What do women want - in a partner ?

Pretty much lolwut.

- 30 punds i would be... LOL

Liche wrote:

If I lost 100 pounds I would be 0 pounds. And that is not physically possible. So dose that mean I will never have a girlfriend? :O

Date a girl who's like 75 pounds.

WeiWuWei wrote:

Liche wrote:

If I lost 100 pounds I would be 0 pounds. And that is not physically possible. So dose that mean I will never have a girlfriend? :O

Date a girl who's like 75 pounds.

I meant the thing about having to drop one hundred pounds to get a girlfriend.

lichie do you realy need to ask? and shurly you have mainly i wanted to see how much i could stir up with 1 ridiculus post, im a bit disiopointed as i only pissed off a few people but eh shows how active we are here


for rizzel

october 17 wrote:

lichie do you realy need to ask? and shurly you have mainly i wanted to see how much i could stir up with 1 ridiculus post, im a bit disiopointed as i only pissed off a few people but eh shows how active we are here

That explains so much.

I'd say that pretty much qualifies as trolling.

.

Rojo wrote:

Women want men, not boys ! End of story.

women want lots of money then you can have her for extra long time

.

I think every girl wants something different... Just as different guys have different taste in girls. Too me the answer to this topic is as simple as that.

Liche wrote:

I think every girl wants something different... Just as different guys have different taste in girls. Too me the answer to this topic is as simple as that.

Which is true and what I've been saying all along.

Yet I pretty much think this thread was mainly supopsed to be for girls within WR to post what she'd expect from a man...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Yet I pretty much think this thread was mainly supopsed to be for girls within WR to post what she'd expect from a man...

I dunno, cos when comrade Inkus was around, i don't know that there was another girl, haha.

Black_Cross wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Yet I pretty much think this thread was mainly supopsed to be for girls within WR to post what she'd expect from a man...

I dunno, cos when comrade Inkus was around, i don't know that there was another girl, haha.

Most of us were unclear on Jeiros gender

a BIG weener is all you need (and if you need a little help geting that see your doctor)

october 17 wrote:

a BIG weener is all you need (and if you need a little help geting that see your doctor)

Trolling again. What's up with this trolling October?

im not trollin im boxxy see!

Okay okay we get it now. Let just get back to the main subject.

HIT IT!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Yet I pretty much think this thread was mainly supopsed to be for girls within WR to post what she'd expect from a man...

Well, the guy who started didn't really seem to be aware of feminine opinions about the subject actually... That was obvious considering the way he talked...

Just so you guys notice, most of the things you said aren't important at all for me. I think I'm going to clean the topic a little.

1.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

First of all, it's not matter of keeping low weight but a healthy fat to muscle ratio.

Zeal is totally right on that point. No need to be really muscular. At least the guy is physically and psychologically healthy.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I hate when people say "Hey, lose some weight yo!" when actually it could we be that what they should lose is fat and probably gain as much or even more weight in muscle.

I just wanted to comment about this because it's an interresting point. Weight is so subjective! Two persons with the same weight could look totally different! The possible differences could be the muscles/fat ratio, but also the size! "Weight" doesn't mean anything in fact.

2.

Quote :

women want lots of money then you can have her for extra long time

no. Personnally I don't care about money at all so this is a stupid generalization.

3.

october 17 wrote:

but seriously women dont want a sweet sensitive guy if they do STAY AWAY caus they want to dominate you

heum, no. What do you describe as "sweet sensitive"?
Personnally, I apreciate when guys are "sweet" to me, but not too much. I really like to engage in debates and everything so I wouldn't like to be with a guy that isn't able to say anything more than "I love you". I want this guy not to agree with me all the time: this is the most boring type of man you can get, to me. I don't want this guy to change his opinions to fit mines only because he likes me.

4.

october 17 wrote:

when i say women want aguy whos an ass to evryone else but sweet to her what i mean is she wants a guy who is sweet to her but not sweet to evreyone else some one whos tough and dont take shit off of anyone

Not necessarily. Personnally, I don't want my boyfriend to be mean with others to "impress" me, or show me his love. I know a guy like that and it just looks so pathetic.

october 17 wrote:

they feel more secure and for crists sake they should

I could feel secure with someone that cares about me and everything, but if that person acts badass with everyone and sweet with me, I would just feel that either he's fake or I'd feel it's just too much.

5.

october 17 wrote:

use small words its ok to talk down on them but inlyif there stupid enough to see it as a compliment

Actually, I don't think no girl would deserve to be treated like this. A girl doesn't need fake-compliments. They want to feel it's real. Briefly, tell compliments, but only what you really think. If you can't find compliments, she isn't the right girl for you.

6.

october 17 wrote:

also leave highschool those women are NOT worht the time you put into them shoot for some one older 20-35 (yes if your 18-20)

Maybe some doesn't care, but I personnally do. I couldn't be with a guy that connot understand when I'm talking, or don't know anything. This is boring. I peronnally need someone intelligent that has knowledge and coherent opinions.

I got to go for now!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahaaaahahaha



im utterly surprised by you all thinking i as serieous , oh zelot im sorry about your hooker

Lilith wrote:

Well, the guy who started didn't really seem to be aware of feminine opinions about the subject actually... That was obvious considering the way he talked...

Well he just said he wanted people to "share theis wisdom on this topic".

Lilith wrote:

Just so you guys notice, most of the things you said aren't important at all for me. I think I'm going to clean the topic a little.

I pretty much limited myself to say that we all are unique individuals with unique interests and likes, therefore there's not a general kind of man that women want because no one is "general".

1.

Lilith wrote:

Zeal is totally right on that point. No need to be really muscular. At least the guy is physically and psychologically healthy.

Well, actually I think it pretty much depends on the objectives of the individual. What I was adressing was the misconception that weight per say is important when it's not. For example, I'm striving to be able to lift 40kg (~90lbs) with each arm and/or my triceps+biceps to have a circumference of around 45cm (17.7 in). For that I need a certain training routine and a high intake of protein, creatine and carbohydrates. Why do I want that? For its functionality and aesthetical qualities. In my view it's better to have a well developed musculature than being skinny or fat.

Lilith wrote:

I just wanted to comment about this because it's an interresting point. Weight is so subjective! Two persons with the same weight could look totally different! The possible differences could be the muscles/fat ratio, but also the size! "Weight" doesn't mean anything in fact.

Theoretically there's a "healthy" weight in relation to size. I don't remember now the formula but the results are something like this: Your body mass should be equal, 5kg lighter or 5kg heavier than the equivalent of your height in centimeters minus one meter. So if you're 1.70m tall, then you should weigh somewhere around 65 and 75kg.

There is also a way to measure excess fat given waist to height ratio or something like that and which also serves to determine risk to get coronary disease. But I don't remember well the mathematical principles behind it.

Either way I think it's pretty much a height to muscle/fat balance ratio.

Lilith wrote:

heum, no. What do you describe as "sweet sensitive"?
Personnally, I apreciate when guys are "sweet" to me, but not too much. I really like to engage in debates and everything so I wouldn't like to be with a guy that isn't able to say anything more than "I love you". I want this guy not to agree with me all the time: this is the most boring type of man you can get, to me. I don't want this guy to change his opinions to fit mines only because he likes me.

What if this guy sincerely agrees with your views without intention to fit?

Lilith wrote:

I could feel secure with someone that cares about me and everything, but if that person acts badass with everyone and sweet with me, I would just feel that either he's fake or I'd feel it's just too much.

I see women as my equals, not as protegees, nor as daughters or whatever. As couple, I see them as companions I can take care of in need and who can take care of me when I need it: no "stronger commands and assumes all responsability" concept for me. My girl must be equally capable to me and should definitely not consider herself in any kind of intrinsic "disadvantage" for being a woman. I think this is the point being adressed here.

5.

Lilith wrote:

Actually, I don't think no girl would deserve to be treated like this. A girl doesn't need fake-compliments. They want to feel it's real. Briefly, tell compliments, but only what you really think. If you can't find compliments, she isn't the right girl for you.

Seems like a denigrating way to adress to girls.

october 17 wrote:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahaaaahahaha



im utterly surprised by you all thinking i as serieous , oh zelot im sorry about your hooker

I was assuming you wouldn't troll... but you did. I don't know if you noticed, but most of us here are intolerant to trolling, at least I am.

As for her, it's already in the past.

Zealot wrote:

I pretty much limited myself to say that we all are unique individuals with unique interests and likes, therefore there's not a general kind of man that women want because no one is "general".

Yeah, I wrote this reply in purpose to support your views as most of the points said in this tread were pure "generalizations". Every men and women are different and need diverse kind of man or woman.

Zealot wrote:

Well, actually I think it pretty much depends on the objectives of the individual. What I was adressing was the misconception that weight per say is important when it's not. For example, I'm striving to be able to lift 40kg (~90lbs) with each arm and/or my triceps+biceps to have a circumference of around 45cm (17.7 in). For that I need a certain training routine and a high intake of protein, creatine and carbohydrates. Why do I want that? For its functionality and aesthetical qualities. In my view it's better to have a well developed musculature than being skinny or fat.

Yeah! Of course, it’s better to have a well developed musculature. That’s not what I said. I only wanted to point out that it’s not a necessity. Some girls prefer really skinny or fat boy too. Though, it doesn’t really mean those are physically healthy or live healthy. Doing exercises is important: it is to me. Nonetheless, I prefer someone bright but less muscular that a stupid muscular guy, definitively. But naturally I just couldn’t sexual intercourse with someone I don’t perceive as attractive. I need someone I find out attractive, at least.

Zealot wrote:

Theoretically there's a "healthy" weight in relation to size. I don't remember now the formula but the results are something like this: Your body mass should be equal, 5kg lighter or 5kg heavier than the equivalent of your height in centimeters minus one meter. So if you're 1.70m tall, then you should weigh somewhere around 65 and 75kg.

There is also a way to measure excess fat given waist to height ratio or something like that and which also serves to determine risk to get coronary disease. But I don't remember well the mathematical principles behind it.

Either way I think it's pretty much a height to muscle/fat balance ratio.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking about, only, I didn’t express it that way ^.^ I found two pretty interesting pictures to illustrate it:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Zealot wrote:

What if this guy sincerely agrees with your views without intention to fit?

Then, it is okay. You know, I had the occasion to see people acting, and it’s really obvious when someone change his mind to fit yours. Each time you like something the person is like “ohwe, I like it”, automatically. The person never did something but will like it because you do, and the person doesn’t really look sincere. It’s a little fake… It’s think kind of acting I don’t really like. That’s basically what I mean when I say “I don’t want someone that always agrees with me”. It’s maybe more that I don’t want a copy of myself as boyfriend. This is boring. There’s nothing to chare with that kind of person most of the time because they “only like what you like”. I need more. I need someone that is going to teach me something, and to which I am going to do so. If this guy always agrees with me without intention to fit my views, then it’s okay, and it’s noticeable in his attitude, his way to talk, because this person will probably try to bring his own points and arguments about the subject instead of just saying “ohw yeah, you are right!”. Also, I don’t think that would be possible that someone always agree with me unintentionally, because I’m not always right.
I hope it’s clearer

Zealot wrote:

I see women as my equals, not as protegees, nor as daughters or whatever. As couple, I see them as companions I can take care of in need and who can take care of me when I need it: no "stronger commands and assumes all responsability" concept for me. My girl must be equally capable to me and should definitely not consider herself in any kind of intrinsic "disadvantage" for being a woman. I think this is the point being adressed here.

I entirely support your views. I wouldn’t be able to support someone that only considers his ideas or that would like me to obey and all. It just drives me so crazy when I have to deal with this kind of person. No way I’ll want this type of man to be my boyfriend. I don’t always want him to be like “I don’t want you to do that or you’ll get hurt”. I mean... It’s okay sometimes, depending on the context: I’m not saying I would like him not to care about me, not at all, but I definitively don’t want him to consider me as weak. This is pretty insulting.

Zealot wrote:

Seems like a denigrating way to adress to girls.

Ohw, this is definitively not what I meant, and actually, this paragraph doesn’t make sense at all in fact! I probably was tired when I wrote that. I’m just going to rewrite it the good way because it’s not really well said.
I just wanted to say that personally, I don’t like when people are hypocrites. As a boyfriend, I would like the person to be totally sincere. Nothing to do with compliments or not! Just want him to be real. I hate phony people. I once had a boyfriend that looked just totally phony in his way to love and I really hated that. Even “I love you” looked weird when he said it, because he didn’t seem like really knowing who I was. How can you love someone when you don’t really know the person in front of you? The thing is I thought I knew that boy, but when he became my boyfriend, he just changed into a totally different guy… But anyway, this isn’t the point. I just really believe that a good couple needs to be mutually sincere and trustful.


Thanks for reading and replying
Have a nice day

Lilith wrote:

Yeah, I wrote this reply in purpose to support your views as most of the points said in this tread were pure "generalizations". Every men and women are different and need diverse kind of man or woman.

That's true.

Lilith wrote:

Yeah! Of course, it’s better to have a well developed musculature. That’s not what I said. I only wanted to point out that it’s not a necessity. Some girls prefer really skinny or fat boy too. Though, it doesn’t really mean those are physically healthy or live healthy. Doing exercises is important: it is to me. Nonetheless, I prefer someone bright but less muscular that a stupid muscular guy, definitively.

Well a bright non-muscular guy may consider improving his physique. Either way, I think that this may imply that you value more personality and intrinsic characteristics.

Lilith wrote:

But naturally I just couldn’t sexual intercourse with someone I don’t perceive as attractive. I need someone I find out attractive, at least.

Good point. In my case the person has to be attractive both in a physical and abstract way and at the same time share my sexual idiosincrasy (how can one enjoy sex at least fully if performed with a person that doesn't share his/her views on sex?)

Lilith wrote:

Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking about, only, I didn’t express it that way ^.^ I found two pretty interesting pictures to illustrate it:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Very good charts you got there, precisely what I was talking about. However, here there is something important to take into account.

According to these charts, most bodybuilders and several professional athletes (mainly martial artists and weightlifters) would be obese given that they have a massive muscular buildup and thus weight for their height. Yet, they're far from being unhealthy (at least several martial artists) and actually they're the opposite of being physically disfunctional.

That's why I emphazise on a muscle-height-fat ratio.

Lilith wrote:

Then, it is okay. You know, I had the occasion to see people acting, and it’s really obvious when someone change his mind to fit yours. Each time you like something the person is like “ohwe, I like it”, automatically. The person never did something but will like it because you do, and the person doesn’t really look sincere. It’s a little fake… It’s think kind of acting I don’t really like. That’s basically what I mean when I say “I don’t want someone that always agrees with me”. It’s maybe more that I don’t want a copy of myself as boyfriend. This is boring. There’s nothing to chare with that kind of person most of the time because they “only like what you like”. I need more. I need someone that is going to teach me something, and to which I am going to do so. If this guy always agrees with me without intention to fit my views, then it’s okay, and it’s noticeable in his attitude, his way to talk, because this person will probably try to bring his own points and arguments about the subject instead of just saying “ohw yeah, you are right!”. Also, I don’t think that would be possible that someone always agree with me unintentionally, because I’m not always right.
I hope it’s clearer

So basically, if I get you right, you don't want someone who fakes or pretends to be something that he isn't just to like you.

Lilith wrote:

I entirely support your views. I wouldn’t be able to support someone that only considers his ideas or that would like me to obey and all. It just drives me so crazy when I have to deal with this kind of person. No way I’ll want this type of man to be my boyfriend. I don’t always want him to be like “I don’t want you to do that or you’ll get hurt”. I mean... It’s okay sometimes, depending on the context: I’m not saying I would like him not to care about me, not at all, but I definitively don’t want him to consider me as weak. This is pretty insulting.

I think this is a very important part of this topic and to any relationship in general for it is linked completely with the way the relationship is to be built up. It's an essential principle.

Some women do consider themselves "the weak gender" and consider themselves nearly as daughters to their couples while actually some men actually search for this kind of women. This "submissive woman role" is the most popular among machist societies yet there is no reason for which there wouldn't be women that sincerely like this role, actually, some find this role enticing aside from comfortable.

Many women think that they should be economically sustained by their couples and that their male couples should sacrifice themselves as much as possible to please them. In fact this is pretty much the way my ex girlfriend thought, to the extent that she considered it romantic that I let her have sex with whoever she wanted, to do as she wanted and treat me as she wanted even if it was outright humiliation. Another man would have been joyous about this and that's perhaps the kind of man a woman like my ex girlfriend needs.

And there are other women that actually like to assume the traditional role of men, that is, become the dominant part of the relationship both as perhaps the main or only economic provider and the one that makes the rules having a submissive man under their command. This goes perhaps hand in hand with the latter example but it's not the same. The previous example, my exgf's, is pretty much like a mixture of the first and this last example: there is domination but it is achieved mainly through assuming a weak character, a weak possition as victim, as protegee, as "daughter" as the "weak part of the relationship" and using blackmail and deception as tools for manipulation. Sometimes domination will be aggressive and direct but it will still be based on the premise that "I'm your little capricious princess and you shoudl do as I want because it's your duty to please me".

In this last example, it is different, there's no manipulation involved whatsoever for the woman exerts domination outright out of character and even due to the circumstance. They assume pretty much the role of a "matriarch". They put their rules, they tend to "own the territory" and are teh typical "independent and selfsufficient woman". This is pretty much a role promoted by "female liberation" movements or at least the role assumed by many women in modern Western world mainly and there are men that actually would go crazy for such women.

I don't like any of the previous. As I said, in regards to this I need a woman that considers herself an equal to me, that sees things objective and scientifically without losing of course abstract and metaphysic scopes. And essentially that she shares or has compatible idiosincracies to me.

Lilith wrote:

Ohw, this is definitively not what I meant, and actually, this paragraph doesn’t make sense at all in fact! I probably was tired when I wrote that. I’m just going to rewrite it the good way because it’s not really well said.

Actually, what you had said made sense. I was just pointing out that the way to treat women you were criticizing is in effect wrong and denigrating.

Lilith wrote:

I just wanted to say that personally, I don’t like when people are hypocrites.

Me either, that's for sure.

Lilith wrote:

As a boyfriend, I would like the person to be totally sincere. Nothing to do with compliments or not! Just want him to be real. I hate phony people. I once had a boyfriend that looked just totally phony in his way to love and I really hated that. Even “I love you” looked weird when he said it, because he didn’t seem like really knowing who I was.

The same I'd like from a girlfriend. I cannot love a mask nor can I be with someone that doesn't know me, I don't know or even worse doesn't know herself.

Lilith wrote:

How can you love someone when you don’t really know the person in front of you? The thing is I thought I knew that boy, but when he became my boyfriend, he just changed into a totally different guy…

This is an important point that can be assessed from some different perspectives.

First of all, you can love someone you don't really know. How? By loving an image you made yourself of that person, an expected image of that person or even worse an image that person made of him/herself out of either simply trying to like you or due to simply not knowing him/herself.

We sometimes make ourself expectatives of some persons that, for any reason, we found attractive enough to consider them for our couples. We sometimes create images of that person based on misconceptions many of which tend to be product of either half truths within that person's persona combined with our expectatives or simply on baseless misconceptions.

Sometimes persons change entirely or at least considerably just to fit other people whether a social circle or a couple. This tends to happen when people don't know themselves well enough, don't know well enough what they want, are just searching for convenience relationships or just liked so much a certain person that they actually do some efforts to completely like that person even if they're liked just by that facade.

And other, and this is partially what happened with my ex girlfriend, you meet the person at a point in which that person's identity or at least the basics of that person's identity is not entirely formed and the person and maybe yourself too don't know yourselves well having their identities in constant change. You may have an idea of what you want or need but you may not know precisely what or how.

You begin to love an image of the person that will eventually fade away because it's an immature stage of that person's identity, it's a stage in which, it's an identity of a person that doesn't know him/herself deeply enough, a person that yet hasn't discovered or determined his/her needs to a full extent and thus, these needs tend to constantly change, maybe even part of that identity is that they shall be constantly changing. At this point that person's definite identity is an enigma for it hasn't been determined yet, it still needs to be forged by knowledge and experience.

And the same may be happening to you at a different or equal level. You may think you need that person but you may not know exactly what you need. You may like a lot that person, maybe even see that person as almost or completely perfect, yet, your needs and overall relational standards may be due to change as you begin to know yourself better, to define more your identity or at least the basics of it¹.

1.(By "basics of it" I mean "an intrinsic character within your identity that doesn't change into something opposed but just develops itself within the same framework. Example: the basic would be that you like to help people, that you believe in communitary well being, in solidarity. The development of it is that you may join charitable organizations, join something like red cross, become a doctor. A further development product of acquiring more awareness and knowledge would be that you become socialist. It is a gigantic change, a gigantic development but within the same framework)

Lilith wrote:

But anyway, this isn’t the point. I just really believe that a good couple needs to be mutually sincere and trustful.

I believe something similar.

I believe in two kinds of funtional love raltionships (I won't say couples because I believe there can be actually groups of people that love and share intimacy, it's more like a general axiom that applies to couples and large groups equally):

1. Where all parties involved meet the (relational) needs of the other parties involved, thus being themselves completely satisfied by the other parties. That is, in a couple, mutual satisfaction of needs.

For this to be reached, the persons must know themselves well enough to have determined their basic identity, that is, a basic idiosincracy in all possible senses: a sexual idiosincracy, a relational idiosincray, an economic idiosincracy (yes, this can be very relevant: try having a commie and an apologist of capitalism and "scientitic" management agree on the couple's economic matters - impossible), a certain character, goals in life, likes, desires, etc. Once persons know themselves and have determined at least a basic identity, other persons can know them allowing mutual knowledge and understanding. Once these mutual understanding and knowledge have been reached it can be defined whether the parties involved in a relationship satisfy the needs of each other by simply being who they are, in other words, without having to engage in negotiation, consesions or deceptions of any kind to build a "likeable facade" or make efforts to keep a functional relationship; it's intrinsicly reached by the level of afinity between the parties involved.

This is very general as it doesn't propose a speficic kind of relationship; it just contends that a fully functional couple is one in which there is a complete as possible mutual satisfaction. I'd contend perhaps that the functionality of a relationship is proportional to the mutual satisfaction reached by individuals.

This is the kind of relationship I need.

2. A relationship in which all parties involved don't meet all of the relational needs of the other parties but where there is complete disposition to make consesions and negotiate.

In this case, the parties involved are unable to satisfy, as per their intrinsic characters, the needs of other individuals within the relationship, yet, they have the disposal to negociate and make consesions within their relationship to make it work. This relationship may as well need a considerable level of self-knowledge but this may not be necesary in all cases as some may be actually based entirely on the premise of negotiation and consesions. How? A person may have the full disposal to and want to have a relationship in which no matter how the other person changes or evolves, as long as the other has disposal to continue the relationship, that person will do his/her best to keep within it being this person's priority to preserve the relationship possibly meaning that it's what that person values the most. However, I contend that this specific case may evolve into a disfunctional relationship.

More generally I'd contend that, within a framework of mutual understanding and knowledge, in this case, there's merely the will to accept the other parties of the relationship as they are and be eager to trade satisfactions, that is, to make consesions so long as consesions are being made. I'd also contend that such a relationship nonetheless may require some basic afinity to serve as foundations for that relationship even if said afinity is based entirely on mutual trade of satisfactions.

This is a kind of relationship I don't have the least disposal to have.

Lilith wrote:

Thanks for reading and replying
Have a nice day

Thanks to you too, and you also have a nice day

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Either way, I think that this may imply that you value more personality and intrinsic characteristics.

Yeah, indeed, you are right ^.^ It doesn't mean I don't care about the physical aspect of a person thought. If I think a person is too ugly I couldn't love him because I probably wouldn't find him very attractive. But beauty is very relative. There is no really predefined model in fact, it's only about taste. I know some guys who prefer fat women, and it’s okay like that. If all boys wanted the same kind of girl there would be a problem…

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Good point. In my case the person has to be attractive both in a physical and abstract way and at the same time share my sexual idiosincrasy (how can one enjoy sex at least fully if performed with a person that doesn't share his/her views on sex?)

Yeah. ^^ Well, I think it's possible to enjoy sex with someone who has different views if both of the persons are opened to the idea of the other. Sharing ideas doesn't automatically means you have exactly the same But in some way yeah, they need to have at least very similar ideas, in my view.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

According to these charts, most bodybuilders and several professional athletes (mainly martial artists and weightlifters) would be obese given that they have a massive muscular buildup and thus weight for their height. Yet, they're far from being unhealthy (at least several martial artists) and actually they're the opposite of being physically disfunctional.

Or culturists also, yeah, but I would personally say that I find out that being that much muscular doesn't look good... Same for Weightlifters, most of the time. Many of them also take steroids and so they look more muscular, and are stronger. Martial artist are usually less built but they are in very good shape and even if their muscles aren't as developed are weightlifters, they're probably as strong, only, in very a different way.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So basically, if I get you right, you don't want someone who fakes or pretends to be something that he isn't just to like you.

This is exactly what I meant. I want someone real.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I think this is a very important part of this topic and to any relationship in general for it is linked completely with the way the relationship is to be built up. It's an essential principle

I would say it’s more than essential. To me, it’s even the basic fundaments of a relation. I couldn’t be with someone that considers me weak , but I may precise that it would be the same for someone I consider weaker than me. For example, I met a guy in a park while I was babysitting few days ago and he’s like super interested (he’s always calling me) and he looks good and all but OMG he’s like just like so uneducated and it’s not fun talking with him… I mean, he even never heard about Hitler! Can you imagine it? This is what I mean by weaker. I don’t want someone like that to be my boyfriend (or even to be my friend –he looked junky a little to be honest) I know I worth more than this kind of person.(We just can’t hide that this guy is like very stupid- and it’s noticeable the way he talks and all, also) I don’t want to feel like “I worth more” than my boyfriend, that would sound just so ridiculous to me. I want to find someone who will treat and consider me as equal and whom I will also consider and treat as equal.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Some women do consider themselves "the weak gender" and consider themselves nearly as daughters to their couples while actually some men actually search for this kind of women. This "submissive woman role" is the most popular among machist societies yet there is no reason for which there wouldn't be women that sincerely like this role, actually, some find this role enticing aside from comfortable.

I wonder how some women can really want to be considered as inferior. I don’t know, I cannot understand them to be honest. I looks like a sort of unhealthy relationship. There’s a serious difference between a couple and two persons sharing a relationship. A couple is two persons together, but two persons sharing a relationship are more than that. I personally believe when you love someone, you’re supposed to consider that person as equal to you (or occasionally superior, but it isn’t really good for the lover then, but it could work) . If not, how can you really say you love that person if you think the one you “love” is inferior? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Many women think that they should be economically sustained by their couples and that their male couples should sacrifice themselves as much as possible to please them. In fact this is pretty much the way my ex girlfriend thought, to the extent that she considered it romantic that I let her have sex with whoever she wanted, to do as she wanted and treat me as she wanted even if it was outright humiliation. Another man would have been joyous about this and that's perhaps the kind of man a woman like my ex girlfriend needs.

Do you really believe that a anyone, man or women, would really appreciate being threatened like that? That someone could be joyous about it? Except for masochistic person I couldn’t understand someone liking it. It seems to me really illogic. Someone can support it, yeah, but I wouldn’t say it’s really normal to search for someone that will like to make you suffer.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And there are other women that actually like to assume the traditional role of men, that is, become the dominant part of the relationship both as perhaps the main or only economic provider and the one that makes the rules having a submissive man under their command. This goes perhaps hand in hand with the latter example but it's not the same. The previous example, my exgf's, is pretty much like a mixture of the first and this last example: there is domination but it is achieved mainly through assuming a weak character, a weak possition as victim, as protegee, as "daughter" as the "weak part of the relationship" and using blackmail and deception as tools for manipulation. Sometimes domination will be aggressive and direct but it will still be based on the premise that "I'm your little capricious princess and you shoudl do as I want because it's your duty to please me".

I don’t think in this type of relation both partners can be happy. Well, maybe it could, but to me, at first, a relationship is based on equality of both parts. Some girls (I would say most of them) really appreciate, for example, when the guy buys them things such as ice cream and all while walking on the street. They like when the other pays them something. Personally, it makes me feel so bad. I really want to pay it myself, but I usually make efforts not to say anything because I know the guy want me to appreciate it Well, sometimes I find out I’m weird, but that’s ok ^^

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In this last example, it is different, there's no manipulation involved whatsoever for the woman exerts domination outright out of character and even due to the circumstance. They assume pretty much the role of a "matriarch". They put their rules, they tend to "own the territory" and are teh typical "independent and selfsufficient woman". This is pretty much a role promoted by "female liberation" movements or at least the role assumed by many women in modern Western world mainly and there are men that actually would go crazy for such women.

This is closer to me than the others you presented. I’m not the kind of person who that like to depend on others, but I would say that I don’t exert domination on anything xD. It is still that I openly show my point of view, so I really need someone that is able to defend himself well. I know that my character could make some people feel “dominated” in some way, because I really tell it when I disagree. But would feel very bad having a boyfriend feeling like that, unable to defend his point of view.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The same I'd like from a girlfriend. I cannot love a mask nor can I be with someone that doesn't know me, I don't know or even worse doesn't know herself.

I really entirely agree with that. How can you tell you love someone if you don’t know who that person is I mean… How could you believe someone who tells you I love you if you know the person doesn’t know you. And how, and I really wonder, could you tell someone “I love you” when you know you don’t know that person well enough. You can be attracted, but not in love, there’s a huge difference between those two.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

First of all, you can love someone you don't really know. How? By loving an image you made yourself of that person, an expected image of that person or even worse an image that person made of him/herself out of either simply trying to like you or due to simply not knowing him/herself.

Yeah, I didn’t see it that way but you are right about it. Many people don’t really know themselves. I fact, I believe it’s easier to know others than ourselves most of the time.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

We sometimes make ourself expectatives of some persons that, for any reason, we found attractive enough to consider them for our couples. We sometimes create images of that person based on misconceptions many of which tend to be product of either half truths within that person's persona combined with our expectatives or simply on baseless misconceptions.

I believe this is the reason why many couples are breaking out. They only noticed things they wanted to notice about a person, excluding things they couldn’t really deal with. It could also be that the other party hid the detail very well.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Sometimes persons change entirely or at least considerably just to fit other people whether a social circle or a couple. This tends to happen when people don't know themselves well enough, don't know well enough what they want, are just searching for convenience relationships or just liked so much a certain person that they actually do some efforts to completely like that person even if they're liked just by that facade.

Yeah, this is true. I think this is what happened with this guy I was talking about.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And other, and this is partially what happened with my ex girlfriend, you meet the person at a point in which that person's identity or at least the basics of that person's identity is not entirely formed and the person and maybe yourself too don't know yourselves well having their identities in constant change. You may have an idea of what you want or need but you may not know precisely what or how.

For some people this constant changing can last a whole life... This kind of relation is seen at all stages of human development. But in a way, I think that you never know yourself completely. There are always new interests, or talents or whatever that can change or simply appear to you, at every moment of your life. I believe it makes life being more interesting. ^.^ Though, it doesn’t mean I don’t believe that someone could know himself, I’m just saying that knowing ourselves perfectly isn’t always necessary to have a good relationship. Knowing ourselves very well is enough most of the time. (In the sense we need to let a place for new things to come or happen ) I consider that a person knowing himself well enough needs to know what he wants and what he expects for at first.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And the same may be happening to you at a different or equal level. You may think you need that person but you may not know exactly what you need. You may like a lot that person, maybe even see that person as almost or completely perfect, yet, your needs and overall relational standards may be due to change as you begin to know yourself better, to define more your identity or at least the basics of it1.

I believe if you think a person is perfect in the sense he/she doesn’t have any flaws, it shows in a very obvious way that you don’t know that person well, because no one is perfect. I believe it’s possible, though, to love a person with those flaws… even because of it. I think when you love a person because of his/her flaws.
I think you really love someone when you stop feeling like overcoming the flaws and you start to like them as they are inseparable from the person. You really love only when you want and know entirely a person. When you think to yourself that without the flaws, the person would loose a part of identity. That is love. You cannot tell you love someone if you don’t love everything about that person. You can like. You can love, and then discover you was wrong.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

1. Where all parties involved meet the (relational) needs of the other parties involved, thus being themselves completely satisfied by the other parties. That is, in a couple, mutual satisfaction of needs.

For this to be reached, the persons must know themselves well enough to have determined their basic identity, that is, a basic idiosincracy in all possible senses […]

This is the kind of relationship I need.

I think this is the kind of relation anyone needs, in fact. Who needs to be with someone that doesn’t really complete himself? The two types of relation you mentioned could be named as a “fonctionnal relationship” and a “unfonctional relationship” And I believe no one really need an unfonctional relationship except maybe very very few exceptions… or maybe no one at all.

Sorry if it took a long time before I finish it, I didn’t have a lot of time xD but now it’s done!

Thanks!
Lilith

Liche wrote:

I think every girl wants something different... Just as different guys have different taste in girls. Too me the answer to this topic is as simple as that.

for the most part id say they just want to be loved, and treated with respect
it always helps to be good lookin but ive been noicing more and more
women ,well the ladies at work... seem to be attracted to more positive people (even the goofy lookin ones) over the ones that just dont care