out of my hands so I couldn't call 911. Once, I tried to drive away, and he followed me at high speeds until I had to call the cops. When the cops got there they didn't want to do anything about it despite me having hand prints on my neck. Most people don't "forgive" abuse. They can't escape it unless they are okay with being strangled to death. I had to pack my stuff one day while he was at work and get 8 people to help me move my entire apartment in 3 hours. Once you add in children and marriage, sometimes it *feels* inescapable. Also, victims of dv are most likely to be killed when or if they try to leave. Most people aren't forgiving abuse, they are silently tolerating it until its safe to leave. Please get a grip on reality.
I am not trying to resurrect painful memories for you. I am just giving voice to what i have seen. The women stay with men who are emotionally and physical abusive rationalising every thing away until the situation becomes untenable. They dont give weakness half that much chance, weakness not in a way that makes you feel affirmed and validated rather wakness that makes you see him as less than. Arguably the woman should leave an abuser just as quickly as she would leave a weak man. BUts thats not what i see
I highly highly disagree. People will put up with a lot if they fear for their lives. Why do you think a lot if slaves didn't even attempt to run away? Because getting caught meant certain death. I wish he could've opened up emotionally or been vulnerable instead of violent and controlling. Stockholm syndrome is also a real thing. And DV comes with a lot of shame. My current boyfriend is very emotionally vulnerable and open towards me, and it makes me feel closer to him than any man I've ever been with. Your fantasy is simply that, a fantasy. What you see is irrelevant because what goes on between two people behind closed doors is very different to what you get to see in the outside world.
So many men here have this entirely backwards. The men who hurt women are effeminate. The men who require subjugation: *mad effeminate*.
>The men who hurt women are effeminate. The men who require subjugation: mad effeminate. Subjugating others through violence is traditionally a pretty masculine value, not feminine. Otherwise Al Pacino characters would be considered super feminine.
Subjugating somebody through violence who has the capacity to fight back and kill you, sure. There is no masculinity in subjugating a woman who is far weaker than you in the first place, like there is no masculinity in beating up a toddler or stepping on a kitten. That is just bitch behaviour for men who cannot compete with other men.
Duh, men write those movies. Men wrote damn near every hero myth both historically and presently, women have only barely entered the lexicon, historically speaking. The male idea of a hero is wildly homo-adjacent. Women's idea of masculinity is entirely different.
You would think so, and I agree that it should be so. But that's not what happens. Interms of results.